George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me say as a person who has been here for 7 years, been through the 1995 period where we did not pass appropriations bills, 1996 we went through the process of not passing appropriations bills at the end of the process, we ended up spending more money than anybody wanted. So these 13 bills are bills we have to pass, and I think the point that is being tried to being made by many of us on the committee who worked through all this and do not like it exactly the way it is, but realize that there are votes on this side of the aisle and there are votes on that side of the aisle, and there are perspectives that differ broadly among the constituencies that are represented in this Congress, in this House. We cannot pass a bill out of the committee if we do not have the votes. We cannot pass a bill out of the subcommittee or the full committee if we do not have the votes, and if they do not have the votes and they do not pass the bill, then what happens is that at the end of the process we get a bigger bill, we get an omnibus bill because we have to fund the Federal Government, whether we want to or not. We have to fund the Federal Government. This attempt in this bill is an attempt to be balanced, to be fair. Is it too much in some accounts, too little in others? Probably so. Does it frustrate us from time to time? I am from the West. I wish we had less money for certain things and more money for others to make sure we can manage ourselves in the West, but I tell my colleagues, we have worked diligently. This chairman has worked his heart out. Our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), everybody is working hard to make this balance so we can get a bill out of committee, get a bill out of the full committee and then pass it and hopefully have the President sign it. I caution my colleagues who are using this tactic to slow down this process. We get the message. We understand it. We are going to have to deal with it, but I think if we pass no appropriations bills other than the ones we have, we are in for a mighty difficult time at the end of the process as we pass nothing and we end up getting a bigger bill.

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

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, I thank all three gentlemen from Georgia for their kind words about the chairman on this issue, and I can assure the gentlemen that the chairman and the committee will work in conference to address their concerns regarding adequate protection of visitors and resources in Georgia's national forests.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee and the chairman of the subcommittee, we thank the gentleman from California for bringing this important issue to our attention. The staff and the chairman are prepared to assist the gentleman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) in finding alternative means to rectify the situation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and the ranking member, my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for their hard work. I listened intently to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), talking about football plays; and this bill particularly, I guess, can be likened to the idea that there is going to be a Monday morning quarterback coming in always on this bill and trying to rewrite it, and I think that is probably what we will see some of today. It is different when you are in the room trying to solve the problem of allocating money among disparate resources and a limited amount of money for certain functions of the government that deal with our natural resources economy. I think this bill, while not ever perfect, for goodness sakes, is a very balanced bill; and I think it is a rule that is fair as well. By and large this is a good package, and I think it has taken a tremendous amount of work to get Members on one side of the political spectrum dealing with those on the other and trying to come to a package that makes some sense. I supported in the subcommittee, and I am very proud of my conservative credentials, fiscally and otherwise, but I supported the additional money for firefighting. I did it because we saw a memo that I hold here from the chief of the forest service basically saying this is such an extraordinary year facing fire costs that we must have additional money or else in the forest service they are simply going to say, drop all other obligations for the forest service and put that effort into firefighting and put the resources into firefighting. If you are from the West, and I am, and your State is burned up, from time to time, you will be the last to criticize additional money that comes in for firefighting purposes. I say that advisedly to some of my colleagues who are concerned about this extra money. If you are from Arizona, you are not going to feel this way, necessarily. If you are from California or Washington or Oregon or elsewhere that is facing unrestricted firefighting problems, you are going to say, please help us out. And if it is your home that is being destroyed or your neighborhood or your region, you are going to be the first to stand up and say this government can help and we can do so through the Federal system. So I think we are, within our budget allocations in the interior bill, in a difficult bill to try to balance, we are balancing it with adequate consideration for resources, for conservation, for development, for the arts, the humanities and so forth. It is a tough balancing act to try to get into law, and we are doing it and we have done it. So I would say to any critics of this measure, be thoughtful about how you criticize, because this is a well-balanced package that I think is very well crafted to do all that we want to do in this bill. It is important, I think, to know also that the administration supports the fiscal year 2003 Department of Interior and related agencies bill reported by the House Committee on Appropriations. And I hope my colleagues will support the rule and the bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). All of us worked hard to craft this amendment that we think improves the bill substantially, because it brings more reason to the concept of arming pilots as the base bill does. We think it is unreasonable, and I submit it is unreasonable, to limit the number of pilots who would voluntarily participate in this program of defense on airlines to 2 percent. What that means is that 98 percent of the other flights, the other pilots who are in the air every day, every hour, carrying us and our families and friends and others of the traveling public, are subject to less protection than the 2 percent which would be implemented under the base bill. So what we do is lift the cap of 2 percent, and we make this program permanent. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that as we looked at the concept of arming pilots, the committee and subcommittee of jurisdiction have approved the concept of arming pilots. So if it is a concept that is valid, and I believe it is, then we should not limit the time under which it would be implemented to the multiyear term that is contained in the bill. So lifting the cap, lifting the time limitation and making this program permanent, as it should be, I think makes all the good sense in the world to protect the traveling public. I know the committee worked hard to negotiate the package that is part of the bill as we look at it today, but I also think that this is an improvement in that package; and I believe there will be a strong deterrent associated in making more pilots available to voluntarily participate in the program and arm themselves to protect the passengers, protect against terrorism. So my sense is that while again, the concept is good in the bill, we really firmly protect and perfect the concept in our amendment. I think it makes all the sense to do that. So we should make it permanent. I think if there are pilots as the last line of defense, then there should not be a limitation on numbers and time for providing that permanent line of defense to the traveling public. So our amendment achieves this. Again, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I am proud to be a part of this effort to make this change and make it in a commonsense fashion, in a reasonable way, to make sure the traveling public has all of the confidence in the world, as much as possible, in the dangerous world in which we live, that they are flying and that they are flying safe. Arming our pilots and lifting these restrictions will do just that.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I am pleased to make a statement in support of this bill. There is nothing in the Northwest States that is more precious than our air and our water. We in eastern Washington and northern Idaho are blessed with not only these great resources but especially our clean water. We think it is some of the best water in the entire world to drink. So we want to make sure that it is protected, and that is what this bill does. This bill was introduced by me and by the gentleman from northern Idaho (Mr. Otter) because we are affected by this bill, and the aquifer which traverses both States affects our respective districts. So we are proud to introduce this bill which calls for a study, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned, to analyze this aquifer, to understand what is there so we can make sure we protect it and wisely manage it. One of the great challenges for us in the Pacific Northwest is to make sure that our abundant resources, our natural resources, our mountains, our streams, our rivers, our lakes, our entire environment is well managed by Federal agencies and by private resources. So in the case of the aquifer we have a situation where there are some economic interests that want to use it. They want to use it as a resource to provide industrial benefit to eastern Washington and northern Idaho. But before they do so, we have to be sure that it is protected. What this bill does is to take a hard look at doing a model and a study to make sure we know what is there so that it can be protected. There is also a disparity in consideration of aquifer use, of economic development, on either side of the border. Spokane, Washington, is my hometown, the major city in my district, the largest population center. It is about 32 miles from the Idaho border. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, rests on the other side of the border in Idaho that is represented by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and the States of Idaho and Washington have very different consideration times for permitting, for permitting for economic benefit and use. In Idaho, if we want to get a permit, it can take months; in Washington, it can take years. So we think that in doing this study and having the Committee on Resources in Congress adopt this position in a study, we can make sure that there is some continuity of interest in analysis and development that would rest on each side of the border, so that the legislatures of each side, each State, each respective State, would have a chance to look at this issue and understand what is there, and then make policy decisions that are coordinated rather than disparate. So I can say to the House that there is unanimity on the part of our chambers of commerce that this is a wise approach. There are five chambers of commerce that are in Idaho and Washington State that are affected by this issue, and they are of the opinion and their memberships are of the opinion that this is a wise thing to do; that is, make sure we know what is in the aquifer, what its considerations and characteristics are, so that we can make sure we manage it wisely. I especially want to thank the Committee on Resources. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and his subcommittee presented this bill in very fast consideration, very fair consideration. The entire Committee on Resources passed it out. I especially am grateful to that Committee on Resources that took into account this very important measure that affects a large area in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. I will restate again that the environmental protections that we seek from this bill are sensible, they are reasonable, and they are timely. It is estimated that there are millions of gallons that go through this aquifer and would be presented by it, but we have to be sure that we know what is there, and we have to be sure that what is there is wisely managed so that we protect this wonderful resource that we have in the Pacific Northwest, a clean environment, a great place to live and work, a great place to have economic development, at the same time we protect our environmental resources. So I will thank the gentleman from Nebraska and his counterpart, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), for his courtesy in allowing me to say a few words in support of my bill. I speak on behalf of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) in thanking the committee and subcommittee of jurisdiction for considering this measure, and we hope it will pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 24, 2002 I missed the following votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes: Rollcall Vote No. 249--H.R. 3937, a bill to revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, California. Rollcall Vote No. 250--H.R. 3786, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002. Rollcall Vote No. 251--H.R. 3971, a bill to provide for an independent investigation of Forest Service firefighter deaths that are caused by wildfire entrapment or burnover. Rollcall Vote No. 252--H.J. Res. 95, Designating an Official Flag of the Medal of Honor and Providing for Presentation of that Flag to each Recipient of that Medal of Honor.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 459, to express the sense of Congress that the decision made in Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneous. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal Court that has jurisdiction over my constituents in Eastern Washington, ruled that our nation's Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit has a long history of bad rulings, and has had more decisions overturned by the Supreme Court than any other circuit. This decision once again proves that the Ninth Circuit needs a common-sense judge from the Eastern District of Washington to bring a voice of reason to the federal appellate bench. The Pledge of Allegiance, recited by Americans of every age, is an affirmation of our principles of democracy, justice and individual liberty. The declaration of our being ``one nation under God'' is at the heart and soul of America and her distinguished history. This case and decision should serve as a strong reminder to the U.S. Senate that it should fulfill its responsibilities to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. Mr. Speaker, the ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress eliminates a constitutionally protected ``genuine choice'' by disallowing students across the Nation from proclaiming their love for these United States through the Pledge of Allegiance. To do so is wrong. We must encourage our Nation's youth to believe in whatever religion they choose, for those beliefs set guiding principles that turn our youth into the outstanding leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment on this bill. I had originally planned to have an amendment introduced that would have given relief and assistance to small airports to use part of their funds, a limitation on their funds that they get under the Airport Improvement Act, for operations of their control towers. Recognizing that control towers are one of the best ways to improve safety in airports, especially in this era of heightened emergency consciousness, I want to make sure that small airports have the same ability to provide security and information and assistance and protection and also at a cost-effective number as big airports. Every airport that provides scheduled passenger service should have the ability to operate a control tower, but in lieu of that amendment, which I understand, as some questions that have been raised by both staff and Members, and I respect that, and I respect the work that this committee has done and is doing and will be doing on this very important issue, we have proposed the amendment before the House today which will allow the Department of Transportation an opportunity to study the issue to determine the extent and the depth and the concern that exists out in the real world of small airports having to deal with the costs of operations of towers. We all know that it needs to be done. Each airport needs to have a tower to make sure that it is providing necessary service to the public and safety to the public. So I think it will do all of us who consider this issue, both the Department of Transportation and others as well as the committees of jurisdiction, to take a look at what the findings will be in the next year of who is affected by this kind of disparity, if you will, high costs for small airports, large airports getting cost assistance. So what this amendment does is say let us take a look at this. If we at some point provide more assistance to small airports, it will give those airports a chance to have the flexibility to use the airport improvement funds for paying their share of operating costs. That is not what this amendment does. It is just that we are going to take a look at it and see what the extent of the problem is. Recognizing that I think we do respect the freedom of choice and individuality and needs of each airport, each airport authority, to maintain its tower operations, it is critically important that our airports be able to do this. One airport in my district, the Walla Walla Airport, pays $41,000, almost $42,000, to pay for the contract to operate the tower. They get about a million dollars annually in AIP funds, but they cannot use any of that for operations of the tower. So they pay about 16 percent now. Other airports pay a little different figure. There is a complicated formula, Mr. Chairman, that determines what the allocation is, what the obligation is for each airport, and it is complex, and it is not uniform necessarily as I understand it. So we want to be sure that in the process of providing security and assistance to our airports, that we help the small guys, the little airports like Walla Walla and other similarly situated all across this country so that we are able to provide the security and the operational ability necessary for efficiency and to make sure that the traveling public is protected. So with that, it is my understanding that both sides have taken a look at this, that there is no objection to the language of our amendment.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, as cochair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus I commend the House of Representatives for passing H. Con. Res. 36. This bill declares that Federal funding for diabetes research should be increased as recommended by the Diabetes Research Working Group, DRWG, so that a cure for juvenile diabetes can be found. Increasing funding for Type I diabetes research is vitally important to the well being of our country. Like many Americans across the Nation, I have a personal attachment to diabetes--my daughter has type I diabetes. This disease is one of the fastest-growing and most deadly diseases in the United States. Each year an estimated 800,000 new cases of diabetes are diagnosed. Diabetes currently costs the United States approximately $100 billion and kills approximately 200,000 people every year. With these severe economic and health costs in mind, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has supported this legislation to increase funding for Type I diabetes research. Diabetes research at the NIH comprises less than 4 percent of the NIH budget. Although, diabetes affects over 16 million Americans and individuals with diabetes account for one out of every four Medicare dollars spent. An investment in research that results in a cure for diabetes would save our Nation billions of dollars and would also prevent millions of individuals from ever acquiring the disease. In 1997, I was proud to introduce legislation in the House to authorize the establishment of a Diabetes Research Working Group, DRWG. The DRWG was comprised of a group of outstanding scientists and experts knowledgeable about diabetes. As cochair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I saw the need to permit researchers to take a step back and attempt to better focus the Federal Government's efforts to establish a long-term plan to put us on track toward curing diabetes. We have fallen drastically short of the funding levels suggested by the DRWG. In FY 2001 the NIH devoted $590 million to diabetes research, while the DRWG recommendation for funding was $1.07 billion. H. Con. Res. 36, passed by the House yesterday, supports the recommendations of the DRWG for $1.5 billion in research funding for FY 2003 at the NIH. I fully support ensuring that all the recommendations of the DRWG are implemented. While we recognize the limitations of the budget, the momentum in the diabetes scientific community is too promising to slow our progress. Clinical trials involving the transplantation of insulin- producing cells into individuals with Type I diabetes has brought us within reach of a cure. Of the approximately 70 patients who have received these transplants, 80 percent no longer need to take insulin. As dramatic as these results are, several obstacles must still be overcome before this research can be made available to all individuals who suffer from diabetes. H. Con. Res. 36 is a step in the right direction to support the NIH's extraordinary efforts and I urge the House of Representatives to consider the cost that diabetes inflicts on our Nation both in human and economic terms when considering funding for diabetes research and prevention later this year. The promise of diabetes research at this time is too great for us not to increase our commitment to the Americans who suffer from this devastating disease.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to introduce legislation that will provide an equitable settlement of the meritorious claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians concerning its contribution to the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. Similar settlement legislation was enacted in 1994 to compensate the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes as a consequence of the Grand Coulee Dam. That legislation, P.L. 103-436, provided for a $53 million lump sum payment for past damages and roughly $15 million annually from the ongoing proceeds from the sale of hydropower by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Spokane settlement legislation, which I am introducing today, would provide a settlement of the Spokane Tribe of Indians claims directly proportional to the settlement afforded the Colville Tribes based upon the percentage of lands appropriated from the respective tribes for the Grand Coulee Project, or approximately 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes pursuant to the 1994 legislation. Though the proposed Spokane settlement is proportionately less, the losses sustained by the Spokane Tribe are substantially the same as those sustained by the Colville Tribes and arise from the same actions of the United States Government. The difference being that the Spokane Tribe lost its entire salmon fishery, the base of its economy. Grand Coulee Dam is the largest concrete dam in the world, the largest electricity producer in the United States, and the third largest electricity producer in the world. It produces four times more electricity than Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and is three times its size. Grand Coulee is one mile in width; its spillway is twice the height of Niagara Falls. It provides electricity and water to one of the world's largest irrigation projects, the one million acre Columbia Basin Project. The Grand Coulee Project is the backbone of the Northwest's federal power grid and agricultural economy. For more than half a century, the Grand Coulee Project has produced enormous revenues for the United States Government and brought prosperity to the Pacific Northwest. The construction of the dam and the electricity it produced, helped pull the Northwest out of the Great Depression. It provided electricity to the aluminum plants that built the air force that helped to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II. To the Spokane Tribe of Indians, however, the dam is a monument to the destruction of their way of life. The Dam flooded their reservation on two sides. The Spokane River--the ancestral umbilical cord to Spokane existence and the heart of their reservation--was changed from a free flowing waterway that supported plentiful salmon runs, to barren slack water that now erodes away the southern lands of the Reservation with every change in the reservoir level. The enormous benefits that accrued to the Nation and the Northwest were made possible by uncompensated and irreparable injury to the Native Americans of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers. From 1927 to 1931, at the direction of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated the Columbia River and its tributaries. In its report to Congress, the Corps identified a number of potential sites and recommended the Grand Coulee site for hydroelectric development by either the State of Washington or private concerns. Shortly thereafter, the Columbia River Commission, an agency of the State of Washington applied for and, in August 1933, was granted a preliminary permit from the Federal Power Commission for the water power development of the Grand Coulee site. However, on November 1, 1933, Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior and Director of Public Works Administration, federalized the project under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Excavation for the dam commenced on December 13, 1933. However, its legal authorization was in question and Congress reauthorized the Dam in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. In 1940, very belatedly and inadequately (at the urging of the Department of the Interior), Congress did enact a statute to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate whichever Indian lands he deemed necessary for Grand Coulee construction and to receive all rights, title and interest the Indians had in them in return for his appraisal of its value and payment of compensation by the Secretary. The only land that was appraised and supposedly compensated for was the newly flooded lands. Pursuant to this legislation, 54 Stat. 703 (1940), the Spokane Tribe received the grand total of $4,700. There is no evidence that the Department advised or that Congress knew that the Tribes' water rights were not extinguished. Nor had the Indian title and trust status of the Tribal land underlying the river beds been extinguished. No compensation was included for the power value contributed by the use of the Tribal resources nor the loss of the Tribal fisheries or other damages to tribal resources. Although the Department of the Interior and other federal officials were well aware of the flooding of Indian trust lands and other severe impacts the Grand Coulee Project would have on the fishery and other critical resources of the Spokane and Colville Tribes, no mention was made of these impacts or the need to compensate the Tribes in either the 1933 or 1935 authorizations. Federal inter-departmental and intra- office correspondence of the Department of the Interior from September 1933 thru October 1934 clearly demonstrate that the Federal government knew that the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated for the flooding of their lands, destruction of their fishery and other resources, destruction of their property and annual compensation from power production for the use of the Tribes' land and water resources contributing to such power production. As pointed out in a 1976 Opinion of Lawrence Aschenbrenner, the Acting Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior: The 1940 act followed seven years of construction during which farm lands, and timber lands were flooded, and a fishery destroyed, and during which Congress was silent as to the Indian interests affected by the construction. Both the Congress and the Department of the Interior appeared to proceed with the Grand Coulee project as if there were no Indians involved there. . . . . . The Department correspondence and memoranda on the subject of Indian rights apparently came to an abrupt halt [after 1934]. There is no tangible evidence, currently available, to indicate that the Department ever consulted with the tribes during the 1933-1940 period concerning the ongoing destruction of their land and resources and proposed compensation therefore.'' The Opinion goes on to point out: It is our conclusion that the location of the dams on tribal land and the use of the water for power production, without compensation, violated the Government's fiduciary duty toward the Tribes. . . . . . The situation at hand involves a conflict-of-interest on the part of the Department of the Interior. . . . The Department of the Interior has responsibility for protecting the Tribes' Winters Rights [water rights] as well as its property rights in the bed of the river. Recognizing the value of the river as a power production and irrigation site, the Department of the Interior . . . has used this land and the water for its own purposes, without ensuring that consideration and benefit from the development of those resources flowed to the Tribes who own part of them. The case fits squarely into the reasoning of Manchester Band, Navajo Tribe and Pyramid Lake cases, where ``. . . a fiduciary who learns of an opportunity, prevents the beneficiary from getting it, and seizes it for himself.'' (Citations omitted) . . . . . Throughout the construction, the Department's apparent failure to communicate with the Tribes concerning their land and water rights is appalling. No case law grants executive agencies authority to unilaterally abrogate Indian rights. [T]he posture of the Department can be described not as . . . an exercise of guardianship, but an act of confiscation.'' (Citations omitted). Why did the 1994 Colville settlement legislation not also include a settlement of the claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians? The Colville settlement legislation ratified a settlement agreement reached between the United States and the Colville Tribes to settle the claims of the Tribes to a share of the hydropower revenues from the Grand Coulee Dam. This claim was among the claims which the Colville Tribes filed with the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) under the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049) and later transferred to the U.S. Court of Claims. Pursuant to that Act, there was a five year statute of limitations to file claims before the Commission which expired August 13, 1951. Prior to the statute of limitations deadline, the Colville Tribes had already been formally organized with a functioning tribal government for more than 15 years. The Spokane Tribe, however, did not formally organize and receive approval of its constitution until June 27, 1951--only 16 days prior to the ICC statute of limitations deadline. The Tribe's attempt to retain legal counsel to file its claims before the ICC was delayed due to the then Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Dillion Meyer's efforts to impose restrictive conditions on attorney contracts with the tribes nationwide. While these conditions were subsequently repudiated by the Secretary of the Interior, significant and precious time had elapsed and the Tribe's legal counsel was left with insufficient time to fully investigate the full range of potential claims of the Tribe prior to the filing deadline. Additionally, the ICC Act imposed a duty on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to apprise the various tribes of the provisions of the Act and the need to file claims before the Commission. While the BIA was well aware of the potential claims of the Spokane Tribe to a portion of the hydropower revenues generated by Grand Coulee, there is no evidence that the BIA ever advised the Tribe of such claims. As stated in the testimony of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, concerning the 1994 Colville Settlement legislation: ``Over the next several years the Federal Government moved ahead with the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, but somehow the promise that the Tribe would share in the benefits produced by it was not fulfilled.'' In 1974 the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an Opinion which concluded, among other things, that the Spokane and Colville Tribes each retained ownership of the lands underlying the Columbia River and, in the case of the Spokane Tribe, the lands underlying the Spokane River. The Opinion suggested that the resource interests of the Tribes were being utilized in the production of hydroelectric power at Grand Coulee. In 1976, in response to this Opinion, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army to ``open discussions with the Tribes to determine what, if any, interest the Tribes have in such production of power, and to explore ways in which the Tribes might benefit from any interest so determined.'' (S. Rept. 94-505 at 79). A technical team was subsequently composed of representatives of various federal agencies, BPA and the Tribes. On May 7, 1979, the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior forwarded to OMB a lengthy memorandum proposing legislative resolution of the claims of both the Colville Tribes and Spokane Tribe. However, no further action occurred. When the Colville settlement legislation was moving forward in 1994, the Spokane Tribe pressed for an amendment to waive the statute of limitations and allow the Spokane Tribe to seek just and equitable compensation resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. Fearful that the Spokane Tribe's efforts might delay and jeopardize final enactment of the Colville settlement legislation, the Colville Tribes and others requested that the Spokane Tribe defer its efforts to seek settlement of its claims. The Spokane Tribe honored that request. During the joint House and Senate hearings on the Colville legislation, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs did commit in her testimony that she would study the merits of the Spokane claim. The day after the hearings, the Solicitor of the Department committed the Department to examine, independent of the Colville Bill, the Spokane Tribe's claims. The House Resources Committee Report accompanying the Colville legislation stated that the Spokane claim was ``identical in many respects'' to the harm suffered by the Colville Tribes. The Committee noted ``that the Spokane Tribe has a moral claim and requests that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice work with the Spokane Tribe to develop a means to address the Spokane's claim.'' In the Senate, Senators Inouye, Bradley, Murray, McCain and Hatfield joined in a colloquy expressing their concern that the claims of the Spokane Tribe should be addressed and urged the Administrative agencies to work with the Spokane Tribe to resolve the Tribe's claims. Following a subsequent commitment from Associate Attorney General, John R. Schmidt, that the Department and other federal agencies would undertake an ``earnest'' and ``fair evaluation'' of the Tribe's claims, the Tribe committed a great deal of time, resources and funding to fully research and document its claims. By late 1995, the Tribe was prepared to formally request that the Interior and Justice Departments establish a federal ``negotiating team''. In a meeting with Interior Department officials in December 1995, Tribal representatives were astounded when they were advised that the Tribe should return to Congress and renew the Tribe's request for a waiver of the statute of limitations. On July 9, 1996, Senators Murray, McCain, Inouye, Bradley and I sent a letter to Secretary Bruce Babbitt stating the federal/tribal negotiations urged by Congress in 1994 were not predicated on the Tribe's first obtaining a waiver of the statute of limitations; that the requirement for such an undertaking was ``totally contrary to the understanding of the Tribe and to the direction of Congress''; and urged that the Interior Department ``proceed as soon as possible to negotiate with the Tribe on its power value and fishing claims as previously directed by Congress.'' Unfortunately, viable and equitable settlement negotiations have not materialized. Enactment of settlement legislation addressing the meritorious claims of a Tribe, claims otherwise barred by a statute of limitations, is neither new or precedent setting. There is ample precedent for Congressional recognition of the moral claims of Indian tribes and provision of appropriate compensation. Several tribes within the Missouri River Basin suffered very significant damage because of inundation of reservation bottom lands through construction of the Pick-Sloan Project dams. In recognition of these damages, Congress has provided substantial compensation to the Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (P.L. 102-575), the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (P.L. 104-233), and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (P.L. 105-132). Compensatory legislation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (S. 964) and the Santee Sioux and Yankton Sioux Tribes (S. 1148) are currently pending before this Congress and are expected to move through the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs shortly. The Federal Government, by its own admission, had a conflict of interest and blatantly breached its fiduciary trust responsibility to the Spokane Tribe. Having breached that trust by converting the Tribe's resources to its own benefit, it also failed to advise the Tribe in a timely manner of its potential claims and frustrated and critically delayed the Tribe's attempt to secure independent legal counsel to research and file such claims. Now, it seeks to avoid fair and honorable negotiations with the Tribe it betrayed because the Tribe failed to timely file its claims before the expiration of the statute of limitations. As quoted by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in her testimony on the Colville settlement legislation: . . . I am reminded of the words of Justice Black . . . in litigation about another dam flooding the lands of another tribe's territory: ``Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.'' When the Congress enacts and the President signs this legislation, we can all be proud that we are, at last, acting as a great nation should. I urge my colleagues to keep the word of our Nation and act expeditiously and favorably on this legislation as it proceeds through the Congress.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, On May 9, 2002, I missed Roll Call votes 138 through 158 to attend my daughter's college graduation ceremony. I request that the record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted aye on Roll Call votes 142, 154, 155, 156, and 158, and that I would have voted no on Roll Call votes 138--141, 143--154, and 157.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. This is an important vote for Washington State. If we do not relocate our nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain repository, the Department of Energy will be forced to reconsider other sites previously discussed. One of those previously considered sites is Hanford, Washington. Without passage of H.J. Res. 87, 42,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel will remain stored at Hanford. This is unacceptable, and would be disastrous for the environmental health of my state of Washington. If we fail to move high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, we will have 161 million people in this country living within 75 miles of one or more nuclear waste sites--all of which were intended to be temporary. Without Yucca Mountain we will continue the current system of storing nuclear waste on the shores of the Great Lakes, Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. Without Yucca Mountain, we will continue to store nuclear waste near 20 major waterways that supply household water for more than 30 million Americans. Opponents of H.J. Res. 87 have tried to scare the American people into believing that transporting nuclear waste is not safe. The facts paint a different picture. Since 1967, there have been 3,000 safe shipments of spent nuclear fuel. Those shipments have covered 1.7 million miles without one single accident occurring. For those who say safety is their top concern, let them consider this: Our nuclear sites are safe, but it would be safer yet to consolidate this waste from widely dispersed, above-ground sites into a remote, deep underground location that can be better protected for thousands of years. So I urge my colleagues, put safety first. Put the safety of our environment first. Put the safety of our nuclear sites first. Put the safety of the people living near nuclear sites first. It is time to act to provide for safe, permanent storage of our nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is best for our country and best for the people of Washington state.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I was present on the floor during passage of H.R. 3231 (Roll no. 116) and intended to vote in favor of the bill. The record, however, does not reflect that I cast a vote. Apparently my vote was not electronically recorded; therefore, I wish the record to note that I fully support the bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, the State of Washington has long been known for its great people, its great natural beauty, its great companies like Boeing and Microsoft, and its great basketball teams. Now it has been designated with another honor, and that is ``Wine Region of the Year'' as endorsed by ``Wine Enthusiast'' magazine. This designation is fully justified. Washington State is now the second largest wine producing State in the country. It provides $2.4 billion to the Washington State economy, and it employs 11,000 people. It is a small business-focused industry, and it provides tremendously to the jobs and the agriculture community of eastern Washington and western Washington. It produced 100,000 tons of grapes in the year 2001. So congratulations to the State of Washington, and congratulations to the wine industry in the State of Washington, which helps our agriculture economy, and thanks to ``Wine Enthusiast'' magazine for making this designation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the organization Hadassah--the largest women's and largest Jewish membership organization in the United States. Through its 300,000 members within the United States, this volunteer organization has demonstrated dedication to community service and assistance. The organization was founded in 1912 and, since that time, has put forth exceptional effort to provide services to the community. In the United States, Hadassah has taken action to heighten the quality of American and Israeli life through its education and youth programs. It has also promoted health awareness, and provided personal enrichment and growth for its members. Beyond the national role that Hadassah plays, I would like to recognize the service of the local chapter in Spokane, Washington. The Hadassah volunteers in my district have collected donations for the Red Cross to help with the charitable acts they provide; they assist the Ronald McDonald House in providing temporary homes for families with a hospitalized child; they have provided support for the AIDS walks in Spokane and Seattle which create awareness and reflect commitment to providing services to those living with HIV and AIDS; and Hadassah also provides outreach to local synagogues with support programs. Throughout the organization's 90-year history, Hadassah has played a strong role in community improvement and support projects. In recognition of these outstanding achievements, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the great contributions of this important organization.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to the Girl Scouts on their 90th anniversary this week. I pay special respect to constituents of my State, my State of Washington, who visited me this week in my office, Avis DeRuyter, Lindy Cator, Kathleen Houston, Grace Chien, and Golden Award winner Katie Grimes, for their work in bolstering the young women of the Fifth Congressional District in eastern Washington through the Girl Scouts organization. We had a very good discussion. They told me how much they are doing to reach girls from all walks of life to be part of the Girl Scout organization, and they have had great success. The Girl Scouts have a marvelous history. Ninety years ago, Juliette Gordon Low founded the first Girl Scout troop. She pictured an organization that would bring girls out of their sheltered home environments to serve in their communities and experience the open air. Within months, girl members were hiking through the woods in their knee-length blue uniforms, playing basketball in a curtained-off court, and going on camping trips. Fifty-two years ago this week, Girl Scouts of the USA was chartered by the United States Congress. The Girl Scouts have come a long way in 90 years. They started with just 18 members and a marvelous dream. Today, more than 50 million American women enjoyed Girl Scouting during their childhood. Girl Scouts of the USA is the world's preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls where, in an accepting and nurturing environment, girls build character and skills for success in the real world. In partnership with committed adult volunteers, the Girl Scouts cultivate their full individual potential. The qualities they develop in Girl Scouting, leadership, values, social conscience, and conviction about their own self-worth serve them all of their lives. Today, there are nearly 3.7 million Girl Scouts, 2.8 million members, girl members, and 942,000 adult members, almost all volunteers. Therefore, it is important that we honor the Girl Scouts for their 90 years of work in developing qualities in young women today so that they may serve as future leaders tomorrow.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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