George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me a little bit about this objection to the provision that is in the appropriations bill before us today is that it ignores the work that States are doing on ergonomics. My State of Washington has worked for sometime with employers and others to develop ergonomic standards that are different than those that are part of the Federal standards or proposed to be the Federal standards. So what this does is put employers and employees in a dilemma in States like Washington State concerned that they want to comply with the State standard but also concerned that they will have to comply with the Federal standard that may be different. So I think we ought to be cautious in this whole effort to rush to judgment with respect to a Federal standard that will employ Federal employees to do Federal inspections that will put different burdens on people in States that are also facing the very real prospect of having State officials that the case of my State the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries also involved in inspections and oversight with respect to worker injuries. It is a given, I think, Mr. Chairman, that all of us want to make sure that our workers are protected and that they are not injured in the workplace. That is not in the best interest of employees; it is not in the best interest of employers. But to have this duplicate standard and the idea that the Federal standard is the only standard that is valuable is wrong. We do it, not only in OSHA, but we do it in other agencies as well where we have this sense that the Federal standard and the Federal Government is the only vehicle by which we can have fair and free and operating standards that affects citizens in our respective States. So I would just say my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that I respect the proponents of this amendment; but I think that it is not the right amendment. I am going to vote against it and support the bill as it came out of the full committee with the idea that let us let States take leads on this as well, in particular, take leads that are not going to burden onerously the employers and the employees of our respective States and our respected businesses who are working so hard to make this engine of our economy move forward.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of the underlying conference report not only because of what the rule provides; I also want to make a comment about what the rule and the underlying measure do not provide. What they do not provide, what the underlying measure does not provide is the ability for this country and the agriculture economy that it serves to have an opportunity to have sanctions relief on food and medicine for five countries that we currently embargo unilaterally considered in the bill. I have been actively engaged with our leadership and members of all committees of jurisdiction relative to the issue of lifting sanctions on food and medicine to try to accommodate some solution and reach some conclusion that would allow this marketing freedom to occur to our farmers. Unfortunately, my own leadership said no at the last minute. I am on the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. At the subcommittee level, we were able to insert language by an overwhelming vote that allowed sanctions on food and medicine to be lifted to assist our farmers and for humanitarian reasons as well. We went to the full committee a week or so ago and by a vote of 35-24 rejected a challenge to strip out this language that is going to help our farmers. Now here we have come to the Committee on Rules and I understand later today there will be a rule on the agriculture appropriations bill. The language that was fairly and squarely passed through the appropriations process for literally the third year we have been working on this, but last night it was set up to be stripped out of the bill. So I am here to register my objection and my active participation in defeating the agriculture appropriations rule, not this rule. I am going to vote for this one and I am going to vote for the conference report. But in reality, the lifting of food and medicine sanctions should be in this conference report. It is a vehicle that could have passed, but it was thwarted by our leadership. I am going to object to the Rules Committee action and hope my colleagues will vote against the rule on agriculture appropriations which comes up later today.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending permanent normal trade relations status to China. I have heard two arguments recently against granting China this trade status which I think deserve examination. 1. Critics say we should not grant PNTR status to China because we will lose leverage on all future trade agreements. This allegation represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the vast benefits this agreement offers America. PNTR status will allow the United States to establish reciprocal access to Chinese markets, for the first time. Passage of this bill will allow the United States to take advantage of the enormously favorable bilateral trade agreement negotiated with China for entry into the World Trade Organization. It should be noted that this is a one-way arrangement--China will dramatically reduce industrial and agricultural tariffs on American products while we change nothing about our trade laws. China will enter the World Trade Organization with or without Congressional approval of PNTR--but if we don't pass this legislation the consequences for American exporters will be devastating. 134 other countries will have access to the Chinese market on the very favorable terms that the United States negotiated, while we will be locked out. This is not a position of leverage--this is a position of extreme weakness. Opposing PNTR effectively isolates the United States from this market. 2. Critics say this represents a benefit from shadowy special interests, but is not in overall American interests. Opponents who believe that we should turn our backs on one of the world's largest export markets do a disservice to export dependent jobs across the nation. International trade, considering all imports and exports, now constitutes 29 percent of the gross domestic product, up from 7 percent in 1950. In Washington State, our economy is even more dependent on trade, with foreign exports alone accounting for nearly 25 percent of the gross state product. Export-related jobs represented 31 percent of the total increase in jobs in the state over the last 30 years and these jobs pay 46 percent more than the overall state average. Who are these supposed shadowy special interests then? How about the semiconductor, computer and telecommunications industries, the backbone of the New American economy--their tariff rates will fall to zero--the workers in these sectors represent a valuable special interest. Pacific Northwest wheat farmers have not been able to sell to China for more than 20 years--the bilateral agreement will open this vast market for the first time. Tariffs on Washington apples will fall from 30 percent to 10 percent, making their products much more competitive--these farmers are a valuable special interest. This is a good agreement, and is in the interests of all Americans and all trade interests. Aside from its importance to the agricultural community of eastern Washington, this measure is critically important to the enormous number of aerospace workers throughout our state. Over the last few months, I have been in contact with the presidents of union locals who asked my support for PNTR because it would help U.S. aerospace workers. Last week, I was visited by a delegation of union presidents who represent a national coalition of unions who are supporting this measure. They are committed to human rights and environmental protection but they are also committed to expanding the rank and file membership in their unions through expanded trade with China. I believe Members should recognize this diversity of opinion within the labor movement. While some AFL-CIO unions are offering serious opposition to PNTR, the largest locals in my State have endorsed PNTR. The International Association of Machinists, and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, both AFL-CIO affiliates, have endorsed this legislation. I would hope that Members of this body would hear the pleas of local unions that are trying to preserve their jobs and not lose access to future markets.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today, I honor Sam Smith, a great citizen from the State of Washington. Dr. Sam Smith retires, this year, after fifteen years as President of Washington State University. His hard work and leadership transformed WSU from a single campus in Pullman to a nationally recognized, statewide university. Dr. Smith increased student access to Washington State University by establishing WSU Learning Centers in eleven counties and expanding WSU's presence in underserved areas with branch campuses in Spokane, the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. Dr. Smith also presided over the most successful fundraising campaign in the history of Washington State University. Campaign WSU, the university's first comprehensive fund-raising effort, raised more than $275 million and had the highest alumni-giving rate of all public universities in the country. Dr. Smith led academic programs and research efforts that resulted in Washington State University's recognition in national rankings as one of the best public universities in America, including a ranking, last year, as the most wired public university in the nation. Dr. Smith was president in 1998 when the Washington State Cougar football team was Pac-10 champion and competed in the Rose bowl for the first time in 67 years. I thank Dr. Smith for his service to Washington State University and Washington State and ask that he and his wife, Pat, remain friends with both in their retirement as both remain friends with them.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote 209 and 210. I request that the Record reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, Turkey is undergoing a peaceful transition of power, which has received little attention in this country. Last Friday, the Turkish parliament secured the necessary support to vote Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a former top judge as the 10th President of the Turkish Republic. He will officially assume his post on May 16th. This development was viewed positively by the European Union and western circles. President-elect Sezer is known as an outspoken advocate of democratic reforms and a staunch defender of secularism. His accession to the presidency was also well received at home. According to a public opinion poll, he enjoys 81 percent popular support. According to the same poll, 75 percent of those polled believe that he would be a successful President. Mr. Speaker, Turkey is well known as a dependable and strategically located NATO ally, but the State Department's 1999 report on global terrorism, which was recently released, highlights Turkey's contributions to curtail terrorism, perhaps one of the biggest threats to our security in this new millennium. In 1999 Turkey not only captured Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the vicious PKK which was responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people, but also was successful in thwarting the activities of the leftwing Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) as they prepared to inflict damage on U.S. targets. The report details the Turkish police's successful operation against the terrorist group in a shootout on 4 June as the terrorists prepared unsuccessfully to fire a light antitank weapon at the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul from a nearby construction site. Authorities also arrested some 160 DHKP/C members and supporters in Turkey and confiscated numerous weapons, ammunition, bombs, and bomb making materials over the course of the year, dealing a harsh blow to the organization. According to the report, Turkey also made significant progress against Islamic terrorism, as Turkish authorities continued to arrest and try Islamic terrorists vigorously in 1999. The report states that militants from the two major groups--Turkish Hizballah, a Kurdish group not affiliated with Lebanese Hizballah, and the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders-Front--managed to conduct low-level attacks. There were at least two attempted bombings against Russian interests in Turkey during 1999. On 10 December authorities discovered a bomb outside a building housing the offices of the Russian airline Aero-Flot in Istanbul. The bomb weighed approximately 14 kilograms, was concealed in a suitcase, and was similar to a bomb found on the grounds of the Russian Consulate in Istanbul in mid-November. Turkish officials suspect that Chechen sympathizers were responsible. While most of our NATO allies have benefited from the end of Cold War, experts maintain that since 13 of the 16 possible conflicts in the world are in Turkey's neighborhood, Turkey has not benefited from a peace dividend. We must continue to support and nurture the friendship we have with the Republic of Turkey, a close ally that continues to shoulder a heavy burden for regional peace and security.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Insulin- Free World Medicare Pancreas Transplantation Coverage Act of 2000, to provide Medicare coverage for pancreas transplants. I introduce this legislation with my colleagues Mrs. Capps, Mr. Porter and Mr. LaFalce. On July 1, 1999, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) announced that the agency would provide coverage for pancreas transplants performed in people who also require kidney transplants. However, the agency continues to deny coverage for transplants in people who have reached kidney failure. Several studies, including one published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 1998, indicate that a pancreas transplant performed before kidney disease is significant, can eliminate the need for a kidney transplant. My legislation would reverse this shortsighted policy. While HCFA provides coverage for segmented/split liver transplants, the agency does not provide coverage for a pancreas that is segmented/ split. This position should be reversed particularly in light of the profound and well-publicized organ shortage. In practice, Medicare's existing pancreas transplant coverage policy means that a pancreas may not be divided and used for more than one person. In addition, if part of the donor pancreas is found to be damaged, Medicare would not cover transplanting the useable portion. Medicare also would not cover a transplant for a person who has been offered the ultimate gift of life of part of a pancreas from a living relative. Pancreas transplantation represents the first significant advance toward curing diabetes since the discovery of insulin. I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this legislation designed to give years of life and health back to people with long-standing diabetes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to make a comment in support of a gentleman by the name of Marv Sather who is from my district, the Fifth District of Washington, who has been given the great award of Teacher of the Year for the State of Washington. He is a high school teacher at Riverside High School and he teaches English. I had a chance to talk with him today about the future of education and about his commitment to children. The thing that impressed me most about Marv is that he has a passion for education, but he also acknowledges freely that the way he has impressed his students and become, obviously, the Teacher of the Year for our State, is to address them respectfully and deal with them on a person-to- person basis and give them the confidence that he cares deeply about their education. Mr. Speaker, Marv Sather is a great tribute to education. He is an innovator. He is one example of the many millions of teachers who serve this country and serve our youth so well. So I say wholeheartedly, a sincere congratulations to Marv Sather for his great work in representing education nationally and representing education so well out of eastern Washington. We are proud of you.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, today I express my concerns about H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations I have been very supportive of funding acquisition projects that are based on willing sellers, and consensus among all parties involved. I believe that overall the Land & Water Conservation Fund has provided a good means for protecting our lands, and I have been proud to support land acquisitions such as the Escure Ranch and Bowe Ranch in Eastern Washington. These projects were acquired with the full support of the communities which surround them and were funded through the Interior Appropriations process and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. While I am supportive of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, today I am rising to share my concerns with the bill before the House, H.R. 701. Mr. Chairman, I understand that H.R. 701 is intended to supplant the current state and local funding for conservation and recreation programs and to encourage increased levels of state and local funding for these conservation projects. But, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am disturbed by the fact that this bill creates a new entitlement for our public lands. First, as currently drafted, the bill declares the entire program off-budget and takes more than $2.8 billion from the Outer Continental Shelf funds. This money is currently considered on-budget and will be a charge against the budget process annually over its 15 year life. This means that there will be more mandatory spending in the government that is essentially outside the discretion of Congress. I understand that amendments may be offered today to put this program back on budget, and I look forward to listening to the debate on this issue, but I cannot support a program that creates a new, more than $2 billion entitlement program when we are struggling to maintain our fiscal responsibility. Under this new trust fund H.R. 701 accumulates annual deposits of $2.8 billion from oil and gas royalties that are to be deposited annually by the Secretary of Treasury. Almost $2.4 billion of these funds are transferred into accounts for land conservation, acquisition and management and would be available for spending by federal agencies without the current approval process by the Congress. The remaining monies, about $450 million, must have Congressional approval before they can be spent. Second, over the past few months I have listened to our land managing agencies come before the House Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations and not be able to tell the Subcommittee what their current backlog maintenance is to maintain the lands that they currently own and manage. Why are we providing these agencies with more money when they cannot tell the Congress what they need to currently maintain their lands? This isn't the only problem, Mr. Speaker. The amount of money to maintain these lands is enormous, yet we are creating a $2.8 billion entitlement to buy new lands. The General Accounting Office noted when they came before the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations that if the US Fish and Wildlife Service continues to acquire lands at the pace it has over the past few years, the costs to maintain their lands could exceed $4 billion. Finally Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the efforts made by the authors of the bill to address some of the concerns regarding the protection of private property, I am still concerned about the level of protection afforded. I appreciate the authors attempt under the definitions section, Section 11 to outline the protections under the Constitution, but Mr. Chairman, this section does not protect against condemnation by the federal government or for that matter by state or local governments. The restrictions that are outlined in the bill only apply to the land and Water Conservation Funds--which is only $450 out of the more than $2.8 billion program. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate today on this bill--and I am hopeful that some of the amendments offered will improve this legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4055, not only because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is so important, but because what fully funding IDEA means for all students. When IDEA was first enacted, Congress promised to fund 40 percent of the increased costs associated with educating special needs students. Since Republicans took control of Congress, we have more than doubled the Federal contribution to IDEA to $6 billion. Yet, this amount is still only 12.6 percent of the cost of educating special needs students. H.R. 4055 sets out a road map to fulfill Congress' commitment, more than quadrupling IDEA funding to $25 billion by 2010. By underfunding IDEA, Congress has placed an unfunded mandate on local school districts, forcing them to use increased general revenues for special education programs. Through H.R. 4055, Congress will not only help special needs students, but also free up the limited resources available to our schools which should be used for programs which benefit all students. Our education system is at a crossroads. Some people in Washington, DC believe that the Federal Government knows what is best for our students, whether they live in Spokane, Washington or must survive in inner-city Los Angeles. I believe that local School boards, teachers, and parents know their students' needs best. Earlier this year, the administration presented a budget proposal to Congress which did not provide a sufficient increase for IDEA, but also proposed more than 10 new education programs which each would come with increased bureaucracy and Federal regulations. The Federal Government must first fulfill its commitment to funding IDEA before creating new programs which will only further burden school districts with paperwork and regulations. I strongly support H.R. 4055 and fully funding IDEA which will lift this unfunded mandate from school districts and free their resources to serve all students.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 282, which recognizes the American G.I. as the Person of the Century. This resolution recognizes the defining role that American soldiers have played in charting a safe course for our nation and for democracy around the world. Unlike a certain magazine which recognizes the discrete accomplishments of individuals in its annual ``Man of the Year'' issue, the contributions of American soldiers cannot be so easily defined. The Americans who have served their country in the last 100 years as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are many, and the sum of their combined contributions defy a simple summary. Nor should the heroism of this group be reduced to a brief summary, for this would only serve to minimize the depth of American sacrifice over the last century. Americans fought in two world wars for the basic principles of self- determination, democracy, and liberty. In both wars, Americans fought abroad to preserve values that transcended national interest, creating a foundation for a peaceful Europe and Asia that would have been unthinkable in the early years of the century. The rejection of totalitarianism evident in the defeat of the Third Reich continued to define the contributions of the American GI throughout the century. Bloody conflicts in Korea and Vietnam tested American resolution, but the GI unfailingly carried forward the flag in support of liberty and democracy. The stalwart resolves of the American GI checked Soviet aggression in Western Europe and contributed directly to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. And the fight continues even today. While the official Cold War may be faded into history, Americans stationed on the front lines in South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, or any of a myriad of other countries continue to play an important role as guarantors of peace and stability. Fifty years ago, the second half of the Twentieth Century was dubbed ``America's Century,'' because of the formative role the United States has played in reshaping the world in our image at the conclusion of World War Two. I join my colleagues today in recognizing that we owe the American Century to the steady, faithful efforts of the American GI, the Person of the Century.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of our colleagues, who happens to be from the other body, who received a very distinguished award this weekend. The recipient of that award was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who was chosen as the Alaskan of the Century. Now, this is a remarkable achievement by Senator Stevens, since he has served this Congress for over 30 years and served the State of Alaska with great distinction and great honor and integrity for more than that period of time. I became acquainted with Senator Stevens as a younger man in 1972 when I was finishing the service, as a law clerk for a Federal judge in Anchorage, Alaska, and was hired by Senator Stevens, came back here to Washington, D.C. in 1972, and served on his staff as his staff counsel and legislative director and then chief of staff, until I got married and left this community of Washington, D.C. and the Congress in 1977. Senator Stevens during that time and ever since has been a wonderful teacher for me and a great friend of our family, as he has been for a generation of Alaskans who have come to respect him and his work in the United States Senate and his work for our country, as well as his work for the State of Alaska. There is no greater advocate for the State of Alaska and for the American system than Senator Stevens. It is absolutely fitting that he receive this Alaskan of the Century award. He has served Alaska as a resident before statehood and after statehood. He served in the Alaska legislature achieving high marks there for his service to the State, worked for the solicitor for the Department of Interior before statehood, and then was appointed to the United States Senate in 1968, and has been reelected overwhelmingly ever since. Senator Stevens brings a respect for his State and our system to the Congress of the United States. He was elected as the assistant majority leader in the United States Senate. He went on to become chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate, a position which he holds today, with a special expertise in interior issues and public lands issues, and also a great experience in defense issues. There probably is no greater expert in the area of national security and national defense than Senator Stevens. The residents of Alaska recognize that, and, in choosing him to be the Alaskan of the Century, confirmed their love for him and reward him in essence for his great service to that State; a reward that he has undertaken with great passion and great commitment. Senator Stevens is not just a great legislator and a great American, he is a wonderful father to Susan and Beth and Teddy and Walter and Ben and Lilly. He is a champion for them, as well as a champion for all others in Alaska of all economic levels and all races and backgrounds. The Alaskan Native community has recognized the Stevens legacy by respecting him, not only with their votes, but with their support. The Alaskan Native Land Claims Settlement Act was one that Senator Stevens championed to settle the claims of the first Alaskans. And in doing so, he has endeared himself in their hearts and in the hearts of all Alaskans. The TransAlaska Pipeline project that was just a monumental undertaking that brought energy, efficiency, and assistance to the rest of the Nation was spearheaded by this man. The 2000 Mile Fishing Limit was spearheaded by this man, Senator Stevens. As you total up a person's contributions in life, I think Ted Stevens' greatest are his contributions, as I say, as a father, as a husband to Ann Stevens, who tragically was deceased in 1978, and his current wife, Catherine, also a great supporter of the Alaskan system. So I speak, I hope, on behalf of all Members of Congress in recognizing Ted Stevens' great contributions and congratulating him for being Alaskan of the Century.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 2000, I was pleased to introduce my constituent, Diana W.H. Capp, at a Resources Committee hearing concerning the funding of environmental initiatives and their impacts on local communities. Her testimony follows: Madame Chairman, Committee Members, thank you for this hearing, I'm Diana White Horse Capp, from Ferry County, Washington--4.6 million acres--in the Kettle Mountains, 7200 people. I'm Chairman of the Upper Columbia Resource Council. Madame Chairman, history shows the elite gain power by pitting the masses against each other. Our Constitution, based on the Iroquois Great Law of Peace, is intended to prevent this. Elite foundations now funnel their wealth to environmental groups who pit the masses against each other. Rural Americans are condemned as savages just as Natives once were. Rural Natives and Whites work in the same occupations. Our welfare is connected. The South half of my county is Colville Reservation. On the North Half, Colvilles and other Native descendants live in peace with Whites. The community is intermarried. We cannot afford the division these foundations instigate. The environmental elite use Native people. They preach about Tribal Rights and promise to restore justice. Yet they do little for Native people but use them as poster children to buy the clout of Treaty Rights in their lawsuits. Local activists courted favor on the Reservation and Colville Indian Environmental Protection Alliance emerged. This is a foundation grant handled by Native recruiter Winona LaDuke of Minnesota to fight people like me in Ferry County. (See page 2) LaDuke's webpage says the Colville group she funds is opposed to gold mining on the Reservation. (pg 3) But this article says that group lobbied the Tribal Council to oppose Crown Jewel Mine. (pg 4) Madame Chairman, the Crown Jewel Mine isn't on the Reservation--it's 30 miles away, minimum. This kind of deception smears the Tribe's name. Political upheaval rocks the Reservation and some Tribal members want the FBI to step in. These foundations use environmental groups to destroy rural cultures. Our county is crippled by their attacks on timber, mining, and ranching. Jobs are scarce. Our children feel hopeless--the elite have raped their future. These grants target Ferry County with $105,000 just to silence the so- called ``incivility'' of people like me concerned with human rights. (pg 5) These are grants to Environmental Media Services! They're headed by Arlie Schardt--Al Gore's former Press Secretary! Slick media activists hound urbanites, screaming that rural cultures destroy the planet, when in fact we feed and shelter them. The 1998 National Wilderness Conference announced its plan for Wilderness designation of the Kettle Mountain Range--Ferry County is the Kettle Range. Their millions wage a high-dollar war for Wilderness in Ferry County along with local Kettle Range Conservation Group. (pg 6) Our county is beautiful. They covet this beauty enough to rape our culture: We don't want them to squeeze us out. This cultural genocide must be acknowledged. That's why the Kootenai Tribe joins Idaho's fight against more Wilderness. (pg 7) This petition by Bret Roberts of Ferry County Action League is signed by many area residents opposed to more wilderness. Federal insiders reshape policy to destroy rural cultures. This map shows some of the plans to push us out. Colville National Forest's Public Affairs Officer took vacation time to picket for more Wilderness. Pacific Biodiversity Institute boasts that government agencies request their wilderness maps. (pg 8) This Wilderness Society map is part of a local Forest Service Plan. (pg 9) This environmental group's grant says their lynx study will be used by the Forest Service. (pg 10) This job notice (pg 11) even says Nature Conservancy biologists write policy on Indiantown Gap Military Reservation--adding salt to the wound. You see, government troops forced my Mother's people out of Indiantown Gap in 1932. I don't want that happening to my children, too! Madame Chairman, this juggernaut must be stopped.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in yesterday's newspaper reports that President Clinton has now seen fit to inject himself into the case surrounding the Diallo verdict in New York. He has done so in a fashion which perpetuates his reputation for political opportunism. The obligation of any President is to uphold the rule of law in this country, which obligation includes respect for and affirmation of our broader justice system. The President also has an obligation to unify the disparate peoples and views in our country by calling on ``our better angels,'' as Abraham Lincoln once said, seeking to heal the wounds that are too often inflicted by citizens and groups against each other in the history of our country. Mr. Speaker, the President has an obligation to respect our jury system, as sometimes imperfect in hindsight it might be, for, to do otherwise, enhances cynicism and diminishes the natural conflict in criminal cases between the strength of a prosecutor's claim and the ability of a defense team to defend prosecutions that lack evidence and proof. Finally, a President's personal stake in the outcome of a broader political contest should not be used as a weapon to gain political advantage in order to benefit a political ally and indict the law enforcement team of a political opponent in the process. Yet, that is exactly what we see being done in creating a racial divide by second guessing a jury decision that was litigated as provided in our justice system in this country. By such statements, the entire police force of New York has been unfairly besmirched, when, in fact, the jury foreman happened to be of African American descent and publicly stated that racial prejudice had no bearing on the jury verdict, but instead, the prosecution was weak. Missing an opportunity for judicious comment or healing words or affirmation of the rule of law and the verdicts of juries and the opportunity for all Americans to recognize that all defendants are presumed innocent was something that happened in this case. Their criminal guilt must be proved by the high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not just tipping the scales, but putting the scales all the way down. Mr. Speaker, I was not at the trial and listened to the evidence; obviously, our President was not either. I fear that carelessness in this case may prove to be reckless, that those who would divide New York on improper grounds have already seized upon the President's words. It is clear that the President has attempted to exert his personal undue influence on the political fortunes of his wife in New York in her Senate campaign and give justification for the Justice Department to exert itself in a case that was, by all accounts, fairly litigated, even though a very difficult outcome, knowing what we know now about the facts of the case. However, the jury in this case was the one charged with making this decision. Had the President used the opportunity to speak against racial division in favor of responsible and unbiased police work, in favor of respect for all human beings in our country, regardless of religion or race or ethnic background, in favor of enhanced police training regarding racial sensitivity and restraint in cases of law enforcement apprehension so that all criminal suspects are accorded their constitutional rights, then this would be a day of admiration and respect for this particular Presidential proclamation. Mr. Speaker, the risk posed by Mr. Clinton's declarations are not worth any political contest in any State, for any candidate, and certainly not for the racial and social harmony which is the common goal of our country. It is something we ought to strive to reach, not seek to divide.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents on a daily basis who are concerned about the availability and affordability of military health care. On February 1, I introduced H.R. 3565 to eliminate the copayment requirement for Tricare Prime and to make military health care more affordable. Retirees pay an annual enrollment fee for coverage and are also subject to copayment requirements. Active duty families do not pay an enrollment fee, but are also subject to copayments. I am concerned that these copays can dramatically increase overall health care costs, particularly for retirees on a fixed income or for younger enlisted personnel. At $6 to $12 a visit, these copays quickly erode the real progress Congress made last year approving a long overdue increase in military pay. Unless we reduce out-of-pocket costs for military personnel, pay raises only help on the margin. The legislation also addresses a question of fairness. The downsizing of military treatment facilities often makes it difficult for Tricare Prime enrollees to get appointments which would not require a copay. But if enrollees urgently need an appointment, and elect to go to a civilian provider, they face copayments, creating an inequity and a potentially pernicious disincentive to receiving timely care. My bill has a further policy justification as the Department of Defense has indicated that the Tricare Prime program is the most cost-effective Tricare option. Eliminating the copay creates an incentive for additional enrollment in Tricare, which ultimately saves taxpayer dollars. The Department of Defense budget request for Fiscal Year 2001, which was released at the beginning of this week, generally supports my proposal. The DOD bill would eliminate copays for service members and dependents using civilian facilities, but doesn't address the equally large retired population. I believe we need to eliminate the copayment for all Tricare Prime enrollees and urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 3565.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation to grant permanent residence to Leilani Tooley. Leilani was adopted from China when she was less than one year old to a United States citizen father and a Micronesian mother. Through the 1980's when Leilani was a child, her father was a teacher, traveling throughout the Marshall Islands. Due to a translation error in China, an attempt to convey resident status upon Leilani was denied. Leilani and her parents moved to the United States in 1992. Leilani was admitted as a CFA/FSM resident which allows her to remain in the United States legally but does not allow her to attend postsecondary school or to become a permanent resident or citizen. From 1992 through 1998, Leilani was eligible for citizenship by virtue of her living in the United States and being the adopted daughter of a United States citizen. Unfortunately, the naturalization process was never completed prior to her father's death in 1998. When her father passed away, Leilani's permanent resident mother began the naturalization process herself so that when completed, she could then convey permanent residence to her daughter. Unfortunately, Leilani's mother died in 1999, prior to her being naturalized. Leilani is now alone in this country with no living relatives. She cannot return to China since she speaks no Chinese and she was released from that country when she was less than a year old, and she cannot return to the Pacific Islands since she was Chinese at birth. All of Leilani's friends and schoolmates are in the United States and it is only due to a string of unfortunate events that Leilani is not today a naturalized citizen. Leilani is a bright, industrious young lady, whose wish is to attend college. However, until this legislation is signed into law, her aspirations are on hold. I urge the swift passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, to grant permanent residence to Leilani Tooley.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his good work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to think back as to how this particular unfair tax penalty on marriage got in the code in the first place. It happened, I am informed, about 30 years ago. And guess who controlled Congress then? The Democratic Party. Now we want to take it out in strict fairness to the 58,000-plus couples in my particular Congressional District who pay an average of $1,400 more than they otherwise would if they were not married, and now guess who wants to not take it out, to prevent it from being taken out of the code? The Democratic Party. It does not work. You cannot have it both ways. From 1969 until the Republican Congress took over the House and the Senate, the debt went up dramatically. Who was in charge then? The Democratic Congress. So I think it is disingenuous of the Democrats in this House to start blaming the Republicans for the problems that exist with regard to the debt and the unfairness in the Tax Code, when in fact it was they that are responsible for them in the first place. Let us pass this bill overwhelmingly today.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents on a daily basis who are concerned about the availability and affordability of military health care. On February 1, I introduced H.R. 3565 to eliminate the copayment requirement for TRICARE Prime and to make military health care more affordable. Retirees pay an annual enrollment fee for coverage and are also subject to copayment requirements. Active duty families do not pay an enrollment fee, but are subject to copayments. I am concerned that these copays can dramatically increase overall health care costs, particularly for retirees on a fixed income or for younger enlisted personnel. At $6 to $12 a visit, these copays quickly erode the real progress Congress made last year in approving a long overdue increase in military pay. Unless we reduce out-of-pocket costs for military personnel, pay raises only help on the margin. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very good for veterans, it is good news for active duty personnel, it is fair under the circumstances today, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, February 3 marked a special day for a person close to my heart, for it was the 90th birthday of a wonderful woman with whom my family had a long association of close to 60 years. Her name is Glenys Burquist, and she was a legal secretary to my late father for 36 years, and a secretary to me for 18 years, until I was elected to Congress in 1994. She worked 2 years for my dear wife, who is also a lawyer, and she worked for 11 years before starting with my dad back in 1941 at the law firm that he joined that year. Her job with our firm was the only job she ever had after becoming a legal secretary, and she was a great one, able to smooth the edges of an unhappy client, or make a happy client happier by her warmth and sense of humor. I have never met anyone more loyal, more selfless, more honest, more diligent, more full of wisdom, more efficient than Glenys. She never let you know if she had a bad day. Despite a few health problems in her later years, she never has considered herself a victim of anything because she was too busy looking on the bright side of things. Over the course of 60 years this woman, Glenys Burquist, typed the pleadings for thousands of adoptions that we did, thousands of probates, thousands of letters and other pleadings and real estate closings and minutes of corporations, and all the other things that go on in a law firm. Before copy machines, she simply used carbon paper. In the late 1980s, she gave in and finally switched to a memory typewriter. That was about as far as she would go. Unfortunately, in today's world, Glenys may represent the end of an era of employee stability and commitment. She never was looking for a better deal elsewhere, or griped about a little extra work that kept her after regular hours. For years she came into the office regularly for half a day on Saturdays, without any complaint. Quite simply, Glenys Burquist is one in a million, an institution in the Spokane, Washington legal community, and a person so deserving of happiness and peace and respect and congratulations that this recognition hardly does her justice. On behalf of the Nethercutt family and my wife, Mary Beth, especially, and all the lives she has touched, we wish Glenys Burquist the happiest of birthdays, and send our abundant love and respect.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of our nation's leading research scientists, Dr. C. Ronald Kahn of the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Kahn has dedicated his highly distinguished professional career toward the elimination of diabetes, and has made significant strides in contributing to our understanding and treatment of this debilitating and vicious disease. Dr. Kahn's numerous awards and achievements include elected membership to the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy is a private organization of distinguished scientists and engineers dedicated to furthering science and its use for the general welfare. In October, Dr. Kahn was elected membership to the Academy's prestigious Institute of Medicine, of which there are only 588 currently in active status. As a member of the Institute, Dr. Kahn will be involved in protecting and advancing the health professions and science, promoting research related to health, improving the nation's health care and addressing critical issues affecting public health. Dr. Kahn is currently Executive Vice President and Director of the internationally known Joslin Diabetes Center, a 100 year old diabetes treatment, research and education institution affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Dr. Kahn is the Mary K. Iaccoca Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Kahn chaired the Diabetes Research Working Group, which was established by Congress to provide recommendations on how Federal dollars for diabetes research can be spent most effectively to reverse the diabetes epidemic. In this landmark study, Dr. Kahn reported that the death rate from diabetes has increased by 30 percent since 1980, killing one American every three minutes. The DRWG recommended an increase of $385 million over present NIH funding for diabetes research, for a total of $827 million annually through all NIH institutes. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Kahn has made significant scientific contributions to advancing the understanding and treatment of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes affects an estimated 16 million Americans, about one-third of whom do not know they have the disease. It is a leading cause of heart disease, blindness, stroke, nerve damage, kidney disease and other serious complications. In the years that Dr. Kahn has served as Research Director at Joslin, the Center's research has truly achieved preeminence on a worldwide basis. Dr. Kahn's immense energy, talent, and intellect have helped Joslin achieve preeminence in the study of diabetes and care of people with diabetes. Scientific contributions by Dr. Kahn and his colleagues have contributed greatly to the understanding of cellular mechanisms that lead to diabetes and related complications. Throughout his academic career, he has trained numerous research fellows who are now making their own scientific contributions in laboratories around the world. A native of Louisville, Kentucky and a resident of Newton, Massachusetts, Dr. Kahn received his undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of Louisville. After training in internal medicine at Washington University's Barnes Hospital, he worked at the National Institutes of Health for 11 years. There he rose to head the Section on Cellular and Molecular Physiology of the Diabetes Branch of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders. Dr. Kahn is a member of numerous distinguished professional organizations. He has published numerous scientific papers over the years and has served on the editorial boards of many of the most prestigious medical journals. Dr. Kahn has received many awards and honors. These include highest scientific and research awards from the American Federation of Clinical Research, the American Diabetes Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the International Diabetes Federation. He holds honorary Doctorate of Science degrees from the University of Paris and the University of Louisville. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe all will share in the appreciation we extend to Dr. Kahn for his tireless efforts toward the alleviation of pain and suffering from diabetes. Dr. Kahn's outstanding achievements serve to inspire others in his profession, as well as those of us who are not trained in the medical profession, to do all that we can to find a cure for diabetes and stop the tremendous toll this disease is taking on humanity.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for yielding me this time, and I certainly join virtually every other Member of this body in congratulating him for his leadership in this whole effort to try to cure this disease. I also congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his sponsorship of this resolution and certainly the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), my colleague and friend, for her leadership as cochair with me of the Diabetes Caucus in the House, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) who serve as co-vice chairs of the Diabetes Caucus. It is a great effort that we are undertaking. Mr. Speaker, I was touched by everyone who has spoken today already on this resolution. They spoke of the Diabetes Research Working Group product, which was a creation of this Congress. Through the Committee on Appropriations, money was budgeted to allow a study to be done. The product was this publication, ``Conquering Diabetes.'' This is a publication that outlines a strategic plan for the 21st century to cure this disease. It requires money. It requires commitment. It requires dedication. All of that is available through the efforts of this Congress and through the efforts of those people who work so many long hours to put this together, not the least of whom was Dr. Ronald Kahn, the Chair of the Diabetes Research Working Group, who worked tirelessly to make this report a reality and this cure a reality for the millions and millions of people who suffer from this very serious disease. Mr. Speaker, we need to keep track, I think, of the statistical evidence relative to other diseases that are equally as difficult for people in the society, but I think it is illuminating and it is illustrative to see that this chart shows that there is an increasing incidence of death in connection with diabetes when, in fact, there seems to be in our country a decreasing incidence of death for cancer, for cardiovascular disease and stroke. They have all been very much on the minds of Americans to try to cure these diseases and undertake efforts to relieve the misery that comes from them, but diabetes is on the upswing. The World Health Organization projects that diabetes will become, quote, ``One of the world's main disablers and killers within the next 25 years.'' That is very serious and something that the Congress has to pay very clear and serious attention to. This next chart looks at the economics of diabetes. The cost of diabetes to patients in society is $6,562 per year to the person affected by diabetes. But the investment in diabetes research is $30 per year per person. That is a trend that must change, in my judgment, and that is what we are able to change with this report, ``Conquering Diabetes,'' and implementation of the Diabetes Research Working Group plan. The budget recommendations for this program of ``Conquering Diabetes'' increase each year, but the goal is to cure the disease and apply research through the National Institutes of Health to good research opportunities that are out there. We know they are there. We know there are lots of opportunities available, it is just the need is there to make the commitment to fund those disease research efforts in order to cure this disease. We cannot talk about the Diabetes Research Working Group or ``Conquering Diabetes'' without mentioning the efforts that are undertaken by the interest groups that support the efforts to cure diabetes. The American Diabetes Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the Joslin Diabetes Center, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Indian Health Service, and private companies including Eli Lilly, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. They are all part of the team. Mr. Speaker, the disease of diabetes is indiscriminate. It disproportionately hurts minorities. It hits all of us where we live, in our families. It is incumbent upon this Congress to pass this resolution and implement this plan.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 1999 with my colleagues, Senator Craig and Senator Thomas. The legislation will establish a new appraisal process to determine a fair fee for Forest Service cabins. Under the formula established by the bill, appraisals would be based on the raw value of the land, adjusted for structures and services provided by the Forest Service. The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act will address two major concerns with the current appraisal process. First, the appraisal methodology currently used by the Forest Service is not arriving at the appropriate value of the use of a lot by a cabin owner. Federal property differs from private land in that the owners do not maintain the same rights and privileges to their property as those held by private landowners. For example, permit holders cannot make modifications to the land or their cabin without the approval of the Forest Service, they cannot reside in their cabin on a year round basis and they cannot deny others access to the land on which the cabin is built. These factors should be taken into consideration in the appraisal process. A second major concern with the current process is how the traditional objectives of the Forest Service are changing under the new appraisal process. Recreational residences have been dominated by families. Some of these families are older, some young and some span generations, but the existence of families, many from relatively modest economic backgrounds, enhances the mission of the Forest Service to provide for the public at large. A dramatic and rapid fee increase diminishes the family atmosphere of the areas. Public lands exist for the enjoyment of a broad spectrum of Americans and dramatic fee increases hurt this objective. In each of the last two years, Congress enacted stop-gap measures through the Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, to gradually increase the fee rates while a long-term solution could be developed. The legislation I introduce today will provide for such a permanent solution to the problem. The passage of well thought-out legislation today, with the support and understanding of all parties, will avoid costly and adverse conflicts down the line. I urge my colleagues to support the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his generosity in not only yielding me time on this resolution but his leadership on the part of the Committee on Commerce in bringing this resolution forward today. I certainly appreciate the remarks of my colleague the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who has served very, very strongly as co- chair of the Diabetes Caucus. We are in this together, the two of us, notwithstanding our difference in party affiliation. That is the great thing about the Diabetes Caucus, that it looks beyond party affiliation and seeks to find a cure for diabetes and, thus, help people who have problems with their kidneys. So I am very grateful to my colleague from Colorado, who has worked so hard and been such a great leader in this issue, along with my chairman, certainly, from the Committee on Commerce, and other Members of this House. I am delighted to rise in support of this resolution, my own, that I introduced with other Members that recognizes the generous contribution of living kidney donors and acknowledges the advances made in medical technology that enable living kidney transplants to be a viable treatment option. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) spoke well of the statistical information that is out there with regard to the scope of the problem of kidney transplants and kidney disease. In 1997, 73,000 new patients began treatment for end stage renal disease. Of those new patients, nearly half also had diabetes. I have had the opportunity to visit my hospitals in the Fifth Congressional District of Washington, one of which is Sacred Heart Medical Center. I went to the kidney dialysis department and spoke with not only the medical people who are serving the public there but those who are undergoing kidney dialysis. It is not pleasant. It is something that breaks our hearts for the people who are stricken with kidney disease. It is so important that we encourage people to donate kidneys to people who are living so that they can be relieved of their kidney problems. And this is one way to do that, that is having living people donate kidneys to those who are afflicted. In 1996, over 12,000 kidneys were transplanted in the United States. About 30 percent of these organs came from living donors. Over the last 10 years, the number of patients waiting for a kidney transplant has almost tripled from 14,000 to over 40,000 people. We know that the number of living donors has increased over 100 percent. Over the last 10 years, from 1985 to 1994, the 10-year survival rate for dialysis patients was just 10 percent. Patients who received a cadaveric kidney had a 55 percent survival rate. However, those who received a kidney from a living family member had a 75 percent chance of living an additional 10 years. If one is that recipient and if one is that donor, that is a very significant percentage increase. Living kidney donors face the risk and pain associated with major surgery and certainly should be commended for their selflessness. Without the sacrifice of these brave people who decide to make a donation, thousands more would die of kidney failure each year. Madam Speaker, when I first introduced this resolution, former Senator Jake Garn of Utah called me long distance to express his support for the resolution. For, you see, Senator Garn donated a kidney to his adult daughter; and she has lived very well over the last few years despite having some complications from diabetes and other diseases. This resolution means something to people out there in the real world, people who have donated and who are waiting for a donation. So my hat is off to Senator Garn and so many others for the recognition they deserve for their commitment to their families and their self sacrifice so that other people can live. I am one, along with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who has been a strong supporter of medical research. The advances made in medical technology are what makes this life-saving procedure possible. As the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) mentioned, laparoscopic nephrectomy is a new technique for obtaining a kidney from a living donor that is less invasive and leads to shortened hospital stays and recuperation time. Advances in immuno-suppressive drugs have increased survival rates for transplant recipients. This is fantastic research that is ongoing that is continuing in the NIH through the good work of the chairman of the Committee on Commerce and others. As we in the Congress and the President work through this final detail on the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, an appropriations bill, I happen to be a member of that committee, it is encouraging to they that we have a mutual commitment to increase funding for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. It is in the national best interests of the country and certainly the interests of every Member of this House and the other body and the President that we increase medical research but we also focus on the absolute sacrifice that is being undertaken every day by selfless people who just want to help save a life. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank, again, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for their great work in pursuing this.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding the time to me and congratulate him and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for leadership on this measure as well as to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who spoke so well a moment ago about Dwight D. Eisenhower. I am delighted to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it overwhelmingly to rename the Old Executive Office Building after President Eisenhower. As was stated, General Eisenhower served in the building at the time the building housed the War Department for our country under General George C. Marshall, and then certainly General Eisenhower went on to lead the forces of Americans to freedom in World War II, and it is remarkable that there are no memorials or buildings or monuments in Washington, D.C. remembering the life and the service of President Eisenhower. This is a great time to make sure that that condition no longer exists, that we do remember President Eisenhower with a fitting building as a memorial to his life and his service to our country. Certainly this bill ensures that visitors to our Nation's capital will have a place to pay respects to our 34th President and our supreme commander in World War II which invaded France on D-Day and went on to wage a successful war effort so that those of us who succeeded that generation can now live in freedom. It is fitting that this building be named for President Eisenhower because like the Old Executive Office Building, President Eisenhower was towering and unique in appearance. He was unmistakable in his style and his dignity and his military demeanor, and he also had a tough and lasting personality throughout the war, one that I think those of us who came later in the generations that followed his do not fully appreciate sometimes. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) mentioned the author, Mr. Ambrose, Stephen Ambrose, who has written a number of books on World War II that are certainly worthy of our consideration because they chronicle the courage and the dignity and the bravery and the sacrifice and the hardship and the duty and the honor that so many of the World War II generation, men and women, provided so that we could be free, and these books by Mr. Ambrose chronicle those efforts so well and so beautifully, and we owe so much to the generation of President Eisenhower, the generation that produced him and the other heroes of the war who served in the infantry in the nursing core and the airmen and all those who served in the Armed Forces to preserve liberty and protect freedom. So I am delighted certainly to join my colleagues in supporting this measure. It is about time that President Eisenhower is properly recognized in this city, and I am delighted that we can come together to do so today.