George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2920, introduced by my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon. H.R. 2920 would delay the implementation of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104- 208) at land-based border entry ports from October 1, 1998, to October 1, 1999. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] to implement an entry-exit system at all entry points to the U.S. H.R 2920 would still require the INS to implement an entry- exit system at U.S. airports and seaports by October 1, 1998, and would also require the INS to implement Section 110 in such a way that would not significantly disrupt or impeded trade or tourism. I was a proud supporter of immigration reform last year, and believe that an entry-exit system should be an integral part of U.S. efforts to address illegal immigration. However, I believe Congress should provide the INS additional time to implement Section 110 at land-based border entry points. There are simply too many land-based entry points into the U.S., six in my district, for the INS to implement an entry-entry system by the end of next year. Allowing the INS to first implement an entry-exit system at U.S. airports and seaports should give the INS additional time to implement an entry-exit system in such a way that would not cause unnecessary delays at border crossing. Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous legislative proposals to address concern about Section 110, and I have been supportive of legislative corrections to Section 110. It is possible that Congress will pass such corrective legislation next year, but I believe this is too important an issue to leave unresolved until then. I thank my colleague from New York for introducing his bill at this time, and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2920. Mr. McHugh. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Sheriff's Community Oriented Policing Effort [SCOPE] for its service to Spokane County in Washington State. This innovative and proactive volunteer program, coordinated by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office has energized citizens and empowered them to take an active role in reducing crime in the unincorporated and rural areas of Spokane County. SCOPE trains and supports civilian volunteers in many aspects of law enforcement. Citizen patrols, fingerprinting, school watch, vacation watch, radar control, graffiti management, critical response, parks patrol, and domestic violence teams are just some of the services provided by SCOPE volunteers. I would like to specifically recognize several SCOPE volunteers for their work leading to the apprehension of two serial burglars in the Spokane Valley. The following volunteers were directly involved in the SCOPE effort: Heinz Thiemann, Bob Burke, Don Chatterton, Brian Nam, Gerry Erickson, Mary Fry, Tom King, June King, Jan Geiger, and Billie Evers. Mary Potts, Ruth Ottmar, Anne Lasalle, Jim Hoffman, Terry Carver, Scope Coordinator, Lt. Gary Watterhouse, Deanna Horman, Ed Jackson, Bob Jesse, Karl Lamont, and Clyde Starr. These men and women who sacrifice their time and labor to make their community a safer place serve as examples for the rest of us and are deserving of our respect.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Furthermore, is it the intent of the committee that the IHS diabetes program fully consider that 25 percent of the grant should be used for primary diabetes prevention and 75 percent of the grant should be utilized for secondary and tertiary diabetes prevention?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, further, I ask the chairman, is it the committee's intent that the extensive epidemiologic data related to prevalence, complications, care process, and outcomes currently collected and coordinated on an earlier basis by the Indian Health Service diabetes program shall be used as the primary basis for the distribution of these funds?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I have indeed, Mr. Speaker, because of the Speaker's great leadership on this issue relative to diabetes. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is it his understanding that in subsection 4922 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, that the 5-year $150 million special diabetes programs for Indians grant be distributed in a timely manner with a coherent, detailed policy formulated by those within the Indian Health Service who have direct programmatic oversight responsibility and expertise in diabetes care for Native Americans?

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this colloquy with the chairman. On my own behalf, but also, obviously, of the Speaker of the House, who has worked very hard and diligently in favor of research for diabetes funding, I would just engage the chairman, and ask if the chairman would enter into this colloquy regarding the establishment of a coherent and unified policy and the expeditious distribution of Federal money as appropriated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for special diabetes programs for Indians, subsection 4922.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman very much for clarifying the committee's intent on how this money should be utilized. I urge strongly that this conference report be approved. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and that of the Speaker of the House, as well.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment. I want to provide some perspective on this issue by discussing who our government subsidizes through providing Federal funding for needle exchange programs or needle programs. Mr. Chairman, I am vitally interested in the issue of diabetes, along with the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse, and Speaker Gingrich. I am cochairman of the Diabetes Caucus. We have about 100 members in the Caucus here in the House. There are 16 million diabetics in our country; 27 cents out of every Medicare dollar is used to pay for the complications of diabetes. It ranks about fourth on the death list in our country, not seventh like AIDS, and AIDS is a very serious issue and I am very concerned about it, but billions of dollars are spent on the consequences of diabetes. At least 1 million children have diabetes, and they take two to three injections a day. No subsidy for them, for families that have to deal with this very serious disease that costs not only human suffering but lots of money in our society. They do not get subsidized. If the evidence is, and it sounds to me like it is conflicting here today, if the evidence that the needle exchange programs perpetuate AIDS and illegal drug use, then we would be far better off to spend that money on subsidizing needle programs for diabetics, those families who have a major problem in paying for that cost for their children and for people all across the AIDS spectrum of our country. I am going to support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will, also.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2264, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I know I speak on behalf of the entire Congressional Diabetes Caucus when I thank Chairman Porter for his efforts to combat diabetes. Along with Speaker Gingrich, who has drawn the Nation's attention to this terrible disease, Chairman Porter has persuaded NIH to examine its funding priorities. This bill will do much to help the 16 million diabetics in our country. It increases funding for NIH by 6 percent and for the National Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, [NIDDK] by 7.5 percent. Along with funding provided through the Balanced Budget Act, the increase in this bill will begin to make up for past funding discrepancies between NIDDK and the other Institutes of the National Institutes of Health. Over the last 10 years, funding for diabetes research has not even kept place with inflation, despite the increases provided to NIH by Congress. So it is my hope and my expectation that a significant portion of the 7.5-percent increase will go toward combating diabetes, a deadly disease in our country. The bill also includes legislation I have introduced, the Diabetes Research Amendments Act, to establish a diabetes working group to outline future diabetes research priorities. A report under these amendments will be submitted to Congress within 1 year, which, in essence, will be a blueprint, a national blueprint, for future diabetes research. This plan is necessary to best direct the funding dollars and to begin a redoubling of our effort to advance a cure for diabetes. So I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and others who had a hand in crafting this bill, and including the very significant efforts to assist in combating the disease of diabetes that affects so many people around our country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. One of the many good reasons to vote for this bill, this legislation, is its impact on diabetes. This particular bill has a component, a prevention component relative to diabetes that will improve the health of all Americans with diabetes. There is also a special section entitled ``Special diabetes programs for children with Type 1 diabetes.'' There is a funding for special diabetes program for Indians. Diabetes is a very serious disease. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) and I are chairmen of the Diabetes Caucus. We have had great support in this body for the cause of diabetes and curing it. I am delighted to be involved in supporting this bill along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security to express my strong support for H.R. 2266, the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill. As my colleagues have mentioned, this bill adds $4.4 billion to the President's original request for fiscal year 1998, although the Secretary of Defense and the services subsequently informed Congress of several shortfalls which require funding above the President's budget. I am pleased that Congress insisted upon, and President Clinton now supports, an increase in the defense budget for fiscal year 1998. The President's original request severely underfunded a number of key defense priorities, including health care and modernization, and additional funding has helped the Appropriations Committee correct those shortfalls. H.R. 2266 also includes several provisions which promote greater efficiency and reforms in the way the Department of Defense operates and spends public funds. According to the nonprofit defense reform group Business Executives for National Security, between 60 and 70 percent of the defense budget is consumed by support personnel and infrastructure, such as logistics, maintenance, and travel supervision, while only 30 to 40 percent goes to fund actual combat forces. H.R. 2266 addresses this problem by reducing expenditures for personnel and operations to reflect over $500 million in savings from increased outsourcing, privatization, and other reforms. For example, this bill saves $50 million in taxpayer dollars because the Department of Defense will no longer be required to purchase warranties for new weapons unless it makes sense to do so. I am also glad this bill improves on the administration's request for military research and procurement, which is essential if America is going to remain a world leader in the next century. H.R. 2266 increases funding for defense modernization by $4.7 billion over the President's budget. Let me mention a few ways these funds will be used to prepare our forces for warfare in the next century: First, this bill will accelerate research and development on theater and national missile defense systems. Our troops and citizens are currently virtually defenseless against ballistic missile attack, including missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads. During the gulf war, Iraqi Scud's demonstrated the military and political danger of this vulnerability, yet we are still behind in our efforts to provide our troops with effective missile defense. H.R. 2266 addresses this problem. Let me single out one specific missile defense program I strongly support: the airborne laser. This program, which is actually in the Air Force budget, would load a high powered laser into a Boeing 747, which would patrol near enemy territory and shoot down enemy missiles immediately after their launch, which means that any noxious payloads on those missiles would fall back on enemy territory. Gen. Thomas Moorman, the Undersecretary of the Air Force, has described this project as ``the most revolutionary weapon in the DOD budget today'', and I am proud to support it. Second, H.R. 2266 provides over $100 million to improve the DOD's ability to defend against chemical and biological attack with better technology, equipment, and training. Chemical and biological weapons are a primary new threat to American forces and the American people. They are relatively inexpensive and easy to build, so terrorists and less advanced nations view these horrible weapons as a means to compensate for the conventional superiority of American forces. I also want to express my support for a provision suggested by my colleague from Washington State, Congressman Dicks, which would require the Department of Defense to report on alternatives to current theater combat simulations. The Department of Defense is still using combat models which were developed decades ago to simulate warfare between huge land armies fighting in Europe. These models are inappropriate for the kind of conflict U.S. forces have seen in the 1990's and will see in the next century, yet they are used to choose the shape of U.S. military forces and to evaluate revolutionary weapons systems. These models fail to adequately consider the innovations of aircraft stealth and precision munitions, or the selective bombing tactics used by the Air Force to render Iraqi forces in the gulf war ineffective. Revising the DOD's theater combat simulation tools will not only improve the ability of the DOD to incorporate advanced weaponry and tactics into defense planning. Better models will help the United States plan for unconventional challenges which face future U.S. forces, such as chemical and biological weapons, attacks on defense and civilian computer networks, cruise and ballistic missile attacks, and competition for control of space. Finally, I am glad that the National Security Subcommittee provided for a $274 million shortfall in military health care funding. Thousands of military families and retirees in my district rely upon military health care facilities and the TRICARE network, and this drastic cut in health care in the President's budget would have significantly reduced access to health care in eastern Washington. I support the additional committee funding for health care to make up this shortfall and keep faith with this Nation's military retirees and military families. One of the health care provisions with which I was personally involved is a research program to look at innovative diabetes detection, prevention, and care techniques. Diabetes affects over 16 million Americans, including thousands of military beneficiaries. Many of the health consequences and costs of diabetes can be avoided through effective diabetes screening and early treatment. A project reflecting these goals was described in testimony presented to the House National Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which would conduct a two-region experiment in conjunction with the Veterans Administration. I look forward to seeing this project go forward and benefit the military families and retirees who are at risk from this disease. I encourage all Members of the House to support this legislation. H.R. 2266 includes funding for important military priorities, promotes increased efficiency at the Department of Defense, and provides health care to military beneficiaries.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in the offering of this amendment with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who authored this amendment initially, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], in restoring the funding for two particular offices within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Incidentally, I had earlier in the full committee proposed and had adopted by the full committee an amendment which struck funding for the Deputy and the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs within the Farm Service Agency. I proposed that amendment and argued in favor of it and was successful in getting it put into this bill because of my dissatisfaction, and others within my State, with the way the Conservation Reserve Program was administered by this office, or these offices, that we were seeking to grab the attention of. In the last signup there was acreage across the country earlier this spring permitted to be enrolled in the conservation reserve program, which is a very good program that preserves highly erodible land and involves the farm service agency and the USDA in making sure that highly erodible land is preserved. In my State, relative to every other State in the country that had enrollments, my State received 21 percent of those acres that were sought to be enrolled were enrolled. That is compared to my neighboring States of Oregon and Idaho which had about 80 percent that property that was sought to be enrolled enrolled, and there were problems in the administration of this program around the country and other States as well, but it has been dissatisfactory to the members of the minority as well as members of the majority. So my efforts in the full committee were to bring attention to what we expect to have as legislators, the fair administration of a program that is good for the country, and I had not felt that our State was treated fairly. So I looked for many options and found that this was perhaps the only option that we had at the time and wanting to make sure that there is a fair administration of the conservation reserve program for all States, not the least of which is my own. After conferring with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], conferring with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], and having several good conversations with the Secretary of Agriculture this week and previously, it was my judgment that based on assurances that we received that there is going to be fair treatment of all States in the next signup, which we expect to be September, not the least again of which is my own State, and understanding that the Congress and Members of Congress who are in farm-affected States will have the ability to talk with the Secretary and the agency and have input as to a fair signup ratio so that we do not have these terrible disparities that in my opinion are very unfair to my own State and others, I felt it was appropriate that at this time I join with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and others who objected to my approach and the tactics we used to draw attention to this disparity, that we go ahead and do this now and that we allow this bill to proceed unencumbered. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Secretary is in my State today meeting with our farmers, addressing their concerns, and I think there is more to do. We need to make sure that the farmers from the districts of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and other farmers, Members who represent farmers, have their needs met so that there is a fair administration of this program. The bureaucracy sometimes gets out of control and is unwilling to be fair and unwilling to change its mind, I shall say more accurately. But nevertheless, Richard Neumann, who is the deputy administrator for farm programs, I believe is a fine person, and understanding a little more about this amendment, my sense is that he was not involved in this decision or what I perceive to be a failure on the part of the Department to correct the mistake. So I have since learned that he is a fine person and a high-quality administrator. But I think there has to be more work done at the assistant deputy administrator's office. I know these Federal employees are trying their best in this very difficult bill to implement, but, by golly, I think that the rest of us in Congress and people who care about farmers and agriculture have the right to expect high standards and high responsibility on the part of all Federal agencies.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and cosponsors of this amendment.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue not only to our State but to our entire country. I support the resolution offered by the gentleman from Everett, WA [Mr. Metcalf]. Tomorrow, as we know, the European Commission will rule on the merger of Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. Several news stories today have noted that the President has spoken with a number of European leaders about the Wednesday decision but, according to Reuters, ``There was virtually no chance that Boeing could produce an offer acceptable to the Commission by then.'' Unfortunately, I think this has characterized the European bargaining position to date. Each time Boeing nears agreement, the Commission escalates its demands, claiming the merger would hurt fair competition in Europe. The current hang-up involves the so-called exclusive agreements between Boeing and three American carriers. These agreements are wholly unrelated to the merger, and the Federal Trade Commission definitively ruled that no basis exists to challenge them under U.S. law. Yet the European Commission is holding the merger hostage to extort concessions from Boeing on this issue. The German Economics Minister is reported to have said that current concessions offered by Boeing were clearly not enough, while last week President Chirac of France simply noted the merger could be extremely dangerous to Europeans. I had the opportunity to visit the Boeing facility in Everett just this last weekend, and I can report to my colleagues that this company represents the best in what the U.S. economy can expect from free trade. It has gained a global reputation by building the best airplanes in the world. The Europeans are not seeking to block the merger because of honest concerns about free trade. In my judgment, they are doing so because they fear their state-subsidized firm cannot hope to compete. I urge my colleagues to join in disapproving this potentially unprecedented interference by the European Commission and passing this resolution.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2160. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman, and the entire committee and subcommittee, which has worked so hard to formulate this bill that should be supported by all Members of the House. We have worked diligently to make sure that our Nation protects the food we eat, ensures the safety of prescription drugs and medical devices used every day in our homes and local hospitals and we make certain that children who are most in need receive food and care and our neediest school children are provided food during the school year. This bill maintains agriculture research and foreign market development programs that will enable our farmers to expand trade and access as we transition from farm payments to self-sufficiency. Although important to the Pacific Northwest, the research projects contained in this bill benefit all of America. I also want to make sure that the body knows that we have been careful to write legislation that considers the taxpayer and the long- term goals of agriculture. We are going to reduce the amount of pesticides used on crops by helping to develop insect resistance plants and develop new methods of disease and pest controls. So the environmental benefits in this bill are enormous, not only to farmers but consumers as well. I know we will have a good debate tomorrow on the issue of defunding. Certain members of the Farm Service Agency, that was my amendment, and I look forward to that debate, because that debate will be all about accountability. It will require that Government officials acts fairly to all States, all regions of the country, and that they administer programs according to their charge, and that they do so fairly and equitably to all farmers. We have heard a lot of talk in this body about fairness and expectations of Government agencies to do what they should do under the law. This is a good example and we will have a good chance to debate the whole issue tomorrow about what is fair and what is not and about what consequences there should be to Federal officials who do not do their job. So I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. I intend to clarify in this colloquy the intention of the subcommittee in its report language for this bill that, quote, ``The Committee believes that the funding provided to the Foreign Agricultural Service will enable the Foreign Market Development/ Cooperator program to operate at the same level as fiscal year 1997.'' Is it the gentleman's understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Foreign Agricultural Service is approving $32 million for approved foreign market development/cooperator program marketing plans in fiscal year 1998?

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to issue a challenge to all Members on the other side of the aisle who wish to target tax relief to middle-income Americans. We have heard a lot about that this morning and in the past few weeks. You may be surprised to learn that 72 percent of working American families pay more in total Social Security payroll taxes than they pay in income tax. So I commend to my colleagues a bill that I have sponsored called the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act, H.R. 1333. This bill would allow workers earning less than $65,400 to deduct their portion of Social Security payroll tax from their Federal income taxes. This would eliminate the current double taxation of the Social Security tax and put workers on the same level as businesses which are allowed to deduct the payroll taxes as a business expense. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, my bill would provide the average two-income family with an additional $1,200. It covers all workers. So I invite my friends on the other side of the aisle, Members who are so concerned about middle income Americans, get on this bill. H.R. 1333.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to respond to a few comments by my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], both of whom I have great respect for. I am from the West. I am from the east side of the State of Washington, where we have small timber companies. The idea of big timber companies is foreign to us. We have small timber companies, two and three and five and ten people who really rely on the timber purchaser credit program. It is not for big companies, it is for the small operator. I think it is instructive for all of us to think about the fact that, with all due respect to the sponsors of this amendment, in my judgment, in my opinion, in my education, there is not one of them that has the kind of forest lands and the kind of timber communities and the kind of people that I do in my district, so it is easy to sit in Chicago or New York or Massachusetts and say I am going to take care of you out West, and talk about special interests. Let me tell the Members who the special interests are in this case. They are the people who are driving these fine gentlemen and the sponsors of this amendment to a no harvest-no cut policy on Federal lands. That is not only damaging to Federal property, it is damaging to the recreational interests. People who go and use these Federal lands and forest areas, they use the roads to get there. It is absolutely inaccurate to say that special interests on our side are trying to protect this program. My special interests are the little guy. That is who is being hurt by this. My special interests are the recreational people who want to go into the forest and use it on a weekend, and they use a timber road to get there. I want Members to know, let us put this into perspective. There is a special interest driving the sponsors of this amendment. They want a no cut policy on Federal lands and they want to put my region out of work. They want to hurt my little people. I am not going to stand for it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer.