Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that my colleague from New York (Mr. Ackerman) is a cosponsor of this amendment. We are joined by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and others. Our amendment addresses a situation that was first brought to my attention by Bruce and Christine Bowen of Omaha, Nebraska. They are parents of two Merchant Marine Academy midshipmen. As one who believes strongly that we must do right by those who serve our country, what they told me and showed me upset me into action. The Terry-Ackerman amendment will help correct a problem that has been lingering for quite some time. The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, located in Kings Point, New York, is in desperate need of repair. This 55-year-old academy has been neglected for far too long. The last 5 years it has been funded at roughly $31 million annually, which is just enough to operate the facility without doing any maintenance. Consequently, a backlog of basic maintenance projects exists, totaling $20 million. This is unacceptable. Something has to be done. Let me tell my colleagues how serious the situation is at the Merchant Marine Academy. The lack of maintenance has caused pipes to explode in the library, damaging a collection of rare books. Water pipes are so old that there are signs posted in the building ``Lead in Drinking Water.'' The heating system is so antiquated that the temperature in the rooms is regulated by opening all the doors and windows. I have some pictures here that illustrate some of what I am saying. Mr. Chairman, the Merchant Marine Academy has become the lost son. All of our other military academies have received or will receive substantial sums of money for new construction or improvements. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point received $30 million to upgrade its cadet mess hall and will receive $75 million to build a new gym. The U.S. Naval Academy will receive $41 million per year for the next 12 years to upgrade all of its midshipmen dorms. The Merchant Marine Academy is not looking for a new building. It just wants those that it has repaired. If we demand a commitment of 10 years from the graduates of the academy, we should make sure that they have a learning environment conducive to that commitment. Mr. Chairman, our amendment will begin the process of returning the Merchant Marine Academy to the level it deserves. The amendment I am offering now is a modification of the original version. It will provide $2 million for maintenance at the academy, enough to repair some of those leaky roofs, under the Maritime Administration. Before concluding, I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) a question. It has been the practice of the Maritime Administration to pay for certain overhead expenses of the entire agency, including the academy. There have been proposals to require the academy to pay portions of the overhead costs, which could result in a loss as much as $1.8 million to the academy. I understand that the committee intends that all the monies provided to the academy in fiscal year 2000 are to be used for the same functions as was the case in fiscal year 1999. In other words, no additional administrative expenses may be imposed on the academy by the Department of Transportation or Maritime Administration. I ask the gentleman, am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 987. Prior to my service here in the House, I was a trial lawyer in Omaha, Nebraska. Now, I know that is not necessarily a term of endearment on this side of the aisle; but it does give me certain experiences and insight into issues such as this because as much as 50 percent of my practice was representing people with injuries, worker compensation claims. I represented many clients who suffered from repetitive motion injuries, the most common of which is to the wrists, known as carpal tunnel syndrome, and I sympathize with these folks. I have seen it affect people minimally, and I have seen it affect them seriously, some enough to lose their jobs. I have learned from speaking to many medical experts and reading a great many medical studies on this subject that there is much controversy on the cause of these injuries, including how much repetitive motion versus trauma is necessary to cause the onset of symptoms. Until we know more facts about the various causes of repetitive motion injuries, how do we know the best method to avoid reducing these injuries? We are only guessing at the best way to protect workers. I am concerned that without the National Academy of Sciences study, we may allow regulations that have the unintended consequences of one extreme doing nothing and the other exacerbating injuries or causing different types of injuries. And I am not willing to accept that risk. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 987; and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Andrews amendment. I am not debating whether or not it is corporate welfare, but I want to talk about how OPIC must get its own house in order first as I lack confidence in this program. I am going to tell my colleagues a story about a company in my district, Mid-American Energy, who has been working with OPIC, had used OPIC to build a power plant in Indonesia. The government did a bait and switch. They put in a claim. Now they are pursuing to recover this lost investment. In May 1999, OPIC required an arbitration. Mid-American won in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 3-0. What next? OPIC said, ``That's not good enough. We need you to do it again. We want you to go somewhere else for another arbitration.'' When OPIC loses this time, will they change the rules again? Will they require this company to go three out of five arbitrations? Mr. Chairman, Mid-American has followed OPIC guidelines. Now it must fulfill its obligations. I urge the support of this amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1074. Before coming to Congress, I spent 8 years as a Member of the Omaha Nebraska City Council. This gave me an opportunity to observe firsthand the impact of Federal regulations on our cities. Many of the regulations may not cost the Federal Government much, but the cost to the States and the localities can often be great. Washington regulators need to appreciate how much of a financial burden their rules are on other forms of government. They might even be encouraged to find more cost-effective ways of accomplishing their goals. This is why this legislation is so necessary. Let me tell the Members, just to build a road within the city of Omaha, some firsthand experience. About 30 to 40 percent of the time and talent to get that road built is spent in trying to comply with Federal rules and regulations. It is very costly. The irony here is that some of those Federal regulations that we must comply with at the local level to try and build that road demand cost-benefit analysis. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps some of those rules and regulations are not necessary, and we could streamline and create efficiencies and cost savings at the local level. Information on the costs and the benefits of the Federal regulatory programs has been available since 1997. The existing legislation before us today strengthens the existing requirements and makes them permanent law. From the City Council service, I can appreciate why all the major organizations representing State and local elected officials support the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. As a sponsor of H.R. 1074, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and oppose the Hoeffel amendment.

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to engage the gentleman from California in a colloquy on a matter of concern that was brought to my attention by members of the Guard and Reserve. They believe that some savings may be realized by conversion of positions. I had planned to offer an amendment to clarify the scope of the Defense Department's study of contracting out military and civilian positions pursuant to OMB Circular A-76. As the gentleman from California knows, the Department of Defense announced in 1995 that it could save approximately $10 billion over the next 10 years by contracting out 230,000 jobs to the private sector. While I support the savings, I want to make sure that privatization does not harm war- fighting capability of the United States Armed Forces. According to this week's ``Defense News,'' Department of Defense officials are beginning to rethink their policy of planned competitions because some of the services have asked if they could achieve the required manpower and cost savings through their own reengineering. This is what I believe we need to address. The Department of Defense has moved rapidly towards outsourcing, without allowing the individual service chiefs or base commanders the opportunity to meet manpower reductions and cost savings through other means. The Congress should encourage defense officials to consider savings that might be realized by giving greater consideration to retaining members of the military service and civilian personnel to perform required Department of Defense workload. I believe that cost savings can still be realized without affecting our war-fighting capability. I want to commend the gentleman from California for his efforts in assessing the privatization issue. I ask him if he agrees that section 8109 and 8110 of the bill before us would cause the Department of Defense to give greater consideration to retaining government civilian employees and military members when considering whether to contract out support functions.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Fletcher amendment. As parents of two young boys approaching school age, my wife and I share some serious concerns. During their 12 years in elementary, middle and high school my sons will end up nearly spending as much time directly or indirectly with their teachers as they will with us. As all other parents, we want to do everything possible to give our children a quality education. Not only do we want them to learn the academic basics, but we want them to make sure that schools are contemplating what we are teaching our children at home about character and values. The Fletcher amendment supplements the underlying bill by permitting the use of funds for character education. It will let local school systems train teachers how to more effectively communicate the values of our local communities. The character traits of honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, respect, personal responsibility, and trustworthiness are as important to a child's success in life as reading and math, and I urge its approval.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, today there are over 20 States that require consent or notification of at least one parent before a minor girl can obtain an abortion, and my home State of Nebraska is one of those, albeit the law is under continuous attack in the courts and our State legislature. The American people overwhelmingly support parental involvement and condemn the practice of taking young girls out of State to get an abortion without informing their parents. This bill is designed to help those States enforce their own laws. Perhaps it is because of my 8 years as a city councilman on the Omaha City Council that I strongly believe in the rights of local governments and the States to formulate their own policies and support Federal policies that protect State and local rights. It is important that we understand what this legislation does not do. This bill does not create a new Federal law regulating abortion. This is not a Federal consent law. States have the right to require parental notification, and we can help them protect young minor girls at a time when they most desperately need the help and involvement of their parents. These children need attention prior, during, and after this serious procedure. Parental notification can help and it should be given a chance to work. This bill allows States to protect children, promote strong family values and help young girls make wise decisions. Yes, I believe in States' rights and the rights of my home State of Nebraska to protect young girls in our State, but I am also, as a father, protective of parental rights and the sanctity of parents' involvement in their children's lives and vice versa. So I urge a ``yes'' on H.R. 1218.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. This bill is not a budget-buster, Mr. Chairman. This bill restores truth in budgeting. Just as we must maintain the integrity of the Social Security and Highway Trust Funds, so must we restore the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund. H.R. 1000 ensures that when my constituents fly from Omaha to their destinations, the fees they pay on their tickets and the taxes paid on the travel will go towards increasing safety on the ground and in the air, while maintaining and improving our aviation infrastructure. The aviation industry has grown by leaps and bounds since deregulation. Air travel has grown by 27 percent since 1994 and is expected to exceed 1 billion passengers annually during the next decade. Eppley Airfield, a regional airport located in my district in Omaha, Nebraska, is the sixth fastest growing airport in the country, serving over 3.5 million passengers a year. In order to accommodate this rapid growth, our Airport Director, Don Smithey, has developed a 10-year Master Plan, which includes a new terminal and a third runway. AIR 21 will allow Eppley to execute this Master Plan without delay and additional expense. As any of us who fly on a regular basis know, our airports are becoming more and more congested--patience is growing thin, while delays are increasing in number. This bill would allow for the increased capacity desperately needed at our airports--making for fewer delays and increasing competition. It will also make it easier for smaller cities and underserved markets to attract airline service. We have runways that need strengthening. Our air traffic control systems need upgrading. There are security measures that we must put in place to address the increasing threats of terrorism. The General Accounting Office reports that we are underfunding airport infrastructure by $3 billion annually, and underfunding our air traffic control modernization by $1 billion annually. That is not acceptable, Mr. Chairman. Fees and taxes on air travel were originally proposed, so that we could generate a self-sustaining fund to make these improvements and advances. Since 1970, the flying public and the aviation community have been investing in the aviation trust fund with the understanding that the money would be returned in the form of aviation improvements. This has not been the case. Congress has not kept its promise. For years, users of our aviation infrastructure have been paying these fees and taxes, only to watch them disappear into the general fund. Where is the fiscal integrity? Where is the truth in budgeting? H.R. 1000 will keep our budget honest. We reinforce the Aviation Trust Fund, by ensuring that the money paid into the fund will be paid out on Aviation. It keeps the promises we made to both the flying public and the aviation community. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1000.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coburn-Toomey- Sanford amendment--an amendment which would offset the entire cost of this emergency appropriations bill in two ways. First, the amendment calls for our allies to share the burden of funding this NATO operation with the United States taxpayer. It would hold the nations participating in Operation Allied Force responsible for sharing the cost of what is swiftly becoming a protracted and costly air campaign. Member nations are already participating materially with us. We need for them to participate monetarily. Second, should the Administration be unable to obtain reimbursement from our NATO allies, this amendment would allow funds to be utilized from FY2000 non-defense discretionary spending; thus ensuring that this appropriation will be paid for without dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. Offsetting this spending is vital to maintaining our budget priorities, which this Congress labored so hard to preserve earlier this year. The United States has domestic priorities that must be protected. We must be disciplined, Mr. Speaker. Members have talked about saving Social Security and Medicare during our recent budget debate. We have talked about creating a lock box for our nation's retirement security. I voted for a budget that set aside surplus money for our nation's elderly, and I am not going to waver from that commitment. This amendment will help protect our elderly and maintain our fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 1999, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature passed Legislative Resolution No. 22. The resolution petitions Congress and the executive branch to prohibit federal recoupment of state tobacco settlement recoveries. I agree with the Legislature that the funds received under the tobacco settlement should remain with the states. Nebraska's portion of the settlement funds will be used for the preservation of the health of its citizens. I oppose any effort by the federal government, which was not a party to the settlement, to claim a portion of these funds. I call the text of the resolution to the attention of my colleagues, as follows. Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, March 23, 1999. Hon. Lee Terry, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515. Dear Congressman Terry: I have enclosed a copy of engrossed Legislative Resolution No. 29 adopted by the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature on the twenty-second day of March 1999. The members of the Nebraska Legislature have directed me to forward this resolution to you and to request that it be officially entered into the Congressional Record. With kind regards. Sincerely, Patrick J. O'Donnell, Clerk of the Legislature. Enclosed.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 472 and against the Maloney amendment. I feel particularly strongly about keeping this initiative in place because of my background as an 8-year member of the Omaha City Council. Post-census local review is a highly successful program which affords local and tribunal governments the opportunity to review housing counts in their jurisdiction and challenge those counts before the census numbers are made final. When local officials in my district and across the country learned of the administration's plan to replace the post-census local review with an estimated second number, they objected, including the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, Mayor Hal Daub, who submits here today that if the Census Bureau misses a zip code or a housing development, which does happen, we must be provided the opportunity to review and correct that error. At the city level, we feel very strongly that everyone counts in our community and everyone must be counted. It is the local leaders, the mayors, the city council members, the school boards, who know which neighborhoods have grown and which ones have been left out. These local officials must be empowered. Doing away with the post-census local review would have serious consequences for the Second District of Nebraska. We have seen explosive growth in our district since 1991 because of the high-tech and information industries as well as the transportation and ag industry. In fact, since about 1991, our Hispanic and Latino population has grown from about 2 to 3 percent to 10 to 12 percent by estimate now. These people deserve to be counted. Nationally, post-census local review added over 80,000 housing units to the count in 1990. The program relocated nearly 200,000. Total corrections as a direct result of the post-census local review totaled nearly 400,000. We cannot argue with those figures. We cannot ignore local and tribunal officials. These officials know their jurisdictions best and they want post-census local review. If local governments and cities do not want to participate, they are under no obligation to do so. It is a voluntary program. It is imperative that we allow local officials from smaller cities a voice in how their communities are counted. Communities like the ones I represent fear that without this formal mechanism for local review, only the biggest cities in the Nation with political clout will be heard and those from cities with populations in the thousands instead of the millions will not be heard and our people will not be counted accurately. Unfortunately, this administration is setting America on a divisive course, pitting small States against large States, small cities against large cities. We depend on an accurate census for our fair share of the representation and our fair share of vital public services. Without giving local communities like ours in Nebraska a voice, the methods the administration plans to use and enabled by this amendment would make cities and counties like those in my district in Nebraska the losers. We cannot allow this to happen. Mr. Speaker, local governments place their trust in us to assure a fair census, that we in fact count everyone. Post-census local review is a small but vital way to live up to that trust. I urge all to vote against this amendment and for H.R. 472. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record: Republican Mayors and Local Officials, Washington, DC, March 18, 1999. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: It is time to place policy over politics and save the 2000 Census from failure. The recent announcement by Census Bureau Director Ken Prewitt, that the Administration is going to attempt a two-number census causes us great concern. For the first time in history, Americans will be presented with two numbers measuring the same population: the Supreme Court number as mandated in the January 25th decision and the confusing and admittedly estimated second number supported by your Administration given to the states for purposes of redistricting and other functions. The U.S. Constitution is clear in calling for an ``actual enumeration'' of individuals residing within our borders. In addition, cities have been told that your second number will serve to replace worthwhile and legitimate improvement measures such as Post Census Local Review. It won't. The National Academy of Sciences has said your sampling proposal will have ``considerable variability.'' With all due respect Mr. President, ``considerable variability'' is not good enough. Our communities rely on decennial census for their fair share: fair share in political representation and public monies for vital public services. Post Census Local Review doesn't yield variability--it yields accuracy. If the Census Bureau misses a zip code or housing development, Post Census Local Review will provide local governments with an opportunity to notify the Census Bureau and have the error corrected. Under your sampling proposal, adjustments are distributed throughout a state or across state lines, so cities don't necessarily get the specific adjustments they deserve. As mayors and local officials, we represent the true stakeholders in the 2000 Census, the American people. We urge you to cleanse the census and drop the second number being proposed by your Administration. We also urge you to reinstate Post Census Local Review so that we can help the Census Bureau count our cities accurately. Do it for the American people. Thank you. Sincerely, Mayor Hal Daub, City of Omaha, Nebraska, President; Councilwoman Beulah Coughenour, City of Indianapolis, Indiana, Vice President; Vice Mayor Michael Keck, City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Secretary/Treasurer; Mayor Neil Giuliana, City of Tempe, Arizona, Executive Committee; Mayor Rita Mullins, City of Palatine, Illinois, Executive Committee; Mayor Ralph Moore, City of Union City, Georgia, Executive Committee; Councilman Chuck Mosher, City of Bellevue, Washington, Executive Committee; Mayor Lou Ogden, City of Tualatin, Oregon, Executive Committee; Councilwoman Rebecca Ravine, City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Executive Committee; Councilman Patrick Tuttle, City of Joplin, Missouri, Executive Committee; Alderwoman Lisa Walters, City of Ridgeland, Mississippi, Executive Committee.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1999, the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature passed Legislative Resolution No. 10. The resolution petitions Congress to amend the Constitution to increase the terms of members of the House of Representatives to four years. This is a matter that merits serious debate and consideration. I call the text of the Resolution to the attention of my colleagues, as follows: Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, Ninety-Sixth Legislature, Lincoln, NE, March 4, 1999. Hon. Lee Terry, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Terry: I have enclosed a copy of engrossed Legislative Resolution No. 10 adopted by the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature on the third day of March 1999. The members of the Legislature have directed me to request that the petition be entered into the Congressional Record. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding Legislative Resolution No. 10. With kind regards. Sincerely, Patrick J. O'Donnell, Clerk of the Legislature. Enclosure.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote 31. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 707, ``The Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999'' is a good bill for three reasons. First, this legislation will provide funding to a newly created pre-disaster mitigation program, which is something that has been needed for quite sometime. Second, this legislation will increase the authorization for post-mitigation funding by 33 percent. Third, H.R. 707 places the needs of victims ahead of bureaucratic red tape. When a disaster occurs, non-profit organizations should be given the ability to move as fast as possible to help restore vital services to those in need. These organizations, what are known as ``lifeline facilities,'' provide critical services such as: communications power, drinking water, water treatment, and emergency medical care to communities in need. In the wake of a disaster, it is imperative that these facilities receive the aid necessary to recover without delay, so they can help others that might be suffering. It does not make sense to impose any additional paperwork burden on these organizations in the hours or days after a disaster has occurred. I am pleased that the legislation includes an amendment I offered in Committee to allow these critical care facilities to be put back into service as soon as possible in order to prevent additional loss of life or property. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of cutting unnecessary federal spending. However, if even one life may be threatened because of delay, it is not worth it. I commend my colleague and Subcommittee Chairwoman Tillie Fowler for her efforts. H.R. 707 is a good bill and one that I ask every member to support.

Mr. TERRY

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