Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 459 to firmly denounce yesterday's outrageous court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance ``is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.'' The Pledge of Allegiance is an American tradition that instills patriotism, gratitude, and respect in our children. Many of us grew up pledging allegiance to the flag each morning in our school rooms--an honor I want my children to experience. Many of us also have family and friends who fought in foreign wars under the red, white, and blue of Old Glory. The Pledge of Allegiance affirms the strength, unity, sacrifice, and a commitment symbolized by the flag under which they fought and bled. The late Red Skelton ended his now-famous patriotic commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance by saying ``since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?'' If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling would make this fear a reality. Generations of school children would be denied their right as Americans to publicly express gratitude to those who aided to secure the blessings of freedom. We were all inspired by the firemen who risked their lives to stand atop the smoking, 70-story debris of the World Trade Towers to unfurl the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its honor. In the face of such selfless bravery, it is more evident than ever that we are indeed a nation ``under God.'' The First Amendment to the United States Constitution affirms that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' Our nation's founding fathers sought to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, as the two Ninth Circuit Federal judges have erroneously and dangerously concluded. I agree with the dissenting Judge Fernandez, who wrote that ``such phrases as `in God we trust,' or `under God,' have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion,'' except in the eyes of those who ``most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 459 to ensure that generations of children can pledge allegiance to our flag and understand the sacrifices, values, and patriotism that have made our country great.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat substitute and in strong support of the underlying bill. Last May 26th, I voted with 239 of my colleagues to scrap the marriage penalty once and for all. We didn't vote to phase it out over 10 years and then bring it back; we voted to get rid of it. Why? Because, above all, our tax code must be fair. Is it fair to tax marriage? Is it fair for me to tell my communications director that when he gets married next weekend, aside from paying for the invitations, caterer, photographer, music, and reception hall, he's going to have to pay an additional $1400 in taxes if we do not make this tax cut permanent? What kind of message are we sending to the American people when we can afford pork barrel projects like tattoo removal programs, but are not willing to invest in marriage? Well, how's this for bringing home pork: if we strike down this substitute and vote for the underlying bill, $81.2 million will return home to the 58,000 couples in the Second District of Nebraska. That way, they can spend their money the way they want. I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle that tax cuts cost money. Who does it cost? It certainly costs 175,000 couples in my state of Nebraska, who every year pay the marriage penalty. But it doesn't cost the Federal Government anything, because for something to cost you money, you actually have to have it first. What the Democrat substitute is really saying is, ``Without the marriage penalty, tax and spenders in Washington will have less money to spend.'' If we do not continue to work to make provisions of President Bush's tax cut permanent--like we did last week with the death tax, like we're doing now with the marriage penalty, like we'll do next week with retirement benefits--the American taxpayers will experience the single greatest tax increase in U.S. history: more than $380 billion from 2011 to 2012. How can Democrats possibly justify that? Mr. Speaker, this tax is unfair, unnecessary, and irresponsible. It defies American morals, it defies logic, and it flies in the face of family values. It is everything that is wrong with government. Vote against this substitute and make a pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro- common sense vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. She could be a Rebel and go to the University of Nebraska.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I claimed this time tonight because I wanted to talk to America about an important bill that we have on the floor tomorrow. It is H.R. 4019. It is called the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act. I am proud that the 107th Congress on 22 occasions over the last year-and-a-half has passed 22 tax reduction measures. I am not going to come before my colleagues tonight and say that all taxes are bad or not necessary, but I will come before my colleagues and say what I strongly disapprove of, and one of the reasons why I ran to be in this House and fight for American families is to free them from the burden of excessive taxes. Also, though, because American families today are spending about 22 percent of their income, more than that, it is the greatest percentage of income going to Federal taxes since World War II. Our taxes have become excessive and burdensome, and because of that, we are forcing more and more married couples, more and more people into the workforce, to make ends meet, because those same families are paying more for taxes than they are for their housing and their food, the daily necessities of life, and I think that is wrong. In that totality of taxes that I think are excessive and that we need to lighten the burden and trust people with their own money, sometimes there are individual type of taxes that are just plain wrong; just plain wrong. Last week, we voted to permanently repeal the death tax. I thought that one individually was wrong. I am thankful that tomorrow that this body has the opportunity to give working families, mothers and fathers, permanent tax relief on the marriage penalty. What is the marriage penalty? First of all, I am going to in a second introduce the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) from the Committee on Ways and Means, because he has dedicated his congressional life to this issue. As we near Father's Day, I will call him the father of marriage penalty relief, because he has been a pit bull and obsessive, thankfully on this issue, but what happens is in American families, as I mentioned earlier, we take so much of their tax monies, tax money away from them, and it forces them to make decisions like perhaps working longer hours or both parents working, when that may not be their choice. Because they both work in our tax structure, they, because they are married, will pay more in taxes than if they were single. It is the marriage penalty. What is worse is it hits those families that earn from $20,000 to $70,000. It is not the wealthiest, who pay their share; but it hits the hard-working families where each earn between $20,000 and $70,000 the hardest. That is just fundamentally unfair. That is morally wrong, to tax marriage. The fact that they just walked down the aisle and said ``I do,'' and now have to pay more in taxes is just fundamentally wrong. It hits the middle-class families the hardest. That is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). Earlier I mentioned that the gentleman has exercised dogged determination in his career to right this wrong.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by three of our good colleagues that have fought hard and feel strongly on this issue. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the 62,397 married couples who have been hit by the marriage penalty in the gentleman from Georgia's district I am sure thank him for his leadership on this issue. I want to bring into our discussion here the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) who, because of his leadership and vote tomorrow, the 52,429 married couples in his district will be trusted with more of their money. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) telling me that it is not a cost that we are going to hear about, how it is costing the government to give these families this relief?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that great oratory. We talk about this quirky Senate rule. We are going to hear a lot about it. Because when we had the death tax repeal discussion last week, we kept hearing from some of the leadership on the other side about how it was the Republican bill, that we were somehow deceiving the public, and now we are trying to come back. I heard a lot of strange and weird stories last week. I am sure we are going to hear those same stories again. The reality is we did the right thing for the American public by taking one step forward. But it was not the giant step that was absolutely necessary, and we are trying to correct it tomorrow. The Senate rule requires, if I kind of understand it right, is that in the Senate you cannot reduce revenues outside of the scope of the budget, which is a 10-year budget in essence. So that is why it is a 10-year plan. I think it is ironic that just today on the House floor we had a vote to require that this body, both Houses, a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. I just think it is ironic that the practical effect of the Senate rule is it takes a supermajority to lower taxes, but a simple majority to raise taxes.

Mr. TERRY. We are going through the same thing with our 7-year-old.

Mr. TERRY. I can find that again here. In the First District of Georgia, and this is 2000 census data, 62,397 couples in the gentleman's district.

Mr. TERRY. On average that they pay.

Mr. TERRY. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has provided great leadership. The citizens of Minnesota should be pleased with his leadership on this issue. Probably the 59,000 affected couples in his district should thank him. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating and using his time when he could be watching the Braves. Tune in to the college world series this weekend, though.

Mr. TERRY. Well, it is because of the opportunity that we have here in the House of Representatives, why I wanted to be here was to help families like them and the 58,000 like them in the Second Congressional District in Nebraska. Just think of the opportunities that those two children would have if they put the nearly $600 for each child in an educational savings account for college, what a wonderful opportunity that this body will give those families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) the last word, if he would close the discussion tonight.

Mr. TERRY. That is the point. The gentleman is correct. That is the point of this, is that we are trusting people with their own money, to make their own decisions about what is best for them and their family. Now, we in Congress, I hear this all the time, ``what have you brought back for the district?'' This is something we get as representatives asked by some of our business leaders or constituents, and sometimes you brag about a bridge or helping with the bridge. But there is no better appropriation, there is no better gift that we can give our constituents, than their own money, letting them keep their own hard-earned dollars. Let us go back to one of the things we talked about at the beginning here. This marriage penalty hits hardest the lower and middle income families, those that earn on an average, a single income, combined, $20,000 to $70,000. That is who is paying the burden and brunt of the marriage penalty. These are hard-working Americans that we are talking about. You are taking a vote so they can keep $82 million of their own money. I just cannot imagine what that would do for your economy. I just jotted down a few notes of what it would do for an average Nebraska family. Remember, these are couples who are both working. Sometimes when we talk in an esoteric or academic way about the marriage tax penalty, we leave out that both parents are working. Both parents are working. So, how about some good quality time? With both parents working, maybe both parents should take a vacation and take those two lovely children to Disneyland. That $1,400, they can have a 4-day vacation at Disneyland or Disneyworld. They can buy for their school children a new computer with a scanner, printer, software. They can get a pretty good piece of equipment for $1,400. Talking about just keeping your family budget intact, in Nebraska that is probably 6 to 8 months of utility bills for the family. That is anywhere from 4 to 6 months, depending on the type of insurance contract they would have, to pay their health insurance costs. Or, as all of us have said, just maybe invest or save in your children's future. Or use another provision of the tax bill that we passed last year that we need to make permanent, and that is educational savings accounts. They can invest that money in their children's future. These are all things that we trust their families to make their own decisions on. By the way, the money that these families save by us not taking their money, married families will return to paying in 10 years, paying the Federal Government more than $100 a month just to be married. That is $3.88 every day just because you said ``I do.'' Every hour you will owe 16 cents just because you have a spouse. If your marriage lasts 50 years, and, by the way, I just wrote a letter to a nice couple on their 50th anniversary, the love of your life will have cost you $70,000 in extra taxes. $70,000 extra. So tomorrow we have the opportunity to make this permanent.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, according to the 2000 census, in the gentleman's district it is 59,536 couples that are affected by our current Tax Code. In my district of Omaha, Nebraska, it is 58,000 couples that have to pay more in taxes. When your great couple from your district, Jose and Magdalene Castillo, got married and said ``I do,'' I do not think it was to more taxes just because they went down the aisle together and did what we hoped that they would do and formed this bond, formed this family. Mr. Speaker, we should not have a tax policy that is antifamily, antimarriage. We have heard stories on news programs throughout the years, older couples in particular, younger couples that refused to married, older couples that would get divorced because of the tax that they have to pay. If we are going to be a country that embraces family, embraces marriage, then we have to have a tax policy that walks the walk. I thank the gentleman for all the work he has done. It has been mentioned that we passed marriage penalty relief in my two terms here. Just thankfully we have a President this time that agreed with it the last time around. Even in the first few months of the 107th Congress when this was a solo vote and the Senate had not taken it up yet, 282 Members, very bipartisan vote. It dropped a little bit when we had the Bush tax plan. We lost about 40 Members. In the Senate they could only get to 58. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned this quirky rule that they have where it takes a supermajority of 60 votes to make reduction of revenue, i.e., a tax cut, they need 60 votes to make it permanent over there. We did the right thing and we negotiated a 10- year plan, a phase out of 10 years of a lot of these taxes. The marriage penalty is phased in much quicker to give these families relief. Now we want to make sure we are doing the right thing for these families, these 45 million Americans, that it is made permanent, because in essence what we are going to say to these couples in the year 2011 is that you are going to have your taxes increased. You are going to raise taxes on over 3.9 million African American families out of that. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) have any statistics, and my impression from some of what I have read, some of this tax actually hits minorities harder, and so I am just pleased that hard-working families will get some relief, and they deserve to have it made permanent.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, our good friend from Arizona here, he has been a great leader, like the gentleman from Florida has, on this important issue. It is important to a lot of people in Nebraska now. Before I talk about some of the stories that I have heard as I have gone around and talked to businesses in Omaha, small businesses, family-owned businesses, and share our similar experiences, the gentleman from Arizona mentioned that in the totality of our budget, the revenue that is received from the death tax is less than 1 percent, but yet there are a lot of our colleagues here that just fight to keep that money in. I think it exemplifies why all three of us ran for this office and why we fight to come back every year, is to stop that type of mentality, which is ``we need more money, more money, more money.'' So when we try and reduce spending here by reducing taxation, because it is the only principle here, that budgets fill the money that we have, that if we tax more, we will spend more, but if we tax less, we will spend less, it is a simple proposition. So of the greater taxing policies of the Nation, I think it is important that we realize the simple premise that the more money we take in from people, the more we are going to spend. So I appreciate the gentleman bringing up that important point. Now, why? We have all said in our own words why it is bad policy. Why is the death tax bad policy? Well, think about the very principles that this country was founded on, the principles of independence and freedom and entrepreneurship, where people worked hard to build their little businesses, and some worked day and night, day and night, seven days a week, and they were able to build it up and build it up, and maybe even the next generation of family members were able to help build it up as well. I mean, that is the American spirit, is working hard and realizing, you realizing, the rewards of your work. So, what is the policy? The U.S. Government comes, and many States, by the way, have followed suit, and said, you know, because of our spending habits and our need for more revenues, upon the death and the transfer we are going to confiscate, and I use that word, confiscate a portion of what you have worked hard to build up in your lifetime. I would say to the gentlemen, I believe that people should keep the rewards. Yes, we have to pay our taxes, but, my gosh, just taking up to 55 percent of somebody's wealth that they have built up through hard work, through the American dream, and just taking it for our spending needs, is absolutely wrong.

Mr. TERRY. Well, I will let the gentleman have the last word, and thank him for bringing this to the floor. One of the other points, though, I want to make with that is the cost of the machinery. When we talk about our farms and ranches, we have a plant that manufactures farm equipment. The price of some of that equipment coming out is several hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. TERRY. $200,000 to $300,000, and even more if you go to some of the other equipment. A small family-owned printing company that I toured last summer when I was home, one printer runs hundreds of thousands of dollars, half a million dollars for a printer. So when you talk about what level do you set this, if you do not eliminate it, and picking the winners and losers, you fail to recognize that they are eking out a small living with very expensive equipment, but yet we tax on the value of that equipment, not the living that a father and mother and maybe a son and a daughter can make off of that. That is why it remains fundamentally unfair.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I have just become so focused. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) said, the morality of just confiscating one's work product for the sake of having revenues, we leave out the economic component of in essence taking away a business. We hear speakers, and we are going to hear them tomorrow when the bill comes up, that say that this is not real; that people do not really have to sell their businesses to meet the death tax; that it is a phony argument. Well, I want to read an article from the Omaha World-Herald from December 11, 2001. So it is not like we have to go back to the archives of years past to come up with an article that is relevant to our discussion today. But it is about a ranch in western Nebraska, of which kind of the theme of it was Ted Turner buying another ranch in Nebraska. Let me just read some highlights from this article in the Omaha World-Herald, and I will give them their copyright credits here. It is talking about media mogul Ted Turner added another 12,300 acres of Cherry County grazing land to his bison ranching empire. The purchase was to be finalized on Monday. It gives Turner about 234,000 acres in three counties in Nebraska, making him the largest private landowner in Nebraska, as he is in the United States, owning about 1.75 million acres in New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. The Coble family, I am going to get to and read this verbatim from the Omaha World-Herald article, Bill Coble of Leewood, Kansas, a grandson of the Cobles, said that the death in August of Doris Coble precipitated the sale. It was necessary to pay off the inheritance taxes, Bill Coble said. The only way you can make it work is with an added amount of life insurance and to work the ranch yourself, Coble said. The purchase ends a 100-year Sand Hills operation of the Coble family. A 100-year tradition of the Coble family gone, because when the operator, Doris Coble, the last of the parents, died, the grandson could not take over the property. He had to sell it to pay off the inheritance taxes. This is a family that did not purchase the millions of dollars of life insurance policy to protect itself. My family buys life insurance to protect our family. Here you buy life insurance to pay your taxes. That is wrong.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of extending a warm welcome to Father Val J. Peter, our guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today. I also want to thank him for his thoughtful and inspiring prayer. Father Peter is a native Nebraskan, a Diocesan priest within the Archdiocese of Omaha, and the executive director for Girls and Boys Town USA. He is also one of the foremost advocates for youth in the world and a true friend, effective educator, and caring, surrogate father to thousands of troubled youth and teenagers. Father Peter oversees Boys Town programs stretching from coast to coast. Last year alone, Father Peter and the Boys Town staff helped brighten the future for more than 37,000 troubled, neglected, and abused children. Father Peter has earned the gratitude of thousands of children and families with his unconditional love, boundless optimism, and unwavering devotion to God. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that we are pleased and honored to have Father Val Peter here with us today.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am an enthusiastic supporter and original cosponsor. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I joined the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet is trying to find a safe harbor, a constitutional way of protecting our children on the Internet; and I was proud that two of my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), were already lapping me in there and allowed me to join them in that process, and I thank them for that because it is important that we establish a safe haven, a secure area for our children on the Internet. We have heard of a story of an 11-year-old boy looking for computer games, typed in fun.com and unknowingly brought up a pornographic Web site. Two elections ago, my opponent was Michael Scott and any junior high physics class that typed in MichaelScott.com got a porn site. My 7-year-old, yes, 7-year-old, loves to get on the Internet, especially this weekend after we saw ``Spiderman.'' I stand over him. I type it in first because I fear that typing in something as simple as ``Spiderman'' or ``fun'' or a political name may bring up a pornographic Web site. Nearly 24 million youths today use the Internet. By the year 2005, it is expected that 77 million youth will regularly log on. This bill will help preserve our children's innocence and prevent these types of sexual encounters and predators and pornography online. It will create a child-friendly zone within the United States. All contents of this zone will be appropriate for children 12 and under. An independent firm will methodically monitor and immediately remove any content which is harmful to minors. No access to chat rooms, and this is an important fact, because it is not that we were just putting all the children in one safe, what we believe is a safe, area, so all the predators know where they are. We bar that. That is an important part of this bill, that there will not be any interactive component here where a predator can break in. This is so our children can have a safe haven. Sexual predators, not only is it the pornographic Web sites that we are trying to keep away from our children, but it is the predators. In my closing remarks here, I want to point out to my colleagues that the Crimes Against Children Research Center reported that one in five teenagers who regularly use the Internet have received an unwanted sexual solicitation, and one out of 33 youths have received what is classified as an aggressive sexual solicitation where they are directly trying to solicit a sexual meeting with a teenager. That is what we are trying to prevent with this legislation; and I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and our chairman.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today at this point is our children; and it is about teaching our children, our boys and girls, it is not men and women, but boys and girls, about abstinence. For many years this Congress only put dollars aside to teach safe sex, teaching our teenagers the proper way of putting on a condom. Fortunately, 6 years ago this Congress took control and said we will give the option to States and entities to have abstinence-only programs, and we will begin to fund those. It is not a mandate; it is an option for these organizations. It gives them the opportunity. Since we have implemented this policy, teenage pregnancy has dropped, teenage sexually transmitted diseases have dropped. That is fantastic, yet anecdotal, evidence. Frankly, we have all talked to teenagers in our districts, and we have heard that they want a positive message and they want our support in abstaining from sex until married. President Bush said, ``When our children face a choice between self-restraint and self-destruction, government should not be neutral. Government should not sell children short by assuming they are incapable of acting responsibly. We must promote good choices.''

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. So a positive message goes across the board in their life.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, according to our Nebraska Health and Human Services, since the program was implemented in 1996, we in Nebraska have brought this program to 15,000 students. It takes time to get a program like this up and running, the curriculum set, the standard set so they can move forward. 15,000 students is only in the last couple of years. But to exemplify the message that the gentleman just gave, let me read a letter from Girls and Boys Town. It used to be Boys Town, but they changed name to Girls and Boys Town. In this letter it says, ``Risk reduction sexuality education has been funded for many years. We are asking only for an equal opportunity to promote risk elimination. Changing the definition of abstinence to include birth control information and promotion will make it nearly impossible to tell which approach is the most effective in keeping our youth safe from disease and out-of-wedlock programs.'' The counselors and the people that have developed the program at Girls and Boys Town are national leaders in this, and that is what they say: It confuses the message. They simply want the opportunity, when we have had years of funding sex education and reduction, let us go to prevention and teach that message. One more quote, if the gentleman will allow me to close with this, and I thank the gentleman for having this conversation with me. This is from Lancaster County, that is Lincoln, Nebraska, and those in Michigan know where Lincoln, Nebraska is, the home of the University of Nebraska. In the city of Norfolk, they have probably the most established abstinence programs in Nebraska. Mike Huckabee, one of the counselors that helped develop this one in Lincoln, wrote to us, and forgive me for being a little wordy, but he has a paragraph that I think nails it for us. ``Is abstinence effective? I firmly believe it is. Can I provide you with the evidence? The faces of those young people and parents tell me this is the message they are seeking to hear. They tell me they do not want the risk of STDs and pregnancies, that sex is not worth that. They tell me they can wait, they just need someone to support them in that decision. The evidence is around the corner, but for now I can only point you to the families who continue to tell us in droves to keep sending the message of abstinence until marriage, nothing else works. Abstinence works.'' Let me go back to one sentence in my conclusion here. They just need someone to support them in that decision. Our teenagers, as the gentleman pointed out, are looking for their parents and the adults in society to support them in their decision for abstinence, and it is incumbent upon us in this Congress to support our teenagers when they decide to abstain from sex.