Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was frustrated with the attempts for amendments in our committee by that small minority, and I am pleased that it has been pointed out this is a bipartisan effort. The vast majority agree that the abstinence message is the correct one for our teenagers. It is disheartening that there is a small minority out there. Throwing away scientific studies, how do we look a teenager in the eye and say this is the proper way to put on a condom, and send them a message of abstinence at the same time? To a 16-year-old, that is tacit to approval, when an adult says the best thing is to abstain, but we know that you are not going to, so I am going to teach you to have safe sex using condoms correctly. Now the testimony that the gentleman received in the Subcommittee on Health, and I truly believe to be plain common sense, that is tacit to approval. While safe sex education may be a proper place for parents and even in some discussions in more formal settings outside of the house, the fact of the matter is I do not know how we teach abstinence and safe sex at the same time. That is one of the issues that we are going to face when this bill is brought to the House floor. We are going to have to beat back several amendments to try and change an abstinence program into a safe sex program. As I understand the way it works in Nebraska, and perhaps the gentleman can expand on how it works in Michigan, an entity, we have all the way from the Girls and Boys Town U.S.A., to Norfolk and Omaha public schools, to scouting that will adopt an abstinence-only program and teach that. Then they apply for reimbursement from the Federal Government out of that $50 million that we will allot with the reauthorization of this program. So it is not that we mandate on the public schools or other entities that this is the only thing that they can do. We say this is the most effective message or at least that is what I say is the most effective measure how to teach our children how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy, but we are not mandating. We are saying we will help you with the cost of this. I am proud in Nebraska we have several successful abstinence programs in place today.

Mr. TERRY. That is right. The Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a study on the effectiveness of condoms, which are the focus of most of the safe sex programs out there. It is 1,251 women whose partners consistently used condoms participated in the study. By its end, 34 percent of them had either contracted a sexually transmitted disease or became pregnant. How do we teach our children safe sex, how to use contraceptives, how to use a condom, and look them straight in the eye and say they are safe?

Mr. TERRY. Not only on the sure ways that it affects teenagers' lives, but just think of the message that Congress sends, the message we would send the American public and the teenagers, which is that we do not care whether they abstain. Our only message is to teach them how to put a condom on right. That is a terrible message to send to our teenagers today that are looking, as the gentleman said earlier, for the right message. Now, in this chart, and the gentleman and I have just talked about the importance of teaching a message to our teenagers to abstain from sex to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and, in essence, putting themselves into a position of perhaps perpetual poverty, but it is also health reasons, as we discussed in great detail in our committee last week. It is sexually-transmitted diseases. As we have learned from the testimony, and the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health was up here and gave some great testimony from his witnesses that testified before his subcommittee, but the testimony that was presented to the rest of us in our committee was that when we really look at the true science of other ways of preventing STDs, sexually transmitted diseases, and how infective they can truly be, there is only one 100 percent sure way to avoid a sexually transmitted disease. Mr. Speaker, from the testimony in our committee, I was very, very disheartened. It was depressing to learn that 3 million teenagers per year get a sexually transmitted disease, some of which they can never get rid of. It is not just go to the doctor and get a shot; some are deadly, or stay with them for the rest of their lives.

Mr. TERRY. Fifty million dollars.

Mr. TERRY. I look forward to that. And I really believe the abstinence program the Congress passed in 1996 and we get to authorize is one of the major causes of the drop in teenage pregnancy. But we still have a long way to go. We have to recognize that while the hard empirical evidence may not be there for us yet, because of the fact that we are in the early stages of such an important program, that is not a reason to throw it out, as the 17 in our committee wanted to do.

Mr. TERRY. Ninety-three percent felt they needed a strong message.

Mr. TERRY. We in Nebraska have shared the same statistics because we have embraced the abstinence programs. We have several school districts, our public schools, that have adopted these programs and apply for reimbursement.

Mr. TERRY. That is what this program teaches. It is not just the sex part, but it is teaching them the internal strength to say no; to recognize the situations where they can be manipulated by their peers; to identify that situation and remove themselves, but also to teach them the internal strength, the self-esteem to be able to say no once they have recognized that situation. That is important.

Mr. TERRY. Building character, self-esteem, the power to say no, to make those tough choices that our teenagers have to make on a daily basis.

Mr. TERRY. Four times. Well, the gentleman had a little trouble convincing some other people of the importance of not only helping people up out of poverty by teaching them special skills so they could become employed, but also on such important issues as teaching abstinence to our children. It confuses me. I was simply a city councilman in 1996 when the gentleman were wrestling with this issue and facing several vetoes by the White House then. But I appreciate that the gentleman continued to persevere through those and eventually triumph, because I really feel it has been an important message to our youth that we adopt this Title V program where we have a specific, and let me stress that, a specific program to teach abstinence to our youth. It is the first time, as I understand, that Congress did this, in 1996. I would assume that the Congress did it for the good-hearted and compassionate reason that when we want to lift people out of poverty, it is hard when we are trying to help a teenage mother out of poverty. If anything locks someone into their current status of poverty, it is having a child when one is 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 years old. So it was certainly the compassionate thing to do, and I appreciate that. It is just unbelievable to me now, entering my fourth year of Congress, and, again, I was not here in 1996, but that we are having these same battles again. It is just unbelievable when we look at the importance of such a program. Let us talk a little bit about one of the reasons why I would assume it was such an important tenet in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and that is to try to help teenagers learn and understand the importance of not becoming a mother or a father when you are 14, 15, 16 years of age. So we are hoping to reduce the teenage pregnancy rate. In 1994, 46.6 out of every 1,000 teenagers became pregnant out-of-wedlock. Now, what is important, since the passage of this Act and this program, as of January 2000, this teenage pregnancy rate has fallen to 39.6 per 1,000 teenagers. That is incredible improvement over a short period of time. The abstinence education programs that Congress began funding in 1996, I believe, has significantly contributed to this decrease. Here is a chart I brought for the American public tonight, and what we see here is at the zero level. This goes back to the 1940s when teenage pregnancy was really pretty rare all the way up to, and I am going to have to get away from the microphone here, but the spot I am pointing to is 1994, the critical year of the passage of the Title V abstinence program funding. That was the peak. That was the peak of teenage pregnancy. I do not think it is coincidental that the time that we as a Nation agreed that abstinence was an important message for our teenagers that we have seen a dramatic drop in teenage pregnancy since then. When we had our hearing last week, some of the naysayers kept telling us, there is no evidence. There is no evidence. There is no evidence. But, my God, this is pretty dramatic. Does my colleague agree?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman. I appreciate that he is doing this special order tonight to bring the message out to the people of America what this good Congress is doing for our youth. The gentleman was here in 1996 when this Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act with this important provision.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is charged with enforcing immigration laws, such as deporting criminal or illegal aliens. It is also charged with processing those who lawfully immigrate to our country to partake of the American dream. These conflicting missions under one government agency have resulted in confusion and inefficiency. In my home town of Omaha, Nebraska, for example, there is widespread frustration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). People must wait in long lines for hours on end to be served, and then wait months or even years for their applications to be processed. Last year alone, the Nebraska INS received more than fourteen thousand new immigration applications. At the end of the year it was running a backlog of almost seven hundred cases. With only three employees working four days a week, the service problems have not been adequately resolved. Border and immigration security is of paramount importance as we find, arrest, and prosecute terrorists in order to protect the American public. On the other hand, legal immigrants seeking better jobs and family life in America must be treated with respect. Nationwide problems of law enforcement are consuming larger and larger portions of the INS budget. This occurs at the cost of the legal immigrant, who sees less and less of the INS devoted to service. When legal immigrants become less important in the eyes of the INS, they become victims of the process. Law enforcement should not be funded at the cost of service, and service should not compromise enforcement of our immigration laws. Dividing these responsibilities by passing H.R. 3231 is a necessary, common-sense, cost-saving measure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to improve homeland defense and protect the American dream.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. Twenty-seven states, including my home state of Nebraska, have laws requiring that a parent receive notification or give consent before their young daughter can have an abortion. These laws are designed to honor the rights of parents and protect young girls from being sexually exploited or injured. Unfortunately, they are often circumvented by the widespread practice of taking young girls across state lines to receive an abortion, a practice which is utilized by sexual predators. In one example, a 12 year-old girl was taken to an out-of-state abortion clinic by the mother of the man who had raped and impregnated her. This young girl's mother learned what had happened only when her daughter returned home with severe pain and bleeding that required medical attention. H.R. 476 would help prevent such terrible situations by making it a Federal crime to dodge a parental involvement law by transporting a minor to an out-of-state abortion provider. If a teenage girl needs permission to take an aspirin at school, her parents should certainly be notified about her receiving a potentially- harmful medical procedure. Loving guidance and support from parents is also crucial for young women facing the difficult situation of having a child out of wedlock. Even the abortion provider Planned Parenthood acknowledges on its website that, and I quote, ``Few would deny that most teenagers, especially younger ones, would benefit from adult guidance when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Few would deny that such guidance ideally should come from the teenager's parents.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 476 to protect the rights of parents, to protect the rights of states, and most importantly, to protect young girls from sexual predators.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Upton enforcement amendment. This amendment will significantly strengthen the FCC's enforcement of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because of this amendment, the FCC will finally be given an enhanced enforcement opportunity, which is critical, which is critical to the ability to mandate compliance to the Tauzin-Dingell bill. In a recent letter to Congress, FCC Chairman Powell noted that the FCC is limited in levying fines for any single violation to $1.2 million. And due to the vast resources of many of the Nation's phone companies, this amount is insufficient to punish or deter violators. This amendment would address these concerns and raise the single- violation penalty ten times its current level, capping the penalty at $10 million. This reminds me of a recent city I went to and a parking ticket was $10, but it cost $20 to park in a parking lot. Where is the incentive? And during the hearings held by Chairman Upton we learned from several of these companies that there is a disincentive to complying with the current FCC regulations. So I thank the gentleman for introducing this amendment to strengthen these fines and provide the proper incentive to comply. Another part of this that I think is just as important as the monetary fine is the fact that they can issue orders to cease and desist their conduct of not complying. This is an extremely important facet of this that we have not heard much discussion about. The FCC needs the ability to not only identify the conduct but order them to stop and apply meaningful fines. By increasing the penalties that the FCC can levy, the more phone companies will comply with the act and will provide services to areas they should be providing now and do not. I thank Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Upton for bringing this to the floor. I am in support of it.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I represent a fairly urban district in Nebraska; but once I step out of that district, it is very rural. And I stand here sticking up for our rural America which has, I feel, been grossly neglected in providing these types of services. The FCC recognized the potential impact of broadband on rural America when it noted ``a lack of broadband infrastructure could limit the potential of these rural communities to attract and retain businesses and jobs, especially businesses that are dependent on electronic commerce.'' We have seen this in Nebraska where they look for new employees, and they will go into a rural community, but they need to transfer the data. What we need to do, and what this bill does, is it breaks down a barrier for DSL which is going to be the leading market for broadband in rural communities. It eliminates the disincentive of the companies to offer this type of service. For the sake of our rural communities, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the empowerment of local, county, and State governments. I believe that they, being closer to the people, can provide services better and cheaper. The Federal Government does ask that those local governments perform tasks on behalf of the Federal Government. Running elections is such a request. In fact, it is not a request, it is a mandate in the United States Constitution. Yet we do not partner and we do not help in the running of those Federal elections. The consequences are outdated machines, poor election personnel training, poor coordination, bad voter lists, all making the system vulnerable to fraud. The Federal Government, with H.R. 3295, establishes that partnership, helping States and counties more efficiently run Federal elections. This act enhances the credibility of the election system by providing some financial help to States and counties to upgrade from a punch card system to a newer technology less fraught with danger. It, importantly, also helps those States who moved forward to upgrade while Congress here debated, discussed and compromised. This act helps to set minimum standards for elections, to avoid confusion in the future. It helps train election officials. It helps ensure, and this is an important aspect, it helps ensure that the votes of our overseas men and women, and those in the service, will count. It requests States clean up their voter lists, and it allows our youth more participation in the process. These are all extremely positive movements in the right direction for the future of our democracy, and I encourage my colleagues to help secure future elections by voting ``yes.''

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, certainly as Americans, especially now, we owe the men and women who served our country in times of war a tremendous debt of gratitude. Simply put, we cannot do enough to thank them for their contributions to our great Nation. We cannot do enough to honor them for their dedication to the principles of freedom and liberty which our families enjoy. To that end, we set aside one day each year, November 11, to recognize the contributions of American war veterans to this great Nation. We keep one day to be mindful of their sacrifices and the sacrifice of their families. Veterans Day is for them, and now the sanctity of that day is in jeopardy. Just to tell my colleagues a story, last Veterans Day, just a few weeks ago, I attended several ceremonies; and one of the speakers got up at the ceremony in our memorial park in Omaha, Nebraska, and said to the attendees, If Congress has their way, this will be the last time we meet. He went on to say that combining Veterans Day with election day is a little bit like combining Christmas and Halloween. I do not necessarily agree with his analogy, but the point was well taken. Whenever I would attend the VFW groups, American Legion clubs at home, this issue was always brought up about protecting the sanctity of the one day a year that we put aside to thank these folks; but somehow some folks here in Washington have been sidetracked. There was an election commission that perhaps one of their recommendations was combining Veterans Day with election day to increase voter turnout. Some people up here on Capitol Hill endorsed that idea. It was a balloon that was floated, and somehow then that became what Congress was going to do to these folks who sacrificed their time and their lives for America. Today, we have the opportunity then to take something that has just grown way out of proportion and set the record straight, that we in this body wish to see a day of reflection for our veterans who triumphed, who sacrificed; that we will pay tribute to them on that one day a year that we have set aside, the 11th day of the 11th month of each year. I do not, Madam Speaker, nor do the proud veterans and the proud Americans of the second district, wish to see this date moved or blended in with some other holiday or event. The fact is that Veterans Day holds a patriotic duty for Americans to recognize the commitment of American veterans to duty, honor, freedom and liberty. Election day is a day of civic obligation, dedicated to separate purposes, and combining this day with others would simply be to disrespect what they have done for us. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that, I say to the majority leader and recovering professor of economics from north Texas. The great majority leader teases me about my past as a lawyer. But not only are there such complications as the beefalo, and whether or not those that raise the mixed breeds of buffalo and cattle would be entitled to a 50 percent subsidy, but considering that the Colorado Buffalos are the next team on our schedule and standing in our way of a national championship, I doubt there would be any Nebraskans that would tolerate congressional support of buffalos to any degree.

Mr. TERRY. Yes, Mr. Speaker. But this is a very serious matter, even though we jest about such silly things in the Senate bill, and how their philosophy is to focus on these individual pork projects, as opposed to the stimulus package we have laid out for the people of America. Shortly before we voted on this stimulus package in the House, Mr. Speaker, and shortly before our mail was stopped by anthrax threats, I received a letter from a mother in Omaha. As the father of three young boys, when I get letters from young mothers, they are particularly touching, but this one even more so, because she talked about how her husband, the breadwinner of this family, the one who puts the food on the table for her children in their small household, had just been laid off. It was really a heart-wrenching story. Frankly, Omaha is better off. Our unemployment rate has gone up significantly, but it is better than most communities around the Nation. Yet, this is still very real about people losing their jobs. At this point in time we read almost weekly reports of consumer confidence being way off, manufacturing and trade sales are weakest. We got some good news with the auto industry because of some zero percent financing in attempts to sell new cars. I really believe that this is the time, now is the time for us in Congress to not be timid but to do what it takes to stimulate the economy, because we are talking about people's jobs. We must stand resolute, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and all of my colleagues here in Congress, and to focus our stimulus package on job creation and retention of those jobs. It is called capital investments. It is not trying to find a specific industry from one's particular area that we want to just help out, or because somebody we know raises buffalo. We have to think much broader and deeper than that. One of the things that I am proud about our stimulus package is that it creates 160,000 jobs over the next year, and as much as 220,000 jobs by 2004. So at a time when we are receiving letters from mothers worried about the loss of their bread, we are passing a stimulus package that can create and retain jobs. I am rather proud of that. The average family of four could see an increase in their take- home pay, what they use to put that bread and butter on the table, of about $940. As the gentleman has said and as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has said, the rapid reduction of the 28 percent income tax rate to 25 percent, and making that so it is good now, that reduction now, that is huge for those individual filers. That is money in their pockets. That is real. I want to talk particularly, in the few minutes left that I have here, about two tax matters in particular that I think are important to stimulating the economy and reversing the economic trend. The first is to encourage increased productivity through the release of assets by reducing capital gains taxes. I really strongly believe that this should be a key pillar component of our stimulus package, and it is not. As I understand, that has been stripped out of the Senate version. Now, hopefully there can be enough economists in this world who can stimulate them to put it back in, but it is just absurd to me that that has been stripped out. Capital gains tax relief, as the gentleman mentioned in his speech, encourages the investment that will, I believe, revitalize American businesses. According to the congressional Joint Economic Committee, and I want to read this so I get it straight for the Record here, and the Joint Economic Committee is bipartisan, nonbipartisan, it says, ``A capital gains tax reduction would help promote economic growth, benefit taxpayers across the income spectrum, and mitigate the unfair effects of taxing inflation-generated gains.'' Savings and investment drive the companies that drive the job market. American business will use the injection of additional investment capital from a reduction in capital gains to create business opportunities, to streamline their businesses and become more effective and powerful, to continue the research and development efforts, and, again, to improve productivity. With the expansion that increased investment creates, companies can increase their capacities to produce. That means more jobs. That means more jobs. It just baffles me how people cannot grasp that simple thing. I am not on the Committee on Ways and Means or a tax professor or economic professor, but that is just a simple premise of business, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) had pointed out. I hear the arguments, and again it just bothers me, that we are giving to the rich and we should be paying off the debt, or that it could destabilize the stock market, which are really bogus arguments, when we think them through. First of all, that it could destabilize the market, we are transferring one asset: There is a buyer, there is a seller. How that is destabilizing is beyond me when it is just a simple transfer of assets. Yet, when we think about a change of ownership in capital, what occurs? A taxable event. The gentlewoman from Washington pointed this out, and it is just an important thing that we need to not lose sight of. There are a lot of businesses, there are a lot of individuals, that are holding onto their assets right now, Mr. Majority leader, because they do not want to sell because of the punitive current nature of our capital gains tax. They expect and want a capital gains reduction, and they are waiting for Congress to act. There will be a swirl of activity when we reduce that. But until we reduce it and create that swirl, they are going to continue to hold on. What we need to tell people, and somehow inform the press, is that when there is that swirl of activity, we have a taxable event and actually increase the dollars that can come out. It is a win-win situation, and the people that hold those assets win because their assets are worth more because we are not taking more of their money, but yet it creates the event. Would the gentleman expand on that, as an economics professor?

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have the opportunity to change the way security is done at our airports for the better. Until now, airlines have been in charge of security at our airports. They, in turn, for the lowest bid, hire companies like Argenbright and I.T.S. and others who provide minimal training, low pay, and even falsified background checks. The result of airlines in charge is 100 percent turnover and weapons making it past security points. We can no longer allow the airlines to be in charge, nor allow businesses like Argenbright and I.T.S. to remain in our airports. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3150 puts the responsibility for day-to-day airport security with the Transportation Security Administration. It also gives this department flexibility in its mixture of Federal employees and private-sector folks under their direct supervision to do the job right; not a one-size-fits-all of all-private or all-Federal, but what works.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple measure but heartfelt. There is no way to express our feelings of grief and sorrow for the American citizens who are dead and injured from this horrible, gruesome, barbarism that struck our Nation yesterday and our cities of New York and Washington. My condolences go out to all of the innocent people who suffered from the brutality of these world terrorists who sought out the innocent to complete their cruel missions. Those who committed this atrocity are, simply put, the scum of the Earth and they must be punished. The acts of terrorism must not be the daily concerns of Americans. We must be able to feel secure in our homes. Acts of terrorism must be stopped. As a Member of Congress, I will work to make sure that the terrorist organizations that carried out this horrible act and those who helped them and protect them are destroyed. I am willing to commit all the resources necessary to accomplish this goal. Our President stated yesterday, ``Our resolve has been tested, and we will show the world that we will pass that test.'' I agree. I can only add that our action must be swift and decisive.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and special treatment for exemption of the oxygenate requirement. This chart that I have up here shows reformulated gas and the high super- duper blend of regular gas without the oxygenate. It barely meets the requirements, but it does not take out as many pollutants as with an oxygenate. The price for this super blend without the oxygenate is more expensive than with the blend in it. The nonoxygenated fuel, by California's own study, would eliminate emissions of up to 593 tons per day of carbon monoxide. That is a major contributor to ground ozone or smog. By the California study, there is a 6 percent reduction of VOCs with an oxygenate. Keeping this oxygenate requirement for gasoline would translate into a reduction of CO2 emissions by over \1/2\ million tons in California alone. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This bill, our bill allows the Department of Transportation to explore many possible solutions for conservation, such as a weight- based system so we do not treat a Ford pickup truck like a Ford Fiesta; so that our farmers can do their hard work and our contractors can store their equipment in a vehicle a bit more substantial than the standard hatch-back. By giving authority over fuel economy to the DOT, we allow more flexibility to deal with this complex issue with greater expertise. We have heard about the NAS study which reaches dozens of conclusions, but yet this amendment relies on only one. If we were to take this report in its totality, we find that we should implement a weight-based system, which this amendment forbids, and we must not downweight our vehicles which, in essence, this amendment demands, and that we must continue to develop technology, which this amendment does not encourage. And we must allow sufficient time for its implementation, which this amendment also does not do. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and Buy American. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to speak on this important act for the 7500 retirees in my district. I rise in support of this act. Why? Because these reforms in this act allow the railroad workers to move to a pension system that, frankly, mirrors most in the industrial world, manufacturing, teachers, firemen. These reforms allow railroad workers to have some level of control over their money and their pensions, being able to direct them into safe investments and earn a greater return so they can pay them back with better benefits. Yes, government will continue to hold the majority of these dollars in the tier 1, the archaic system, but at least we inch forward to a modern system. These reforms allow for greater benefits for widows, who now receive 50 percent of their deceased spouse's benefit. I have heard from many widows in my district who have a great deal of difficulty making ends meet. This act will allow these widows a little bit more money and a lot of peace of mind.