George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we discuss fully here the most serious responsibility entrusted to Congress, authorizing the President to use force in defense of our nation. The decision by Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S. military requires somber analysis, and sober consideration, but this is not a discussion we should delay. The President has presented to the American people a compelling case for intervening in Iraq, and this body has acted deliberately in bringing to the House floor a resolution that unequivocally expresses our support for the Commander in Chief. The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more apparent. It is perhaps best illustrated by the size and scope of Iraqi efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, a horrifying capability only recognized after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying 38,500 chemical munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical agents, and 1.8 million liters of precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to developing offensive biological weapons, including 19,000 liters of botulinum, 8,400 liters of anthrax, and 2,000 liters of aflatoxin, clostridium, and ricin. Inspectors accounted for over 800 Soviet-supplied Scud missiles and 43 of 45 chemical and biological warheads that Iraq admitted to. About 40 clandestine nuclear weapons facilities were discovered and destroyed, and the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that at the time of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was less than two years away from producing a nuclear weapon. Yet, this list of poisons describes only what UN Inspectors were able to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and denial. For example, UNSCOM could not account for 31,600 chemical munitions, 500 mustard gas bombs, and 4,000 tons of chemical weapon precursors. The Inspectors were unable to account for any of Iraq's biological agents, or the delivery systems needed to weaponize these agents. Such was the status of the Iraqi weapons program a decade ago. In the intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, and indeed have accelerated following the withdrawal of UN inspectors. Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve to develop deadly weapons of mass destruction, and, more horrifyingly, to use them. Saddam Hussein murdered 5,000 of his own citizens in Halabja, and injured 10,000 more, in a gas attack. 20,000 Iranians died terrible deaths in clouds of mustard gas and nerve agents. In breach of U.N. imposed sanctions, Iraq has continued to develop long-range missiles that expand the threat that these toxins pose to the world community. The British Government has estimated that Iraq could possess missiles capable of reaching the Bosphorous Straits within five years. Current Iraqi military planning envisions the use of these weapons in a conflict, and as the world waits for compliance with any of the 16 Security Council Resolutions that are presently in abeyance, this capability grows. Perhaps in different hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be less of an imminent threat. To be sure, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction deterred the United States and the Soviet Union from direct conflict for more than forty years. But such a doctrine is dependent upon rational actors and an expectation that civilized nation-states seek the preservation of their citizenry. Such assumptions fail in Iraq, a country that under Saddam Hussein has demonstrated an unabated hatred of the United States and a willingness to sacrifice and murder its citizens in the interests of the ruling clique. Ongoing hostilities in the Northern and Southern no-flight zones make it increasingly likely that an unexpected event could lead to the use of these mass casualty weapons against our citizens. To wait for an Iraqi epiphany is to invite disaster. Inaction is immoral--the United States has a responsibility to the community of nations to eliminate this threat before it grows ever greater. To concur that Saddam Hussein is a threat is to agree upon the need for action, for can one reasonably argue that intervention is easier in a nuclear- weapon capable Mesopotamia? This authorization of force is at some level, a recognition of the ongoing state of war with Iraq. Conflict with Iraq has never truly ceased since the conclusion of the Gulf War, and coalition aircraft supporting Operation Northern and Southern Watch have been fired upon thousands of times. It is revealing to examine the record of only the last three weeks, since Iraq sent a letter to the United Nations expressing a willingness to resume weapons inspections. Sixty-seven attempts have been made to down coalition aircraft in this period; 406 attempts have been made this year. It is beyond comprehension to believe that this body would argue for further deliberation, further study, further diplomacy, were our pilots to be attacked so in any other place on the globe. Yet, we have tolerated this low-level conflict for nearly a decade. Opponents of this resolution have responded by asking, ``Why now?'' What compelling reason could there be for acting today, that was not before us a year ago? Three years ago this body declared Iraq to be unacceptably in breach of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' Three years ago, we also declared it to be the policy of the United States to change the regime in Baghdad and promote a democratic state.--Three Years Ago!--The credibility of this body is even called into question, for us now to insist on further deliberation, further consultation, further delay. These issues aren't new, my colleagues, they are have been before us for years. It is only the leadership of this President that has allowed us to do our duty and seriously consider the implications of the threat that has been before us for so many years. The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and the general inactivity of the international community for a decade. To what avail, but a rearmed, emboldened dictator, confident in his ability to flaunt international law, willing to flex his might against lesser states in the region, and capable of intimidating all others. This is not hasty, precipitous action on our part, but something closer to negligence for having waited so long to confront the danger to our citizenry. Critics of this resolution are notably short of alternatives or specifics. Regime change cannot happen through domestic posturing. Disarmament requires more than hopes and good wishes. It has been suggested that multilateral diplomacy is preferable to unilateral action. As a permanent member of the Security Council, it is appropriate for the United States to work with the United Nations to seek common ground and broad international support for U.S. actions. Where agreement with the United Nations may fail, we should look to our other regional alliances, seeking common ground and unity of purpose. Our success in 1991, was attributable, in part, to the collective outrage of the world community with Iraq's unabashed violation of Kuwait's territorial integrity. Acting in concert with our allies is inarguably the first and best choice, but we must remember that the President has sworn to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Ultimately, the President's actions must be guided by Americas national security interests. Where broader regional interests intersect with our security concerns, we should welcome assistance and combine efforts in the pursuit of liberty and freedom. But we must not predicate our actions on global opinion. When necessary, the United States must be prepared to act alone. Our success in 1991 was attributable also to American might and resolve--while our cause was strengthened by the support of the United Nations, our Armed Forces were trained and equipped to act alone if necessary. It was knowledge of American resolve, and first-hand experience with the unrelenting application of our combined arms, not Security Council resolutions, which led Iraqi forces to surrender in droves. Our allies abroad should take note of this resolution. While we are encouraging the President to continue his efforts to build international support, and to exhaust diplomatic alternatives to armed conflict, our friends and foes alike must know that diplomacy can indeed be exhausted. It is appropriate for Congress to acknowledge the prospect of unilateral military action, and such action only serves to add credibility and urgency to ongoing negotiations. I do not share the deep, unyielding belief in the power of international law and global institutions that some here have expressed. It is not irresponsible to act alone when all others have failed to act. On Tuesday, December 9, 1941, two days after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt addressed the nation and reflected upon the coming challenges facing the country. He noted: It is our obligation to our dead it is our sacred obligation--to their children and our children--that we must never forget what we have learned. And what we all have learned is this. There is no such thing as security for any nation or any individual in a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism. There is no such thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike without warning. We have learned that our ocean-girt hemisphere is not immune from severe attack that we cannot measure our safety in terms of miles on any map. Sixty years later, in New York, and Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, we learned that the lessons that President Roosevelt implored us to remember had not changed so much. Gangsterism, unbridled aggression and acute vulnerability are the very same dangers we face today. In 1941, Congress stood with the President and promised full support to protect and defend our nation. Today we must do no less.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we fully discuss here the most serious responsibility that is entrusted to Congress, and that is authorizing the President to use force in the defense of our Nation. The decision by Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S. military requires somber analysis and sober consideration, but it is not a discussion that we should delay. The President has presented to the American people a compelling case for intervening in Iraq, and this body has acted deliberately in bringing to the House floor a resolution that unequivocally expresses our support for our Commander-in-Chief. The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more apparent. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying thousands of chemical munitions, chemical agents and precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to developing offensive biological weapons, including botulinum, anthrax, aflatoxin, clostridium and others. Yet this list of poisons describes only what the U.N. inspectors were able to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and denial. They could not account for thousands of chemical munitions, 500 mustard gas bombs and 4,000 tons of chemical weapons precursors. In the intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, and accelerated following the withdrawals of U.N. inspectors. Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve not only to develop deadly weapons of mass destruction but to use them on their own people: 5,000 killed, 20,000 Iranians killed through mustard gas clouds and the most deadly agents that were inflicted on human beings. Perhaps in different hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be less of an imminent threat. This authorization of force that we will vote on soon is at some level also a recognition of the ongoing state of war with Iraq. In the last 3 weeks, 67 attempts have been made to down collision aircraft. Four hundred and six attempts have been made this year. The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and general inactivity of the international community for a decade. Regime change cannot happen through domestic posturing. Disarmament requires more than fervent hopes and good wishes. On December 9, 1941, President Roosevelt said, ``There is no such thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike without warning. We cannot measure our safety in terms of miles on any map.'' In 1941, Congress stood with the President and promised full support to protect and defend our Nation. I urge our colleagues today to do the same.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus I am pleased to introduce the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2002. I know first-hand about the difficulty involved in managing this disease, as my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes when she was six. I have hope in the rapid pace of research in this area and believe that one day soon there will be a cure for my daughter and the millions of Americans with diabetes. The legislation we are introducing today is an important step toward this goal. It is a promising time for research on diabetes, and those suffering from the disease and their families are filled with hope. One of the most exciting recent advances, and the focus of this legislation, is pancreatic islet cell transplantation. Many have hailed the breakthrough in this area as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. In 2000, researchers in Edmonton, Canada were successful in isolating islets from donor pancreases and transplanting those cells into a person with diabetes through an injection. These injected islets then begin to function and produce insulin, and this procedure appears to offer the most immediate cure for diabetes. This procedure has become known as the Edmonton Protocol and of the approximately 100 patients who have been transplanted using variations of this protocol, nearly 80 percent remain insulin independent beyond two years. The research is moving forward quickly, and researchers around the world are trying to replicate and expand on this success and make it appropriate for children. As of January 2002, there were 68 islet transplantation centers around the world. I am proud that exciting advances are underway in the state of Washington. Recently, a clinical research team at the JDRF Center for Human Islet Transplantation in Seattle has performed the first three human islet transplants in the Northwest. All of these individuals were suffering the effects of advanced diabetes complications prior to receiving the transplant, and all three have now achieved critical post-transplant success in the management of their blood sugar levels. I am heartened to know that the Seattle program plans to continue their research in the future. The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2002 contains three provisions that I believe will help to move this research forward. The first section of the bill provides a regulatory incentive to organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to procure additional pancreases. One of the major challenges in promoting research on and transplantation of islet cells is the shortage of pancreases. Approximately 2,000 pancreases are donated each year, and only approximately 500 of those donated are available for use in islet cell transplants. Clearly, this is not nearly a large enough supply considering that millions of Americans have diabetes. Currently, OPOs do not receive credit from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), towards their certification, for pancreases retrieved and used for research or islet transplantation. The OPOs do receive credit for pancreases retrieved and used for whole pancreas transplants. This creates a disincentive for OPOs to retrieve pancreases for research or islet transplantation. My legislation attempts to provide an incentive to OPOs by directing CMS to provide credit to OPOs for pancreases retrieved and used for research and islet transplantation. The second section of this legislation creates a federal inter-agency committee to coordinate efforts in the area of islet transplantation and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on regulations and policies that would advance this exciting area of research. Ultimately, the goal is to expand the human clinical trials, demonstrate success over a longer period of time, and move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to standard therapy covered by insurance and appropriate for all individuals with diabetes. The third section of this legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on clinical outcomes and comprehensive cost-utility analysis that will be important in moving towards this goal. I encourage all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today, along with my colleague in the other body, the Senator from New Mexico [Senator Bingaman], who serves as Chairman of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, to introduce this important legislation. The bill we introduced today will amend PL 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, to clarify the treatment of Title III funds reserved by counties under such Act. Since 1908, Congress recognized that federal land deprived counties of revenues they would have otherwise received and therefore accorded a measure of compensation to counties by sharing revenues derived from National Forest System lands. Further, Congress annually appropriates funds for counties that are considered payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), an amount that is based upon a formula derived from the amount of federal land and revenue sharing receipts. In recent years, counties have increasingly suffered hardship due to the severe fluctuation of shared federal receipts. Local education and road maintenance programs have been the most affected by the declines. PL 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, was borne as a result. The intent of the bill was to address the fluctuation of shared federal receipts and restore stability and predictability to the annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management for use by the counties for the benefit of public schools, roads, and other purposes. Congress further created opportunities within this Act to enhance the restoration, maintenance and stewardship of Federal lands. For example, under Title II of this Act, eligible counties have the opportunity to place a percentage of their payments toward cooperative projects on federal land. PL 106-393, originally introduced by Representative Nathan Deal and Senator Ron Wyden, enjoyed bi-partisan support in both Houses of Congress and was ultimately signed into law on October 30, 2000. It set forth three categories by which eligible counties could elect to receive their stabilized payments under Title I, II, or III, or a combination thereof. Eligible counties receive Title I and Title III funding directly while Title II funding is directly held by the federal government and allocated toward cooperative federal projects that I briefly mentioned above. As it stands however, PL 106-393 undermines the stability and predictability of payments it purports to provide the counties. To understand the enormity of impact, it is critical to remember that PILT is the only form of federal payment that a county can use for its day- to-day operations. While appropriated PILT funds have always been impacted by shared federal receipts, the Act kept Title I consistent with the shared receipts and its relationship with PILT payments. However, the intent of the Act was that Title II and Title III would not impact PILT. Yet, in fact, the Department of Interior and the United States Department of Agriculture have determined otherwise in that Title III payments will affect an eligible county's PILT payments because the funding is directly received and spent by them. I have been told that the margin of impact could be anywhere from fifty cents ($.50) to a dollar for dollar reduction in PILT depending upon the amount the county could elect to receive under Title III. For example, Ferry County, located in northeast Washington, received a PILT payment in 2001 of approximately $200,000. The county elected to receive $182,000 under Title III for fiscal year 2002. Conservatively, an estimate of fifty ($.50) cents on the dollar would equate to a $91,000 reduction in PILT. Further, eligible counties are required to specify their allocations under PL 106-393 prior to the PILT calculations, so they have no way of knowing the impact their allocations may have on their PILT payments from year to year. It is also important to note that no other source of federal funding could replenish the PILT funding lost. Although Title III funding is received directly, specific parameters are set to its spending. Bluntly put, PL 106-393 pits a county's potential desire and need for reimbursement for the emergency services it renders on federal land against its need for PILT funding for general operations. This is contrary to the intent of PL 106-393. The legislation I introduce today is narrow in scope. It will amend PL 106-393 to re-establish the stability and predictability of payments by directing that Title III funds not be considered when PILT payments are calculated. Time is of the essence. It is imperative Congress act before we adjourn this session. Please join me in cosponsoring this most important measure.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago on September 11, our country suffered unexpected and unjustified attacks that killed and injured innocent people from many nations of the world. While the attacks occurred in the city of New York, a peaceful field in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon in Virginia, the effects of terrorism were felt in every corner of America and throughout the world of nations that shared our sorrow. The resulting war on terrorism has called together the people of America to unite behind a commitment to defend our homeland and preserve our way of life against all enemies of freedom and liberty. In doing so, America has witnessed a heartening resurgence of patriotism, a deep appreciation for the ordinary heroes among us, a fervent call to prayer, and a thankful devotion to the simple blessings of family, community, faith and friendship. We are indeed a blessed people, committed to liberty for individuals and nations everywhere, but mindful that freedom too often comes with great sacrifice. Who can doubt our American faithfulness and resolve as we grieve for those who lost life on September 11, applaud the brave government servants and military might of our great nation, strive for economic stability and quietly pray for a peaceful world free of tyrants and violence. The United States is no stranger to evil--our forefathers have overcome it through 225 years of proud but difficult history. The challenge for this and future generations will be to never succumb to the temptation of withdrawing from our national obligation to resist evil and fight for freedom for future generations of Americans. The war against terrorism, memorialized in those who died one year ago, is only the latest test of our national resolve. In lasting memory of September 11, let the legacy of this new century be one of victory for mankind as the United States of America leads the world to liberty and justice for all.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5005, a bill to create a much-needed Department of Homeland Security in the Presidential Cabinet. For the first time, America will have all its border protection services under one authority. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement, the Customs Services, the border activities of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Coast Guard will be able to work more closely than ever to ensure that our borders--especially our northern border, the longest undisputed border in the world--are protected from threats. Whether those threats are from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug smugglers or smugglers of other contraband, the Department of Homeland Security will be in a position to protect against those threats, while utilizing technology to aid the free flow of legal commerce. The legislation before us today varies from the President's initial proposal in a very meaningful and positive way. It incorporates language I supported with the Science Committee to include an Undersecretary for Science and Technology who will be given the task of coordinating homeland security-related scientific research government- wide. One aspect I fought to keep in this bill is the flexibility for federal partnerships with small businesses that have innovative technologies to offer. Other Transaction Authority, as it is called, has been used successfully by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and I believe it has equal merit to advance time- critical and life-saving technologies in this new Department. I am pleased that the President has embraced these changes. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this Department will be organized almost entirely out of existing government agencies. Congress could have easily taken this opportunity to create more government bureaucracy. The terrorist threat that faces our great Nation could have easily been used as an excuse to broaden the size and scope of the federal government. The bill before us today does not take that approach, but rather reorganizes, consolidates, streamlines and focuses those federal agencies responsible for homeland security. With those agencies under one Secretary of Homeland Security, I am confident that our nation is in a better position to prepare for and responds to any threat to our domestic security. This legislation will provide the flexibility the President needs in order to make staffing changes and provide for the national security, and to reorganize activities within the Department so that agencies work with one another to make our country safe. At the same time, this bill provides the Constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight necessary to maintain separation of powers and prevent excessive and abusive government. For example, this bill preserves the authority of Congress and the Appropriations Committee to prescribe levels of funding for Executive Branch functions. Furthermore, H.R. 5005 will prohibit the unwise Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS) program, which would have encouraged neighbors to spy on neighbors. I am pleased with the privacy protections built into this act, which will prevent an intrusive `Big Brother' government which violates our Constitution. I thank the members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and the distinguished Majority Leader and Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Armey, for their hard work crafting this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride as a native of Spokane, Washington, to recognize the reopening of the historic Davenport Hotel. Mr. Speaker, this historic event would not have been possible without the commitment and perseverance of Walt and Karen Worthy, the owners of the property. Designed by renowned architect Kirtland Cutter and built in 1914 by Louis Davenport, this grand hotel has been the centerpiece of downtown Spokane and an immense source of community pride. It has played host to American presidents, generals, statesmen, an stars of the opera, stage and screen. During the 1980s and most of the 1990s, the Davenport fell into great disrepair. Over almost two decades several owners tried to save the Davenport Hotel, but could not gather the necessary resources or assemble community support behind a restoration project of this magnitude. The project needed someone who was willing to be completely dedicated to this monumental venture of restoring a part of our local history. Enter Walt and Karen Worthy. Walt and Karen purchased the Davenport in 2000, and made the top-to-bottom restoration of this landmark their labor of love. With great attention to detail and personal investment, Walt and Karen, with the help of many highly skilled tradesmen, have brought to life the Davenport lobby in all of its original splendor. They have restored the elegant beauty and fine points of the thematic ballrooms, fine restaurants and guest rooms to a state that would make Mr. Davenport proud. On behalf of the residents of Spokane and the 5th Congressional District of Washington, our thanks go to Walt and Karen Worthy for preserving and restoring this magnificent part of our Pacific Northwest heritage.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). He has been a very strong leader in this House in supporting agriculture and not restricting the transfer of food and medicine to countries like Cuba, the sale of food and medicine by American farmers. He is part of the Cuba Working Group, a bipartisan group of 23 Republicans, 23 Democrats who have worked very hard to change this policy and bring a sensible policy to this country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As I have listened to this debate tonight, I think it has been a good debate. What strikes me about the argument of the opponents to the Flake amendment is that there seems to be this fear of Fidel Castro, a tiny dictator in a country 90 miles from us who is, by all reasonable accounts, I would argue to my colleagues, not a threat to this country. Even in the days of the gravest threat when the Soviet Union was at its greatest power, we still allowed our American citizens to travel there. We allow families of Cubans who are still in Cuba to travel there, 90 miles off our shore, once a year. We allow Cuban families to give money to their relatives in Cuba. The Pope has gone to Cuba. Many Americans under certain restrictions have gone to Cuba. My suggestion to my colleagues is why are we afraid to allow Americans to go there and spread democracy, to make the arguments and be examples to the people of that country, 11 million people that we are a good country, that we are not a country that Fidel Castro says we are, but when we are his scape goats we somehow fall into that trap. I urge support of the Flake amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to part of this debate today and find it interesting. This subject is fascinating to me, and I have great respect for people on both sides of the issue. What strikes me in this amendment is that we are debating not the future of the United States' relationship with Cuba, but we are trying, it seems to me by this amendment, to restrict that future and the potential for it. It is couched in terms of bio-terrorism and chemical warfare, but it is an inconsistent argument because if you look at the history of the United States and its relations with other countries of the world who have had terrorist tendencies, terrorist records, we only need look to the places like the Soviet Union and China with which we normalized relations, an opening of a relationship, an opening years and years ago that led to a relationship of civility and some respect mutually, some relationship, in fact, rather than isolation. That is why I urge my colleagues today to think carefully about this issue of this Goss amendment. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is a strong figure in this House of Representatives. I have great respect for him. I also feel the same way about the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), whose approach to change this policy in his amendment really, it seems to me, is being thwarted by a secondary amendment that has a purpose that should not be the one we focus on today. The focus ought to be, in my judgment, the relationship between the United States and Cuba post-Castro. I will stand with everyone here in condemning the regime of Fidel Castro, but I will stand with a lot of people in this Chamber who support the 11 million people and the potential relationship we could have with them if we have a change in policy. This policy has not worked. Castro has not yielded to the embargo that has existed for all these years. And so my sense is that as we open the door to trade, the door to a relationship through food and medicine which occurred here a couple of years ago with broad bipartisan support, that has opened the door to a future relationship which I think has merit, not as it relates to Castro certainly, but as it relates to the Cuban people. When we engaged with the Soviet Union years and years ago, it led to a relationship that has been one of mutual discussion and consideration, not isolation. We never in all the years of Soviet Union ownership of weaponry, of terrorist activity, of spying, of all of those things that we object to in a free society, we never restricted the travel there. In China, people travel there regularly now. There are 13 categories of travel that exist today for people of the United States to go to Cuba. And most of the proponents of the restrictive amendment, I would argue, have never been to Cuba, have never had a chance to talk with any of the people there on that soil and get a sense of what the future potential is for a relationship. I want to let my colleagues know that the American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the Flake amendment, strongly opposes the Goss amendment for reasons that our American agriculture sector has a huge potential, I believe, to do business with Cuba, that is, take Castro's money, take the government of Cuba's money and provide food and medicine for the people of Cuba, to assist them. So I urge us to think beyond just the issue of terrorism that I happen to feel is something of a pretext here to frustrate the Flake amendment and think carefully about the future relationship. Think carefully about whether we are harming the potential future relationship for helping it, as we look at the 11 million people who are in Cuba who yearn to be free, I would argue. And I think only by opening your relationship, having communication, letting them understand that America should not be the scape goat of Fidel Castro. It is a convenient scape goat for him, this embargo. He must love it because it allows him to rail against the United States when, in fact, probably his worst nightmare would be if we lifted the opportunity to travel and flooded the people of Cuba with exposure to democracy and freedom. That would be his worst nightmare. So I would just say to my friends, this is a highly emotional debate for a lot of people. People feel very strongly about this issue, but I would urge we reject the Goss amendment and support the Flake amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think the point that is being missed here is that this acquisition list for limited purposes, for conservation or preservation, will be managed, will be managed against wildfire. I think by doing that in this particular bill in this particular acquisition, we are going to assure that the Lewis and Clark Trail does not burn up. We are going to assure that, as acquisition comes, so does management. This is not just land that is being bought for public purposes. It is bought for purposes of a specific region, a specific area that goes or carries along with it the obligation to manage it, to protect it from wildfires. So I would argue that it has a greater opportunity to be protected from wildfire on these particular lands than if it were otherwise acquired, or just left unacquired. So I think we agree with the gentleman, and I think there is some validity to the argument that we can protect this property from wildfire by having it acquired.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the list on page 21. As I look at it and see the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, that affects numerous States from Missouri westward, and I think that is a fair acquisition. I think it is necessary as we come up on the bicentennial. We have the Lower Salmon River Area in Idaho of critical environmental concern. I think there has been some sensitivity about that whole issue. I do not think this list is the one to knock out, because it is agreed upon. They are necessary projects. I would just point out, too, to my friends, the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Arizona, the President is $150 million above the fire plan. We have that 150 extra in. We are right where the President wants us to be in the budget request, so we are on budget. We are on target. We are even over with respect to the critical issues of fire suppression and fire assistance. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the amendment be defeated.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know which would be delayed. That is part of the problem that we have, that there may be some agreed-upon acquisitions that the BLM and the Members and others, and the administration and others, feel are sensible and genuine. So that is part of the problem that we cannot identify them exactly.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but praise him for his concern about this. I have the same concerns and the same philosophy about this issue. What I want to emphasize in my remarks, however, is that the subcommittee has led the way on the wildfire issue. For the forest service the subcommittee provided $146 million more than the President requested for wildfire. We added $5 million, over $5 million for the readiness and program management, which is really the money to get out there and fight these fires. We have $700 million additional in emergency spending for wildfires and fighting those within the system of the Interior Department, and we are at the President's budget request of $160 million for fire suppression operations. I think the gentleman makes some very good points; and I am going to be real frank about it, because I come from the West, and I know we are worried about additional acquisitions that are not then properly accounted for within the system. In other words, proper management falls behind. I will say, with respect to the gentleman's offset and the reduction, that if this land acquisition program reduction occurs, there will be a disruption in some of the agreed upon acquisitions that Members of this body, the House, and Members on both sides of the aisle, have looked at and agreed upon as a sensible acquisition, not an insensible one. So I think we, again, feel as though the subcommittee has balanced this issue pretty carefully, and I really want to commend the gentleman for his sensitivity about fire issues, especially from his State and his concern in this amendment. Again, I reluctantly oppose it; but on the other hand, I oppose it because there is a substantial amount of money in the bill that the subcommittee looked at and the full committee looked at and felt was appropriate at a level that meets the needs of fire suppression.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am sort of amazed at the overkill, the overrhetoric that comes on some of these debates. I know there has been allegations by the distinguished gentlemen who were the sponsors of this amendment, both of whom I respect, who said there is damage to the fowl and the fish; and yet the manager of the refuge has not made that determination at all. In fact, he said we found that the pesticides that are used, that none of these pesticides have an adverse effect on the environment. I listened to the gentleman from California talk about environmental protection. Ninety-eight percent of the pesticides that are allowed in California are already prohibited from use on this refuge. So I say let us clean up California. Maybe if there is such a pesticide problem in California or on this refuge, clean up California first rather than coming out and trying to whack away at farmers. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is 17 families that are affected by this issue, 17 leases. Well, that is 17 families who were trying like crazy to make a living in farming. In fact, the refuge monitors pesticides all the time. That is why we have managers of refuges. That is what they do. They make sure there is no adverse effect on fish or fowl. So to come in here and keep saying there is damage to this and there is damage to that, it just is not true. There is no evidence of it, and I think that this House ought to stand up and say, wait a minute, this is overkill and let us not go to extremism that I think some of the supporters of this amendment want us to go to. In fact, if a person does not grow potatoes in this refuge, the lesser snow and white fronted geese feed on the first frost in the refuge. So my point is this is good for wild fowl and snow and white fronted geese. Same with alfalfa, it is good for the fowl and the animals in the refuge. So enough overkill. That is what this amendment is, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Chair and the Members that after this series of votes, we will continue with amendments to title I under regular order. Then we will proceed to title II under regular order. Members are asked that if they have amendments to title I and the remainder of the bill, to come to the floor and submit their written amendments to the desk.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to close on this debate. It has been a good debate. I appreciate the tone from all parties who spoke very fervently about their belief in the arts and their support of the arts. I would argue that there is not one person in the House of Representatives who does not support the arts. Period. The question is, does everyone support a $10 million increase in the National Endowment for the Arts? I think we have to make sure everybody understands that this is an issue of how much can we afford. How much can we spend on different accounts in this particular bill? I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that we have got $116 million in this bill, about a $1 million increase over last year, which last year was about an $11 million increase over the year before. I guess my thinking is, it can never be enough. If you really want to take the arguments of the proponents of this amendment to their logical extension, it will never be enough. I would argue that this is enough at this time, at this place, given the circumstances of this bill, given the circumstances of our economy and our national priorities. Much has been made of Members saying, well, we have to treat the Federal Treasury like our family budget. I would argue to you that if you got your mortgage and you got your food and your transportation and all the other necessary accounts to run your family, that maybe you say at some point, ``Until things get a little better, I'm not going to go to the movies this weekend. In fact, I'm going to stay home and read a book.'' I think that is what we have to do with this amendment. We have to say, $116 million is enough. It is enough. And we do not need at this point to spend another $10 million just to demonstrate our commitment to the arts in this country. Very few speakers today spoke of the direct relationship between the NEA and their love of the arts. We can love the arts, and we all do. We all appreciate the value of music and artistic expression. It is valuable. But I hasten to point out, we spend 20 percent of the $116 million on the administrative cost of the NEA. I know this amendment speaks to that, but still we are spending 20 cents, 25 cents out of every dollar spent on the NEA in administrative cost. My argument is in this amendment let us stick to the balance that has been provided by the chairman, by the ranking member, by the entire full Committee on Appropriations when we reported this bill out. The gentleman from Washington said it is an innocuous reduction in the Department of Interior accounts. I would argue that reduction in land management for fires, for Indian Health Service, for BIA education or other accounts that this will come out of in the land management agencies for us in the West is not the right time to spend more money on arts and less money on the administration of fire suppression and other accounts that this is likely to be taken out of. So I would argue that this is not innocuous. It is not an innocuous addition. It is $10 million of addition to this account that already has $116 million. I would just say this. We can be relatively assured, I will say almost positively assured, that the other body will want to add even more than this. I know that satisfies some Members who want more money. But if we are going to be fiscally responsible and if we are going to keep the balance in this bill and we have relatively, even most likely, the assurance that the money is going to go in in even greater amounts when we get with the other body in conference, I say hold the line. On this day, at this moment, with these pressures on our economy, with these pressures on our homeland security, on our post-September 11 activity, with the recession that we are trying to come out of in this country, let us not spend money to go to the movies; let us say, let us stay home and read a book. I argue that these Department of Interior accounts that are being cut today are going to have a greater impact on reducing spending and administration of existing accounts for Members of the House of Representatives than will this particular $10 million increase affect Members in a similar manner. So I would just say I think again, the argument has been in favor of the arts and we all favor the arts. The challenge that the proponents have to exercise is, is this NEA distribution, the money going to the Federal agency, going to have the same impact that $10 million might have in other accounts of the interior agencies that are affected by the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Washington. I respect their commitment, let there be no mistake. I know they feel strongly about this. But I think the rest of us must feel strongly about protecting the Federal purse, protecting the integrity of the appropriations process, protecting the integrity of the challenge, the pressure that is going to be on the land management agencies as we have droughts and natural disasters and challenges to Indian health service and Indian education and all of the other accounts that are part of the interior bill. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thought the gentleman would say that. Back in the 1970s, when this program first came out, it had zero. So now we have grown it to $116 million. One hundred sixteen million is enough. Let us give it a one-year hiatus. We have a war going on, we are trying to provide for people in New York, we have a defense bill, and homeland security. Let us give it a rest. Let us economize. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if $116 million is not enough.

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