Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the subject of my Special Order this hour is how meth is ravaging our communities in the United States. Yet in our budget, in our appropriations, it is called on to eliminate what are called Byrne grants and the HIDTA program reduced by 56 percent. Let us talk a little bit about what meth does. I have a picture here from the Des Moines Register of a 13-year-old Iowa girl, a very pretty little girl. Unfortunately, she became hooked on meth. This is the before. This is within a year later. It is kind of a grainy picture, but you can see a stark difference. Unfortunately, even though her mother tried rescuing her from this life-style, this little girl committed suicide. Meth is just an incredibly difficult drug to try and break free from. In my home State, Duaine Bullock, the captain of narcotics unit in Lincoln that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) represents, gave a sobering assessment of the growing meth problem in Nebraska and just said pointblank, we have got a gigantic problem. He is right on the mark. According to Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning, 60 percent of the inmates in Nebraska jails have a problem with meth. The number of people in Nebraska jails for possessing, selling, or manufacturing meth has more than doubled since 1999. When we talk about this fight against meth in our communities, the front line of this war, of our war on meth and drugs, the fastest growing drug in the Nation, meth has produced a wider and more extensive array of problems than any other narcotic we have ever faced before. It is no longer just a rural or Midwestern issue. The Byrne grants that I mentioned casually goes directly to our front line warriors, our local police and our sheriff. It is those folks that are going to know where the drugs are located, which houses perhaps in a certain community have meth labs or will see some of the characteristics within that family unit or that home that can lead them to the conclusion that perhaps a meth lab is in operation there. And so it makes no sense to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have a proposal in front of Congress to completely eliminate the Byrne/JAG grants which are the dollars that go to local police departments to help them become prepared and enter into task forces all the way up to the Federal level. What we are seeing is a system of centralization of our war on drugs away from our front line warriors to the Nation's capital. While I certainly can maybe not respect, but at least understand, why a drug czar, a department, would want to consolidate its own power, I think is doing it against the best interests of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). Frankly, he has been on the front lines bringing this issue to the attention of just about anyone that will listen over the last 3 years. It is my pleasure to introduce my friend and colleague from the Third District of Nebraska.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this. I too have a police and sheriff task force like he has put together; and it is amazing, just 2 years ago when we met, asking what the most significant issue was facing them on a daily basis or what some of the trends are. They said, well, definitely meth. But we are not necessarily seeing it in the inner city of Omaha, the gangs there that are still running the traditional drugs of cocaine, crack, and marijuana. Mostly what we are seeing is they were telling me 2 years ago is that the meth is more of a rural issue, but it is starting to come in through the suburbs and they are seeing a great deal of the problems as we had just mentioned, the crime that is associated with the addiction, whether it is crimes committed while high or crimes committed to get high. When I met with them probably about 9 or 10 months ago again I asked the same question. They said the drugs the gangs are running are almost exclusively meth now. They are coming from two different directions. We still have the rural issue, where some of the ingredients are so readily available and you can go to your corner drugstore and get the pseudoephedrine out of Sudafed and other materials to make it, but the gentleman mentioned that that is incredibly important in our fight here. Meth has become basically a war on two fronts. You have got the labs that are being operated by individuals, because they are so easy to put together, the ingredients are very accessible, although in Nebraska our State legislature, fortunately, is dealing with it, and probably by the end of this week we will have Sudafed behind the counter. It is too bad we have to do that to our local retailers. But that is one border. Traditionally what we have tried to fight is the pop-up labs, particularly in rural areas, or mobile labs. But now you have the super labs in Mexico that are running the drugs up, and it is the same pattern we have seen with cocaine others. It comes from Central America into L.A. and Phoenix and the other gang headquarters and through their distribution schemes throughout the rest of the United States. That is where we are seeing it come into Nebraska now, and that is why it is becoming an inner-city drug as well. Now it has just infiltrated every part of our community in the last few years. The gentleman mentioned something else, the brain damage that is caused from this. You begin that deterioration of the brain cells, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned, with the dopamine, the rush that gets you. It is such an intense rush of that chemical that it literally fries the synapses and cannot be restored. You are literally frying your brain. Those cannot be absorbed. The first area that goes is your ability to make decisions. That is the first part of the brain that is affected by meth. That is why we see an incredible tolerance to the drug. You start craving it and craving it. The Catholic Charities in Nebraska, when I toured them about 3 years ago, it was all alcohol and some cocaine. Now it is almost exclusively, 90 to 95 percent, meth cases that come in there now. They told me when I toured a few months ago they cannot cure them. Even those that have only smoked or ingested or injected or however they used it a few times, it has done enough damage to the decision- making part of your brain that you cannot reason; you cannot say this is bad for me, so I am going to quit. You just lost that ability. So you have a drug that forces you, I should not say forces you, but you have lost that ability to say ``no'' to it anymore. This is what happens. This poor little girl was 13-years-old. The gentleman has a daughter that is only a couple years younger than her and I have a son a couple years younger. I think of the gentleman's daughter and my son as just little kids, but yet they are being exposed to this. Mr. Speaker, getting back to cutting the Byrne grants and HIDTA, this statistic shows how our local law enforcement officers working in task forces with the Federal agencies have been able every year from 1999 to 2003 to steadily discover and demolish a vast number of meth labs. But, as you see here, even though this is not full reporting, it is going to be pretty close, in 2004 a slight drop. I think the slight drop can be accounted for in two ways: Number one, I would say that the Byrne funding was working and helping our local law enforcement find those labs, but also then as I mentioned with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), we are seeing now this has become in drug trade like cocaine, where it is imported through Mexico into the major cities and then distributed through the gang distribution system. Now, let me get to a couple of final points here. In the White House's fiscal 2006 budget that was delivered this year, it requested to eliminate the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program, which provided $634 million to law enforcement agencies nationwide, including almost $2.2 million for Nebraska. The Nebraska State Patrol estimates that nine of eleven State antidrug task forces that were created with this Byrne grant funding would have to be dismantled. The White House's budget also recommends reducing the HIDTA program by 56 percent. Again, those are the multi- State and local drug trafficking meth training programs. For Nebraska, ours is located in the Kansas City region. The Byrne and the HIDTA programs are the primary tools through which the Federal Government integrates State and local law enforcement into the national drug control strategy. Tom Constantine, a former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, recently testified to Congress that he could not recall a single case during his tenure that did not begin as a referral from State and local law enforcement, including many through Byrne and HIDTA task forces. So when we talk about the centralization, pulling the power from the local enforcement agencies to the Federal Government, you are talking about really emasculating our drug enforcement policy. Tom Constantine said every one of their referrals started at the local level. There is a clear link between drugs and violence that I think we have covered fully here tonight, and these Byrne grants are providing cities and counties with the resources that are necessary to share the information and dismantle regional drug distribution rings. And before Byrne and HIDTA, by the way, when our local police members were out on their own, they did not have the power to work with the Federal agencies and task forces to take the meth and trace it back to their origination and be able to dismantle these incredible drug rings. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this tonight with a couple of somewhat lengthy, but I will read fast, the works of some of our local police officers. I will start with Police Chief Melvin Griggs in Gering, Nebraska. He said: ``I am the police chief of a city of 8,000 people. We are bordered by a town of 13,000. In 1989, the increase in the cocaine drug traffic prompted us to start a drug task force. The wealth of the people dealing allowed them to purchase property, semi-trucks and farms. They were becoming very powerful. They were also starting to challenge each other for control of the drug trade. ``One family we put away caused a drop of all criminal activity by 33 percent. Within a year, people were already starting to fill the void. But before they could reach the power base, we were always able to stop them because of the task force. ``Meth replaced cocaine. I have lived in this area for 60 years. We did not have murders, and now we have several every year. Our drug task force also helps investigate violent crime. We have seven agents highly trained. They have been able to solve most of these crimes. If we had ever been able to increase the task force, they may have been able to stop some of them. Yet the task force has remained the same. ``It has taken years to develop this team, to develop the cooperation and expertise. Taking away the funding to keep it going will defeat the progress in a matter of months. The dealers will again gain strength, and by the time our leaders realize the mistake they have made by taking these funds, many communities will have developed catastrophic results. Then the leaders will return the funds. It will take years to develop the level of response we now have, and we may never get it, as the problem may have well become beyond our reach. ``I have talked to other police chiefs, and we are not the only community facing this problem. Maybe we have not been vocal enough. We have seen this every day, it is in all of our newspapers, it is on CNN. It is hard for us to believe that anyone cannot understand this problem. It is hard for us to believe that they really plan on a significant reduction in funding. It is hard for us to believe that whoever wrote this article on task forces being ineffective has any idea what a task force does. I hope reason prevails. Reducing this funding is a serious mistake.'' Another Nebraska police chief, Stephen Sunday of David City, heads up a 12 county, 28 agency multi-jurisdictional drug task force funded with Byrne dollars. He told me, again it is a rather lengthy quote, ``Those grant dollars are the only, and I mean only way the task force was able to form as a group. In South-Central Nebraska there are nothing but small, rural law enforcement agencies that cannot afford to deal with drug investigations to the degree that we are able to do with Federal grant funding. ``Our primary goal is to investigate the individuals who are dealing drugs in our communities. The drug of choice is meth, and I am here to tell you that meth is a killer, a killer of families, of lives and of health. Health costs for dealing with meth users is terrific. Families cannot afford it. ``The drug task forces are the only effective means of going after the drug dealers. On our own, we cannot handle it. The first problem is that most of the drug dealers in rural Nebraska know all of the law enforcement officers by name and know that we are spread thin. Working with undercover investigators, our task force is able to get next to the drug dealers, but it takes money to have your own separate, dedicated drug investigators. ``By banding together with the Federal Government through Federal dollar grants we can fight the drug dealers. The task forces share intelligence information, which did not happen prior to the creation of Nebraska's drug task forces. ``The intelligence information is so important to us that if the drug task forces are shut down due to lack of Federal funding, then we will be in serious trouble. If the drug dealers find out that the government is cutting off grant funding and as a result the task forces fold up and go away, they will be holding a big party to rejoice at this news. If Federal funding is taken away, the drug task forces in the State of Nebraska will fold up shop and disappear. ``We cannot fund the task forces by ourself. If Congress wants to hear an angry outcry from rural America, take away our task force funding. See what happens. Our Federal elected officials will be eaten alive by the voters. If Congress wants to be progressive and deal with illegal drugs, give us back our funding. ``The Federal Government needs to take care of issues at home more than anywhere else. Public safety needs need to be a high priority. If the drug task force is shut down from a lack of Federal funding, the illegal drug problem in rural America will get out of control and you will pay dearly in ruined lives. Don't take away Federal funding that was coming from the Byrne grant dollars.'' As the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned in his talk a few days ago myself, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) met with the Speaker to express our frustration with any proposed cuts to Byrne grants and HIDTA funding. The Speaker was completely knowledgeable and empathetic with this and promised to help us work with it. So I really appreciate that the leadership in the House of Representatives shares the concern that the speakers did tonight during this special order, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who could not be here tonight.

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I had read from our State Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is doing a fantastic job in that position, that it is 60 percent. But I did too have a local law enforcement officer that suggested it is higher than that, at least when we add the totality. He said, first of all, there are many of the folks in our State prison that are there because they are involved with meth; that they are dealing, cooking, distributing; or that they committed a crime while high on meth or, getting up to about that 90 percent figure, they are out burglarizing, robbing, plundering to get money to buy the drug. So many of our local officers feel that it is as high as 90 percent, whether it is directly related to the distribution or cooking of meth or just that they are so hooked that they are out robbing money to get it.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman's time in playing hurt. I am sure there have been times when he was coaching that he encouraged people with sore throats to get out and take one for the team; so I appreciate that. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) raised several good points that I will take some time on. He talked about some of the rather toxic ingredients. In fact, where I live in Valley, Nebraska, at least for the next day or two before we moved, the Saturday night before last there was a meth bust just about a half mile outside of town, and it was rather interesting in driving by and seeing the number of fire trucks and Hazmat units that are there. And what people do not understand, although the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) outlined the recipe in some of the ingredients, including bleach and anhydrous pneumonia and other ingredients, it is highly toxic but it is also highly flammable, which is why it is incredible to me that during some of these meth police busts they raid these homes and there are toddlers in these homes. So it has an impact not only on our police departments but our fire departments who have to coordinate these drug busts where they find these labs. And as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) also mentioned, we can find them just about anywhere. In fact, in a very affluent area of west Omaha just a few months ago, they made a drug bust of a mobile lab literally in the trunk of a car at a department store. So there are people that will build them in any place they can. As I introduce the gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska, I want to explain to anyone who is listening here tonight when we talk about the HIDTA grant, it is an acronym for high-intensity drug trafficking area. That is the grant that comes to local police departments to train them in how to handle a situation. Obviously, as we talked about the very volatile toxic explosive nature of a meth lab, since it is the local police departments that are on the front line that will be reading that particular house, that will be making the arrest, they want to make should that they understand the totality of the circumstances they are engaging in and how to protect themselves. Also, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, it is such an intense high under meth that these folks literally do not know or understand what they are doing, and they have a high propensity for violence. But yet sometimes they look completely normal for that particular instance that a policeman could be walking by. So they have to be trained in the subtleties of what to look for to see or determine if someone is under the influence of meth and in understanding that even though that person may appear calm for that particular instant in time that that person becoming violent is just inherent to the nature of the drug. So they have to train them how to handle that violent situation with a person under the influence. Also, part of the HIDTA grant trains them how to work with other law enforcement agencies. In fact, HIDTA is set up into territories where they can literally have agencies across jurisdictions, whether it is Douglas County and Lancaster County official working together or our local police departments or even into Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. King) district, who wanted to be with us here tonight but, like our colleague from the third district, is suffering from the same ailment. So it allows them to learn how to put the task forces together and share each other's talents and resources. With that, so he can get on with his evening, let me introduce the gentleman from the First District of Nebraska in his first year here but nonetheless is jumping right into the issues that are affecting the people of Nebraska the most and the deepest. So I appreciate his instantly getting involved in the meth issue of Nebraska. Therefore, I yield to the gentleman from the First District of Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect my friends from Washington and North Carolina, and I understand the delicacy of the numbers which have been assigned to these respective programs. I stand here for the families that are affected in these, or next to these, Superfund sites, including the constituents in my district and their children, the 1,600 children estimated to have high levels of lead in their bloodstreams, creating immediate risk and health risks to them. Immediate, now. The fund, the science and technology fund, does provide a great service to America, including the $60 million worth of earmarks to a lot of our universities, as well as paying the salaries for 2,513 bureaucrats within this agency. My thought is that perhaps for this one time we can just slide a little bit of their $765 million budget to the more immediate and pressing health issues facing constituents, our constituents, and American families, and that is what I am here asking. I understand the delicacy of balancing these type of numbers in this type of bill. So I do ask that my colleagues, for the sake of these families that have immediate health risks, that we increase the number of dollars by $130 million to begin cleanup or continue at a faster pace the cleanups that have already begun in those areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the EPA's Superfund dollars by 10 percent over the amount in the underlying bill. This extra funding would help provide the cleanup of the Nation's worst hazardous waste sites. I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the $11 million Superfund increase in the committee- approved bill, but I believe more should be done. My amendment provides Superfund with an additional $130 million. This extra funding is offset from the EPA's Science and Technology Account which received $765 million in the committee-approved bill. My district is home to one of America's largest residential environmental cleanups. In early 2003, a large section of East Omaha, Nebraska was placed on the Superfund list after hundreds of children and thousands of yards tested positive for high lead levels. A nearby lead-refining plant, which operated from the early 1870s until 1997, is likely to blame for what HHS estimates to be as many as 1,600 children in eastern Omaha with harmful levels of lead there in their bodies. Let me be clear. I support the philosophy of polluter pays. While I am encouraged that more than 70 percent of all Superfund sites are cleaned up by those responsible for the pollution; in some cases, such as in my district, Omaha, Nebraska, and in about 20 other States other than Nebraska, those who did the actual polluting are either insolvent or no longer in business. More dollars in the national Superfund is the only hope for 86,000 Omaha residents, including 15,000 children who live within the Superfund designated area. Without adequate funds, this cleanup could take more than a decade. These children and these families should not wait that long. But the same is true for the other 1,243 Superfund sites across this country. Nationwide, it is estimated that 11 million people, including 3 million to 4 million children, live within a mile of a hazardous Superfund site. All these Americans need assurances that sufficient resources will be dedicated to their cleanups. Some will oppose the amendment. I expect the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, to perhaps oppose this amendment. Now, while I support the EPA's Science and Technology Account, it is not my mission to destroy this fund, but simply create or state what the priorities should be, and that should be to clean up these hazardous areas in the fastest time possible to protect those families. Make no mistake: the Superfund needs more than these additional funds. It also needs structural reform. Earlier this year, I introduced what would not only boost the Superfund by $620 million over 5 years, but would also cap the Superfund's administrative costs at the 2002 fiscal level so that more Superfund dollars could be spent for actual cleanup. This is in response to a recent report by the EPA Inspector General revealing that the Superfund administrative expenses have increased $37 million over the last 5 years, while actual Superfund cleanup expenditures have decreased by $174 million. Today, however, we must focus on the funding of this vital program. I urge my colleagues, especially my colleagues who have Superfund sites in their districts, one of the 1,243 sites, to support this amendment. It is time we dedicate the resources necessary to protect our children by cleaning up the Nation's worst and pressing environmental and health risks in a timely fashion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with me to put this into the base bill. Since 1999 natural gas prices have more than tripled to over $7. It is off the charts now. It is projected that if we do not do anything about natural gas supplies, it could reach $13, $14 by 2020. What does that mean? It means higher heating bills; 65 percent of my constituents heat their homes in Nebraska by natural gas. By the way, we have lost, Mr. Chairman, about 3 million jobs in the industrial manufacturing bases. Just for our farmers, our agricultural folks in the Midwest, farmers have seen the prices of nitrogen fertilizer increase from $175 per ton in 2000 to more than $400 this planting season, and we have lost half of our fertilizer manufacturers chasing the lower natural gas prices. Mr. Chairman, in regard to safety, the gentleman wrote into this language specifically giving the States the right to participate in this process, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee yielding some to me so we can talk about what I think is one of the most important bills that we will vote on in the 109th Congress, and that is a comprehensive energy package. As the gentlewoman from Tennessee mentioned, this bill is both forward thinking and now thinking. There are alternative technologies. There is I think an incredible statement toward renewable fuels and alternative technologies like the fuel cell, but we also have to recognize some of our issues that face us now, and what I am talking about is the price of natural gas and how it is impacting our economy and our families in America, especially agri business and small businesses. Natural gas, by the way, accounts for nearly a quarter of America's energy supply and is used by more than half of the households and businesses in America. In fact, in my district of Omaha, Nebraska, about 65 percent of the households are heated, and by the way, it gets cold, maybe not like in the gentlewoman's part of Tennessee, it gets pretty cold in Omaha during the winter, and we rely on natural gas. Unfortunately, the United States faces a natural gas challenge that threatens the profitability of almost every sector of our economy, as well as our citizens' quality of life. Nationwide natural gas prices just 5 years ago were $1.50 per thousand cubic feet. Today, as this chart shows, it is off the charts. It is over $7 and has been for the last two to three weeks. Let us look at how the United States' natural gas prices compare to the rest of the world. In Venezuela, it is about 70 cents per thousand cubic feet, 40 cents in Africa, 80 cents in Russia. The next, by the way, is Europe with $3.70, less than half of what we pay in the United States. Farm States, including Nebraska, have been hit especially hard by higher natural gas prices since natural gas is the primary material in nitrogen fertilizers, as well as the key fuel for irrigation and drying of grains. Anhydrous ammonia fertilizer has increased from about $175 per ton in 2000 to as much as $375 last planting season. About half of America's nitrogen fertilizer is now imported. Let me restate that. Nearly half of our farmers' nitrogen fertilizer is now imported, mostly due to these high costs of natural gas. This is going to have a severe impact on our economy and for our farmers. The increased cost of natural gas has played a substantial role in losing nearly 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs over the last 5 years, according to the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Whether these jobs were located in an auto plant in Ohio or a petrochemical manufacturer in Houston, many have been moved overseas, chasing the cheaper natural gas where it is more abundant and plentiful. These reasons for concern are magnified when one considers U.S. natural gas consumption is expected to increase over the next 20 years. Simultaneously, domestic natural gas production is falling about 1 percent a year. Let me show my colleagues this chart. We actually have a decent supply of natural gas, but most of it is off limits and stays off limits in this bill, especially around the coastal regions of California and Florida. We do encourage some additional domestic production of natural gas. Last year, this Congress passed a pipeline from Alaska down to Chicago, but I am telling my colleagues, looking at the politics in Alaska, this may take decades before that pipeline is run from Alaska to the continental United States to provide some price relief for our economy and for heating our homes. So we must look at these natural gas prices in a holistic way, meaning domestic production, pipeline, and we still have to realize that to meet the increased needs of natural gas within our United States, we are going to unfortunately have to import some of our natural gas. Otherwise, if we do not look at it in a holistic way, domestic, Alaskan pipeline and liquid natural gas imports, natural gas prices may increase to $13 or $14 per thousand cubic feet. Unfortunately, to import liquid natural gas, we have got about three or four facilities today. There are many applications to site liquid natural gas to an import terminal where the liquid natural gas comes in, it goes in, it is unloaded, it is turned into a gas and then put into pipelines, but we are experiencing the typical not-in-my-backyard with some extreme overexaggerations of the dangerousness of liquid natural gas. Because localities and States have played on this fear, those localities, in fact, in Maine, a locality even, though the States have issued permits, are approved permits, a locality stops an LNG terminal. This forces us to have to look at different ways. In this base bill, we in the Committee on Energy and Commerce worked on this together in committee. We recognized that what we have to do is streamline this process. If we are going to help alleviate the pressures on price, we have to give more authority for this international and national commerce to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We want the States to have a part in here. What we just do not want is for the States and localities, based on NIMBY, to have veto power. This is in the base bill. Tomorrow, we are going to have a movement by a gentleman from Massachusetts and Delaware to strip out this provision, and it is only going to hurt manufacturers, small businesses, agri business and people who heat their homes with natural gas, companies that generate electricity by natural gas. We must overcome this provision tomorrow for the overall economic and basically lifestyle of the citizens of the United States. So I want to thank the gentlewoman for reserving this time so we can help educate our colleagues and America on something as important as liquid natural gas and its implications to their budgets at home.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill. This legislation is perhaps the most important bill we will deal with in this session. The lack of a comprehensive energy plan is hurting our families and our economy. Global energy demand is soaring, America's natural resources are finite and flat, rising energy imports are driving record trade deficits as runaway energy costs drag down the U.S. economy. Unless we implement a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, Americans will pay even more to heat their homes, drive their cars to work, and feed their families and provide other essentials for our loved ones. For the Members of this Chamber, this bill is our opportunity to ensure a better future. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with other committees of jurisdiction, have produced an energy bill that recognizes today's needs while preparing for the future. To meet today's energy needs, this legislation does several things. It expands the Nation's natural gas supply, primarily by clarifying the Federal Government's role in LNG facilities. It increases our supplies of gasoline and diesel by adding new refineries, limiting the number of specialty blends, and establishing a 5-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard. This energy bill adds diversity to our energy portfolio by encouraging more nuclear power, clean coal, and renewable energies. It doubles our efforts in energy conservation and efficiency, it reduces America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and improves our Nation's electrical transmissions. But this energy bill looks beyond the horizon as well. By boosting the use of hydrogen fuel cells, microturbines, and other forms of new energy technologies, we can begin preparing to meet the energy demands of tomorrow. I was proud to work with my colleague from across the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) to double the authorized funding for this year's hydrogen title. It is just one of many forward-thinking provisions in this legislation. The energy sector represents a $650 billion piece of the American economy. It is the engine that powers other sectors of the U.S. economy, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, in pertinent part, section 202 of S. 256, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005,'' amends section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code by making the discharge injunction inapplicable to certain acts by a creditor having a claim secured by a lien on real property that is the debtor's principal residence, so long as the creditor satisfies certain criteria. First, the creditor's act must be in the ordinary course of business between the creditor and debtor. Second, such act is limited to seeking periodic payments associated with a valid security interest in lieu of pursuit of in rem relief to enforce the lien. Section 202 was included because Congress recognized that there are many consumer debtors who, despite filing bankruptcy, desire to repay secured obligations in order to retain their principal residences. Under current law, however, some secured creditors stop sending monthly billing statements or payment coupons for fear of violating the discharge injunction. Section 202 is intended to reassure these secured creditors that if consumer debtors want to continue making voluntary payments so they can keep their principal residences, then secured creditors may take appropriate steps to facilitate such payment arrangements, such as continuing to send monthly billing statements or payment coupons. Moreover, despite the express reference in this provision to liens on real property, section 202 should not, by negative inference or implication, be construed as limiting any rights that may have developed through existing case law, or otherwise, that permit secured creditors to send, or consumer debtors to request and receive, monthly billing statements or payment coupons for claims secured by real or personal property. See, e.g., Ramirez v. GMAC (In re Ramirez), 280 B.R. 253 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Henry v. Associates Home Equity Services, Inc (In re Henry), 266 B.R. 457 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002).

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I have the distinct honor to recognize Pastor Curt Dodd, our guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today, and I also want to thank him for his thoughtful and inspiring prayer. Dr. Dodd began his ministry as an intern at the First Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, in 1973. He was called to serve as associate pastor and then senior pastor at several Texas churches before shepherding the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Houston. Under Dr. Dodd's pastoral leadership, ``the Met'' received recognition as one of the fastest growing churches in Texas and the Southern Baptist Convention. From 1995 to 1999, Dr. Dodd was called by God to leave his successful ministry at the church to start a church in Pueblo, Colorado, one of that State's most under-reached areas. With his trademark enthusiasm and commitment to the Lord, he initiated several other church plants, including Fellowship of the Rockies in Colorado Springs. He then went to Florida to Merit Island, and now serves as the senior pastor of Westside Church in Omaha, Nebraska, where my family and I attend. Dr. Dodd is also an accomplished author of three books: Add One to Grow On; Hearts on Fire--the Keys to Dynamic Church Growth; and Running on Empty in the Fast Lane. With a heart for the local church and kingdom expansion, he has served on various national and international denominational boards, but his greatest accomplishments are seen in the eyes of the men and women who have heard and accepted the message he brings, that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour who died for our sins. Madam Speaker, I know that I speak for my colleagues when I say we are proud and honored to have Dr. Dodd with us today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, rollcall 52. Because it was announced earlier that this vote would be conducted as a voice vote, I immediately left the House floor following the vote on the motion to recommit, so that I could make a flight to my District. Later in the day, I learned Ms. Millender-McDonald demanded a recorded vote on the question of passage of the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the final passage of H.R. 841.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama for offering it. It is an honor for me to be part of this recognition of the Tuskegee Airmen, members of the Greatest Generation who fought fascism abroad and overcame discrimination at home to become one of our Nation's most successful military units. Their story deserves to be told often, not just in February, to remind all Americans how far we have come to honor the many sacrifices made along the way. I have the privilege of representing four Tuskegee Airmen who reside in Nebraska's Second Congressional District: Robert Holts, Ralph Orduna, and Charles Lane, all of Omaha and just south of Omaha in Bellevue, Harry Tull. Another Airman, Paul Adams, lives in nearby Lincoln. I am especially proud to note that Colonel Lane of Omaha was the youngest black fighter in World War II. His daughter, Karen Davis, is a longtime member of my congressional staff and she does a wonderful job; and Colonel Lane can be as proud of her, as we are of him. I also want to mention Omaha native Alphonza Davis, a graduate of Omaha Tech High School and Omaha University, who finished first in his class at Tuskegee and was chosen squadron leader. He was killed in combat in 1944 while over Germany. Today, the local Tuskegee Airmen chapter is named in his honor. The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is unfortunately rooted in the racial segregation that still existed in our country during World War II. As a result, African Americans who wanted to fly in the military were trained at a separate location near Tuskegee, Alabama. The Tuskegee Airmen, or Red Tails as they were called because of the crimson tails on their aircraft, were the first squadron of African American combat pilots in the U.S. military. By the end of the war, nearly 1,000 men had graduated from pilot training at Tuskegee. Under the command of Colonel Benjamin Davis, Jr., these warriors fought over North Africa, Sicily and Europe. By the way, Colonel Davis would go on to be the Air Force's first African American general. How good were these Tuskegee Airmen? In a book entitled ``Mustang Aces of the 9th and 15th Air Forces,'' one pilot bomber recalled that the Tuskegee pilots had earned great respect from the bomber pilots they protected. Here is a direct quote: ``The Red Tails were always out there when we wanted them to be,'' he said. ``We had no idea they were black; it was the Army's best kept secret.'' Today, the Tuskegee Airmen and their record of success is no secret. Throughout the war, not a single bomber protected by the Red Tails was ever shot down by enemy aircraft. By the war's end, the Tuskegee Airmen had flown over 15,000 sorties, completed over 1,500 missions, destroyed more than 260 enemy aircraft, and more than 1,000 enemy vehicles on the ground; and been awarded 744 Air Medals, 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 14 Bronze Stars, and 8 Purple Hearts. Of the estimated 450 who saw combat, 150 lost their lives while on combat flights or in training, including Colonel Lane's childhood friend, John Squires. I join my House colleagues in saluting the Tuskegee Airmen 60 years after they first donned the Nation's uniform. They have secured their place in history as American heroes. We are proud of them all. We thank them for their service to this great country. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his work and for this worthy tribute.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of gratitude and profound sense of sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the life of a brave young man who grew up in my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, Marine Corporal Shane Kielion who died Monday in combat in Iraq, in Fallujah. On the same day, he became a father. With his entire life in front of him, Shane chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts in a land halfway around the world. This was his second tour of duty. My heart goes out to his wife April and his brand-new son Shane and his parents, Roger and Patricia. As a father myself, I cannot imagine being unable to see my sons grow up, and it breaks my heart that Shane will not have the same experience. But I know that Shane will be watching over his young son, and I hope the boy will grow up knowing that his father loved him and his mother very much. Shane was known as a dedicated person to his wife and he would be to his son and to his country, and all Nebraskans will remember him as a true American. We can take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a better place. My thoughts and prayers go out to Shane's family and friends during this difficult time. May God grant them strength, peace, and comfort.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the House's attention to the Direct Support Professionals Fairness and Security Act of 2004. This act was introduced today by myself and Representative Lois Capps. The Act provides temporary assistance to states who choose to participate to achieve pay parity between private and public direct support professionals who are essential components of our nation's formal long-term support system for individuals with disabilities. There are more than 54 million Americans with disabilities, 8 million of whom have mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Nearly fourteen million require long-term supports and services. These supports include assistance to meet the individual's personal care and hygiene, habilitation, transportation, employment, meal preparation, housekeeping, and other home management needs--supports many of us often take for granted. The workers who provide services to the individuals with disabilities are known by many job titles--but one thing in common is shared by all of them. They are the hands, voice and face of long-term supports and the human relationship established between the individual and the worker is at the core of our nation's formal long-term supports system. Many are women and the sole income earners for their families. Although providing an essential service to humanity, many of them remain impoverished due to low wages that have not kept pace with those of other industries. Turnover rates for these dedicated workers range between 40 and 100 percent. This has caused a retention and recruitment crisis that threatens our ability to provide adequate supports to people with disabilities of all ages. Further, with such rampant turnover, many of the individuals with disabilities must face new, unfamiliar faces for their daily assistance and lose the support of those upon whom they have come to rely. The Direct Support Professionals Fairness and Security Act of 2004 provides up to five years of temporary assistance in the form of increased Medicaid dollars to states who choose to participate. Participating states will direct these desperately needed funds directly to increase the wages of private direct support professionals providing essential daily supports to individuals with disabilities. States will have the incentive they need to create parity between public and nonprofit workers providing the same essential services. I ask my House colleagues to join me in support of the Direct Support Professionals Fairness and Security Act of 2004.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for introducing this. He represents the North Platte area. This is such a magnificent piece of our Nebraska history, and it really represents the comradery and spirit of America here. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) had mentioned that even in a town of 12,000 that over the period of the months of this canteen, there were literally tens of thousands of volunteers that came to help the servicemen and provide them services at this canteen in North Platte. And this canteen needed all of the support that it could get. And word spread, literally spread, around the community and all of Nebraska; 125 communities came together to join in this effort. And due to fuel rationing, volunteers often carpooled from nearby communities to North Platte. Cities throughout Nebraska gave, through donations, time, money, supplies, food, meat. And it is really an incredible example of what it means to be an American at that time. The entire community gathered together to support and comfort these troops. Men, women, children all gave their time, money, efforts. Though it may not have been well known throughout the rest of the world, the memory of the North Platte Canteen still glows in the hearts of many Nebraskans. In fact, my own press secretary's mother talks proudly of peeling potatoes as a young child to help her older sisters at the canteen. Lorene Huebner, of Hershey, Nebraska, just a teenager during this time, still remembers the piano in the canteen, and how it was always being played by either a volunteer or one of the troops and how packed the canteen would get with people talking, having coffee and laughing. She still feels that the whole U.S. was opened up to her through the troops from all across the country that she met in this canteen. From December 25, 1941, through April 1, 1946, a total of 54 months, over 6 million troops were served at the North Platte Canteen. The outreach of communities to support each other remains an enduring mark of compassion and patriotism. That spirit is with us today in a different form, yes, but no less potent. It is with great honor that I cosponsored this with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and really look forward to the vote on this.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I join with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), in a bittersweet evening for us. The dean of our delegation, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who has served this House faithfully now into his 26th year, as we are here tonight, these are his last votes as a Member of this august body, and I ask all of my colleagues here tonight to join me in bidding our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) farewell and Godspeed.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the leadership for bringing it to the House floor. H.R. 3313 prohibits any federal court, including the Supreme Court, from hearing challenges to a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which will preserve the rights of states to not recognize same-sex unions permitted in other states. I support this limitation of federal court jurisdiction in this area. I would like to point out, however, that H.R. 3313 does not address the current situation in Nebraska. In 2000, seventy percent (70 percent) of Nebraska voters approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as ``one man, one woman''--and barring civil unions or domestic partnerships. The ACLU is currently challenging this amendment in federal district court. In a preliminary ruling, the federal district judge (Judge Bataillon) indicated sympathy with the ACLU's claim. As I understand it, H.R. 3313 would not prevent federal courts from striking down state provisions, such as the one approved by Nebraska voters. For that reason, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be required to further protect state statutes and constitutional amendments from challenge in the federal courts. While I will vote for this legislation, it is becoming increasingly clear to me and many of my colleagues that further action may be required by the Congress to protect and defend traditional marriage in America. Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong objections to H.R. 3313, the so called Marriage Protection Act. This Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, from hearing cases on the constitutionality of provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, including those relating to same-sex marriage licenses. This bill is phony, and it is a sham. The title of the bill itself is false advertising. While claiming to ``protect'' marriage, all the bill does is strip federal courts of jurisdiction so that they cannot even consider whether laws on same-sex marriages are consistent with our United States Constitution. For over 200 years, our Constitution has defined our nation and protected our rights. It is a document of empowerment, not limitation. But the Republican leadership wants to put a fence around it and padlock the gate, and they are doing it for purely political purposes. The United States Congress should not be in the business of stripping federal courts of their ability to hear particular cases. Such actions, if imposed in the 1960's, could have been used to prevent federal courts from hearing voting rights cases. To limit the power of the courts like this for purely partisan purposes sets a dangerous precedent and is simply intolerable. It would undermine the independence of the judicial branch and run contrary to the vision set forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect those bonds. It seems to me that if a threat exists to marriage, it is that too many of them fail. For every two marriages that occurred in the 1990s, one ended in divorce. The stresses on marriages today are great, but they don't have to do with the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This bill does nothing to deal with problems like affordable housing, quality education and training, daycare for young children, high costs of gasoline, electricity and food, high unemployment rates and underemployment, and the lack of health care coverage and other benefits that place severe strains on many families. Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing. Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition, several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment. It is simply unfair to deny law-abiding American citizens the protections of civil law with respect to taxation, inheritance, hospital visits and the like, and it is wrong to shackle the federal courts by preventing them from even considering court cases pertaining to these matters. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago a visionary named Robert B. Daugherty introduced the world to an extraordinary product, one that would fundamentally change how the world grows its food. Mr. Daugherty went on to found Valmont Industries, maker of the center irrigation pivot. This technology has revolutionized agricultural productivity while helping to protect our vital water resources. Today, Valmont is the world's leader in mechanized irrigation. I am proud that this company and its primary manufacturing facilities are located in Valley, Nebraska, within the Second Congressional District. But Valmont's contributions to agriculture go far beyond Nebraska's borders. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mogens Bay, the chairman and CEO for Valmont; as well as Terry McClain, senior vice president; and CFO, Bob Meaney, senior vice president; and Tom Spears, president of the irrigation division, for their dedication and leadership of a global corporate company. And, of course, I offer my best wishes and heartiest congratulations to the man who started it all, Bob Daugherty.