Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I accept the challenge from my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to do the right thing, and the right thing is supporting this rule. It is voting to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I will help the 52,000 married couples in your district and the 58,000 in my district. Americans are overtaxed, and what I hear is we all agree with that. If it walks or you earn it or you buy it, we tax it. And we also tax love. We tax marriage. What type of message does that send to the American public and to our children when we say that this is such a great institution of marriage and something that we strive to support; but we will tax it to the tune of about $1,400 per married couple in the districts of my colleagues and in my district? It is wrong to tax marriage. It is shameful to tax marriage. I grow in frustration as I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because what I hear the Democrats speak is, let us keep their money, let us keep their money for our spending programs for what we want because we will do it better than they will. Well, I trust people to keep their own money.

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is truly a compromise position, kind of splitting the difference between the two arguments that we have heard here today, albeit it may create as many questions as it resolves. This amendment, I think, protects the manufacturers who sell good products at the time that it was made and sold but, because of advances in technology, may become different than a standard that we may apply today. For example, a machine is produced, made, manufactured in 1975, and this is the issue that my friend from Ohio is trying to resolve. When it was manufactured in 1970 or 1975 or 1980, it was made to the state- of-the-art. It was a good product. It was not defective. But perhaps on a year 2000 scale, it is now defective, based on our technology of today. It is somewhat unfair to hold those manufacturers to that standard. So that is what my amendment addresses, but yet says if the product that was manufactured more than 18 years ago was defective, that jeopardized the safety of workers and Americans, that that manufacturer should not be immune after 18 years from that negligent act of putting out into the marketplace a defective product. So it is exempted if it could be proved that it was defective at the time. Now, each of us here, as much as we adhere to a philosophical premise, we are also a product of our life experiences; and let me tell my colleagues a story that I was personally involved with that I think exemplifies some of the issues of a statute of repose, albeit the fact the question here does not exactly duplicate what my friend from Ohio is attempting here. I knew a family and worked with this family. They bought a boat. It was an 11-year-old boat. I hail from a State that has a 10-year statute of repose. This boat, one time when they put it on the water and started it, blew up, killing one person and blowing the leg off literally of a 13-year-old boy and burning him from the waist down. Now, granted that fact pattern does not meet this piece of legislation, because he is not a worker and this is not in the workplace, and the boat is not a piece of machinery that one finds in a workplace. But, under Nebraska law, this boy was prevented, the man who was killed was prevented by a statute of repose from suing the manufacturer. And what we found out is that that boat was defective because it did not have a blower system the day it left. It was probably the only boat manufacturer at that time that was still manufacturing boats without this type of safety mechanism in it. Now, should they be rewarded for not adhering to the standards of the industry or using state-of-the-art technology at the time? No, they should not. So it is those types of life experiences and real life examples that I bring with me and we all bring with us that shape our views on such things as statute of reposes. But this does create some issues. First of all, it does create a desire for a national standard for product liability suits at a time when some of us are resisting trying to make national standards. So we do not improve the situation there at all. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) brought up earlier in the discussion that this amendment probably does not eliminate suits, and he is right. It does not create more litigation, as someone said, but he is probably right that it does not eliminate it. So while I believe it is a good compromise, and it is truly the middle ground by protecting those manufacturers who deserve to be protected, yet not protecting those who do not deserve the protection, it does, unfortunately, raise as many questions as it resolves.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 269 provides a fitting commemoration of his accomplishments as a professional baseball player. We applaud the stellar performance of Joseph Jefferson Jackson on the field and call upon all Americans to recognize his 13 years of excellence. In a generous spirit, we encourage professional Baseball to provide ``Shoeless'' Joe Jackson the honors he fully deserves. I ask the full support of all Members of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the author of this resolution.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 269) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 269. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues from South Carolina, the delegation, for their interest in American baseball history and their sense of justice in attempting to restore Shoeless Joe Jackson's place that his performance on the field earned him. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, who recognized the timeliness of this measure and expedited this opportunity for consideration before the House today. The resolution is presented 80 years after the World Series in which the Chicago White Sox lost to the Cincinnati Redlegs. During that series, Joe Jackson had the highest batting average on either team, set a World Series record by collecting 12 hits, including the only home run on either team, and was not charged with a single error on the field. Shoeless Joe Jackson remains an American icon, a perennial symbol of a young man who unknowingly became involved in the intrigues that surrounded his activities. On the field, Shoeless Joe Jackson's records speak for themselves. Only Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby's surpassed his 356 lifetime batting average. His 13-year career with the Philadelphia Athletics and the Chicago White Sox provided a background of consistent accomplishments. Shoeless Joe Jackson was never convicted of a crime. In fact, found not guilty. Nevertheless, when Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis became Commissioner of Baseball, he used Shoeless Joe Jackson and his seven teammates to demonstrate the firmness of his commitment to the integrity in our national pastime. He imposed a lifetime ban from baseball where the courts could not act. Shoeless Joe Jackson died in 1951, having endured more than 30 years the exile that baseball imposed upon him. His records remain on the books and his level of accomplishments far exceed the feats that earn today's baseball players millions of dollars. Americans are people whose fairness can allow them to recognize these great accomplishments without in any way compromising the standards of excellence and integrity that we must demand at the highest levels of any profession. Shoeless Joe Jackson has earned a place among the immortals of the baseball world, and this resolution provides a fitting opportunity for this House to remember the accomplishments of his excellent career. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, House Resolution 269.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Todd Storz by marking the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Mid-Continent Broadcasting Company, later known as the Storz Broadcasting Company. Todd Storz developed the radio rotation format known as ``Top 40.'' This innovation made rock and roll a part of American history and changed the sound of radio forever. Through his Mid-Continent Broadcasting Company, Todd Storz initially influenced radio in Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, and New Orleans. Soon, other radio stations adapted their formats to the ``Top 40'' rotation style. His pioneering work in radio made popular music a component of American culture. Todd Storz's idea for ``Top 40'' radio came about through competition with a rival station that featured a one hour ``Top 20'' radio show. The two hour ``Top 40'' format won over listeners as well as other radio programmers. As a result, it soon became the standard format. The Mid-Continent Broadcasting Company's successful approach to radio broadcasting helped radio survive and flourish in spite of the popularity of television. I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring Todd Storz on the 50th anniversary of the founding of his Mid-Continent Broadcasting Company.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act, even though I have some reservation about a few of its provisions. When I visited my Omaha district over the past year, I frequently met with Medicare beneficiaries, hospital administrators and representatives of other health care providers. The stories and data they provided me about some of the adverse impacts of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), including restrictions on services to patients, were compelling. I share the information I received during these visits with Chairman Thomas of the Subcommittee on Health of the Ways and Means Committee. I told him that Medicare benefits must meet the needs of our growing senior population, and services provided through Medicare must be fairly reimbursed. I am pleased that this legislation is responsive to Nebraskans' concerns. This is well-planned, comprehensive reform legislation that addresses the needs of both retirees and health care institutions involved in Medicare. It also respects the importance of maintaining Medicare's long-term financial solvency. I do not agree with all of the provisions in this bill that affect teaching hospitals. Specifically, the Indirect Medical Education payment freeze proposal and the per resident averaging provision for Graduate Medical Education would have a mixed impact on hospitals. Some smaller teaching hospitals will lose considerable resources they need to train our future doctors. I also do not agree with how the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has imposed restrictions on Medicare providers that have gone well beyond the requirements of the Balanced Budget Act. Restrictions adopted administratively will reduce Medicare spending by an estimated $80 billion more over the life of the BBA than was anticipated by Congress. I have joined a number of my colleagues in protesting HCFA's over-reaching regulations. I also believe that HCFA should be more aggressive in eliminating the billions of dollars of waste and abuse that it acknowledges occur every year. I am familiar with the practices of many private insurers headquartered in the Midwest who have used private recovery services in a successful effort to identify improper payments. HCFA use of a similar approach could save billions. As a member of the Government Reform Committee concerned about waste in government programs, I will continue to encourage HCFA to adopt more such private sector business practices, even if only on a trial basis. Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations, I support H.R. 3075 and urge its approval.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, we did vote on a budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) will use the remaining time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) the cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to lay on the table this motion to discharge.