George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record: Dear Congressman Nethercutt: Without support for life science research, the investment in the Space Station won't pay off. Just as the National Institutes of Health long-term commitment to basic research has revolutionized medicine, NASA can do the same for maintaining people in space. As president-elect of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology, I encourage you to support the $32 million increase in the life science research budget (HR 1654). We strongly oppose any amendment to strike those funds. Life science research at NASA benefits more than our space program. The problems seen during and after spaceflight-- trouble with balance, muscle loss, bone loss, low blood pressure and radiation damage to cells--affect millions on the ground too. The basic research on how the body senses and adapts to gravity will pay off in the long run against problems like osteoporosis and balance disorders. Recently, I flew in space on the Neurolab Space Shuttle mission (STS-90). This dedicated life sciences mission demonstrated the quality and importance of the science that NASA can do in space. The results from this mission's experiments on balance, sleep, blood pressure and nervous system development are changing how we understand the brain and nervous system. NASA's and the United States' goal is to keep people in space for longer periods of time and we need to learn how to do it effectively. The key to this is a strong research program that (1) maintains an active ground-based research program with a 9-10/1 ground to flight experiment ratio, (2) supports new students and fellows (I personally started my career with a NASA-supported fellowship program), (3) increases the percentage of high-scoring scientific proposals that can be funded (the current level is quite low). We appreciate the support life science research has received in the past and encourage you to vote to increase funding for research that will be the foundation for success on the International Space Station. Sincerely, Jay C. Buckey, Jr., M.D., President-Elect, American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago the Diabetes Research Working Group released its report entitled ``Conquering Diabetes: A Strategic Plan for the 21st Century.'' This document was a result of over a year of effort on the part of 12 scientific experts and four representatives from the lay diabetes community. Support was provided by dozens of other individuals both from within the National Institutes of Health and from outside the NIH. The Working Group was established by Congress as part of the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act and based on legislation I introduced in the last session of Congress. It requested that NIH establish the Group to develop a comprehensive plan for NIH-funded diabetes research. Dr. Ronald Kahn is an outstanding physician and scientist. He was selected the chairman of the group. He has spent literally thousands of hours meeting and talking with countless individuals to establish a consensus on the direction of diabetes research. The report has exceeded all expectations. It clearly details the magnitude of the disease both on the individual and on our society. On an individual level, diabetes affects virtually every tissue of the body with severe damage. Since 1980, the age-adjusted death rate due to diabetes has increased by 30 percent, while the death rate has fallen for other common diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and stroke. Diabetes affects about 16 million Americans, with 800,000 new cases diagnosed each year. The societal impact is likewise staggering. One in four Medicare dollars are spent to treat people with diabetes. And over one in 10 health care dollars spent are spent for diabetes. In economic terms, the cost to society is over $105 billion each year. The report identifies five areas of extraordinary research opportunities for making progress in understanding and treating and ultimately preventing and curing diabetes. These five areas are the genetics of diabetes and its complications; autoimmunity and the beta cell; cell signaling and cell regulation; obesity; and clinical trials and research. Within each area, specific research recommendations are made, and in all areas rapid advancements are anticipated. Finally, ``Conquering Diabetes,'' the name of this report, presents an analysis of current spending and estimates, program-by-program, of the cost of implementing each opportunity. Current spending, the group reports, is far short of what is required to make progress on this complex and difficult problem. They calculate that an increase of $384 million in fiscal year 2000, rising to $1.166 billion in fiscal year 2004 is, quote, required to have a robust and effective diabetes research effort, one which will reduce the rising burden created by this debilitating disease. The release of the report has generated extraordinary interest among the scientific community, Mr. Speaker. Some argue that advances in research must be present to generate an increased NIH portfolio, while others argue that the presence of research dollars will generate advances as in the case of AIDS. By either standard, the time to establish a national commitment to diabetes research is now. Mr. Speaker, Congress must seize upon the momentum in diabetes research and fully enact the Diabetes Research Working Group Report recommendations. It will take a commitment of $827 million in the next fiscal year. The scientific community has united to develop a concrete plan and now it is up to the Congress to unite to make this plan a reality. I must conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this is a very important initiative for our country. I know it is going to be a difficult year economically for the appropriations subcommittee that has to deal with this issue, but I must say it is in the Nation's best interest, it is in the interest of scientific research and the diabetic and all the complications that come from diabetes that the Congress step up and say $827 million is the number. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative in the House.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Police Week. There have been ceremonies all around our country this week to recognize the service and dedication the men and women of law enforcement provide our community. In my own district, there will be a Law Enforcement Appreciation Breakfast this Friday. Unfortunately, National Police Week is no joyous occasion. 158 peace officers killed in the line of duty this past year. It is important to note that the U.S. lost just a few more men and women during the entire Persian Gulf War. To date, there have been over 15,000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Virtually every community has lost someone special to it. Mr. Speaker, each one of the heroes has stories to tell: of community service, dedication to job, and love for family. For the families and fellow officers, this week serves as a painful reminder that their lives will never be the same. We will put their loved one's name on a memorial wall and that is a good thing, but we shall never fully appreciate their grief. Our pledge to them should be that we will continue the work toward a safe community that their loved one sought and died to give us. There are over 700,000 law enforcement officers at every level of government who put their life and mental well-being on the line every day to protect our community from forces that wish to undermine our safety. They deserve recognition as well this week. Law enforcement officers encounter every day the part of society that most of us are unwilling to confront. What is particularly tragic is many of them face violence or the threat of violence themselves and then face unfair criticism by individuals who either have no idea what it's like on the streets or are unwilling to make the same sacrifice. They are our friends and not our adversaries. Mr. Speaker, National Police Week is a good beginning for showing support for our law enforcement officers. We should show appreciation to them every day by our prayers and words of encouragement. For all Eastern Washington officers, I personally say thank you for your dedication and protection of our communities.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, the National Cancer Institute estimates that over 8 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. Before the millennium, it is expected that over one million new cancer cases will be diagnosed. Just in this decade, approximately 12 million patients will have cancer detected. This year it is anticipated that over 500,000 Americans will succumb to cancer. That is over 1,500 people per day. Today, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease. A bright spot in this tragic picture is the fact that when all cancers are combined, the 5-year survival rate is 60 percent. So I am pleased to rise today to highlight the excellent work being done at Washington State University's Cancer Prevention and Research Center, a center that is in my own district in Pullman, Washington, to help win this fight against cancer. This center in Pullman is the focal point for cancer research at Washington State University. The center is located within the College of Pharmacy, where cancer is the core of the research conducted in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Department. The researchers there in several other Washington State University research departments are studying the deadly disease, including some in biochemistry, food sciences and human nutrition, microbiology and zoology, veterinary medicine, and many, many more. Today, the Cancer Center is a catalyst to mobilize collaborative research efforts within the University and the surrounding health care community, especially Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. The goals of the Center in its work are to attack cancer through a multidisciplinary research approach, provide central support services and shared facilities for ongoing research, facilitate translation of basic research to the clinic, and educate health professionals and the public about healthy life-styles and cancer prevention. The new director of the center, Gary Meadows, hopes to make WSU, Washington State University, and its Cancer Prevention Research Center the major cancer organization in eastern Washington. And our State, by the way, is rich in cancer research facilities: The Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, the University of Washington Medical School, and many other university support services provide great research for cancer. So I applaud and encourage Dr. Meadows and his colleagues for their demanding pursuit to eradicate this deadly disease, and I urge my colleagues to consider favorably additional funding through the National Institutes of Health and research grants for not only cancer research and a possible cure but for diabetes and Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis and all the other diseases that affect Americans throughout this country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, there is no more fundamental need of human beings than the need for food and medicine. For years, our country has had a policy of imposing unilateral economic sanctions on nations of the world with which we disagree, nations like Iran and Libya and North Korea and many others. If one is a farmer in America, this policy has hurt American agricultural exports, especially if other nations of the world do not impose such sanctions and are free to trade with such enemy nations. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 212, a bill which lifts sanctions on food and medicine so that we can sell our commodities to these nations, subject to the President reinstating those sanctions if doing so is in the national security interest. Last week, the President, by administrative order, lifted sanctions on food and medicine to Iran, Libya and Sudan. This can result in the likely sale of $500 million in wheat sales to American agriculture. The policy of not using food as a weapon is good policy, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 212.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon out of concern for the State of America's national security. I do not want to speak directly to the ongoing operations in Kosovo today, although I am deeply troubled by the enormous uncertainties that seem to be the consequence of a poorly planned policy. Instead, I want to address the consequences of Kosovo on the U.S. military presence worldwide. I believe we are facing a period of unacceptable risk. Our armed forces are spread across the globe, from South Korea to Latin America. We are engaged in areas that are clearly essential to American security and in areas that are clearly tangential to our security. We are engaged in what are essentially two air wars on two continents at the same time to which we are asking combat engineers to devote themselves to building roads and bridges. We are deterring invasion and we are garrisoning in support of peace agreements. What we must consider is whether we are doing too much and we spread too thin. Historically we have been warned of the dangers of ``imperial overstretch.'' Unfortunately, I have fears that we are reaching such a point today. I do not want to call for retrenchment or retreat, but we must ask if we have gone too far and if we have asked too much of the armed forces. If we have, it is the job of Congress and the administration to work together to identify solutions. In 1997, the Quadrennial Defense Review reaffirmed the requirement that the U.S. must be prepared to fight two nearly simultaneously major theater wars while also staying ready for lesser contingencies. I have argued in Congress that the available funding for the Department of Defense has been inadequate to meet those requirements. When the United States fought the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we had about 3.2 million soldiers in the active and reserve components. Ten years later, today, we have 900,000 fewer men and women in uniform. The Army, which has been tasked with the responsibility of maintaining the majority of our overseas presence, has seen its active duty end strength fall by some 40 percent since 1991. Today we maintain as a matter of national strategy 100,000 troops in Asia and another 100,000 troops in Europe. We now have more than 20,000 personnel actively engaged in Operation Allied Force, and nearly 40,000 personnel are engaged in an astonishing 20 other operations around the world today, and the situation today varies only slightly from the breakneck operational pace since the Persian Gulf War. A recent Congressional Research Service report counts 28 different contingency operations from 1991 until now at a cost of nearly $18 billion. The President has committed our resources to these operations. The Air Mobility Command Base in my hometown of Spokane at Fairchild is an example of this extraordinary intensive operational tempo. Fairchild is kept very busy supporting KC-135 aerial refueling tankers from 16 different locations around the world. Ninety-seven percent of the total crew force from the 92nd Airlift Wing is deployed today. We are trying to maintain this level of international presence with increasingly ancient equipment. The KC-135's based at Fairchild have an average age of 37 years. There is no planning for replacement largely because there are no funds available. The B-52s, which were also once based at Fairchild, are slightly older, yet the Air Force intends to keep them in the inventory until 2040. No replacement is in sight, another victim of dramatically smaller defense budgets. Despite the intensive operational pace, defense spending has fallen 30 percent from Fiscal Year 1991 levels and 40 percent from Fiscal Year 1985 levels. As we overcommit our forces to tangential operations around the globe, the risk increases. Troops deployed in Haiti cannot immediately support missions in Korea, and troops trained to keep the peace in Bosnia are not combat ready if they are called upon to defend Kuwait. A rubber band can only be stretched so far before it breaks, and I fear we are nearing that point. Mr. Milosevic called the Clinton administration's bluff in Kosovo, and 3 weeks ago American forces were pitched into a war we had not planned for and lacked the resources to immediately support. What would formerly have been considered a lesser contingency has now tied down a significant number of our conventional combat power. General Clark's recent request for reinforcements is for a total of 800 planes in the region, tying up nearly seven combat air wings out of a total of 20 in Europe. Our most important assets are committed. We have heavily taxed our available airlift. It is all tied up with supporting our forces and the refugees in Kosovo. There is no carrier battle group providing coverage in Northeast Asia because of the need to support the Balkan mission. We have nearly expended all available air launched cruise missiles, and both the Air Force and the Navy have submitted emergency requests to replenish depleted stores. Now it looks like the President is going to be calling up the Reserves to support this mission, the first call-up since the Persian Gulf War. Can we sustain this pace? It is very questionable. We must fund it if we are going to sustain it. The services have presented the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee a list of unfunded requirements that amounts to over $7 million a year, and these funds are needed just to meet the military's most critical needs, not considering any of the shortfalls that have emerged in the last few weeks. This is a serious situation and supplemental funding should include not just the costs of the operation, but also the critical funds that the military needs to step back from the brink to which it has been pushed. We must reverse continued deterioration of our Armed Forces.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, today most taxpayers throughout America will do their civic duty and file their Federal income taxes. For Washington State residents, the average total tax burden will rise from $10,307 in 1997 to $10,634, making Washington the State with the tenth highest per capita tax burden in our country. I believe this is too much, that working Americans know better how to spend their money than the government does. So I am pleased today, with Senator John Ashcroft and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) to introduce the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act. This bill will allow American workers to deduct their share of Federal payroll taxes. It is unfair to workers that these payroll taxes are taxed twice in the same income. They are taxed once as a portion of gross income for Federal income tax purposes, and for the second time for the payroll tax contribution to the social security trust fund. By allowing workers to deduct in their income taxes their share of social security contributions, the Working Families Wage Restoration Act will eliminate this double taxation, and allow workers to keep more of the money they earn.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, this week, most Americans will pay their federal income tax. In total, individuals will spend about 1.7 billion hours to try to comply with the tax code. Businesses will spend 3.4 billion hours. That is equivalent to a ``staff'' of 3 million people working full-time, year-round, just on taxes. For Washington State residents, the average total tax burden will rise from $10,307 in 1997 to $10,634, making Washington the state with the tenth highest per capita tax burden. Our colleague in the Senate, Senator John Ashcroft, and I believe this is too much, that working Americans know better how to spend their money than the Government does. So I am pleased today, with Senator Ashcroft to introduce the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act. The bill will eliminate the double taxation on the employee's share of the Social Security payroll tax. It would not affect the Social Security Trust Fund in any way. Over the last 50 years, the Social Security employer-employee payroll tax has grown from 2% to 15%. As a result, almost three-quarters of all families now pay more in total Social Security payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. These payroll taxes are inherently unfair because workers are taxed twice on the same income. Americans are taxed first as a portion of their gross income for federal income tax purposes and a second time for their contribution to the Social Security Trust Fund. By allowing workers to deduct their share of Social Security contributions from their federal taxes, the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act will eliminate this double taxation and allow the workers who generated the economic growth to keep more of the money they earn. Currently, businesses and employers are permitted to deduct their share of the payroll tax as a business expense, but workers are not. Individuals should have this same opportunity. My legislation would provide the same benefit to individuals that businesses already enjoy. I urge my colleagues to support the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 19, 1999, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20, for morning hour debates.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Kathryn Severyns Dement Sleep Disorders Center located in Walla Walla, Washington. I was very pleased to visit the sleep clinic and recently had the honor of accepting an award on behalf of Walla Walla, Washington being recognized as the Healthy Sleep Capital of the Nation. The Walla Walla sleep center is the result of Dr. William C. Dement's efforts to educate others on sleep awareness and its disorders. Dr. Dement is a Walla Walla native and sleep medicine pioneer. He is the director of the Stanford University Sleep Research and Clinical Programs, and was the founding President of the American Sleep Disorders Association. Dr. Dement, along with Dr. Richard Simon, Jr., director of the sleep center, and doctors Michael Bernstein, Jennings Falcon, and Eric Ball have all made sleep problems a fundamental focus of their medical practices. These doctors have become experts in the field of sleep disorders and lead the world in sleep disorder treatment. Most people do not realize the seriousness or extent of the sleep disorders problem. Statistics show that between 50 and 100 million people in the United States have diagnosable sleep disorders. This is not just limited to adults, sleep disorders affect people of all ages. These disorders are severely underdiagnosed in children. The National Transportation Safety Board points to chronic sleep deprivation as being the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal heavy truck accidents. The estimated annual cost of untreated sleep disorders due to preventable morbidity and accidents is $100 billion. The work the Walla Walla sleep center has done in treating and diagnosing sleep disorders is unparalleled. Compared to doctors from outlying areas, Walla Walla doctors are referring as many as six times the number of patients for sleep disorders treatment. This is mostly due to the training these doctors have received. Prior to sleep disorder training, a survey of more than 750 patient charts found that just six patients mentioned having problems sleeping, and of those, two patients were diagnosed with disorders. One year after the training, 130 to 140 people were diagnosed with sleep apnea, a treatable disorder where the sleeper repeatedly stops breathing for an instant. Between 1994 and 1998, the center saw 1,421 new patients and performed 1,711 sleep studies. The doctors at the Walla Walla sleep center continue to make advances in sleep study research. They are responsible for training physicians throughout the area and have helped two other hospitals start sleep centers. They are also currently working with Stanford University to apply for a grant to determine whether mild sleep apnea should be treated. Everyone at the Walla Walla sleep center deserves to be recognized for their hard work and commitment to the silent epidemic of sleep disorders. Thanks to them, this serious problem is not going unnoticed, and their efforts will save lives.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced a resolution to recognize the generous contribution made by each living kidney donor to save a life and to acknowledge the advances in medical technology that have enabled living kidney transplantation to become a viable treatment option for an increasing number of individuals needing kidney transplant. Since 1989, over 250,000 Americans have lost their lives to kidney failure. In 1996, some 250,000 patients were treated for end stage renal disease. An additional 73,000 began treatment for the first time. Of those new patients, nearly half were persons with diabetes. Also in 1996, over 12,000 kidneys were transplanted in the United States. Thirty percent of these organs came from living donors. Over the last 10 years, the number of patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant has almost tripled, from 14,000 to over 40,000. In 1988, the number of kidney donations made it possible to provide transplants to almost half the number of patients waiting for a kidney. Because the numbers on the waiting list have grown more quickly than the supply of organs, today only about a quarter will benefit from a transplant. While the annual number of cadaveric kidneys available for transplant has increased only about 40 percent over the last 10 years, the number of living donors has increased over 100 percent. From the period 1985 to 1994, the 10-year survival rate for dialysis patients was just 10 percent. Survival rates for patients with cadaveric kidney transplants jumped to 55 percent. And for those who received a kidney from a living family member, fully 75 percent would have the chance to live 10 additional years. Thirty-three of my colleagues have expressed their support for this resolution by signing on as cosponsors. I invite other interested Members of the House to recognize living kidney donors by signing on to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, just a week or so ago, I received a phone call from former Senator Jake Garn of Utah who served in the other body with great honor and distinction for many years. He called in support of this resolution because he as a father donated a kidney to one of his daughters, and she has lived very well over the last few years despite having some complications from diabetes and other diseases. She has recently undergone additional kidney repair and is hanging in there today as we speak. The point is that Senator Garn and others are due great recognition for their commitment to their families, for their commitment to good health and for their self-sacrifice to make sure that others can live and have kidney transplants. Senator Garn is a wonderful example of many other people who donate kidneys in this United States. I also urge the Committee on Commerce as it considers this resolution to take up this resolution at the earliest possible time to give hope to people who are in need of kidney transplantation. This budget resolution which we passed today, I also want to add, makes due consideration for increases in biomedical research for the National Institutes of Health. As a cochairman of the Diabetes Caucus along with former Representative Elizabeth Furse from Oregon, now the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), we have over 240 members of this House who have signed on to the Diabetes Caucus and who are supportive of diabetes research through NIH but also supportive of cancer research, Alzheimer's research, multiple sclerosis research, polycystic kidney disease research and many other diseases that are going to be cured in our lifetimes, in the very near future, by increased funding for the National Institutes of Health and the perpetuation of basic research to help cure disease and make life better for all of us as we age and go through health problems of our own or health problems that our families may have. I commend this House for passing this budget resolution, giving the Committee on Appropriations adequate flexibility to address National Institutes of Health. I hope that people will get involved in this resolution that I have introduced to recognize kidney donors.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the needs of small businesses who employ America's dedicated Air and Army National Guard Reservists. Mounting numbers of contingency operations have pulled ever greater numbers of reservists out of the private sector and into full-time military service. I have introduced legislation, which is numbered H.R. 803, to cushion the blow of these reserve call-ups on small businesses. The end strength of our Armed Forces has fallen by more than 1 million personnel since 1988, even as military contingency operations have increased to historically high levels. We have only been able to sustain this operations tempo because of an increasingly heavy reliance on reservists. Total so-called ``man days'' contributed by reservists have nearly tripled since 1992, to over 13 million days. Without the services of these citizen soldiers, we would need an additional force of nearly 50,000 soldiers to maintain overseas commitments. Mr. Speaker, reservists are willing to do their duty and serve when they are called, but increasingly frequent deployments have placed a new strain on reserve-employer relations. Most businesses are fully supportive of the military obligations of their employees, but even the most enthusiastic civilian employers are hard hit when their staff is sent overseas for months at a time, only to have the person return home and be called up again. Evidence from the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve suggests that the strain is increasing, resulting in a greater number of inquiries on the rights and responsibilities of employers. Research by the Air Force Reserve has also demonstrated that the problem is growing. While only 3.5 percent of Air Force reservists indicated ``serious'' employer support problems, another 31 percent reported some degree of problems with employers. Of these reservists, 10 percent are considering leaving because of employer support problems. But the true magnitude of the problem is likely greatly understated as there is no comprehensive survey that is used to consistently evaluate reserve-employer relationships. Now, the expense to small businesses of doing without a valued employee, or hiring and training a temporary replacement, is significant and the loss of productivity is equally difficult. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 803, would provide employers with a tax credit to compensate for employee participation in the individual ready reserves. Specifically, the legislation provides a credit equal to 50 percent of the amount of compensation that would have been paid to an employee during the time that that employee participates in contingency operations supporting missions in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. The total allowable credit for each individual employee may not exceed $2,000, or a maximum of $7,500 for all employees. The legislation also extends the credit for self-employed individuals. The credit would offset at least some of the expense that reserve employers face and reduce tensions with employees. Now, this legislation is only one step towards resolving a complex problem. It does not address the serious needs of public sector employees who can be impacted by contingencies as much as businesses. More important, it does not address the high operations tempo that is exacerbating reserve-employer relations and driving personnel out of the reserves. But I do think this bill is timely for it addresses two of the most pressing issues of the 106th Congress: taxes and military readiness. Mr. Speaker, as Congress discusses proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans, we must give serious thought to small businesses who have lost valued employees to overseas military operations. As we discuss pay and benefit packages for the active duty military, we must not forget the citizen soldiers who are the backbone of our Armed Forces and whose service is increasingly putting pressure on their full-time civilian employer. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in making the Ready Credit, which is the name on this bill, a reality by cosponsoring H.R. 803.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the results of a year-long effort to chart a path to cure diabetes will be released. The summary of the Diabetes Research Working Group report will be unveiled by the chairman of the group, Dr. Ronald Kahn, at a press conference at the National Press Club at noon. It is my expectation that the results of the group's work will dramatically change the direction of diabetes research in this country and may be a model for many other diseases that all Americans face throughout the United States. With regard to history of this effort, the establishment of the group came about through legislation I sponsored in the last session of Congress. Through the help of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the authorization for the group was incorporated into the Labor, Health Appropriations Bill. The Diabetes Research Working Group is a scientific panel composed of 12 experts in the field of diabetes and four very knowledgeable representatives of the lay community. The chairman was appointed by National Institutes of Health, and the Institutes have played a critical role in supporting his efforts. The group members have spent the last year engrossed in examining the current state of diabetes research and charting a 5-year path for future research, a path that will have the best chance of leading us to a cure and improving the lives of 16 million Americans who have diabetes. To the average person, charting a path may not seem like a dramatic step forward. It is, however, a departure from how the National Institutes of Health has traditionally funded research. Normally scientific researchers focus on the immediate research proposals they are presented with for review. This report by the Diabetes Research Working Group is an effort to take a step back and reassess that procedure. It is an effort to ask the questions where are we today, where do we want to be in 5 years, and what do we need to do to get there to cure this disease. The Diabetes Research Working Group has done this. The report contains specific scientific recommendations in areas ranging from genetics, cell signaling, and clinical trials to macrovascular and oral complications. Each recommendation is tied to a funding level. Added together, the scientific recommendations require $827 million for fiscal year 2000, an increase of $384 million over the present year. I quote from the summary of the report, ``The Diabetes Research Working Group believes that such a budget increase is necessary for implementation of the programs presented in the Research Plan, consistent with the rising impact of diabetes on the United States in both human and economic terms, and that the proposed budget is more in line with the levels of research funding for other major disease areas. Most importantly, the Diabetes Research Working Group believes that such an investment has the potential to reduce dramatically the personal, societal, and economic burden of diabetes for the American people in the 21st Century.'' Dr. Harold Varmus, who is the director of the National Institutes of Health, has said that NIH funding will go where the science shows there is opportunity. The Working Group Report is proof that, not only is there opportunity in the areas of diabetes research, but there is a plan. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the recommendations of the Diabetes Research Working Group, and the roughly 205 members of the Diabetes Caucus are invited to participate in this effort to unveil this report tomorrow.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issue of federal funding for biomedical research. Over the past four years, this Congress has led the effort to double the budget for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies which do scientific research to help cure diseases. This effort has already begun to show results in areas such as Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's's disease, and many others. It is a worthwhile undertaking for our federal tax dollars. Now, while the President wants to take credit for this research effort, unfortunately his budget would severely impede the progress we have made and would jeopardize future advances. The NIH budget has begun to grow exponentially, because it is the right thing to do for people who are sick with chronic diseases. For the next fiscal year, however, the President has requested an increase of $320 million, or 2.1 percent, for the National Institutes of Health. Now, by comparison, last year this Congress increased NIH by $1.99 billion, or 15 percent, and that is still inadequate funding when you look at all of the opportunities for research grants that come before the NIH and those which are able to be accepted. There just is not enough money to do all of the good research that needs to be done. The President was recently reported to have remarked to a member of the other body, a Democrat, the President said, ``Don't worry about our budget. The Republicans will increase NIH funding.'' Well, certainly we will. So much for honesty in the President's budget. A 2.1 percent growth rate is two-tenths of a percentage point less than the projected rate of inflation. That is a growth rate less than inflation, which is in the President's budget, for attempting to cure our Nation's diseases and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from disease. What the President does under this budget game is put in a low number for NIH and put a high number for other spending, new federal spending programs that he puts in to satisfy special interests, and then criticizes those of us who say ``no'' to such excess spending, for budget-busting spending, and then politically the President seems to want to take credit. In reality, the President's budget says to people who seek a cure for cancer, I do not care about you. For the 16 million diabetics in this country, he says, ``I do not care about you.'' For those with Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, lots of other diseases, he says, ``Sorry, I do not care about you.'' We can be sure that if this budget were proposed by the majority Congress, the administration would call it a cut in funding, and probably the media would say the same thing, that we do not care about the lives of people who are sick. Well, in fact, we do. Both Democrats and Republicans in this Congress care deeply for NIH funding and deeply for those who are sick with chronic, debilitating diseases which affect all of us as Americans, regardless of our races or religions or genders. It is a fact of life that the government can help do something about. So I think there should be outrage today over the President's budget game for biomedical research. Both Democrats and Republicans should rise up and say no. And I urge my colleagues to call on the President, Mr. Speaker, on this game he is playing with biomedical research, and anyone who cares about curing chronic disease in this country should do the same.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on January 19, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution No. 16, expressing the sense of Congress that Jonathan J. Pollard should serve his full sentence and not receive any presidential pardon for his crime of espionage. Jonathan Pollard was a civilian employee at the Department of the Navy from September 1979 until November 1985. He had access to classified documents and information and began making those documents available to Israeli intelligence officers in 1984. When he was arrested, by his own estimate, Pollard had given the Israelis enough documents to fill some 360 cubic feet. In 1987, he pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. The President has twice rejected release for Pollard, in 1994 and again in 1996. In fact, the White House press statement in 1996 found that, ``The enormity of Mr. Pollard's offenses, his lack of remorse, the damage done to our national security and the need for general deterrence in the continuing threat to national security that he posed made the original sentence imposed by the court warranted.'' Of course, nothing has changed. Pollard remains unrepentant, and the damage to national security has not paled with the passage of time. But something must have changed, at least in the mind of the Clinton White House. In October 1998 President Clinton acceded to the request of the Israeli prime minister to review Pollard's sentence. The answer should have been a polite but a firm ``no.'' But, instead, the President agreed to a review. On January 11, the relevant executive agencies were to report back on the virtues of releasing Pollard. Not surprisingly, the director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the director of the FBI were unanimous in opposing any pardon for Pollard. The position of the Department of Justice has been less clear. Attorney General Janet Reno has delayed in offering an opinion to the President in the case pending a meeting with the prominent Jewish figures who support Pollard's release. The AG's office could not confirm for me yesterday whether such a meeting had taken place, nor could they offer any date when any legal opinion on Pollard's release may be offered. To me, this seems like a clear case for the Department of Justice. But apparently they require more extensive deliberations than our national security agencies are capable of providing. But what deliberation is really needed? Press accounts have given us some indication of how damaging Pollard's betrayal really was. He didn't just give away intelligence estimates, he also betrayed sources and methods, the very capabilities that make sound intelligence estimates possible. Revealing how our intelligence services learn secrets is extremely damaging, because it provides opportunities for our targets to hide assets and plant misinformation, negating the very capabilities we spend billions of taxpayer dollars over the years to develop and maintain. Of course, Pollard is now claiming that he never intended to spy against the United States. He claims that his espionage efforts were motivated by a noble concern for the State of Israel and a desire to avoid a return of the Yom Kippur War. He says, very charitably, that the money he was paid, more than $50,000, did not motivate his spying, and that he intended to repay it all, and he suggests that because Israel is an ally of the United States, his sentence should be reduced, as if spying for a friend is a lesser evil than spying for an enemy. Of course, this logic also ignores the suggestions in the public record that much of what Pollard provided to Israel may have ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. Then there is the issue of his willingness to provide information to countries in addition to Israel. It is important to point out that even though Pollard is now eligible for parole, he has not chosen to apply. All of the public deliberations on Pollard are occurring without his having even sought release. The granting of pardons is a constitutional power reserved for the President of the United States, but that does not mean that Congress is obliged to sit by quietly as this decision is made. Two weeks ago, 60 Senators from the United States Senate sent a letter to the President urging that Pollard not be set free. House Concurrent Resolution 16 similarly will allow the House of Representatives to go on record opposing any pardon, reprieve, or any other form of executive clemency for Mr. Pollard. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has also introduced a resolution opposing a pardon, and I encourage all Members to join us as cosponsors of both resolutions. This betrayal of U.S. national security must not be rewarded with a presidential pardon. Last week, two Americans were convicted of spying for East Germany throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Releasing Pollard now suggests that when the political price is right, we are willing to look the other way on espionage. Pollard's betrayal of U.S. national security must not be rewarded with a Presidential pardon and I hope Members will join as cosponsors to H. Con. Res. 16.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation, designating the federal building located at West 920 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' The bill also designates the plaza located immediately in front of the building as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza.'' Rep. Foley had offices in this building and Rep. Horan was instrumental in securing funding for its construction. Many Members will recall the long and distinguished career of Rep. Tom Foley, who now serves as our nation's Ambassador to Japan. Mr. Foley was a Member of this body for 30 years, concluding his service as Speaker of the House in the 103rd Congress. He also served as Speaker in the 102nd Congress, and in prior years held positions as Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Mr. Foley personified the high ideals to which all of us aspire as Members of Congress. First and foremost he was a gentleman who sought consensus among all Members. He loved Congress, believing it to be the best forum for democracy in the world. Tom Foley is a native son of Spokane, Washington, having attended local schools earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Washington. His parents were dignified and highly respected citizens of Spokane. He was first elected to Congress in 1964 and served in the House for 30 years. In 1997 he was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to serve as Ambassador to Japan. Tom Foley was--and continues to be--widely regarded in eastern Washington State and has left a lasting legacy. Today we also honor another native son, Walter F. Horan. He served 22 years--spanning the years 1943 to 1965--as the Congressman from eastern Washington. He was born in a log cabin on the banks of the Wenatchee River in an area settled by his father, a fact he proudly boasted of, raised in Wenatchee, served in the Navy during the First World War, graduated from Washington State University in Pullman, and returned to Wenatchee to raise apples on his family farm. Following election to Congress he served on several committees, but for most of his tenure he sat on the Appropriations Committee, rising to third in seniority on the Republican side. He paid particularly close attention to agriculture and conservation interests and continued to share in the operation of his family farm while serving in Congress. Rep. Horan was a consummate advocate of western interests, especially those of eastern Washington, and he also conducted himself with dignity and honor as a Member of Congress. He died in 1966 and is buried in his beloved hometown of Wenatchee.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Articles I, II and III. These votes today are defining votes--cast not for political position or popularity but for purposes of confirming the integrity of the most precious and essential element of a free society--the right of all citizens to trust and rely upon a system of justice which is blind to influence and oblivious to position or status. It is also a vote that has implications for a modern society--that inextricably links our American justice system with our political system. Justice and politics should be linked. Our votes reflect our values and those of our constituents. The evidence is persuasive to me that President Clinton's offenses justify my vote in support of articles 1, 2 and 3. The President's legal breaches have a greater negative impact on our society than the inherent damage of his moral lapses. This is because our system of justice relies on the collection of evidence that leads ultimately to the truth in legal proceedings. Only with truth and reliable facts can justice under the law be fairly dispensed. And a free people must have faith in our legal system if we are to have an orderly and lawful society. Presidents have a high standard of conduct to uphold. By their deeds and words, they should encourage the rest of us to reach for that standard, too. High standards include and embrace respect for the law. Telling the truth in a legal setting should be the unquestionable obligation of any President, and any person. President Clinton failed in that simple obligation too frequently for his actions to be considered an oversight or misunderstanding. His conduct should not be allowed to become the new standard for our nation which historically has revered those who personify dignity, truth, self-sacrifice and honor. We have no choice but to make this difficult judgment. To do otherwise would be a breach of the trust that citizens should have, not only in the President's standards, but in our own. My vote will be true to my Constitutional oath, and I pray to God that my judgment is right.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most beautiful agriculture districts in the country, the Eastern District of the State of Washington, the east one-fourth of our state, the largest geographic district in the State of Washington. We have abundant wheat farming. Peas and lentils are grown there, potatoes and other agriculture commodities. So agriculture is a very important component of this budget agreement legislation that has been agreed upon by the leaders of the House, both Democrats and Republicans, and by the White House. It has specific interest to me coming from an agriculture-producing area. Washington farmers export about 90 percent of our commodities that are produced each year, and we have had a great crop this year. We had a great crop last year. Hopefully, we will have great crops in the future. The genesis for the freedom to farm, the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act, which was signed into law by the President and passed in a bipartisan way in 1996, was right in the Fifth District of Washington. When I first got elected to Congress in 1994, started serving in 1995, I approached agriculture producers and farmers in the Fifth District of Washington and said what do we need in the way of farm improvements, agriculture improvements, policy improvements? They came up with a lot of that which was eventually signed into law as the freedom to farm concept and the freedom to farm legislation, that allowed farmers across this country to have a transition out of the old system into the new, the freedom to market system whereby our farmers would market our products around the world with several understandings. Number one, that there would be some tax relief; that there would be some sanctions relief; that we would not be imposing sanctions which inhibited the export of our commodities overseas; regulatory relief and certainly agriculture research. So it was with these issues in mind that I have approached whether to support this legislation that has now been crafted or not, and I am proud to say that as a person from a farm community and a farm region, that this is a good bill. It provides about $6 billion in additional relief, in disaster payments and in market shortage sanctions payments, essentially, because of the reduction in demand from our Far Eastern trading partners; frankly, I think not as aggressive an approach to agriculture marketing as our USDA ought to have. I think our USDA, our government, ought to be out there pushing our products worldwide and helping our farmers in this transition period, this 7-year period of getting some payments so that they can farm for the market, not for the government. So I am pleased that this particular legislation, even though the President vetoed the ag appropriations bill, and I happen to serve proudly on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and we thought that was a good bill, had good research dollars in it, it had additional transition payments under the existing system that would help farmers, but it was vetoed, unfortunately I felt, because we wanted and knew in this negotiation that we would be adding additional disaster payments and sanctions relief for our farmers. Nevertheless, the product that has been produced out of these negotiations is a good one. It provides a total of $5.939 billion in additional spending, total spending, I should say, under the ag appropriations bill for market loss payments for 1998 disaster payments, for multiyear disaster payments, for livestock fee payments for a Farm Service Agency loan authority and for Farm Service Agency administration. Our farmers are now inundating these farm service agencies with assistance requests and these people are needing help. We provide that help in this bill. We did it in the ag appropriations bill but it is reinforced in the final budget negotiation bill that has been approved and will be approved, I should say, in this House and has been approved by our leadership. The tax relief that is provided in this bill is good for farmers. It will be talked about by my good friend and my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) here shortly, but it is a good bill. It is a good tax relief package. It is not what we want totally, because I am one that favors greater tax relief for farmers and all Americans. I think we were not able to get that in this negotiation but we will get it next year. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, support the relief that is provided by this legislation for farmers.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, after 6:00 p.m. and on October 10, I was absent from the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect that had I been here I would have voted ``Aye'' on rollcall votes 511-520.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense Conference Report. Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha deserve credit for putting together an outstanding conference report. In my four years on the National Security Subcommittee, this bill was certainly the most difficult to reach agreement on, because of the very tight constraints imposed by the Balanced Budget Agreement. I think all of the members of the Subcommittee would agree that our allocation this year was far below what is needed to meet the needs of the Department of Defense. Despite these pressures, our Subcommittee staff once again worked long hours to put together a very balanced package that addresses the immediate needs of the Defense Department. I commend the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member on behalf of the health research programs contained within this bill. The Department of Defense oversees some of the most productive health research efforts sponsored by the federal government, with very real quality of life benefits for our men and women in uniform. We were not able to do all that we would have liked for health research, but I believe this conference package addresses some of the most urgent research needs of the Department of Defense. I am particularly supportive of the funding this bill provides for diabetes research. In Fiscal Year 1998, we were able to provide $4 million to initiate a diabetes detection, prevention and care program for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, utilizing the technology and methods of the Joslin Diabetes Center. While I wish we had been able to maintain the House funded level of $6.4 million for this program in this bill, the $4.5 million the conference agreement provides will allow continuation of the Diabetes Pilot Program, [Program Element # 630002, Project # 9411]. I anticipate significant findings from this promising project, which will benefit soldiers and their families alike. I hope that Fiscal Year 1999 marks the low point for defense spending. We continue to face shortfalls in all accounts and urgently need to correct the downward trend for defense spending. But within the constraints imposed by the Balanced Budget agreement, this is an excellent bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, if American agriculture does not grow, it will die. That is what Secretary Glickman has said, and he is absolutely right. The reason I am supporting this fast track bill is because it has the tremendous potential for our agriculture exports to grow and prevent American agriculture from suffering more than it already has this year. This bill has an agriculture component that allows an ag trade representative to sit at the table at all trade negotiations and to report back to Congress the effort that such negotiations have on agriculture. We in Congress get to vote on these final trade bills. We get to vote no if they are no good, and I would not hesitate to vote no. I trust my friends on the left would not either. What is interesting is we have heard today people say, let us fund IMF with $18 billion. What is surprising is those proponents would trust a non-American entity with an $18 billion sort of unstructured commitment, but not trust the President of the United States or this administration to negotiate a trade bill. If you support agriculture, vote for fast track.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, American farmers are facing a huge challenge of low commodity prices and unfair competition from foreign governments. Tomorrow, Congress will take up the issue of fast track authority for this administration. Even though I have serious questions about giving this administration any authority on trade issues, considering its record, I do support fast track authority because of the very important part of the bill that assures agriculture full participation in trade negotiations. Mr. Speaker, by this provision, trade agreements reached will be agriculture-sensitive. An ag representative, a trade representative, will monitor and report back to Congress whether such agreements and negotiation will help or hurt agriculture. The key to agriculture's success is to open foreign markets so we can sell our commodities overseas. The fast track bill provides agriculture a seat at the tariff reduction table, all subject to final congressional approval. It should be passed.