George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 13, I missed House recorded No. 50, on final passage of H.R. 852, the electronic filing of Federal forms bill. I request that the Record reflect that had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, between now and the end of June, the Treasury Department will be including information on organ donation with each tax refund check it mails. I was proud to support the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act last year which directed the Treasury Department to provide this information with tax refund checks. This information educates Americans about organ donation and makes it easier for people to become organ donors. It has the potential to save thousands of lives--and at minimal cost to the Federal Government. Once someone has learned about organ donation, all he or she needs to do is fill out the card and discuss the decision with his or her family. Currently, over 50,000 Americans are awaiting organ transplants. Eight people die every day because an organ is not available. Hundreds of thousands of others could also benefit from tissue transplants and many Americans are not aware how they can become organ donors. By learning about the opportunities, individuals can, in the unfortunate event of a fatal accident, have their organs used to save someone's life. Sometimes, we can save a life while we are still alive. For example, I have made a decision to be a bone marrow donor. When I learned that a friend of my daughter, Meredith, had a potentially fatal bone marrow disease, I had my own bone marrow tested. While there was not a match, I am keeping my bone marrow type on file should another person with a life-threatening illness requiring a transplant have a similar bone marrow type to my own. To save that person's life, all that would be required of me would be to have a small amount of my own bone marrow taken for transplant. I encourage others to become donors, whether of organs, bone marrow, or even blood. Although easy to make, this is an important decision, and I encourage people considering it to do as I have done and sit down with their families and discuss their decision. This way, a person's family becomes aware of a donor's intentions. I hope that by including information on organ donation with tax returns, we will remind people of the life-saving possibilities of becoming an organ donor. To become a donor is as simple as filling out a card. But, as simple as that is, the implications are tremendous. You could give someone with a life-threatening illness a new lease on life. The inclusion of these cards with tax refunds should serve to remind us all of the importance of organ donation. It only takes a small effort to make a great contribution.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, it is with pleasure that I support the Medicare Diabetes Education and Supplies Amendments of 1997, introduced today by Representative Elizabeth Furse. Representative Furse and I formed the Congressional Diabetes Caucus to promote awareness of diabetes and its consequences within Congress. This bill is an important step toward providing diabetics with the tools they need to control the negative repercussions and cost of diabetes. When my daughter, Meredith, was diagnosed with the disease in 1987, I became actively involved with learning more about the disease, its causes, complications and the cost to American society. Before entering Congress, I also served as president of the Spokane chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Over 16 million Americans suffer from diabetes. The resulting financial cost to society is staggering. An estimated $138 billion or 14 percent of U.S. health care dollars, is spent on diabetes. The last several years have been encouraging for those working to find better treatments and a cure. Last year, doctors successfully transplanted insulin-producing cells into patients with type I diabetes. Researchers have also located genetic markers for diabetes, which should make it possible to identify patients at high risk. Additionally, the vaccine BCG has induced long-term remission of diabetes if given during the earliest stage of the disease. I am confident that a cure for diabetes is within our reach. In the meantime, however, the Federal government must avail itself of advances in treatment knowledge. In the private sector, we have seen that comprehensive diabetes education reduces both diabetes specific complications and overall health care costs. For example, Merck-Medco Managed Care, Inc. has realized a total per diabetic patient health care cost reduction of $441 since beginning an innovative diabetes education program. The Medicare Diabetes Education and Supplies Amendments of 1997 will employ some of the knowledge learned in the private sector by providing diabetes self-management training under Medicare. The bill will also expand coverage of blood testing strips to include all people with type II diabetes. Self-management training and access to blood testing strips are crucial to controlling the high health care costs associated with this disease. It is known that when diabetics keep their blood glucose level as close to normal as possible, the risk of complications can be reduced by as much as 65 percent. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I am including for the Record the following statements from organizations in support of this legislation: The American Diabetes Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Dietetic Association, the Endocrine Society, Eli Lilly and Co., and the Community Retail Pharmacy Coalition. Statement by the American Diabetes Association in Support of Legislation To Improve Medicare Coverage for People With Diabetes There are few, if any, issues facing the nation that have stronger bipartisan support than the diabetes Medicare reform legislation being introduced today by Representatives Elizabeth Furse and George Nethercutt. There are none, in our opinion, for which there is a greater need. Diabetes is a prevalent, serious and costly disease and is increasing at a shocking rate. Since the '60s the number of cases has tripled to 16 million. Since 1992, the direct costs of caring for people with diabetes have doubled to its current sum of $91.1 billion a year. This figure does not begin to account for the staggering losses in productivity for our economy and well-being to Americans. When indirect costs are included, diabetes costs our economy nearly $138 billion a year, more than any other single disease. Medicare alone spends one-quarter of its budget, nearly $27 billion a year, treating people with diabetes. Approximately half of all diabetes cases occur in people older than 55 years of age. However, the complications and hospitalizations associated with the disease (blindness, amputation, kidney failure, heart disease and stroke) can be delayed or avoided altogether with proper care. Our nation is only now coming to this realization. The improvement in diabetes care embodied in this legislation represents the only preventive care measure ever scored (analyzed for its economic implications) by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to save money. According to the CBO analysis, each day Congress waits to enact these Medicare reforms costs taxpayers an additional $500,000. This legislation, which incorporates two bills introduced in the 104th Congress, H.R. 1073 and H.R. 1074, has widespread support on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 1073 had 250 cosponsors in the last Congress. Of the more than 4,000 bills introduced in the 104th Congress, only 12 had more cosponsors. During the fall election campaign, 180 members of the incoming 105th Congress demonstrated support for improving diabetes coverage by completing the American Diabetes Association's Diabetes '96 Candidate Survey. Two hundred and eighty-nine (289) Members of the 105th Congress either cosponsored legislation or signed the Candidate survey. Of the 289 supporters, 116 (40.1%) are Republicans and 173 (59.9%) are Democrats. Leaders of both political parties have stated their strong support for this legislation. This legislation was included in President Clinton's FY '97 budget proposal and according to the White House, will be included in FY '98. Minority Leader Gephardt has noted that the provisions of the bill, if enacted, ``would help every individual and family coping with diabetes and save billions of dollars in future Medicare spending.'' Speaker Gingrich cosponsored identical legislation (H.R. 4264) in the 104th Congress and has said that addressing diabetes is one of his top four legislative priorities. During the fall election campaign, Presidential candidate Robert Dole noted that ``improved Medicare and private insurance coverage of necessary diabetes supplies and education would save lives and reduce the cost of diabetes- related illnesses to both the taxpayer and the private sector.'' The growing awareness of the seriousness of diabetes, along with the strong support of President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich and Congress, is crystal-clear mandate for immediate action to improve Medicare coverage for diabetes. There is no reason to wait. Any delay necessarily risks the health of the 3 million seniors diagnosed with diabetes and will waste millions of taxpayers dollars.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this debate really boils down to one simple question: Are we willing to allow blatant discrimination against Federal workers? I think the answer clearly to that question is simply no, we should not tolerate any State or organization which seeks to unfairly single out Federal workers for discriminatory tax treatment. That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. In addition, Congress has already spoken clearly on this issue. This past year we took much of the same approach in determining that seniors' pensions should be taxed by the State of residence. In 1990, this Congress resolved a remarkably similar situation affecting Amtrak workers who crossed State lines. At that time we determined that double taxation was not appropriate for Federal workers. This is no different. Washington citizens with their residence in Washington who happen to work in Oregon are being taxes by Oregon. Oregon would not tolerate it, and Washington should not either, and the Congress should not as well. It is a simple issue of fairness for these Federal workers, and something that we should have no problem supporting in this body. I want to thank not only the manager of this bill, but my colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], and the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] as well, who have really championed this cause of fairness for workers, fairness for all Federal workers, as they are imposed upon by unfair taxing obligations of a sister State.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to delete the following Members as cosponsors of H.R. 3559: Messrs. Traficant, Ehlers, McIntosh, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Mrs. Chenoweth, and Mr. McHugh.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 525, I announce the following suspension to be considered today: H.R. 4167, the Professional Boxing Safety Act.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, today is a new day in the fight to cure diabetes. Not only Members of Congress but every group who is dedicated to curing this disease and preventing its health consequences, from the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation to the American Diabetes Foundation to the Coalition for Diabetes Research, they are all concerned about and they are united behind legislation that has been introduced by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] and me and sponsored by over 230 other Members of Congress. We all realize that the complications of diabetes can be prevented if the 16 million American diabetics and over 100 million diabetics internationally have the proper education about their disease and the means to take care of themselves. This legislation does just that, Madam Speaker. It allows Medicare to cover the cost of diabetes education and the cost of blood testing and monitoring, critical factors if we are to reduce the $100 billion it costs American society each year to combat the results of diabetes. I urge all my colleagues and the other 200 who have not sponsored it yet to support this legislation and give life to the fight against diabetes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I have native Americans in my district. I say this respectfully to them and the opponents of this amendment: I really think this is a question of fairness. We have a 23-cent gas tax in my State. And to allow a native American gas station to collect gas sales from non-native Americans and not pay the tax right next to a gas station that is non-native American that has to collect that tax does not seem fair. Mr. Dicks mentioned an agreement between the States and the tribes. That is a good thing. We have that in my State. The Yakimas and the Colvilles both have agreements with the State of Washington to collect those taxes and pay them to the State. It is not fair to do otherwise. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. The gentleman is correct. We are trying to save the system.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to put this into perspective. This amendment as it relates to Oregon and Washington, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. We had a hearing earlier this year with Jack Thomas, the head of the Forest Service testifying. I raised an issue with Mr. Thomas about the Loomis State Forest in Washington State. It has gone from an infestation of mountain pine beetle starting at 50 acres; it is now about 55,000 acres. It is spreading rapidly east toward the Okanogan National Forest. I said: Mr. Thomas, how do we solve this problem? How do we stop this infestation and the spread of this infestation that is ruining our State forests and is going to threaten our national forests? This is what he said. He said: This infestation has swept across eastern Oregon, I say to my friend from Oregon, from one end to the other, and stopped when it got to the Cascades and ran out of lodge pole pine. Basically, I want to draw the attention of this quote to the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse, and the gentleman from Washington, my friend, Mr. McDermott. Basically it is a salvage operation in silviculture. And then he says for the people that are into this, and this is a little hard, a little bit hard to sell publicly, once you have an infestation moving at epidemic proportions and start to see the beetle hits, you will see the pinch tubes on the trees a year or 2 years before a stand starts to go in total. Salvage is the answer, or move ahead of the infestation with green sales. It is a little hard to sell to the public that we really know that this is going to happen. They do not believe it until they see the dead trees. Now, let us put this into perspective. This debate that has taken on a flavor of, if you are in favor of salvage timber, saving forests, then you are antienvironmental; and I am offended by that. I think that is incredible for the other side to argue this because that is not fair. The point is you have got the Loomis State Forest heading east infesting possibly the Okanogan National Forest, the Colville National Forest in my district, and we are now making the lumber and timber communities powerless to do anything about it. This salvage amendment again, it is either green sales to get ahead of the disease or it is salvage timber operations. This is a bad amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's point. Really, one cannot just specify only timber roads as being bad. I think there are road systems in this great land of ours that are very valuable to the use of Americans, whether it is timber harvesting, recreation or other reasons. It is a good thing we are fixing some of these roads, they are in disrepair. We are trying to use this money for proper, not improper, purposes, and we ought to reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I think we are frustrated in our State, whether it is the gentleman's district or mine. We are frustrated trying to make it work. Again, I want to make the point, it should work. We need to protect species. We need to protect private property rights. But under the current laws, we are all frustrated and it is costing everybody a fortune to make it work.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to respond to the comments of my friend from Washington, and he is my friend, on this issue. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has stated that it is all that a landowner has to do, is go in and get an HCP. Well, that cost of those timber companies who did that in my State hundreds of thousands of dollars to get that HCP. It is not that easy, in my judgment. They did it with great sacrifice, great time delays, and at a great cost of their corporate dollars, and that is very real. It is easy for us to stand here in this body and talk about, well, just go get an HCP or just go down and negotiate with the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is not that easy in today's world. That is one of the problems that I think small owners, landowners face, first. Second, I received a letter from the Farm Bureau. Now, I represent the eastern district of Washington, lots of farmers, lots of small farmers. This is what they said about this amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and this provision in the appropriations bill. The Farm Bureau supports this private property rights provision and urges its retention in the bill. The provision sets a valuable precedent that it is wrong for the Government to impose regulations that prohibit private landowners from harvesting a crop. Third, I think all this debate really emphasizes is that we have got an Endangered Species Act in this country that needs very, very serious attention. We have ambiguities in the law that was passed in 1973. We are fighting this out today, this discussion between private property rights and the public interest in protecting critical habitat and protecting endangered species. They are both very, very important. But I think what we really ought to be doing instead of fighting this debate on this amendment is addressing the issue, the greater issue of reforming the Endangered Species Act to make it work so that small landowners and private property rights and big companies and birds and fish and animals can coexist. I think they can, and I think we ought to really direct our attention to that effort.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me try to persuade my friend from Minnesota one more time. I think the focus of this debate has been on timber harvesting and timber harvesting road construction. I think the gentleman should understand that roads in the national forests are used by millions of Americans. They allow them access to over 121,000 miles of hiking trials, 96 wild and scenic rivers, 120 scenic byways, 397 designated scenic wilderness areas, over 18,000 recreational facilities, including boat ramps, campgrounds, and picnic areas. That is the use of roads in national forests. They provide not only access for recreation, but for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, and for monitoring water quality. People have to get into these forests and understand what the water quality is. They provide for many other aspects of ecosystem management. For timber harvesting, certainly, but roads are really a necessary tool for environmental management in the national forests. As with regard to the amount of roads we are building versus those we are eliminating, in 1994 the Forest Service permanently closed, ripped up, restored, almost 2,300 miles among needed roads to productive forest land, as I said, in 1994, but they built only 519 miles. So we have a net loss of roads of 1,780 miles in 1994. That happened also in 1995 and 1996.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that. But there is a reason we have those roads. It is not just to rape the land and hurt the forest; it is to get people into the recreation areas and the places they are entitled to be in this area. What we are doing is increasing the road construction a very, very little amount for 1997. I really think it is shortsighted to just say all roads are bad and we have to eliminate roads and put the money someplace else. I think it makes sense to do this.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I have been sitting in my office listening to this debate. I felt compelled to come here to the floor as a member of this subcommittee who sat through the hearings day after day, moment after moment, listening to the needs expressed by the military for our future readiness and our current readiness. I want to speak to my Republican freshman colleagues. Be very careful about what we do here. This is a bad amendment. This is something that is going to threaten, in my judgment, the future of this Nation. Think back just recently when we were so proud in this country to have our military forces be able to go to Bosnia and rescue Scott O'Grady, a constituent of mine from Spokane, WA. Think back how we felt in 1978 and 1979 when we had the fiasco in our military problems in the Iran rescue attempts. All the reason for that success in the Scott O'Grady case is because we are prepared. We have to be prepared for the future. This is a dangerous world. We have heard it time after time in our subcommittee. This is a dangerous amendment. In my judgment, my colleagues, we ought to reject it very, very strongly.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the elimination of the Market Access Program means the elimination of jobs. It is just that simple. We have heard a lot of talk here this afternoon by proponents of this amendment who talk about corporate welfare. What this Market Access Program really does is help employ people in the United States as we export our agriculture products overseas. It is just that simple. The gentleman from California who spoke in favor of this amendment, 137,000 people in his State depend on the Market Access Program and export-related jobs; the gentleman from New York, 8,300 jobs; the gentleman from Wisconsin, 27,500 jobs directly related to agriculture export jobs. Let us be serious about this. We have again this year come to the same place we were last year trying to eliminate a program, a modest program that is going to help American jobs overseas and help us export our products overseas. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought to reject this amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers. This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my friend from California, make the best wine in the world. But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to the European winemakers. That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition, unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing. What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the achievements of several Boy Scouts from my district. Eric Jordan and Kevin Engbretson were recently recognized in a National Court of Honor Ceremony, and Travis Passey received his Eagle Scout Award, joining his five brothers in receiving this honor. In the early morning of February 19, 1994, Scout Eric Jordan, of Walla Walla, WA, awoke to find his bedroom filled with smoke. Eric shared the bedroom with his younger brother Kristopher, and heard him gasping from the dense smoke. Crawling along the floor, Eric found his brother's electric blanket burning and the younger boy unconscious. He dragged Kristopher from the room and closed the bedroom door to suffocate the fire. For his quick thinking in averting the potential tragedy, Eric was awarded the National Heroism Medal. On May 27, 1994, Scot Kevin Engbretson, also of Walla Walla, was on a field trip with his seventh grade class at Charbonneau State Park. When one of his classmates was playfully pushed off a dock into the Snake River, and it became apparent that she could not swim, Kevin quickly waded into the river and towed the girl to safety. For his efforts in rescuing his classmate, Kevin was awarded the National Certificate of Merit. Travis Passey, of Cheney, WA, recently earned his Eagle Scout Award for organizing a project that raised funds for area libraries. Travis deserves recognition for his service, but equally deserving are his five brothers: Jared, Ryan Nathan, Allan, and David. Each of Glenn and Joan Passey's six sons have earned the rank of Eagle Scout, and I would like to congratulate this family's accomplishment. The young men honored their father's guidance over the years with a flag flown over the Capitol, and I think the accompanying certificate precisely summarizes their appreciation for his support. The certificate read, ``Your six Eagles Scouts sons honor you for your dedication, inspiration and love.'' Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to recognize the achievements of these young men. I was a Life Scout, and I know of the significant personal dedication that is required of Boy Scouts. The lessons learned in Scouting are of great personal benefit but as these men have demonstrated, our families and communities are even greater beneficiaries Eric Jordan and Kevin Engbretson calmly reacted to crises that could have become tragedies. Travis, Jared, Ryan, Nathan, Allan, and David Passey, through their service as Eagle Scouts, have contributed lasting community service projects. I am proud of the contributions that these young men have made, and grateful for their commitment to their families and communities.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will just simply close my portion of time in saying that this amendment should be rejected. I fully support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] in their position on this bill and this amendment. We should move forward.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Let me just say in response to the gentleman from Washington, who makes a very, very good point, this is a dangerous world. We have limited resources. We cannot gamble on the intelligence services of the United States of America, and I think, as my colleagues know, we are talking a little bit about apples and oranges although the concept that the gentlewoman from Colorado makes, or the point she makes with regard to mismanagement, applies equally on the domestic side, but we do not have the national security interests of the country at stake. So I think the point of the gentleman from Washington, my colleague and friend, Mr. Dicks, is a very good one.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.