Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and H.R. 2505. This bill prohibits cloning of human beings, and it also prohibits another type of cloning which seriously endangers the sanctity of human life, the so-called therapeutic cloning. In this process, scientists would create embryos solely to experiment on them and eventually to destroy them for stem cells or whatever purpose. Remember, however, that the purpose is to destroy them. Every argument in favor of therapeutic cloning assumes that the smallest human lives, embryos typically days old, are not lives at all. They are just clumps of cells to be manipulated and used for the benefit of those who have already been born. No matter how good the intention, this type of scientific rationalization endangers the very fabric of our society, our respect for ourselves and others. Nothing, I believe, can justify the taking of human life to improve the quality of another. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, a true ban on human cloning.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bachus amendment and the underlying Sudan Peace Act. I come from Omaha, Nebraska, Mr. Chairman, and we have been blessed with new folks who have immigrated from Sudan. They have come to my office, and we have spent several hours together talking about the tragedies that these folks have lived through, escaped from and come to America, come to my hometown, and are now integral parts of our community of Omaha, Nebraska. These stories, they are true. These people have suffered. Over the past 18 years, Sudan's Khartoum government has killed more than 2 million of its own citizens through this civilian war. This is more than the entire population of Nebraska. This is almost four times the population of this city that we stand in right now. Men, women, children, some of these folks that have come to my office that I have sat down with are young men, and to hear their stories of what they had to escape: starved, beaten, friends taken for slavery, executed because of their beliefs, whether they are Christian or a different sect of Islam. And the people they are escaping are those with the government- sponsored guns. The National Islamic Front has bombed civilian centers, camps, relief hospitals. They have blocked humanitarian aid such as food and medical supplies, tortured and killed those who refuse to convert to their brand of religion. These appalling attacks on human rights have created one of the greatest tragedies in the history of mankind. Now this government is using profits from new oil development to accelerate this genocidal war. That is why I came here today to support the Bachus amendment. I stand up here in full support of it. This act, the Sudan Peace Act, will send a clear signal to the leaders of Sudan and those who wonder whether we care more about oil than people. It will tell the other civilized nations of the world that we also care about religious freedom, and to follow our example and stop financing this extremism. It will open up those doing business with the Khartoum government to the crucible of public pressure and help ensure that humanitarian aid ends up in the hands of the people, not the government officials waging this war. I hope this legislation will help end the bloodshed and provide relief to those suffering Sudanese people. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment and support the Sudan Peace Act.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record, and commend to my colleagues, the following document from the National Right to Life Committee. It provides important details on H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Key Points on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been introduced in companion bills as H.R. 503, sponsored by Congressman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and S. 480, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). The full text is available at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The bill would recognize that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would apply this two-victim principle to about 70 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These laws affect federal geographical jurisdictions, the military justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain terrorist bombings). In current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. Thus, for example, if a criminal beats a woman on a military base, and kills her unborn child, he can be charged only with the battery against the woman, because the unborn child's loss of life is not recognized by the law. This gap in federal law results in grave injustices, some real-world examples of which were described by former Congressman Charles Canady (R- Fl.) at a July 21, 1999 House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the issue. Congressman Canady's statement is posted at http://nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL899/ cana.html. Twenty-four (24) states have already enacted laws which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes. Eleven (11) of these states provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during specific stages of development. For detailed information on state unborn victims laws, see ``State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims,'' available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/ sthomicidelaws.htm. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured or killed during the course of already-defined federal crimes of violence. The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. Nevertheless, NRLC supports the bill because it achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: the protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence. It is well established that this type of legislation does not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decrees (Roe v. Wade, etc.). Criminal defendants have brought many legal challenges to the state unborn victim laws mentioned above, based on Roe and other constitutional arguments, but all such challenges have been rejected by the courts. (A list of pertinent court decisions is available on request.) Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that ``the life of each human being beings at conception,'' that ``unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,'' and that all state laws ``shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,'' to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law ``impermissibl[y]'' adopted ``a theory of when life begins,'' but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids. The Minnesota Supreme Court took the same view in upholding the Minnesota law: ``Roe v. Wade . . . does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)]. Some opponents have objected to the bill's recognition of the ``child in utero'' as a member of the human family who can be harmed in a crime. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same definition of ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority may ``carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. . . . `child in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'' The principle embodied in the Innocent Child Protection Act was obvious. Whatever one's position regarding the morality of capital punishment as such, there is only one rational reason for delaying a lawfully ordered execution of a woman because she is pregnant--that is, carrying out the execution would take two human lives, not just one. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would extend that same principle to the rest of the federal criminal code, recognizing that when a criminal attacks a woman, injuring or killing her and injuring or killing her unborn child, he has claimed two victims. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has come under vehement attack from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU. Even though the bill deals with acts of violence other than abortion, the pro-abortion lobby's ideology apparently compels it to deny the very existence of unborn human beings in any area of the law. Thus, during the 106th Congress, pro-abortion lawmakers proposed alternative legislation, the ``Motherhood Protection Act'' or Lofgren substitute amendment, which the House of Representatives rejected on September 30, 1999. This ``one- victim'' proposal did not mention the unborn child (by whatever name), but instead defined as an offense ``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.'' This approach would have codified a falsehood--the notion that there is only one victim in these crimes. In the real world, however, when an unborn child loses her life in a criminal attack, the parents and society mourn the death of a separate individual, rather than viewing it simply as an additional injury to the mother. Moreover, arguments in favor of the one-victim proposal are internally inconsistent and illogical. Supporters of the one- victim approach insist that when a criminal injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound injury to the mother but no loss of any human life--yet, the Lofgren Amendment would have imposed a penalty (up to life in prison) commensurate with loss of human life. Also, advocates of the one-victim approach argue that when a criminal assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should receive double punishment: once for killing the mother and then again for depriving her of her ``pregnancy''--but if there is only one victim, it is difficult to see why this would not be a duplicative criminal charge, since legally speaking a woman who has been murdered cannot herself suffer an additional ``loss.'' Some opponents of the bill have charged that the bill would punish harm to the unborn child ``utterly ignoring the harm to the pregnant woman.'' Others have charged that the bill would ``separate the mother from her fetus.'' These objections reflect misunderstandings or misrepresentations of how the bill is structured. In reality, the bill would allow the government to win a conviction for harm to an unborn child only if it first proves that the defendant violated one of the 70 or so enumerated federal laws with respect to the mother. Some opponents of the bill have charged that it would allow defendants to be convicted without a showing of intent to do harm. This is false. Under the bill, it is necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had intent to do criminal harm, at least towards the mother. If such criminal intent towards the mother is proved, then the defendant also will be held responsible for the harm done to the unborn baby, under the doctrine of ``transferred intent.'' As the House Judiciary Committee report (106th Congress) explained, transferred intent is a well-established principle in the law. (If a man shoots at a woman with intent to kill, and the bullet misses her, passes through a wall, and kills a child who the shooter did not know was there, he can be convicted of the murder of the child.) As the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, ``The possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W. 2d 318 (Minn. 1990)]. In order to win a conviction under the bill, it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a human being (1) already existed, and (2) was ``carried in the womb,'' which would be utterly impossible until after the embryo had implanted in the womb and sent out the chemical signals that announced his or her presence (i.e., after implantation). Moreover, even after the prosecution has met that burden, it must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's criminal conduct caused the death of the child in utero. The mere possibility or even the strong likelihood that a defendant's criminal conduct caused a baby's death would not suffice--the bill requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. National Right to Life legislative staff are available to discuss this issue with journalists and congressional offices. Please call (202) 626-8820, or e-mail to: Legfederal@aol.com. Extensive additional information on the federal bill and on state unborn victims laws is available at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html. Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Ms. Lofgren

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Nebraskan, a respected colleague, and a tremendous friend. Congressman Bill Barrett is not only a consummate gentleman and a devoted public servant, but he is also able to balance his weighty duties in Congress with his even weightier duties as a father of four, a proud grandfather, and a husband to his remarkable wife, Elsie. Congressman Barrett has my admiration and respect for a life of public service, and the admiration, respect, and thanks of the entire state of Nebraska. Upon his retirement, he will be missed by an entire state that has looked to him for leadership and guidance in his 30 years of public service. Congressman Barrett officially began a life in politics as a member of the Nebraska State Republican Party. He served as Chairman from 1973 to 1975. In 1979 he was elected to Nebraska's State Legislature where he ascended to become Speaker of the Unicameral for his last four years there, from 1987 to 1991. Congressman Barrett was elected to this body of Congress in 1990. He has spent his entire life devoted to his districts, his state, and his country. Congressman Barrett's most notable accomplishment in Congress came in 1996, when his leadership on the Agriculture Committee greatly contributed to passage of the Freedom to Farm Act. The Act's sweeping reforms brought much-needed change to antiquated farm-subsidy programs by replacing them with market-based policies that allow our producers to better compete in a global agricultural economy. He also spearheaded efforts to maintain alcohol fuels tax credits, and in 1998, succeeded in extending a program vital to Nebraska's corn growers and a nation in need of renewable energy resources. Nebraska's farmers, and America's farmers, owe Congressman Barrett a debt of gratitude. Before I ran for Congress, I met with Congressman Barrett on only a half-dozen occasions. He always strikes me as a person who epitomizes Congress. He is a distinguished gentleman who is always well-informed and insightful. It was only after I was elected to this body in 1998 and spent a great deal of time with Congressman Barrett that my appreciation and respect for him as a person, a father, a grandfather, and a friend blossomed. Plenty of my colleagues are willing to offer advice, but few offer it as genuinely. Congressman Barrett never pushed his advice on me; he was always available when I sought his sage advice on policy and procedure. Without exception it was sound and rooted in his love for our State. There is no doubt his counsel made me a better representative for Nebraska. As wonderful a public servant he is, however, Congressman Barrett is even more remarkable a man for his devout faith, spirituality, and his unbending love of family. When he told me he was days away from announcing his retirement, water welled in his eyes as he looked at my children, Nolan, age 5, and Ryan, age 2, and said, ``My grandkids are about the same age and I want to go home and spend time with them.'' I wish only the best for Congressman Barrett's family as they gain as a grandfather what we in Congress lose as a colleague. I am fortunate to always have in him a true friend. Bill, you have the Terry family's and the State of Nebraska's humble thanks and eternal gratitude. We wish that in your retirement, your only job as a grandfather, you find the same fulfillment and richness you found in your years of service to Nebraska and to our great country. God bless you.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 8,000 retirees in my district and the nearly equal number of future retirees from the railroad industry. One point that I want to make before I talk more is that this body just a few weeks ago rolled back or voted to roll back the tax on social security. The income tax on social security does not go into the Treasury, either. That is how we treat retirement plans. What this is about is fundamental fairness. Two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, in my hometown a gentleman with an oxygen tank, very frail, very young, 55 to 60, comes up to me. He is himself a railroad retiree, and says, here is my wife. We need to pass or the Congress needs to pass railroad retirement reform so she will have her benefits when I am no longer here to support her. That is what this legislation is about in protecting those widows, those families. There are plenty of letters from widows in my area. Mrs. Lohouse, help is on the way. You should get your full benefits. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I thank both members for managing this bill on the floor. I also thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for their efforts in committee to make sure that this bill passes and becomes reality. In our society I think it is important, and especially for our children, to recognize those people that have had such a positive impact and effect on their community. It is truly an honor to be able to stand here and name a post office after one such gentleman in Omaha, Nebraska. This bill renames the Ames Street Station after Reverend J.C. Wade, who for 44 years was the pastor and emeritus pastor of the Salem Missionary Baptist Church in north Omaha, which is the largest African- American church in Nebraska, and frankly, is one of the largest churches, period, in the State of Nebraska, because of his commitment and leadership. Reverend Wade, as we learned, was born in Oklahoma, Wybark, Oklahoma, September 1, 1909. Wybark, by the way, is now called Chase, Oklahoma. Unfortunately for the Omaha, Nebraska community to which he moved in around 1950, he passed away on August 30, 1999. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the program of his memorial service that outlines in more detail his achievements for his community. A copy of the memorial service program is as follows: Rev. Dr. James Commodore Wade, Sr. Sunrise--September 1, 1909 Sunset--August 30, 1999 Homegoing Celebration for Rev. Dr. James Commodore Wade, Sr. ``And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.''-- Jeremiah 3:15 ``And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!''-- Romans 10:15 Friday, September 3, 1999 10:00 A.M.; Salem Baptist Church, 3336 Lake Street, Omaha, Nebraska; Rev. Maurice Watson, Officiating Obituary (The obituary was prewritten by Rev. Dr. James Commodore Wade, Sr.) The life of James Commodore Wade, Sr. is a theocratic reply to the somewhat desparaging question, ``Who's gonna take the boy?'' James Commodore Wade, Sr. was birthed in a small hamlet called Wybark, Oklahoma, now Chase, Oklahoma, on September 1, 1909 to the parentage of George W. Wade and Henrietta Ayers Wade. When the boy, James, was 5, his mother died and that marked the beginning of that disparaging question, ``Who's gonna take the boy?'' At age 8, he experienced the death of his father and again the question was raised, ``Who's gonna take the boy?'' Then at age 11, he witnessed the demise of his grandfather, Mr. Samuel Ayers, who at the time was his guardian. Once more, we encounter the query, ``Who's gonna take the boy?'' Seeming to be an orphan child, living as he says, ``from pillar to post,'' it was at that point that God intervened and replied to that disheartening question by saying, ``I will take the boy and make him the beneficiary of special providence.'' And the rest of the life of James Commodore Wade, Sr. is but a constant unfolding of God's providential care for a boy without a guardian or a home. Prior to the death of his grandfather, at age 10, he accepted Christ at the Union Grove Baptist Church, Wybark, Oklahoma, and was baptized in the Arkansas River by the late Rev. W.L. Turner. Because of the twin afflictions of poverty and segregation, James went to a little one-room school, when he could, and finished the eighth grade in his mid-teens. By the time James was 17, he was completely out on his own. It was at this point that James left his native home and moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma. After moving to Tusla, he united with the St. Andrews Baptist Church under the leadership of Rev. W.H. Woods. It was during these years that James picked up the pace of his flight from his life's calling. He attempted to do what so many have sought to do, and that is to run away from the ``preacher'' calling. But God always has a way of making his servants give in to the clarion call. For J.C. Wade, God brought about a cataclysmic experience in the solar system. According to Rev. Wade's own testimony, ``The sun, instantaneously switched places.'' Because of that stunning experience, J.C. Wade, Sr. confessed his call to the ministry at age 21 and preached his first sermon on April 1, 1931 at the St. Andrews Baptist Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma, whose pastor was Rev. W.H. Woods. The year 1933 began another phase in the life of Rev. J.C. Wade, Sr., for in 1933, Rev. Wade was called to be the pastor of the Fountain Baptist Church in Haynes, Oklahoma for an overwhelming salary of 50 cents per week, sometimes! Pastor Wade had the sweet, torturous task of walking five miles on Sunday to preach the gospel to a dense crowd of 50 to 100 people, that is, if it didn't rain or snow. After serving the Fountain Baptist Church, the oldest church in the state of Oklahoma for approximately 2-2\1/2\ years, Pastor Wade, who bore the distinction of being the youngest pastor in the state of Oklahoma, resigned the Foundation Baptist Church and moved to the southern metropolis of Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis, at that time, was considered to be the haven of great preachers. There were two significant reasons for his moving to Memphis. One was that his father in the ministry wanted him to go to school; and secondly, he wanted him to be his assistant pastor at the Bethlehem Baptist Church. After moving to Memphis, Rev. Wade met at Bethlehem a tender young lady named Mary Frazier, whom God had delivered from the crippling affliction called polio. Rev. Wade was most impressed with Mary, but Mary was most unimpressed with him. In fact, she was so unimpressed with him until when he would seek to pay her a visit, she would say, ``Here comes that Old Esau.'' But her being unimpressed did not deter nor dissuade Rev. Wade. There was a prominent member of the Frazier family who genuinely admired ``Old Esau,'' and that was Mary's mother, who everybody affectionately called ``Mama Frazier.'' Since Mary refused to court Rev. Wade, Rev. Wade took a most effective alternate approach. He courted Mary through her mother, ``Mama Frazier.'' It was an effective approach because on December 18, 1935, Rev. Wynn united in holy matrimony, Rev. J.C. Wade, Sr. and Mary ``Unimpressed'' Frazier. Those early years were some tough days. Because of grave circumstances, Rev. and Mrs. Wade lived five years with her mother, ``Mama Frazier.'' Rev. Wade worked at the government fleet, better known then as working on the levy. While working on the levy in the fall of 1936, Rev. Wade was called to be the shepherd of the Middle Baptist Church. However, a strange thing occurred: After serving as pastor for approximately three months, Rev. Wade permitted a visiting minister to preach for him during the Christmas season; he had to work on Sundays. The congregation, feeling that the visiting minister could outpreach Rev. Wade, dismissed him and called the visiting minister. In the year 1937, Pastor Wade became pastor of the Shiloh Baptist Church on Court Street in Memphis, Tennessee. The membership totaled less than 100 people. This time, there was a substantial pay increase from ``sometimes'' 50 cents per week. The financial arrangement at Shiloh was 40/60. Whatever was raised on Sunday, 40% was to be retained by the church and 60% was to be given to the pastor-elect. What an arrangement! However, the offering was a modest $6.00 per Sunday. Then in 1940, Pastor Wade accepted another church in Memphis called the Riverside Baptist Church in the south Memphis area which had a membership of 200 people. Pastor Wade did something that was a church custom in the South at that time. That custom was to pastor, simultaneously, more than one church. Pastor Wade accepted the Riverside Baptist Church at a great salary increase: He began his ministry there at $25.00 per week. To show you that Pastor Wade was concerned about providing for the needs of his family, while pastoring two churches, he took on a job at Mr. Green's store on Horn Lake Road and Ingle as a butcher. In Genesis 1:28, we read, ``And God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.'' The year 1937 marks the beginning of the Wade's being fruitful. On March 20, 1937, a little girl was born, and she was named Ruth Evelyn. On July 24, 1938, a boy was born and he was named James Commodore Wade, Jr. In the fall of 1939, tragedy almost struck the Wade household. Mrs. Wade became dangerously ill and was carried to the hospital in an unconscious condition. While Mrs. Wade was en route to the hospital, Rev. Wade went into their pantry and shut up with God and said, ``God, you can't take her now. I don't want my children growing up as I did, not knowing Mother.'' God heard and answered that prayer because by the time Rev. Wade arrived at the hospital, Mrs. Wade was sitting up, dangling her feet on the side of the bed. After Mrs. Wade's recovery, they moved from Mama Frazier's to rent from Mr. George Griffin on Dixon Street. After having moved on Dixon, the Wades continued to be fruitful, for on March 15, 1941, another girl was born. She was named Doretha. Then on September 18, 1944, another son was born, and he was named Melvin Von. In the early summer of 1944, Rev. Wade was invited by Rev. Woods, his father in the ministry, to preach a two-week revival at the Salem Baptist Church in Omaha Nebraska. Excitedly, he told many ministers who would gather at the Polk Printing office on Monday mornings. With a jubilant spirit, he went to Omaha to preach, for two weeks, only to find out after reaching Omaha, that Rev. Woods was not in the city. So, in an embarrassed state and at the request of the official board, Rev. Wade remained in Omaha. On the third Sunday in July, Rev. Wade was called to be the pastor of the Salem Baptist Church which had a roll of 250 members with 88 present. Rev. Wade states that there were three significant reasons for accepting a church who kept their pastors for two years at a time: 1) God ordained it so; 2) He did not want to rear his children in the segregated South; and 3) His mother- in-law's sainted sister Emma Highsmith told him that the Lord told her that his field was not in Memphis, and pointing in a northern direction, she said it's going to be that way. The unique thing about Pastor Wade moving to Omaha was that, gradually, all of Sister Wade's family moved to Omaha. After moving to Omaha, the Wades continued to be fruitful. In 1949, Sister Wade conceived a son, and to their dismay, that son passed away at birth. However, desiring to have one more child, on March 10, 1951, a little girl was born, and she was named Marsha Ann. In 1949, Pastor Wade began to make extensive changes on Salem's structure. Then in 1955, with the membership having exceeded the present seating capacity. Rev. Wade sought to enlarge the sanctuary to accommodate the overflow crowd. That vision met with much opposition. But in spite of opposition, the structure was completed in 1956. Two years after that completion, the loan which they almost didn't get, was paid off. 1957 and 1958 were exciting years, not only because a loan was paid off, but because in December, 1957, Pastor Wade watched his daughter Doretha conduct her first musical. It was a Christmas cantata. And then in the spring of 1958, his elder son James confessed his call to the ministry and preached his first sermon. Then in 1961, with much ecstasy, he watched his son James receive a B.A. degree from Bishop College. Another exciting year for Pastor and Mrs. Wade was 1962. For 27 years, Rev. and Mrs. Wade lived in the following places: with Mama Frazier, in a rental house, and in a church parsonage. But in 1962, a dream came true. They purchased their first home at 3612 North 42nd Street. Then in 1963, his second son, Melvin, preached his first sermon. After being told that the freeway was going to include the Salem structure at 28th and Decatur, Pastor Wade began to search out a location for a new Salem site. In 1970, ground was broken for a new church structure at 34th and Lake Streets and was completed in April, 1971. That loan was paid off in 1978. Another milestone was reached when he was informed in 1982 that government funds had been granted for the construction of a senior citizens' complex. Yes, it was God who took the boy. For only God could take an orphan child, without much education, call him to preach, change his education insight, make him a rhetorical genius, and a linguistical genius. Make him a husband, a father, a pastor, a shepherd, a builder, and an evangelist. Because God had taken care of the boy, Rev. Wade was one of the most influential pastors in Omaha. He stood in some of the great preaching places in America, and he traveled extensively, evangelizing and proclaiming the gospel. Because God had taken care of an orphan boy from Wybark, Dr. Wade held key denominational positions, both locally and nationally. Yes, God, indeed had taken care of the boy, James Commodore Wade, Sr. Rev. Wade also acknowledged, lest he seem ungrateful, the three years he spent as a member of the Friendship Baptist Church, Kansas City, Missouri, under the pastorate of the Rev. S. C. Doyle, who was a pastor and friend to him. Rev. Wade will be greatly missed by ALL who knew him but he leaves to cherish his memories his wife of sixty-three years: Mary Frazier-Wade, Omaha; three daughters and son-in-law: Ruth Murray, Doretha Wade-Wilkerson, Los Angeles, California, Marsha Ann (Rev. Clyde) Nichols, Denver, Colorado; two sons and daughters-in-law: Rev. James C., Jr. (Ella) Wade, East Chicago, Indiana, Rev. Melvin V., Sr. (Jacquie) Wade, Los Angeles; nephew: Gene Bell, Evanston, Illinois; four nieces: Tina Williams, Chicago, Illinois, Marguerite Anderson, Cincinnati, Ohio, Myrtis Twyman, Westchester, Illinois, Wilma Hardiman, Omaha; sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law: Susan and William Cooper, Queon Temple, Agnes Brown, Sam (Grace) Frazier, all of Omaha; nine grandchildren; six great- grandchildren; and other relatives. Madam Speaker, renaming this postal facility in his honor is an attempt to pay tribute to this outstanding citizen and dedicated man of God. The work initiated by Reverend Wade continues to this day in our community, and his impact on our community should be remembered, as it will forever have changed our community. Among the notable community service achievements, Reverend Wade created the Salem Preschool for Children. In the early fifties, he realized that our youngest children have to go to school ready to learn, so he started the preschool to make sure that when they entered school they were ready; the precursor to what we call the Head Start program today. He started it before anyone in government had ever thought of that concept. He organized, too, the first adult basic education in Omaha, Nebraska, at the church. He participated, and we have heard deeply in our community through the Mayors' Advisory Council, the Interdenominational Council, which by the way unifies our community from all faiths and geographic areas. As a leader in the religious community, Reverend Wade served as the President of the New Era Baptist State Convention, the State Vice President to the National Baptist Convention, and director of religious education for the Sunday School and Baptist Training Union of the New Era State Convention. As a member of the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., Reverend Wade brought the Baptist National Convention to Omaha three times. During his tenure at Salem Baptist, Reverend Wade grew the congregation from 250 members to nearly 4,000 members. I was reminded the other day of a fascinating story about this man who took the Salem Baptist Choir to Crookston, Minnesota, for a concert in the late 1960s. This church in Crookston was based in an all-white community. Some of the Crookston members had never associated with African-Americans before, but this choir performed their concert even while their hearts were grieving because of riots that were occurring in Omaha, Nebraska. The Choir fellowshipped with church members at a picnic following the concert, and later stayed in Crookston members' homes. The event broke down racial barriers and helped develop friendships between the two congregations that last to today. This outreach was a great success, particularly at a time when riots were going on not only in our hometown but throughout the country. It greatly affected the members of both churches. All these earthly achievements testify to the character of Reverend J.C. Wade, who we seek to honor today by passing H.R. 4615 designating the Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office. Finally, I would like to honor Reverend Wade's wife of 63 years, an amazing woman, Mary Frazier Wade, and thank her for her assistance and her support in this legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our senior citizens. We are here today fighting on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues, a few months ago when I was elected, I went to all parts of my city, my district, and talked to senior citizen groups. And in the low and moderate area of south Omaha, a group of seniors, I asked them, ``What can we do for you?'' Repeatedly they told me of their frustration of being taxed on their Social Security benefits. I heard that they listened to Roosevelt and that they worked hard, they did what they were asked to do, they paid into the Social Security system, but they had their pension from the meat packing plants and the other factories they worked at in Nebraska and they worked hard to save. But yet, today they are penalized for that. They were promised that they would have their Social Security benefits. But what this does by taxing it at 50 percent or even the 85 percent level that we are here to repeal today is we are confiscating their benefits. That is wrong. That is simply wrong. What that confiscation of their benefits does, that is a back-door way of means testing. It just astounds me that my friends from the other side of the aisle stand up and say they are against means testing, but they will certainly have an 85 percent tax bracket on half of those benefits based on the amount of income that they have from their pensions and their savings. That is wrong. So I ask our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, unlike in 1993 when it was nearly unanimous to pass this tax on our senior citizens, join us today to do the right thing, join us for fighting for our senior citizens, letting them keep the benefits that they were promised when they were young workers. Vote for this act.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this administration has now proposed stockpiling 2 million barrels of heating oil for the Northeast. He justifies using our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is our Nation's national security emergency oil reserve, because of a ``national emergency facing the Northeast.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe the national emergency seems to be that a certain senatorial candidate cannot get above 43 percent in the polls. There is no arguing that the oil reserves are low, but at the same time, the price of natural gas has doubled across this Nation, which is the primary heating source in my State of Nebraska. The President has never visited Nebraska, but let me assure this administration that it is also cold in Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, the American people can decide if this is another example of politics over policy.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the base bill, H.R. 4810, and in opposition to the substitute that discriminates against many married folks, homeowners, and charities alike, and offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for fighting this great fight. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I ran for this office, because I really feel strongly that this Tax Code is unfair. It is voluminous. We cannot understand it. It needs to be reformed. It needs to be reduced to something that is simple and fair. Let us talk about fairness, because that is what this base bill does. Now, let us remember what the marriage penalty does. It taxes working families. It taxes when both parents have to work to support their families. That is fundamentally unfair that married people have to pay more in taxes than if they were single. So what do we do? This bill treats all married folks equally. That is part of what fairness in tax codes are, not discriminating against some in favor of others, but treating them all fairly. That is what this legislation does in creating the standard deduction, doubling it for married folks, and increasing the gap in the 15 percent. We are helping the people in most need, like good friends of mine that I grew up with, both work in not-good-paying jobs. They certainly are not the wealthy folks that we hear demagogued on the other side of the aisle, but just hard-working folks that work hard to have a good house in a decent neighborhood, supply a house and a roof for their children. Yet they will pay as much as $1,400 more in taxes. Working class pay about $1,100 more in taxes. Now, that is money that they can use to spend quality time with their children, to take vacations that they do not take now because both are working so hard. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this fair bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really rather simple. This Terry-Coburn amendment states rather simply that this broad antitrust exemption should be provided, not for fees, but only for the protection of patients. The AMA in our discussions has assured me that this bill that they support and want is not about money. In fact, they sent around a flier today to all of us saying it is about the patient, not dollars. So, in theory, they should support this type of an amendment that still protects their rights to negotiate the quality of patients' care, but not to collaborate on fees and increase the cost. I have met with several of the doctors back in my home district. They have shared with me that they want the ability to communicate and balance the table, to talk to the insurance companies about the quality of care, that they are concerned about being gagged in what they can and cannot talk to their patients about, or gatekeeper provisions, or medical necessity definitions. These are the types of things they would like to sit down and negotiate. I think we should allow them that type of opportunity, because that does go to the heart of the quality of patient care. So why are they against this amendment? Maybe it is about the money. Providing quality care should never take a back seat to cost or treatment. This amendment will assure that this bill remains focused on what we all want, and that is quality of care, and is not simply increasing the cost of that care. I urge my colleagues to vote for this simple solution that splits the difference.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy or statement with the chairman. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I spoke about the difficulties we have been having in properly servicing legal immigrants in my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, a highly underserved area by way of services from the INS. I am pleased to say that the INS and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the committee and I have come to an agreement, and I will be submitting that for the Record under general leave. I submitted two amendments in order to help remedy this problem, but with the agreement of the INS and the chairman those are no longer necessary, so my intention is to not offer those amendments. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The letter referred to is as follows: U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC, June 22, 2000. Hon. Lee Terry, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Terry: This letter is being provided in response to concerns raised by your staff regarding the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Omaha District Office relocation project. The INS Omaha District Office, like many other INS facilities across the Nation, is severely overcrowded due to staffing increases and increased demand for immigration benefits and support. However, over the past 5 years, funding for facilities expansion and improvements has not kept pace with the growth in personnel and customers. The INS began working with the General Services Administration, the City of Omaha, and local INS Management to plan the acquisition of a new facility in FY 1999 and has already invested over $600,000 in the project. In addition, the INS has taken interim steps to alleviate some of the overcrowded conditions at the current office. This includes relocating selected units to temporary space away form the main District Office and acquiring space in a nearby building to provide expanded waiting room area so that our clients would not have to stand in line outside the building in all weather conditions waiting to be serviced. The INS will proceed with the Omaha District Office relocation project in FY 2001. The remaining estimated direct costs that must be borne by the INS to complete the acquisition and buildout of a new facility are $1.32 million. This will include; the above-standard buildout for communications, holdrooms and alien processing, waiting rooms, armory, alien property, security, furniture, telephone and ADP cabling. The INS requested $111.1 million for the Construction Appropriation. The House Appropriations Committee has provided $110.7 million. The $71,000 reduction has no affect on the resources budgeted for the Omaha District Office project. The funding for the Omaha District Office acquisition and buildout is included in the level provided by the Appropriations Committee. The present plan is to pursue the acquisition and buildout of a new facility on an expedited basis in FY 2001. Once the FY 2001 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation Bill is singed into law and the funding is made available to INS, the new facility can be ready for occupancy within 18-24 months. The INS considers the relocation of the Omaha District Office a very high priority. We hope this addresses your concerns. Please contact either Gerri Ratliff on 514-5231 or Barbara Atherton on 514-3206 if more information is needed. Sincerely, Gerri Ratliff, Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations. Barbara J. Atherton, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Budget.

Mr. TERRY. I thank the chairman. Request for Permission to Offer Amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. The Kelly amendment stops HUD from spending money on self-promotion and puts money where it will be spent on families who need public assistance housing. It is simply wrong for HUD to spend one penny on self- promotion while people in need remain on waiting lists. In her semiannual report to the Congress for the period ending March 31, HUD Inspector General Susan Gaffney found ``massive fraud schemes.'' Gaffney also reported ``a very significant breakdown'' in program controls designed to prevent such fraud. Gaffney also said, ``Our work in the areas identified serious control weaknesses that expose the Department to fraud, waste, and abuse.'' We do not have to look very far to see evidence of the Department's inefficiency and poor oversight. Just look at HUD's payment of excessive section 8 rental subsidies to the tune of $935 million in 1998 and $8.5 million for store-front operations that never benefited the public. Or we may look to HUD's staffing shell game. For years HUD had complained about having inadequate funds for a required staff of 9,300 full-time employees and has threatened a reduction in force. However, even though Congress provided funds for 9,300 FTEs in current year, HUD only had 9,040 full-time on staff. We must believe that this inflated personnel requirement represents an attempt by HUD to secure a larger than necessary appropriation. Examples like this leave us no reason to question Inspector General Gaffney's claim that HUD will remain on GAO's high-risk list for the foreseeable future. The Kelly amendment is another step in the Republican majority's goal of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment strikes $1 million from the Operating and Expense budget and puts it into the Public Housing Operating Fund, where every penny will be spent on housing. This amendment will not cut any staff, as my colleagues on the other side may claim. This amendment will merely reduce the expense fund, which HUD uses as a slush fund to operate its current Secretary's political PR machine. Under the current Secretary, we have witnessed the absolute politicization of HUD. We saw HUD sweep in and seize control of public housing programs from the City of New York. We have watched the current Secretary bend and contort HUD's mission to now include industry lawsuits and gun control programs. In my home State of Nebraska, soon after a member of our congressional delegation endorsed the wrong presidential candidate, programs that HUD had funded for years mysteriously had their funding cut off. For me, it is all too clear, what is intended to be a public housing agency has, sadly, become a public relations agency for the current administration. The Secretary should not use taxpayer funds to promote his own ambitions. This amendment stops HUD from spending money on public relations and puts the money back into public housing. HUD should not spend money on what amounts to political advertising while we still have families in need on waiting lists. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor, I rise in support. This act is about more than economic policy or numbers. It is about fairness. It is about family preservation. We are trying to protect their heritage and their culture. In Nebraska, family farms date back to the great-great-grandparents who were pioneers, yet these taxes force smaller farms to sell to the Ted Turners of the world. And in Omaha, my hometown, second and third generation family shops like print shops or the Hispanic grocery store where they migrated here 40 years ago to live the American dream which were built with the family's sweat and the toil and the sacrifice, must be sold now upon the death of the father or the mother to pay the death taxes. This act is about fairness. It is about preserving family history and culture. Please preserve this family culture. Vote for this bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the efforts that we are going to do for American families this week and eliminate the unfair death tax. Some of us like to talk about this issue in terms of numbers and percentages and policy. And really what this does is it protects our families. This is a family bill, but let us talk about it in the sense of overall policy. And that is that, in my generation, we have done well in either running the family business or even starting our own; and our fathers, the greatest generation, have done well, as well. So we have to figure out, in continuing prosperity and trying to widen and deepen prosperity so it touches even more, if we are going to continue policies of the Government usurping and taking money out of the private sector and, therefore, stalling or risking future prosperity for our children, then that is one policy we can take as this next generation transfers their assets to the next generation. Or we can do the right thing and allow that money to transfer to the next generation, where it will be put back into the economy, where it will be spent to expand, to recapitalize the family businesses. Or, God forbid, they spend it on other things and continue to stimulate our economy and ensure prosperity for our children when they graduate from school that they will have opportunities for good jobs. But we can talk about it in the policy sense and how it is the right thing to do. But what I want to do is just talk about the impact on the families in Nebraska, because I am here to fight for those families. Because what this does, when we eliminate the death tax, what we are, in essence, doing is protecting the culture, the history and the heritage of families. Yesterday in our office we had the Farm Wives Association. What was their number one issue? It was elimination of the death tax. They want to try to pass their family farm, many of which their grandfathers staked out, they want to pass it to their sons and their daughters. But they cannot. The average farm size in Nebraska is about 840 acres. That is well over the limit before we even get to the machinery and the value that the IRS would place on that business. But it is a cash poor business. They have no choice but to sell that farm instead of passing it to the next generation. They have to sell it to pay their IRS tax bills. They have to. They have no other choice. So, as we are talking about protecting the history and the culture of our small family farmer, it is our IRS policy that is forcing the consolidation. It is these families that are selling out to the Ted Turners who own tens of thousands of acres in Nebraska. But let us talk about in Omaha, Nebraska, where I was born and raised. Let us talk about the Omaha Printing Company, a third- generation company. It is a small business. They employ about 30 or 40 folks. Yet, they have several really impressive machines when I took the tour of it, and each of those machines run well over $500,000 to $600,000. They have three of them right there that is putting them to the limit before we get to all the other assets of that business and the valuation. The father that is currently operating that business is going to have a choice to make. Sure, they have paid the lawyers and the accountants to try to comply with this tax code and trying to pass it to the next generation, but they are realizing that they are probably going to have to spend about 40 percent to 50 percent of the assets of that business to try and keep it in the family. What about in south Omaha, the great and colorful cultural area of our town, with the Jocobo's grocery store and tortilla plant. They have got a couple of taco shell and tortilla shell machines in the back, just a couple of them. But the value of their inventory and the value of the machines itself puts them over before we get to the valuation. And Carlos, who is in his early 40s and has a young family that he would like to pass the grocery store on to, he may not have that opportunity. Mr. Jocobo emigrated from Mexico several years ago, 40 years ago, and established a small south Omaha business. It is really the center and the hub of this colorful Hispanic community that is so vibrant in south Omaha. I just hope that we do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, for that Hispanic owned grocery store and small business in a colorful part of my district. We have an historic opportunity to protect, to work, and fight for families and their history and their culture. Let us not miss this opportunity.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall Vote 234. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3916, ``The Telephone Excise Repeal Act''. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this overdue piece of legislation. The Spanish-American War is over and so should this tax which was imposed on talking to fund the 1898 war. This tax is a ``tax on talking.'' It has been extended, lowered, increased and temporarily repealed but yet it continues to exist today. This 102-year-old tax affects telephone service, cellular phone service and access to the Internet. Americans work very hard in this country. It is unfair to impose an additional burden on these hard working Americans by requiring them to pay a tax that was implemented to fund a war that has been over for at least a century. H.R. 3916 will eventually eliminate the 3-percent Federal excise tax on telecommunications services. A 1-percent reduction will occur each year for the next 3 years, allowing the telephone excise tax to be fully repealed by October 1, 2002. H.R. 3916 repeals an antiquated tax that hurts many American families and small businesses. This unsubstantiated telephone excise tax clearly violates our economic principles. When it was implemented in 1898, it was considered a luxury tax. I guess access to a telephone in 1898 was considered a luxury. Today, access to a telephone is a necessity. The repeal will encourage growth in telecommunication services and will give all Americans a tax break on their phone bill. This excise tax does absolutely nothing to promote the use of phone service. It merely goes into the government's general revenue account to be spent on anything the government desires. There is absolutely no economic or social justification for this outdated tax. When I was elected to represent the second district of Nebraska, I maintained two priorities: one, was to fight any and all attempts by the Federal Government to take more money away from Nebraskans; and two, let Nebraskans keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their paychecks. Nearly 40 percent of the average American family's income goes toward taxes. We need to give Americans a tax break. Now is the time to eliminate the telephone excise tax. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, China is the third largest military power in the world. It has a huge conventional arms arsenal and developing missile and nuclear capabilities. Quite frankly, China is a powerful threat. But China can be a powerful ally. There is no more powerful tool for a positive change in China than trade with America. I worry that this trend towards isolationism will lead us into another Cold War, an ugly time of an era gone by, where many of my colleagues seem to long for the old policy of mutually assured destruction. Mr. Speaker, I urge them to instead explore the option of mutually assured improvements. Granting China normal trade relations will have a tremendous impact on our diplomatic relations. This will enhance our ability to improve conditions in China even more.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that a negative vote on permanent normal trade relations will hinder the further democratization and human rights in China. We have a moral imperative to make China's trade permanent with us. If we truly care about improving human rights, the U.S. cannot seal off one-fourth of the world's population. To do so would ignore the ills we seek to remedy. PNTR will not only benefit commerce between our two countries. It will also allow for cultural and religious exchanges. Ignoring China will not bring freedom for religious expression. It will not end China's cruel policy of limiting family size. It will not stop their horrific policy of forced abortions. Ignoring China will not bring about democracy. Isolating China will only separate our two countries even further and close off avenues necessary to improve human rights or establish religious freedom.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, along with the others who are simply here because we passionately feel that to secure America's future and protect our children, that we need to limit the growth of government and that we are tired of being on the losing end of those attempts. What we want to do is just put in real, common sense measures that really focus the attention on limiting spending and trying to do the right things in this Congress. This amendment would do that. This amendment would allow the on-budget surplus to offset tax relief or mandatory spending increases. The Ryan pay-go amendment is endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste. What it does is that under current law, known as pay-go, only tax increases or cuts in mandatory spending may be used to offset other tax relief measures or mandatory spending increases. This amendment would allow the on-budget surplus, not the Social Security surplus, to offset these measures. In essence, this amendment would allow for the budget surplus to be used for tax relief, for mandatory spending reforms such as Medicare reform. This is bipartisan language that is similar to bills that have been introduced in the past. It is sensible. It is common sensical. I support it and urge all of my colleagues to support it.