George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will pay attention to what has happened in the food and consumer services agency. That money goes to kids. It is supposed to go to kids, and we are spending it on all other kinds of things in that agency, but I do not hear the outrage.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me as I was watching the debate and listening to the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Vermont talk about misplacement of $4 billion and fiscal meltdowns, I wonder what those two colleagues of mine would say if we had the same response to the mismanagement that has been shown by the inspector general of the United States for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the Food and Consumer Services Agency. The IG did an audit, as I am sure my colleagues know, showing that $13.5 billion out of $37 billion of the food and consumer services budget could not be found. Talk about mismanagement. Talk about unaccountability. And I do not here anybody on the other side being outraged by that kind of mismanagement or that kind of fiscal meltdown. The point is, there is fiscal mismanagement at an agency that the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Vermont I think want to ignore. An audit was done; they cannot prove that it was lost, but they cannot prove that this was spent for the proper purpose. The I.G. said there is no accounting of it, it cannot be proved what happened to the money. So that agency came before the Committee on Appropriations, on which I serve, and said, ``Give us $4 billion more.'' So I think we have to put this all in perspective and realize that we are talking about the national security interests of the United States, and on that basis I think we have to be careful about saying, as my colleagues know, about trying to punish agencies because that hand can bite if we are not careful.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Colville National Forest Adaptive Management of Timber Resources Act. The intermountain west and, in particular, a portion of my district in eastern Washington State, are plagued by unhealthy, overstocked forests. These unhealthy forests are susceptible to catastrophic fires of such intensity that they cook the forest soil and leave the forest floor lifeless. The threat of such disasters lies in the broad expanses of forest stands that are densely overstocked with small-diameter trees of low vigor. They are highly susceptible to insects and disease, as well as fire. These stands have become that way in part because they have not been managed and because the lower-intensity fires that are nature's way of forest management have been suppressed. The recently completed 5-year CROP--CReating OPportunities--study commissioned by the U.S. Forest Service on the Colville National Forest starkly portrays the dimensions of the problem and also points the way toward solutions. This study, conducted during 1989 through 1994, found that more than 525,000 acres of the Colville, or just under half its total land base, had been burned between 1910 and 1934. Of the forest stands generated from these burned acres, 96 percent now have a poor to fair vigor rating, and 42 percent have a moderate to high hazard rating for mountain pine beetle infestation. The productivity of these stands is declining. Insects and disease contribute to the heavy fuel load on these acres, increasing the probability of catastrophic fire requiring a major reforestation effort. Of these fire-generated stands, 86 percent are allocated for emphasis on timber management. The CROP study determined that thinning these stands would improve vigor, reduce risk, and ultimately create greater stand diversity. There is a 10- to 20-year window of opportunity before the insect hazard becomes significantly worse and the chances for a positive response to thinning diminish. Market opportunities presently exist for the small-diameter trees that would be removed in thinning. In drafting the Colville National Forest Adaptive Management of Timber Resources Act, I have taken the results of the CROP study, emphasized the need and demand for scientifically based and environmentally acceptable results, and recognized the ongoing substantial reduction in Forest Service funds and trained personnel. The Colville is a logical place to begin this research because the CROP study has already laid the groundwork, especially in terms of resource inventory and assessment. It would take more preparation time to begin the same project elsewhere. Upon enactment, a 10-year research and experimentation effort will begin on the Colville that is intended to conserve natural resources without locking them up; provide answers applicable throughout the intermountain west; reduce waste of resources; shift activities from the declining public employees sector to the private sector for savings in cost and efficiency; and help balance the budget by generating revenues from federal assets without increasing expenditures. The act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a research plan and supporting environmental documents that provide for implementing and evaluating controlled silvicultural treatment in the affected areas. The purpose of the research is to test the effect of adaptive management techniques in the treatment of such forest stands. The research area is approximately 110,000 acres of the Colville National Forest. These acres are overstocked, small-diameter, stagnated forest stands in areas generated from fire up to 80 years ago. Research is to begin by the second full field season after enactment, but a demonstration project covering perhaps 10,000 acres can begin as soon as a preliminary draft of the research plan is complete. The research is to continue over a 10-year period, with roughly equal amounts of acreage to be treated each year. Monitoring of the research is to continue for 15 years, with detailed reports of findings and implications to be submitted to Congress at 5-year intervals. The research will be paid for from a combination of the proportionate funds available for the research area through the normal Forest Service budget and 50 percent of the revenues generated from sales of forest products removed pursuant to the scientific research. Counties will receive their normal 25 percent share of revenue generated by research sales. The Secretary of Agriculture will be able to use private contractors for the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of the research. He might choose to involve the Center for Sustainable Eastern Washington Ecosystems which was substantially involved in the CROP study that underlies this research. To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary is to use private contractors from communities adversely affected by reductions in Forest Service timber sales. Mr. Speaker, 10 to 15 years may sound like a long time for research, monitoring, and broad application of the research finds. But the amount of time is very short before we must begin to deal with the problem of overstocked and underconserved forests. I urge all of my colleagues who despair of the soil-sterilizing large fires that have plagued our forests too often in recent years to join me in support of this bill and help get this vital scientific research underway.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many stories in this House over the past few weeks about the stagnation of wages and that America needs a raise. Last night I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle lament that real wages have declined 16 percent over the last 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I agree that American workers need to take home more of their earnings to their families. Today I will introduce legislation to enable every worker to deduct on their income tax the money that they contribute to Social Security every payday. My bill, the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act, will increase the take-home pay of the average two-earner family by $1,770 per year. While it does not affect the receipts of the Social Security trust funds in any way, this legislation will eliminate the unfairness to workers who must now pay tax on the 6.2-percent of their income that they contribute to Social Security. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, which will give a much-needed boost to the hard working men and women of our Nation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this very important issue. Madam Speaker, before I was elected to Congress, I was a practicing attorney in Spokane, WA. I estimate that I have handled well over 1,000 adoptions and well over 1,000 children of those adoption cases. Certainly it is the most important thing, I believe, any human being can do for another, and that is to adopt a child and provide a stable, loving home for that child. An environment of stability is extremely important. I have handled not only foreign adoptions, I have handled many, many Indian child welfare cases, and my experience is this: The Indian Child Welfare Act needs adjustment. Many of the Indian Child Welfare Act cases I handled were handled perfectly, and the Indian tribe's heritage and the interest of the Indian tribe was fully protected, but there were many cases that I have handled where there were not only problems that prevented a final adoption but problems that resulted in delays. For a child who is waiting to be adopted and waiting to have the finality of an adoption and a loving home, the wait is as bad as anything. The uncertainty for a young child is extremely detrimental. What we have to keep our eyes focused on, I believe, today on this particular legislation, which I think is good legislation, provides an appropriate adjustment to the Indian Child Welfare Act, we have to keep our eyes on who is most important here. Is it the child and the interests of the child, or is it the tribe? There is no reason that the Indian Child Welfare Act should impede a loving family placement in a non-Indian home or perhaps with an adoptive parent who is maybe not of the same affiliation, tribal affiliation. My experience is that many adoptive parents have recognized that Indian child welfare connection and the tribal connection. This is a good bill, a good rule, and we should support it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the winners of the 1996 Spokane Scholars Foundation Awards. This award is solely based on the exceptional performance that these students have demonstrated in their course work and test scores in a specific academic subject. These students truly represent the finest young men and women in our community. I am proud to announce this year's winners are: Mr. David Gosse from Cheney High School for his outstanding achievements in the area of science; Miss Sarah M. Westergren from Mead Senior High School for her outstanding achievements in the area of English; Mr. Robert M. Dirks from Lewis and Clark High School for his outstanding achievements in the area of mathematics; Miss Joy K. Crosby from North Central High School for her outstanding achievements in the area of foreign languages; Mr. Nicholas A. McCarthy from St. George's School for his outstanding achievements in the area of social sciences; and Miss Shayna Silverstein from Lewis and Clark High School for her outstanding achievements in the area of fine arts. I congratulate all of these extraordinary students for their hard work in achieving this exceptional recognition and wish them the very best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to correct a provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act that imposes an inequity on married couples working for the same employer. I first learned about the need to change section 102(f) of the Family and Medical Leave Act from a constituent who directs human services for a small business in the fifth district of Washington. My constituent was approached by two couples, one married and the other unmarried, who worked at her firm. Both couples were expecting a child and wanted to know how much family leave they were entitled to under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The answer? Because of section 102(f), the unmarried couple was entitled to twice as much family and medical leave--24 weeks--as the married couple, which was limited to a total of 12 weeks to care for their newborn child. The only reason for this difference was that the Family and Medical Leave Act limits benefits for spouses--and only spouses--working for the same employer. This section was included in the bill so that the Family and Medical Leave Act does not create a double burden on businesses that hire married couples or have employees who marry. However, the law does not similarly limit the leave entitlement of siblings or unmarried couples working for the same employer even though they may also require simultaneous leave periods. This discrepancy creates an inadvertent ``marriage penalty'' in the Family and Medical Leave Act. When the Department of Labor asked for comments on this provision, several respondents reacted unfavorably. According to the introduction to the final family and medical leave regulations, Several commenters took issue with the reasoning for limiting leave entitlements for spouses employed by the same employer. Two individuals opposed the limitations as being discriminatory against spouses . . . [T]he regulations provide no guidance in connection with siblings employed by the same employer. The Society for Human Resource Management noted that two employees living together but not legally married can each take 12 weeks for the birth or placement of a child, and recommended revising the regulations to provide that the 12-week-total limitation would also apply where both parents of a child work for the same employer. (emphasis added). The legislation I have introduced addresses the concerns of my constituent and the experts who reviewed the regulations issued by the Department of Labor. My bill corrects this marriage penalty by applying the same 12-week limitation to siblings and to both married and unmarried parents. As in the current law, this limitation applies when leave is available for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for a parent. This legislation is a positive step toward improving our Federal workplace laws and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, in the Agriculture appropriations hearing, I examined what can only be described as gross mismanagement in the agency that oversees our Nation's food programs. Without clear explanation, the USDA's Food and Consumer Service could not specifically account for $13.5 billion, one-third of their budget in 1994. We do know that the agency spent $500,000 on gourmet chefs to design food for kids and $400,000 for the Disney Corp. to promote ``Lion King'' commercials in the name of child nutrition. While Republicans have been attacked for trying to make certain that Federal agencies use taxpayer money efficiently and effectively, the Food and Consumer Service has in fact had so much money they don't know where it went. The inspector general made such a finding. Every American should be outraged at this administration's mismanagement of these funds for children, and we better look at other agencies, too, to be certain about spending in efficiency in this administration.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, the first 2 months of 1996 brought the Pacific Northwest bitter cold, heavy snow, torrential rains, and disastrous floods. I had the opportunity to witness some of the worst flooding in our State in 30 years. Railroads have been washed out, highways are crumbling, and homes have been carpeted with river mud. However, outside of the heavy mud rose a spirit from eastern Washington that lightened the hearts of everyone who was touched by this force of nature. Without phone calls, whistles, or an official call, the eastern Washington community has come together to work day and night to take their town back from overflowing rivers. Working as one, they created an awe-inspiring relief team. This effort is a tribute to the strength and capability of the people of the Pacific Northwest. Nothing tears at the fabric of a community like a natural disaster and nothing else can bring out the best in human beings. The people of Dayton, Walla Walla, Waitsburg, Pullman, Colfax, Elberton, Palouse, and all surrounding towns should be commended for what they have endured and how they have welcomed their neighbors' help with open arms. The employees of FEMA, the Red Cross, Corps of Engineers, and the Small Business Administration must be congratulated as well. Working among disaster areas and dealing with human concerns day after day challenged public and private citizens alike. My visit to these towns to view the damage was not only inspiring but an encouraging opportunity to observe Federal employees at work. These agencies have received high marks in Washington State and our residents thank their personnel for what they have done to assist. When spring arrives in the Pacific Northwest, the scars will remain visible, but the work will continue. Crops will be replanted and roads will be repaired. As a Member of Congress, I will be doing my best to help our small towns get back on their feet, back in their homes, and their lives back to normal. It will all take time and it will also preparation to avoid flood damage in the future. America's small towns must be preserved. Rural communities are certainly a window into our past and, I hope, a picture of what America can be. We are faced with daily reports of bad news about the condition of our society, but the citizens of Dayton, Waitsburg, Palouse, and all the other affected towns in eastern Washington give me hope. Community leaders like Waitsburg Mayor Tom Baker, Columbia County Commissioner Jon McFarland, and Walla Walla County Commissioner David Carey have given so much to their constituents under adverse circumstances. John Vachal, the mayor of Dayton, has done an excellent job coordinating his responsibilities to the town and contending with the damage to his own neighborhood. Great commitment and leadership has also been recognized in Columbia County Commissioners George Touchette and Charles Reeves, Colfax Mayor Norma Becker, Palouse Mayor Bruce Baldwin, and Pullman Mayor Mitch Chandler, to name only a few. Countless families have endured this winter's heartbreaking events, like the Marshall family of Starbuck, whose living room was flooded with 3 feet of water. Flint and Megan Gilbertson were both moved to tears, not simply because they nearly lost their home, but because their community opened hearts and wallets and donated needed money to the family. Nevertheless, few complain and everybody works for the good of the community. I believe Darlene Burrill of Walla Walla said it best. ``May each one find hope and encouragement in knowing that there are many people who care.'' I will do all that I can to make recovery proceed as smoothly as possible for the people of the Fifth Congressional District. America has much to learn from my part of the country, and I have a renewed respect and a continuing deep appreciation for the spirit of rural America and eastern Washington.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 148. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for House Concurrent Resolution 148, a resolution concerning the defense of Taiwan. This resolution is an important step in our relationship with the People's Republic of China because it unambiguously proclaims our interest in the security of Taiwan and condemns China's heavy-handed efforts to intimidate the people of Taiwan as they enjoy their first direct presidential election. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary because the Clinton administration has invited continued and escalating Chinese aggression by pursuing an inconsistent and unclear policy toward China and Taiwan. Only by making our priorities and interests crystal clear can we prevent future conflict with the People's Republic of China and assure the continued security and prosperity of the United States and our Pacific allies. Our national interests in Taiwan and the Pacific should be crystal clear. Taiwan possesses the thirteenth-largest developed economy and is an important trading partner for my district, Washington State, and America. Furthermore, if China is allowed to intimidate or attack Taiwan, our relationship with Japan, South Korea, and other important security and trade allies is likely to suffer. Instead of attempting to bully Taiwan, Chinese leaders should try to learn from Taiwan's example. Taiwan has achieved economic success by fostering an economy that is virtually as free as America's. Taiwan is now prepared to enter the ranks of truly democratic governments where the people elect their own president, an achievement China may someday replicate. It is right for America to defend Taiwan's progress and prevent an autocratic and militaristic Chinese regime from threatening Taiwan and our Pacific allies, and it is important for this body to make that statement by passing House Concurrent Resolution 148.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Air Force Capt. Scott F. O'Grady, who today received the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and the Air Force Commendation Medal at a special ceremony at the Pentagon. Scott's heroism and courage during his 6 days in hiding in hostile Bosnian territory after his F-16 was shot down by a Serb missile made him an immediate celebrity upon his return to the United States. Americans were riveted by the story of his avoiding detection by armed patrols and using basic survival techniques to stay alive for 6 days without food and water before his ultimate rescue by a group of courageous Marines from the U.S.S. Kearsage. On Friday, June 2, 1995, Scott was piloting his F-16 Falcon in a routine combat air patrol with another F-16 as part of the NATO operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia. Suddenly, he detected missiles aimed at him from the ground and took evasive maneuvers. One missile exploded between the two planes, but the second one scored a direct hit on Scott's plane, forcing him to eject. Dazed from the force of his abrupt separation from the aircraft and suffering burns from the explosion, Scott parachuted to the ground where Bosnian Serb troops were already searching for him. Quickly gathering his wits, he pressed his body to the ground to avoid discovery. He then used his survival training to collect dew for drinking water and gather grasses and insects for food. He stayed alive with only these things for 6 long days and was able to move around only at night. When the rescue team arrived on Thursday, they found him exhausted yet unbowed by his ordeal. I had the pleasure of meeting this young man when he returned to the United States for a hero's welcome that included a ceremony with President Clinton and Secretary Perry. He was exceedingly modest about his exploits and full of praise for his rescuers. I believe that Scott embodies the qualities for which Americans are respected around the world, namely dedication to duty, belief in God, rugged individualism, and a never-say-die spirit that keeps us going even when we fear that all is lost. I am proud of this native son of the State of Washington, who hails from my hometown of Spokane. I wish him congratulations and best wishes for the future.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to be chairing the Republican task force on agriculture, thanks to his input, and the gentleman is due an awful lot of congratulations on this bill, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman has made me and those of us who are not members of the Committee on Agriculture, but who care about agriculture, feel very much a part of the Committee on Agriculture, and at times, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it has been nice not to be a member of the committee, be a member of the Committee on Appropriations ag subcommittee, given the hard challenges my colleagues have had this year. But he is to be congratulated, and I am happy to rise in support this really revolutionary bill. It is the Agriculture Market Transition Act. It is a new look for American agriculture, one that is not overnight change for farmers in this country, but one that is a program that is phased in, that will be deliberately and sensibly imposed upon the farmers of America, giving them the ultimate opportunity to adjust to a market economy and farm for the market, not farm for the Government programs that exist. It is easing them into the very challenging efforts to compete in a world market, and it is something that is appropriate that we do for American agriculture. I want to remind my colleagues that this is not the only time we will look at changes in agriculture policy by this Federal Government. We will take a look back in the next year and two and three and four to make sure that this approach to agriculture reform is working. We will also be looking at a farm bill, too, a chance for this Congress to have an opportunity to revise and make regulatory reform and tax reform to assist the American farmer. That is what Government should and should seriously be doing as we move into the next century of agriculture. This is revolutionary change for agriculture. It is difficult for everybody to accept all at once. That is why we are phasing it in. It is good for the American farmer, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of those that have participated in the debate. I may not have agreed with all that has been said. I have taken and would take exception to some of the areas that have been addressed, I think incorrectly, but nonetheless I would not challenge any Member's prerogative to say what she or he might want to. But I do want to again say that when there was mention that it was negotiated, it was not negotiated with the minority, certainly not with the ranking member of the minority. I now suspect that it was negotiated with this task force led by the gentleman from Washington and not with the minority, so it was a negotiation within the majority and their leadership, and that is a flawed process. This is a people's House; this is where people are supposed to, through their elected Representatives, have input into the legislative process. We had none. Those of us that happen to be in the minority had no opportunity to represent our people, to represent our constituencies. We were not given that opportunity, and this is the flawed process that I am objecting to. At the Committee on Rules, the same thing. We have been told, well, that is how the Democrats did it. It is here and now, and I am not here to argue how or when or what. All I know is that we are effectively told this is how it is going to be done, we are in charge and we are sorry if you do not like it, that is too bad. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to strongly support overriding this Presidential veto that the President has signed recently on this particular bill that affects so many people in the Department of Interior. As my colleagues know, we have heard a lot of talk about putting Federal workers back to work, Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Interior and agencies that come under the Department of Interior, and I am all for that. I think it is time that we do that, but I think we have to understand that the President of the United States, in the stroke of his veto pen, sealed the fate of Federal workers, but he also sealed the fate of non-Federal workers who rely on the forests for their livelihood. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and a lot of Democrats and Republicans worked very heard to present a bill to the President that would be acceptable, and I heard the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] say earlier today that the goalpost had moved, and they consistently moved during the negotiation period. That is true. We made a special effort to talk to the President, talk to the Interior Department and get a bill that would be acceptable to everybody, and we sent it down to the White House, and the President, as I say, as my colleagues know, boldly strokes his veto pen and seals the fate of people in the Department of Interior and people out of the Department of Interior, and, so I say, he sealed the fate of non-Federal workers in our Nation's forests who have been devastated by the no-harvest policy of this administration, and that is the crime here, is that the President in vetoing this bill not only hurts people who are Federal workers, but he hurts people who are non-Federal workers who rely on the forest for jobs. In addition I have to ask the question of my friends on the other side, ``Who is thinking about the jobs of the people who are non- Federal employees?'' Anyone who votes to override this veto will think about and will support jobs in the private sector that would come about by this signing, overriding this bill, and also the people in the public sector, and I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I was interested to listen to the previous speaker's comments about not wanting to have this debate or not needing to have this discussion tonight. But to the contrary, as a freshman member of this subcommittee I can certainly attest to the hard work that was engaged in to try to reach a reasonable compromise on this massive Interior bill that has to deal with the Nation's public lands. What has to be said here is that after a great deal of debate and discussion and grave consideration given to the good and the bad of this bill, we came to the President with a darn good bill. And talk about pinning the tail on the donkey, I think precisely where the tail needs to be pinned is downtown. The President vetoed a very good bill for some specious reasons, in my judgement, not the least of which was one affecting my area of the country, the eastern side of the State of Washington in the Pacific Northwest. The East Side Ecosystem Management Study was a reason that the President identified as part of the veto message. This astounds me, simply becuase this is a study that the taxpayers have paid $24 million on and really have not seen any reports of its results or any scientific findings that are to be presented. What we did, in the analysis of the subcommittee and the full committee, in the House as well as the Senate, was to say to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, give us your science, let us see what we spent $24 million on in this Congress. We have even given them another $4 million to give more time for public input and more publication of the scientific findings. So for the President to stoop as low as he did in using a study as the reason for a veto is astounding. I think it emphasizes the fact that this bill should not have been vetoed, it should not have been vetoed for this reason, and it was an improper act on the part of the President.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am happy to rise in support of this conference report and the important funding provisions that it does contain. I hope that my colleagues and the President will sign this bill, because it will increase our Nation's current and future readiness. It will improve the quality of life of our members of our Armed Forces, and most importantly, it will ensure our long-term security. The main thing this conference report does is ensure our readiness of our America's Armed Forces. The bill provides for future readiness by reversing a decade of steep decline in weapons procurement. The prior speakers are correct. It takes years and years to get these weapons systems and these procurement systems in place. I hope that we do not have to go to war again, but if we do, we have to give our men and women, our young people in the armed services the best possible equipment possible, and Stealth equipment and technology is the answer for our future. Captain O'Grady is from my district, and if he had been in a Stealth aircraft, perhaps he would not have been shot down over Bosnia. So that is the importance here. B-2, the F-22, FA-18 aircraft, they are our future and we need to fund them.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his good work on this bill, the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations conference report. As a new Member of Congress from the West--eastern Washington--and as a member of the Interior Subcommittee I have had the opportunity to work closely with those parties with an interest in land-use issues, including the mining patent moratorium. The conference report before us is a fair agreement that reconciles the interests on all sides of the mining issue. I would like to remind members that we currently live under the law of the 1872 Mining Act. This law must be reformed, however, it is inappropriate to impose a total moratorium on an appropriations bill because we don't like the law. The law should be and will be reformed outside of the of the appropriations process. On September 29, the House voted to recommit the Interior conference report with instructions to impose a moratorium on the processing of mining patents. I did not support that motion, however the conference complied with the will of the House and reinstated the moratorium for all new patent applications. And consistent with the language in the bill last year, the conference agreed to grandfather those patent applications already in process. This is a fair agreement. Before voting on this report, members should know that I am told the other body will not support a conference report that does not grandfather patents that were filed before the moratorium was enacted. I emphasize again, if this conference report is passed and signed into law, no new mining patent applications will be processed. The will of the House has been met. I also want to address the issue of logging in the Tongass Forest. The language in this conference report simply directs the Forest Service to proceed with alternative P. It may surprise some to know that alternative P was the Forest Service's own preferred management plan under the Bush administration. This plan will allow a sustainable yield of timber while protecting the environment. I strongly urge all members to support the Interior conference report. It's a fair agreement and a good bill--vote against the motion to recommit and for the report.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman very much for his hard work and certainly urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a provision of this conference report which raises the concern of the conferees that the comprehensive management of our valuable salmon resources should be undertaken by the administration in the form of a memorandum of agreement. It is my understanding that the conference strongly encourages the administration to work with the Congress and interested parties in the development of the MOA. I, on behalf of my constituents in Washington's fifth district, want the opportunity to review and comment prior to its adoption, and I presume the administration will work with me and my other Northwest colleagues to that end. To the maximum extent practicable, this MOA should not result in increased electric or fish and wildlife costs in the region. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Subsection 508(b)(1) of the conference report provides for the sale of excess Federal power outside the region. This section requires that the power be offered on the same essential rates, terms and conditions to customers outside the region as is offered to Northwest customers. I understand this language to require BPA to offer the terms and conditions to Northwest customers first. So that if BPA intends to offer contracts of certain terms outside the region, it must offer the same terms to customers inside the region. The intent is to give customers inside the region a right of first refusal on all of the essential rates, terms and conditions in any contract, before BPA offers for sale energy outside the region. Is this correct?

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. It is going to mean more money in their pockets and a better economy for this country, especially for eastern Washington.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I just want to say as new Members of Congress, all of us have cast some very serious votes in this 104th Congress. It is a historic Congress. Tomorrow's vote probably will be bigger than any of the votes we will have made thus far, the last of which was on our Medicare vote. This is an important vote. It means the future of the country for the next 7 years. It means we will balance the Federal budget in 7 years and this is the starting point as we go each year and meet our financial obligations for the country. I think this is a proud moment for all of us as freshmen. It is a difficult moment as we all have said. This is not a perfect bill, but it has got so much good in it and so little bad, I think as you really balance it out. But I think we have no choice but to vote for the future of the country and vote in favor of this reconciliation bill. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and certainly the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for all the work we have done as freshmen. I know there is a lot more work to do, but we will meet the task.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Even here in the State of Virginia and I think in New Jersey there is an experiment of giving the States the ability to experiment with welfare reform and have more flexibility from the Federal system. In those two States I mentioned, they have had people who have been on welfare and also have had an incentive to work while continuing to receive some welfare benefits. That is work. They are now filling out tax returns and actually getting into the habit of working, instead of just receiving welfare money or welfare assistance and having a disincentive to work. I think our plan is very clearly designed to provide an incentive for people to ease themselves off welfare. Two years will be an ample time. While America, I believe all of us would agree, needs to take care of people who need our help, we do not need to take care of people who just want our help. That is what this bill is intended to do, is to create incentives for people to be off the system and to make our entire national system of free enterprise and capitalism work better, and it will.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Certainly not. It deals with agriculture too. Agriculture is a very important part of my district in the eastern part of the State of Washington. It is going to help farmers and storekeepers and small businesspeople. It is going to help single moms and single dads raise children, recognizing that that is the most important thing we can do in this country, is raise a good child to be a good citizen. We are encouraging that as we devolve this, transfer this Federal authority to State authority and local and county authority. That is all in the best interest of local citizens; people in Spokane and Walla Walla and Colville and Colfax and every other city in my district. It affects the broad range of people in this country; not only by a balanced budget, but by the tax relief we are trying to provide to people and leave more money in their pockets so they can spend it as they deem appropriate.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, in my former life as a lawyer in Spokane, WA, 10 months ago, I did probably 100 adoptions a year. It is the greatest service that anybody can provide in our society for another human being, that is to adopt a child and give that child love and care and attention for his or her lifetime. This bill, this reconciliation bill that is coming in before us tomorrow, which we will pass, provides a tax credit as an incentive for people to ease the burden of adopting a child. Sometimes hard-to-place children, children with health problems and others are difficult to place in a home with the ability to provide the resources necessary to raise that child. And make no mistake about it, it does cost more money to raise children than to not raise children. That is why we are providing some tax relief to families with children. Along with that, we provide assistance to people to encourage adoption and encourage security for young people in this country for their future life in a loving family. That is admirable in this tax bill and this reconciliation package that we are putting together. This is a good thing for families. It is a good thing for children. So do not let anyone tell us that we are not sensitive about the children of this country. We are, and we will be as we pass this bill tomorrow.