Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Yes. I did not submit any.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I come here today with the common sense and hopefully consensus amendment that directs USAID to give priority to organizations based in the United States when awarding grants to NGOs to rebuild Afghanistan. The experience and expertise of U.S. organizations in public institutions to rebuild Afghanistan should be utilized and recognized by USAID. It's also a fact that when people of Afghanistan see Americans helping to rebuild their schools and providing teachers and helping their economy, that a true and positive perception of our Nation increases. My straightforward amendment states that USAID should give priority consideration to U.S.-based organizations that have a proven track record of assisting young nations like Afghanistan to educate its children and teach them skills that will lead to economic growth and revitalization. The Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska's Omaha campus is a great example of a proven institution, experienced institution, in providing cost-effective services to Afghanistan, as well as other nations, that has experience in administering programs within Afghanistan, and teaching the people of Afghanistan, and yet were not considered to be a subcontractor with USAID. There are undoubtedly many more examples of expertise and assistance from United States programs dedicated to the betterment of nations and their citizens. It seems only right that USAID give priority to U.S. organizations with established records of service and success. I urge my colleagues' support. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the ranking member.

Mr. TERRY. I thank the chairman for his instructive input, advice, counsel and kind words and acceptance of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the introduction of The ALS Registry Act of 2007 by my colleague Eliot Engel of New York and myself. A similar bill introduced in the 109th Congress, H.R. 4033, garnered the support of 215 of our colleagues, nearly 50 percent of the members of the House of Representatives. Today, we are joined by 80 additional original cosponsors in this effort. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal, progressive, neurodegenerative disease affecting motor nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Approximately 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, each year. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans have the disease. The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is 2 to 5 years from the time of diagnosis. There is no known cure for ALS. There is currently no single national patient registry which collects and stores information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS in existence in the United States. The establishment of a national registry will help identify the occurrence and frequency of ALS and other motor neuron disorders and collect data which is badly needed for ALS research, disease management and the development of standards of care in order to significantly enhance the nation's efforts to find a treatment and cure for ALS. All diseases bring hardships on those afflicted, but ALS is particularly cruel in the quickness of the onset, the severity of the symptoms and the fatal nature of the condition. The provisions in our bill creating a nationwide registry for persons afflicted with ALS are important steps forward in strengthening the efforts to understand, treat and one day eradicate this terrible disease. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the ALS Registry Act and I am proud to join my friend Mr. Engel in bringing forward this important legislation.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American public sees the irony in the votes that we are going to take this afternoon and evening. Before us now we are going to take a vote to pull out of Iraq immediately. Then, right after that, we are going to take a vote to fund the troops so they can stay a while. So I guess the only difference between the House Democrats today and Senator Kerry a year ago, where he voted for Iraq before he voted against Iraq, is that our friends get to do it all in the same day. Now, the other irony that I thought was interesting today is that we had a visitor, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, that was coming here with a message of what is really going on in Iraq. And he met with a group of us this morning in HC-9, separated only by a thin wall to the caucus that was occurring with our friends from the other side of the aisle where they were plotting the strategy of how to get out of Iraq. I think it shows one of the differences between the two parties where we are meeting with the government officials on how to get them stood up, how do we strengthen the government there so they can take over their own operations without falling to the al Qaeda; at the same time, our friends are plotting on the other side to pull out and abandon them. I think the day is just full of ironies, and I hope that the general public gets to see those today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. This is a rather simple and focused amendment that recognizes that our Homeland Security Department has had difficulties communicating to its partners. My Governor called me last year when the press showed up in his office and wanted an answer about a grant and no one had notified the Governor's office. We contacted the National Governor's Association, NGA, and found out that this is a very deep and epidemic problem with our Department of Homeland Security. So all that we are asking in this amendment is that in regard to grants that affect the State, that the State be put into the communication loop so when reporters show up at their office asking for comment, they actually know what the reporters are talking about. I think it is egregious that reporters get to be notified sooner than the grant recipient or the State that was denied the grant. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, with that very articulately stated and persuasive argument, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Let me say from the outset: I am strongly opposed to violent crimes committed against an individual, regardless of the motivation of the person committing it. That is why I support strong state and local prosecution measures to curb violent crime and increase safety in our communities. In fact, I am a principal supporter in Congress for increasing Federal funding for state and local law enforcement officers to curb gang and drug crimes, which often leads to violent crimes. I have also spent considerable time in my district meeting with groups who have experienced discrimination or have been targets of violent behavior simply due to their race, religion or sexual orientation. The concerns they have raised with me have weighed heavily on my mind, and have caused me to reconsider my views on our Constitution's Tenth Amendment. In the past, I have not supported Federal hate crimes legislation since it has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local prosecutors rather than the Federal Government. States have the right to apprehend and prosecute criminals under their own criminal codes, which must be respected. They also have the right to enhance penalties as they see fit, and many states have taken that step. My own state of Nebraska enacted comprehensive hate crimes legislation in 1997. The Nebraska legislation authorizes judges to impose harsher penalties in criminal cases when a determination is made that the crime was committed due to the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or because of his or her association with persons who fit the specified classifications. The enhanced penalties for hate crimes provided for in the statute would be the next highest penalty classification above the one statutorily imposed for the crime, with the death penalty as the only exception. A broad variety of criminal charges could be enhanced, including manslaughter, assault, terroristic threats, stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault of an adult or child, arson, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. Our state statutes also provide victims with the authority to bring civil actions against attackers. The actions taken by Nebraska and so many other states are appropriate because the states have the ability to expand their criminal codes as each sees fit. At the same time, there is no Federal nexus and thus no need for duplicative Federal legislation. The Tenth Amendment is clear: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' At some point, we have to stop federalizing every problem in the country, no matter how large or small. When the states are addressing a problem effectively, there is no need for the Federal Government to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Crime and punishment, with few exceptions, are in the purview of state legislative authority. I am unwilling to interfere with that constitutional balance, no matter how worthy the underlying subject matter might be. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1592.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation will benefit nearly one million disadvantaged children nationwide by expanding Head Start's focus on school readiness. Low-income children will be taught key early learning skills such as alphabet, number, color and shape recognition to help them succeed in their school years. This bill also opens poor-performing Head Start programs to greater public scrutiny and needful competition. Triennial program reviews by the Federal government and independent investigation by the Government Accountability Office have revealed that some Head Start programs operate with Federal tax dollars despite chronic financial mismanagement, health and safety concerns, and poor community involvement. H.R. 1429 would help remedy this situation by requiring Head Start programs to demonstrate active partnerships with local school districts to ensure smooth transitions for children into kindergarten. Poor- performing programs would be opened to competition every 5 years. Annual disclosures of financial information and greater participation of parents in the decisions of Head Start governing boards will also make a difference. I have personally seen the benefits of partnering local school districts with Head Start. Several years ago, a long-standing Head Start program serving 1,000 children in Douglas County, Nebraska was transferred to the control of the Omaha Public School District to end long-standing financial mismanagement and safety concerns for children. Omaha Public Schools went the extra mile by partnering with EduCare, an outstanding private preschool program that involves the entire family, emphasizes best practices, and focuses on early learning skills to help disadvantaged children succeed in school and life. EduCare was created by Susie Buffett and currently serves 239 children from Omaha families living below the poverty level. Families must either work, be in job training, or attending school to qualify. Enrollment is free, with costs covered by the Nebraska Department of Education, Omaha Public Schools, the Department of Health and Human Services and private sources. EduCare has a low child-to-adult ratio: three infants per adult, and six preschoolers per adult. Bachelor level staff members are trained in early childhood education, and the program contains strong academic components to help children succeed in school, including limited english proficiency children. Buffett has said: ``We look at the whole entire family, not just the child.'' Parents are directed to community resources to improve home life, such as food shelters and Christmas toy drives. Single mothers are helped with transportation and job searches. Prelimary evaluation data indicates that the EduCare program is making a significant difference in the lives of children. Upon entering the program, children's language, literacy and social emotional areas of development are assessed. Most children initially score in the borderline range of development. Annual assessment results have shown the majority of participating children gained more vocabulary words in the course of the school year than one would expect based on maturity. By the time they transitioned to kindergarten, EduCare's children were scoring very close to the national average. Standardized assessments of children's literacy and kindergarten readiness skills show similar results. Because research has shown children's vocabulary and pre-literacy skills to predict later school success, every Head Start program should help children reach such strong learning potential while addressing the short and long-term needs of the child's family. EduCare is an incredible success story in the lives of low-income children. I also want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a provision of this bill to protect Head Start for children of military families. The privatization of military housing created an artificial raise in a military family's income, making their children ineligible for Head Start. H.R. 1429 would disregard the Basic Housing Allowance from a family's income when determining Head Start eligibility. Servicemembers protecting our freedom need not worry about their children's continued access to Head Start. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can go even further in the future to strengthen the academic emphasis in Head Start and give states and excellent programs such as EduCare a greater ability to improve the lives of low-income children and their families. H.R. 1429 makes good progress in this direction.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007 to eliminate the burdensome enrollment fee that prevents more of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from gaining a college education. Today's military members are consummate professionals meeting the difficult challenges of their service with courage, skill and expertise. Obtaining a college education is critical to expanding their expertise to better serve the United States and the cause of freedom. However, the current $100 monthly enrollment fee required for participation in the Montgomery G.I. Bill could prevent young enlisted military families from furthering their education. More than half of the enlisted men and women in our armed forces have family responsibilities that limit their income choices. Currently, only 3.9 percent of enlisted active-duty members of the armed forces have a bachelor's degree, compared to 86.6 percent of the officers' corps. The $100 per month enrollment fee required for participation in the G.I. Bill sets up an unnecessary barrier to educational opportunities for enlisted military families trying to make ends meet and care for their children. I have heard from current and former military members, public housing organizations, and groups advocating on behalf of military families that enlisted military members at pay grades E-5 and below would most benefit from the elimination of the $1,200 annual enrollment fee. For these families who struggle to meet their basic needs and the needs of their children, an additional $1,200 each year will have a significant impact on the family budget. The legislation I am introducing today will allow servicemembers to utilize G.I. Bill education benefits to improve their family's circumstances and their future career opportunities. This legislation would help improve military families' quality of life by ensuring the G.I. Bill continues to provide realistic and relevant educational opportunities to servicemembers defending our country. The G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007 would accomplish two critical goals: Eliminate the $1,200 G.I. Bill enrollment fee for active duty servicemembers at pay grades E-5 and below, and allow all servicemen and women serving on active duty to opt into the G.I. Bill with no penalty or enrollment fee. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. The men and women serving our country in wartime should not have to choose between the long-term benefits of the G.I. Bill and the short-term demands of their paycheck. This legislation will provide tremendous benefits to our Nation. The G.I. Bill is one of the greatest investments ever made by the American people in our economy and the lives of young men and women who selflessly serve in the military. The ``Greatest Generation'' servicemembers who returned home from WWII and received a higher education under the G.I. Bill became our Nation's entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors and community leaders. R.C. Thompson, a former Commanding Officer of Top Gun, and a former Commander of a carrier airwing in Afghanistan, said: ``This legislation would send a great signal to our young men and women in uniform that our Nation is unified behind them, and our sense of purpose remains strong. I was fortunate to receive my education through the G.I. Bill, and I know that $100 a month is a lot of money to a young married person serving overseas. This legislation will enable them to do a lot of good for their families when they return home.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in improving opportunities for our servicemembers and their families by cosponsoring the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1591, a pork-laden $124.3 billion war supplemental that would force U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. I strongly support benchmarks and high accountability for military and political progress in Iraq, but not in a manner that hurts our chances of accomplishing those goals. Under this legislation, U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq unless the President's benchmarks for progress are met by July. This unreasonable requirement would not give General Petraeus enough time to show if the new ``troop surge'' is effective. In addition, this bill would force U.S. troops to withdraw by August 2008 regardless of whether the benchmarks are met. Members of Congress should not be dictating strategy to our generals in the field. The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their mouths. In attempting to reach a compromise, they would fund the troop surge while dooming it to failure by not allowing enough time to see if it works. It is clear that a forthright and honest vote on withdrawing U.S. troops would fail. The Majority Party's Leadership has instead chosen to entice Members of Congress with pork-barrel spending in exchange for their vote on this bill. The Washington Post reported: ``House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers'' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.'' This so-called ``emergency'' war supplemental includes non-defense spending such as $283 million in milk subsidies, $474 million in peanut subsidies, and $25 million in spinach subsidies. This legislation abandons the Majority Party's supposed leadership on fiscal discipline. It is a hypocritical and blatant attempt to gain votes from Members of Congress through special interest spending. The bill includes non-military items such as an increase in the minimum wage, tax relief for small businesses, drought aid, hurricane relief, agricultural subsidies and funds for child health insurance. Each of these items should be debated under regular order in the House. I strongly support the defense-related spending items in this legislation, including critical equipment for our troops and health care improvements for our veterans such as funding for Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I was also proud to sign the discharge petition to vote on Congressman Sam Johnson's legislation to ensure full funding of our troops. We must demand meaningful progress in Iraq to curb sectarian violence, disarm militias, train security forces and strengthen the arm of the new Iraqi government until Iraq can govern itself. However, H.R. 1591 is clearly not the answer. Immediately withdrawing U.S. troops would be an irresponsible display of politics that would endanger future generations of Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this legislation, and to demand a ``clean'' war supplemental that meets the needs of our troops without pork-barrel politics.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Married Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 to end the marriage penalty contained in the portion of the tax code allowing for the deduction of student loan interest. Current tax law discriminates against married couples trying to pay down their educational debt while starting careers and families. Individual taxpayers are allowed to deduct up to $2,500 in student loan interest from their taxes each year. However, once a taxpayer marries, they are only allowed to deduct the same amount--$2,500--as a married couple, regardless of whether both spouses are paying back individual student loans. Because the existing tax law limits married couples to the $2,500 deduction even when both spouses carry student debt and could have each taken a $2,500 deduction while single, I am introducing the Married Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 to correct this inequity. This legislation would double the student loan interest tax deduction to $5,000 for married couples who file a joint tax return when both spouses hold student debt, ensuring tax law treats students fairly, whether they are single or married. The average U.S. student graduates with $19,000 in educational debt. The government should not make it more difficult for young married couples to payoff their debts as quickly as possible to increase their quality of life and begin making their dreams come true. I am joined by more than 25 bipartisan Members of Congress in introducing this legislation today. It is important to help married couples pay down their student loans as quickly as possible to support their families and futures. This problem in the tax code was first brought to my attention by my constituent, Michael Currans of Omaha. He wrote to me about the inequity, and I drafted legislation shortly thereafter to correct it. After learning of the effort, he wrote: First off, I'm very pleased that my simple email to Congressman Terry has resulted in such an enthusiastic response. This is the first time I've ever written to my representatives in Congress, and it has definitely helped me see the value of getting involved. I really wish that I had written about this years ago. Ever since we were married in 2000 and began filing our joint tax return, my wife and I have struggled to understand the rationale for not allowing married couples to each take advantage of the student loan interest deduction to the same extent as two unmarried individuals. Between us, we had over $70,000 of student loan debt, and while we diligently make all our payments on time, it is frustrating that the principal balances are reduced so slowly. We often discuss how we'd like to make additional payments to try to pay the loans down faster, but now that we've got kids in the picture, daycare expenses, and a house to maintain, extra cash to put toward the student loans seems hard to come by. We find some solace in knowing that we can at least deduct a portion of the interest we pay. We are not complaining. The federal student loan programs have been good to us. We've both earned valuable undergraduate degrees, my wife at the University of Northern Iowa, and myself at Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa. Further, student loans allowed us both to attend the excellent law school at the University of Iowa where we met. Without student loans, we would not be where we are today, so even without the benefit of the full student loan interest deduction, our student loans are a positive investment. Some might ask why a two-income family with both spouses being attorneys should have any grounds to seek additional relief from income taxes. However, my wife is a public defender representing juvenile delinquents in Douglas County, Nebraska. She is most definitely using her law degree for the public good, earning much less than she might if she chose to pursue private practice. I'm sure for many married lawyer couples, the student loan interest deduction is a nonissue due to the phase-out at higher incomes, but for us, it is still an important deduction. I'm certain the deduction is important to the great many married couples of lesser means paying on student loans for both spouses, especially in cases where one spouse chooses to stay at home with children. We've joked on occasion about how we'd have been better off from a tax perspective if we'd just remained unmarried, lived together, and filed separate tax returns until our student loans were paid off. I doubt most couples would actually choose to live that way just for the additional student loan interest deduction. Nonetheless, why should a married couple be treated differently than two individual taxpayers? There is no good reason for this inequity, so I really hope this legislation goes through. If I can be of help, please let me know. Thanks to Congressman Terry and his staff for taking up this issue.-- Mike Currans. I am grateful to Mike for bringing this inequity to my attention so we can work in this Congress to correct it. I urge more of my constituents to bring their concerns to my attention, and I encourage every American to communicate their views to their Congressional Representative. Your voice does make a difference. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope all of my colleagues will join my efforts by cosponsoring this legislation and working to bring it to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 to strengthen families and empower parents in providing the best possible care for their preschool children. Senator Sam Brownback is introducing similar legislation in the Senate today. This comprehensive legislation will enact family-friendly tax policies to provide parents with more child care options. It will end the long-standing inequity in the tax code that encourages daycare above stay-at-home parenting. It will also help parents spend more time with their children by encouraging flexible employment opportunities such as home-based businesses and telecommuting jobs, while ensuring that parents who take time out of the workforce to care for their children will not be penalized under the Social Security system. Congress should recognize and support the incredible sacrifices parents make to raise their children. I have heard from Nebraska families who struggle to make ends meet so one parent can stay at home and provide the love, care and attention that every child deserves. The high Federal tax burden, which falls most heavily on the middle-class, has unfortunately made this option extremely difficult, if not unreachable, for many families. Congress has helped this situation with common-sense measures such as the child tax credit, but more should be done. In addition, many parents need to remain in the workforce for financial or other reasons. Flexible work opportunities such as operating a home-based business or full-time or part-time telecommuting would empower working parents to spend more quality time with their children. Parents perform a tremendous balancing act between work and family responsibilities. It can be difficult for families to survive without a second income. While the second earner's income in a family can go toward daycare costs and work-related expenses such as dry-cleaning bills and gasoline, it can also support necessities such as grocery bills, medical expenses and savings for a child's future education. Parents should be empowered with greater options for raising a family on a limited income, whether one or both parents are in the workforce. The legislation that I am introducing today addresses the needs of modern families while empowering parents with greater choices. Greater tax relief will make it a more realistic option for parents to stay at home with their little ones in the early formative years that are so crucial to children's physical, mental and emotional development. In addition, parents would have greater opportunities for ``split-shift'' parenting and other options to ensure their children have the best possible care and time together as a family. It is clear that parents want these options. A comprehensive study on balancing work and family, which was conducted by four major charitable foundations, found that 70 percent of parents believe the best arrangement for the care of young children is to have one parent at home. In a parenting survey done for Warner Books, 87 percent of mothers said they would stay at home to raise their children if they could afford it. The Family and Work Institute reported that 70 percent of working parents feel they lack enough time with their children, and nearly two-thirds of all workers would reduce their work hours by an average 11 hours a week if they could. In addition, 62 percent of parents with preschoolers want policymakers to concentrate on making it more affordable for a parent to stay at home during a child's first few years than on improving the quality and affordability of day care. In fact, 53 percent of parents preferred direct tax cuts to stay-at-home-parents, while only 1 in 3 (33 percent) would cut costs for families using day care. Members of Congress should trust in the judgment of parents, especially regarding the care of preschool children. The Parents' Tax Relief Act, which I am introducing today with more than a dozen original cosponsors, contains seven major tax improvements to empower parents and strengthen families in America: First, this legislation extends the Dependent Care Tax Credit to parents who choose to be at home with their children. Established in 1954, this credit currently allows families to claim up to 35 percent of $3,000 in documented, non-parental child care costs, and 35 percent of $6,000 in day care expenses for two children. Families who make the financial sacrifice to have one parent stay at home for their children should also benefit from this tax credit. Second, the Parents' Tax Relief Act will make the $1,000 child tax credit permanent and index it to inflation to retain its long-term value. This tax relief is critical for Nebraska families with dependent children. Third, this legislation doubles the personal income tax exemption to half of its original 1948 value, from $3,300 to $5,000. From 1948 to 1963 when this exemption was equivalent to $10,000 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, America witnessed a ``marriage boom,'' a ``baby boom,'' and a decline in the divorce rate. There is evidence suggesting these outcomes were significantly advanced by Federal tax policy to strengthen families. Doubling the personal income tax exemption provides critical support to families with children, as well as elderly or disabled dependents. Fourth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act eliminates the marriage tax penalty once and for all. This penalty discourages the sacred institution of marriage by unfairly taxing married couples filing jointly at a higher rate than two single individuals earning the same income. The 2001 tax cut law reduced this penalty by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers, and doubling the size of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples. Unfortunately, these reforms will expire by 2010, along with the rest of the tax cuts enacted by Congress. The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 will extend marriage tax relief to all tax brackets to prevent the government from discouraging marriage or forcing both parents into the workforce. It will also end the marriage penalty in the tax deduction for student loan interest, which currently limits married couples filing joint returns to a $2,500 deduction, even though $2,500 is the amount each spouse holding student debt could have claimed while single. Fifth, this legislation will support parents who operate a home-based business. The bill establishes a standard home-office tax deduction to replace complicated IRS regulations that prevent many small business owners from deducting legitimate expenses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nine million of the 17.3 million small business in the United States are home-based, and 55 percent are operated by women. Many home businesses are started to provide a secondary income, which is very helpful to families with children. Sixth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 encourages telecommuting. It will create a Telecommuting Tax Credit allowing employers to deduct a portion of a telecommuting employee's wage for income tax purposes. It will also allow individuals to exclude from income the value of employer-provided computers and related equipment necessary for work from home, including critical related services such as broadband Internet connection. Telecommuting is one way mothers or fathers can stay at home with their children while still contributing to family income. Finally, the Parents' Tax Relief Act protects the Social Security benefits of women or men who choose to stay at home with preschool children. When a parent leaves the workforce to be at home with a child, the family's finances may not only suffer, but career opportunities and future earnings potential may be diminished. Parents who stay at home to care for children during prime working years may also jeopardize their future Social Security benefits. The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 recognizes the realities parents face by allowing up to ten years of flexible Social Security employment credits for parents who stay at home to raise children age six and under. Public policy should safeguard stay-at-home parenting as valuable work that contributes to the character and security of our Nation. These seven tax improvements will empower parents and strengthen families. The Federal Government must expand choices for parents with children. The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 will address the needs of modern families, including those who want to stay at home with their children without decimating their family finances, and those who want to continue working and contributing to family income while spending more time with their children. I urge my colleagues to support choices for families by cosponsoring the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res 63. Our troops have made tremendous sacrifices in waging war against Islamic extremists who not only want to deny freedom to their fellow countrymen but remain committed to attacking America and our way of life. We have lost some of the bravest, most dedicated and committed Americans we have been honored to know, love, and mourn. They deserve the highest honor and respect from this Congress and the American people for their service. Those brave men and women still in harm's way have earned the right to come home as quickly as possible. This does not mean, however, that we should abandon this mission and leave Iraq to certain failure by prematurely pulling out our troops, nor should we cut military funding or adopt nonbinding resolutions that embolden our enemies and undermine our troop morale. Now, that last statement has been accused by many speakers on the Democrat side as being a red herring to chase the American public away from the attention of this addition of 20,000 troops. But I read their authored resolution. And the words are that you support and protect members of the Armed Services who are serving, are serving or have served, which means that they will not support our troops, any uniformed member that is newly sent to Iraq, whether it is for training the Iraqi troops, whether to be embedded and help them, or any capacity. So the next logical step from their own wording of this resolution is to cut funding. That is the only way to stop supporting any new military member that goes to Iraq. So we have to ask, how will they do that? Now, I believe the Iraqi Government needs our assistance to restore security and prevent a descent into anarchy and civil war, or, worse yet, a heightened foreign insurgency that results in terrorist control of that nation. The situation in the Middle East is a powder keg that will explode if the United States abandons it. The resolution under debate today offers no military or diplomatic solutions apart from expressing disapproval over the plan to increase troops that will help train the Iraqis to go to the front and take more responsibilities to securing Iraq. The U.S. military personnel will be working closely with and training Iraqi soldiers. Pentagon leaders tell us that embedding these highly trained U.S. troops have been highly effective in making the Iraqi military better. In anticipation of the American withdrawal, 23 Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia have already expressed support for sending their Sunni fighters to Iraq as have Shiite clerics from other areas of the Middle East in anticipation of the U.S. leaving Iraq. The Jordanian ambassador has described it well, saying that it is like the U.S. has stepped on a land mine, only that this is the other type of a land mine that will explode when you take your foot off of it. We will see an explosion if we do as this Democrat resolution sets up and stop supporting our troops and begin withdrawing them. This Congress must not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. War should not be conducted by 535 self-proclaimed generals. Politicians should not be dictating troop levels or planning missions. Our duty is to conduct effective and responsible oversight while giving our soldiers and military commanders the resources that they need to get the job done. This resolution specifically says you will not do that. Premature withdrawal or a forced gradual withdrawal, which this resolution seems to endorse, from Iraq, through cutting funds, may appease those who oppose the war, the base of the authors who wrote this resolution, but it surely will produce more bloodshed and sectarian violence far exceeding the level currently reported by newspapers today. I am not willing to gamble with those lives of future Americans of our generations to come. This resolution runs away from the best option we have been presented to provide security in Iraq. I am open to alternatives, better plans, including those from our colleagues on the other side. It is just that we are not able to engage in that discussion today. I will vote ``no'' on this resolution, and hope that the majority of my colleagues will join me.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. My fear is that because now the secondary amendment will jeopardize the ability to transport ethanol and biofuels from the Midwest because it may evaporate along the way, taking it to a refinery to be blended. That is the danger here.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the House are authorized under rule XX of the House rules?

Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TERRY. Are we allowed to ask parliamentary inquiries in the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

Mr. TERRY. I understand. Then, Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.