George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Interior and was part of the conference committee that worked so hard with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a tremendous chairman in this case, trying to craft a measure that would be balanced and sensible under the limitations that we have funding-wise. We worked hard in the conference committee with Senator Gorton, our colleague from Washington State in the other body, who worked very hard on behalf of the Senate to try to craft a measure that makes some sense. What I have heard the speakers on the other side say in the last 15 minutes or so defies reality; it defies logic. On the one hand, they say this bill is inadequate and they want to spend more money. On the other hand, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says we are spending too much money in this bill; that we are over our allocation. Well, the lands legacy program that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman just spoke of, is $413 million. My point is, they want to spend more money and they want to frustrate this bill. They do not want this conference report to pass under any circumstance because they know that if it passes and goes down and the President has to address the issue of whether it is adequate, then they are going to have a problem because they want this to go in an omnibus bill. They do not want to have any allocation made on the merits of this particular bill. One had to be there, Mr. Speaker, to understand the diligence that went into trying to craft this measure and have it be acceptable. We are $77 million over last year on the National Parks Service. We are $50 million over the Bureau of Land Management for last year. We are $55 million more for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Indian Health Service, $2.4 billion, a $130 million increase. When is enough enough? We are trying to balance this bill, meet the objections of the other body, meet the objections of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and also their preferences. So I must say, with respect to the mining issue and the patent issue, what we tried to do was have agreement between the two sides on the issue and come up with something that is acceptable to both as best we could. Was it perfect? Is it a perfect bill? Certainly not, but my goodness let us be reasonable in adopting this rule, moving this process along, not frustrating it and waiting until the end so that then we are down to the White House with millions and millions in more dollars in the final package. That is not acceptable. So I must say, I think the objectors in this case are not thinking it through carefully in terms of what is good for this country and what is good in this bill. It is a good bill. It is a bill that was crafted by a very diligent chairman in conference committee on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate yielding to the gentleman but these ceilings are adjustable and the gentleman realizes that, I believe, that they are adjustable. They have to be adjustable based on our conditions.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. That is the nature of this process, it is, and the bottom line, though, with regard to those who object is that they want to spend millions and millions and millions of dollars more. That is really what is happening here. I guarantee if we do not pass this bill and send it down to the President and let him make his judgment as he should under the Constitution, either veto it or sign it and then tell us why he has vetoed it, if he will, then we are going to be in an omnibus and all of those of us who care deeply about preserving Social Security and all of those on the other side of the aisle who profess that they do are going to be breaching their own commitment to that goal. So I urge my colleagues, vote for this rule. Vote for this bill. Support the conference committee's best efforts to make this work and let us get the President to either accept or reject that under the Constitution, which is his obligation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today the Sierra Club, a group called American Rivers, a group called Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the clothing company, Patagonia, paid thousands of dollars for a full-page ad in the New York Times promoting dam removal on the Snake River in my district, the eastern side of the State of Washington, the fifth congressional district. We in the State of Washington and in the Pacific Northwest have tried our best to face up to the issue of restoring fish runs on our river systems so that we could have a healthy fishery, but also have a healthy economy. The ad that appeared today is run by these same groups that earlier this summer asked the President to look at all options for salmon recovery and fish recovery in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Speaker, it is not even Halloween yet, and these groups have now taken off their masks of rational and reasonable parties to this debate by exposing their true intentions, which is dam removal on the lower Snake River. Mr. Speaker, we face a serious issue of fish recovery, and no one, including this Member of Congress, wants to see wild salmon go extinct. So for those of us who represent the Pacific Northwest who are concerned about recovery of these runs, we are going to work very hard at looking at all options and all impacts on the decline of wild salmon. But I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the regional interests have recognized that there is no magic solution to restoring these wild runs. This is a big puzzle with lots of pieces, and we have to see how each one fits in, to be sure that the economy of our State and our region is not destroyed at the expense, or at the interest of trying to restore wild salmon. These groups, with all respect to these groups, are doing their very, very best to jam one piece into the puzzle to try to solve it and make it all fit together. It does not. The dam removal issue is wrong for salmon; it is wrong for the Pacific Northwest; it is wrong for eastern Washington, and I am one who intends to oppose it at every opportunity. These groups will tell us that we have to keep all of our options open, but their one option for recovery of salmon is to tear out these hydroelectric dams that are the cleanest source of power generation in our region. The river system provides barging of young juvenile fish down the river system to go out into the Pacific Ocean and grow and then come back and spawn. There is an agriculture economy that would be destroyed by the destruction of the Lower Snake River dams. There is recreation that would be destroyed. There is energy production that would be destroyed. There is flood control that would be destroyed. In other words, a lot of bad consequences to an idea that is simplistic in its nature, but ineffective in its imposition. First of all, Congress has an obligation to decide whether this happens or not and allocate and provide the funding to do such an extreme action that these groups want to impose. So this is a fund- raising effort, I suspect, for these groups to try to raise money from people who could not care less about what happens in the Pacific Northwest, which really is a solution without a scientific basis. We have to look at all the science in this situation, to look to see what works and what does not and what interests are injured and what interests are benefited by extreme actions that are seeking to be taken by these particular extremist groups. Mr. Speaker, those of us who live in this region appreciate the need to have a healthy fishery. We also appreciate the need to have a healthy economy. We have to look at sensible science, not junk science that I think is being proposed by these groups of extremists, but by healthy science, by sensible science that takes into consideration all of the benefits and all of the detriments of a particular action. We have Indian treaties which allow the Indian tribes to take fish from our river systems. We have a Caspian tern problem that exists near the mouth of the Columbia where millions of smolts are eaten every year. So I must say, Mr. Speaker, in closing that we have to be careful about the extremist actions that are being taken by these extremist groups and look for a sensible solution to this problem.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Washington State Patrol Trooper James Saunders, who was killed in the line of duty on October 7th while making a routine traffic stop in Pasco, Washington. The suspect in this case is a violent illegal alien who has a long criminal record. Trooper Saunders leaves behind a small child and a wife expecting a second child. No words can express the sorrow they feel right now. I pray that God will become their strength as they begin the healing process. As facts emerge in this case, the question we must ask ourselves is how can we stop tragedies like this. The suspect in the case had been deported three times by the U.S. Border Patrol in the past three years and this summer he was held in jail in Pasco awaiting a November trial on a cocaine charge. Instead of remaining in jail until trial, he was released on bond. There has been a lot of finger pointing over who is to blame for not placing the suspect on immigration detention, which is the standard procedure for violent criminal aliens, and while this should be investigated, it will not bring back Trooper Saunders. It is clear that this case shows how bureaucratic mistakes aren't just bureaucratic when crimes are committed and lives are lost. Our region is sensitive to this problem. An Omak police officer was killed in the line of duty just two years ago by a suspect who was an illegal alien. Mr. Speaker, we must learn from this tragedy to prevent future acts of violence. I believe this case highlights three problems that need to be addressed. First, legal immigration and border enforcement are two very separate functions of the Federal Government. Under our current system, the Border Patrol reports to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Cooperation between INS and Border Patrol needs improvement. I support the approach offered by Chairman Harold Rogers to reorganize the INS into two different agencies within the Department of Justice: immigration services and immigration enforcement (or border patrol). This reorganization will empower both divisions to successfully fulfill their respective missions. Bureaucratic overlap and miscommunication should not be the cause of illegal aliens having easy access to our country. Second, the Border Patrol needs more agents. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has not advocated for more resources and personnel for this department. There was bipartisan criticism earlier this year when President Clinton did not request funding for an increase of 1,000 Border Patrol agents for fiscal year 2000. Border communities are significantly impacted by this short-sighted decision. My home state of Washington recently had 6 agents detailed to the Arizona border because they need more agents to interdict illegal aliens and illegal drugs there. Overall, 204 Western region agents have been detailed to the Arizona border at a cost of $1.8 million per month. Arizona may need more agents, but that should not come at the expense of other regions. If we had an increase in the total number of agents, there would be no need to detail agents elsewhere. Northern Border Patrol sectors should be given an increase in Border Patrol personnel. This fact is important because the Spokane sector, which is located in my District needs, 15 agents and 2 support personnel just to get to ``critical operation level.'' The Spokane sector has 350 miles to cover and under the current staffing level they are only able to monitor 6 percent of the border on a regular basis. The loss of 6 agents will have an impact not just in border monitoring, but in criminal detention. Overstretched staff will be less able to visit local jails to ensure criminal aliens are not released back into the streets to commit more crimes, which apparently is part of the problem involving the situation that led to the shooting death of Trooper Saunders. Our American border with Canada and our northern airports need additional agents as well. Eastern Washington streets are facing a significant increase in methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana use. Reports indicate that as America's southern border is reinforced, foreign drug producers are increasingly using Canada as a smuggling gateway between foreign drug producers and the United States. The Border Patrol recently interdicted the largest seizure of methamphetamine precursors in the history of our region. I am concerned that detailing of agents to the southern border will result in more drugs coming across our northern border. Finally, the shooting of Trooper Saunders is another example of how illegal immigration and the drug trade are becoming more violent and police officers are being threatened. 104 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty this year, 4 in the last two weeks, and many of these deaths can be attributed to the drug trade and illegal immigration. Law enforcement officials in my district tell me that street officers are finding that drug dealers and illegal aliens are more heavily armed and willing to use violence to evade detection and apprehension. Many veteran officers are choosing to retire because the streets have become too violent. This Congress has made great strides to provide more resources for law enforcement departments, but we should do more. The Bulletproof Protection Act signed into law last year has helped provide small and rural departments with lifesaving vests for their officers. Vests should be standard equipment for every police officer, but unfortunately many departments do not have the resources to provide them. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant has also given departments the ability to better tailor their programs according to the needs of their community rather than to an arbitrary Department of Justice grant requirement. Mr. Speaker, we can and should do more to prevent violence against police officers. I hope the death of Trooper Saunders will be met with action and efforts to secure our borders and protect our law enforcement services.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, like no other creatures on Earth, human beings have the unique ability to communicate through language. We can communicate feelings of love or hope or anxiety or suspense or excitement, all conveying feelings of emotions, feelings of concern. We do that through language. We use the English language and all the other languages of the world which are spoken through human beings who try to convey those feeling accordingly. We have over the years respected great writers like Shakespeare and people in politics like Lincoln and Kennedy and the poetry of Robert Frost, and the magic word of Byron and Keats and Shelley as poets. George Will in today's world is a master of the word, of speaking effectively and carefully and with great meaning. The reason I mention this today, Mr. Speaker, is that over the years I think we have seen a reduction in the respect for the English language and what words mean, how grammar is expressed or not expressed, whether it is proper or not. And just last Thursday we saw, on CBS television, a new low in expression for millions of people to see and observe and listen to on national television. There was a show called Chicago Hope, and there was a headline in USA Today following that show entitled Chicago Hope Breaks the Barrier. Well, this is the barrier that Chicago Hope broke. It was the barrier of obscenity and foul language that I think we have not seen in any time in our history on television, on network television. The actor involved, Mark Harmon, plays a doctor, apparently, and he was before a medical review board to explain why a promising teenage baseball pitcher had to have his arm amputated, the story says, when an infection set in and, following a series of operations, was unable to play, apparently. So this doctor on television, a revered profession in our society, by the way, said ``blank happens.'' The USA article says, ``Blank happens,'' Harmon said, using an epithet for excrement. Neither a CBS spokesman nor Henry Bromwell, executive producer of the series, could remember a time when censors had allowed the word to be used. ``It's nothing I haven't tried a couple of times before, except this time I won, Bromwell said.'' Apparently the word was expected to be used for artistic truthfulness. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American public has, I hope, had a bit of enough about artistic expression on national television with a captive audience that breaks new barriers, not new high barriers but new low barriers. What a distinction for CBS television. How proud they must be that this barrier has now been reduced even lower. The standards for conduct, for language, for propriety, for dignity, for expression has now reached a new low for CBS and this so-called entertainment show. Now, it is one thing to pay money and go to the movies and watch trash, which there is plenty of in today's society. If individuals want to do that, people have the right in a free society to do that. But on national television, before a national audience, to somehow be proud of the breaking of this new low barrier, I fear, says volumes about television today and the entertainment industry. Are there no bounds in the entertainment industry on television? I suspect there may not be, as these new lows keep being reached by people who are somehow proud of this low-class artistic expression as defined by some producer who feels that he is somehow trying to make his mark. He has made his mark all right. He has made a low mark. I would urge Americans who are disgusted with this kind of language and the lowness of it and the failure of the language to be expressive in a dignified and acceptable societal way to write CBS News and give them all that they can express about their disapproval for this kind of activity.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives voted on different versions of health care reform. I believe that every one of our colleagues who spoke on this issue and voted on this issue had the best interests of patients in mind as they cast their votes. There were two issues that were discussed this week in connection with health care reform and patient care. First, we passed legislation this week to increase the access of patients to health care insurance coverage. That was a very important effort that was undertaken by the House of Representatives. Second and most recently, yesterday we considered changes in the law to deal with the problems that patients have had with their health maintenance organizations, a problem that was illustrated time and time again by Members who stood here on the floor of the House. For me, I believe insurers should be held accountable for their actions if they cause actions that hurt a patient or inactions that hurt a patient that is covered by a plan. I happen to support the coalition substitute amendment introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), among others. This legislation provided the protection I felt patients needed, and encourages care rather than lawsuits. It contained an internal and external appeals process that requires a faster response than required by the bill which ultimately passed the House yesterday afternoon, as sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The coalition bill, the bill that I supported, requires expedited appeals to be resolved in 48 hours, as opposed to the 72 hours that are set forth in the Norwood bill. I want my colleagues and others, Mr. Speaker, to understand that there were many similarities in the Norwood bill and the coalition bill, which I will call it. Both guarantee patients the right to choose a doctor outside their network. Both guarantee women direct access to obstetrical- gynecological care. Both guarantee access to specialists. Both guarantee children direct access to pediatric care. Both guarantee coverage for emergency medical services without prior authorization, which is an important issue. Both guarantee coverage of a terminated provider for patients undergoing a course of treatment. Both prohibit so-called gag clauses. Both forbid insurers from offering providers incentives for denying coverage. Both provided a grievance process for beneficiaries to file complaints. Both allow patients to appeal denial of benefits, but the coalition bill actually requires a faster response than mandated by the Norwood bill, the difference between the 48-hour expedited appeals process and the 72-hour process in the Norwood bill. Both allow patients to sue their health maintenance organizations if they are hurt by them. The coalition bill allows patients to sue their HMOs in Federal court once they have exhausted the internal and external appeals process. The Norwood bill allows patients to bring lawsuits in State courts, which have 50 different States with 50 different sets of rules. To me, that was a cumbersome process, and very difficult for employers to try to deal in 50 different States with 50 different laws relative to liability. The Norwood bill puts employers at risk for lawsuits. I know there was a great deal of debate on that issue, and interpretation of language and counter-interpretation of language. But the facts are that the Norwood bill puts employers at risk for lawsuits, greater risk, without having a more extensive, exhaustive process before we ever get to a lawsuit. Employers offer health insurance benefits voluntarily. I fear that if the stability of their business is at risk due to a threat of a lawsuit, under the measure that was passed yesterday, employers would just say, no, we are not going to offer health insurance any longer. Washington State, my State, is currently facing a crisis in its individual insurance market. Excessive regulations have driven insurers out of our State. Those who have remained are no longer taking new enrollees. That is a problem for people in my State who seek insurance coverage. Individuals can no longer buy insurance in most of our State, even if they have the money. So excessive regulation, frivolous lawsuits, and risk to employers created by the Norwood bill will create the same problem in the group insurance market across the country. I think that would be an unintended consequence of our debate that occurred here yesterday and earlier this week. The last thing we need, Mr. Speaker, is a government-run, massively complicated health care program. I fear we are heading toward that if the Norwood bill becomes law. So my hope would be that those who are conferees on this issue and others who have an interest in this debate would work hard to get the facts out about the potential consequences or unintended consequences of an extensive, mandated legislation for health care that will drive people off the insurance rolls and then lead to, ultimately, the unintended consequence of a massive health care plan run by the Federal Government that was rejected so forcefully in 1993 and 1994.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment today to recognize the life of Samuel C. Grashio, who died this past Sunday in Spokane, Washington, my hometown, and a major part of the Fifth Congressional District of Washington. Samuel Grashio was a retired Air Force Colonel and was a highly decorated World War II veteran. While many years have passed since that great struggle for peace, we still remember Samuel Grashio's escape from a Japanese prisoner of war camp during the Bataan Death March. He, along with many others, made that very difficult trek and survived. America's spirit was lifted by the courage that Sam and nine other soldiers showed by escaping the prison camp and for evading their captors in enemy territory for so long. They continued their struggle for many months, alongside friendly Filipino guerillas who fought bravely to make sure that this group of Americans was able to survive. Family and friends of Samuel Grashio remember him to be a man of great faith, great courage, and great patriotism. America will remember him for being our hero and our strength during World War II. An article appeared in the Spokesman Review newspaper in Spokane after the death of Sam, and quoted in that article was a very close friend of mine, Seaton Daly, Senior, who has been a longtime Spokane lawyer and a great, great friend whose son and I, whose late son and I, were very, very close friends. We went through law school together and practiced law together for years. Seaton said at the time of Sam's death that this was a great man of faith, Samuel Grashio, and he had as his priorities in life three influences: God, family, and country, in that order. He was a great man of stature in eastern Washington and nationally for his service in World War II, and he cultivated friends like Seaton Daly, Senior, who were lifelong friends, and who grieve as Sam passed away. Sam Grashio led a wonderful life in service to our country. We certainly wish all of Sam's family well, and all of God's blessings in this time of reflection and mourning for them. I must say, too often we do not recognize deeply enough those heroes who fought for freedom in World War II and have survived, many in this country, to this day as veterans and as proud veterans, and proud supporters of the freedom that this country so much enjoys. Sam Grashio was one of those people. It is sad that he has passed away, but it is an honor for our community that he lived as long as he did and was able to enjoy not only the freedom he fought for, but the great, great benefits that this country offers to all of its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I join many others in paying tribute and offering deep sympathy at the death of Samuel Grashio, as do many, many, in Spokane Washington and the State of Washington.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to support this legislation that seeks to address the issue of child abuse and prevent it and treat it. It is a terrible problem in our society. More than anything, I want the House and the Speaker to understand the value of community-based child abuse prevention efforts, like that which exists in my hometown of Spokane, Washington. In the mid-1980s, a group of us decided that, in order to address this growing problem, something needed to be done to have a safe place for children who are potentially abused children to go until their parents or guardians or custodians could have a chance to get the variable social services that might be available, whether it is job loss advice or alcohol abuse advice or other assistance. So we started a group called the Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery. It is a nonprofit charitable organization that exists today without any government funds. It is all community supported and assisted, from labor unions to community leaders, to business leaders, to social service assistance, to Junior League of Spokane and many, many others who have banded together to contribute clothing, have bought a house and converted it through the assistance of contractors and labor union tradesmen and made this house a home for children who are potentially abused children. To this day, they do not take any State or Federal money. So my point to the Speaker and the House is that it can be done outside of the auspices of government, but there is also a challenge that the Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery has, and its wonderful director Sue Manford in trying to have phase two of the crisis nursery be constructed, terribly expensive, terribly difficult to get more money to try to assist in this program. But it is a valuable program. My hope would be that, as we discuss the issue of child abuse and child abuse prevention, that we think about the nonprofit charity, I believe community-based and supported operations that can go such a long way to helping solve this problem of child abuse and protection of children without the bureaucracy and the strings that are attached many, many times to government money. So I would hope that my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and others, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) especially would think carefully about making money available to community-based organizations for proper purposes and with accountability but without so many strings attached and so much Federal or State control over what happens to the money once it gets there. Accountability is a good thing. It has to be. But at least the crisis nursery thus far has rejected Federal funds application or State funds application for just that reason. It is burdensome and creates more problems sometimes than it is worth. But I really think that the model that is established through the Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery in Spokane, I think it is the only one in our entire State that has addressed this issue of child abuse prevention. It is a safe haven respite care facility for kids, young children who are the subject of abuse or potential abuse. But it may be temporary. It is an opportunity for the parents of these kids or the custodians or guardians to get out and get some social services help, which I think probably will be help in this bill as well. So I commend my colleagues to this model, to the great success of the crisis nursery in Spokane, Washington, and I suggest that those who may be interested in this look to the crisis nursery as an example of what can be done in a nongovernmental charitable community-based organizational way. With that, I will support this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and others who work so hard to make this concept of child abuse a prominent one and prevent the child abuse that exists so much in our country today.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee (Mr. Skeen) for yielding me the time. He is a fine gentleman and has been eminently fair with me and I thank every other member of the subcommittee. I thank him for his dedication to agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in support of this bill. I am going to vote for it. I think it is a good bill. It could be a much better bill, for the reasons that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) stated and I think the reasons that other Members may state here today, as well. My concern has been not only with process but with policy relative to this particular measure as it relates to me as a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I felt for a long time that, in order to have the Freedom to Farm approach to agriculture policy succeed, we have to have freedom to market. Our farmers need to market overseas. My State of Washington, the east side of the State of Washington, grows some of the best wheat crops and peas and lentil crops and potatoes and other commodities, apples and others, to compete with anybody in the world. But we are restricted, Mr. Speaker, because of an antique kind of a sanctions policy, unilateral sanctions policy, that hurts our farmers. The power to change this policy rests with Congress. And we tried to do that on this bill, but the process did not allow it. I felt frustrated, frankly, that we could not have a good vote on this issue and let the Senate speak, as they have, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Hagel and others, Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, who spoke in favor of this change in policy, as well as people on our side, like the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) and others who feel that that policy is outdated. It is nonsense, in my judgment, that we should not sell food and medicine to countries that others can sell to around the world. It hurts our farmers. It hurts us as a country I believe. And we can open up dictatorships and open up terrorist regimes, for that matter, if we can engage them and engage the people. The measure that was ready to pass the subcommittee and the conference was no funding for government-to-government assistance. Absolutely not one dollar would go to the governments of Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or anyplace else. But there would be a funding option allowed in order to allow our farmers to get some coverage for the sale of their product overseas. I fought the President on this in some respects. This administration threw up a roadblock with respect to completing the sanction relief that we had imposed. We want to work with the administration and the Democrats and the Republicans and our leadership to try to have this sanctions policy relief become a reality. So I would urge my colleagues to support this policy in the future.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk for a few minutes today about the state of the farm economy in America. I have listened with interest over the last hour or so to a number of Members come to the floor and speak passionately about the problems that exist in our agriculture sector of our economy across this Nation. I am proud to hail from the east side of the State of Washington, a location which grows abundant crops, lots of grains, wheat, oats, peas and lentils and other commodities, most of which are exported overseas. When the farm bill policy of our country was adopted back in 1996, it was met, I think, with general acceptance in my part of the country, that this is a good policy change for our farmers, that they would farm for the market and not just for the Government, and the continual subsidies that had been in existence for many, many years under long- term farm policy in this country would see a change. There would be a reduction over a period of time in the subsidies that had been provided, a marked transition payment assistance program that ultimately would get our farmers into a world market condition where the market would meet the needs, the income needs, of the farmer and not to have the farmer necessarily turn to the Government repeatedly year after year. This was a good change. I think it was a positive change. For those of us in Congress who feel that the free market is the best way to go, a free market economy is the best, it in many respects caused some problems for our farmers because while on the one hand the Federal Government would say we are going to adopt a free market economy in agriculture, but yet we are not going to provide markets overseas for our farmers to market to, which brings me to the point that I want to make this evening: That is that in order for our farmers to survive, those in eastern Washington as well as other parts of the country, we must have open markets. Currently our country has a policy of putting embargoes on countries with whom we disagree government to government. I happen to be proudly a member of the Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, which now has before it an issue regarding sanctions relief as part of the evolving policy to assist our farmers across this country. I think our policy as a general proposition ought to be that we lift sanctions on food and medicine to countries around the world, not providing assistance government to government, but providing assistance to the people of the countries with whom we disagree and their leadership with whom we disagree, providing assistance to those countries in a market-oriented system that allows them to buy our farm products, to purchase them, not to give them, not for us to assist terrorist governments. That is not the intent of anybody in my judgment who supports lifting of sanctions, but to provide assistance to American farmers who are shut out of markets around the world that other countries are not shut out of. So what happens is that a farmer, the government of Australia or Canada or the European Union has the ability to go into markets that we are frozen out of, American farmers are frozen out of, and underbid prices to sell products, commodities, to those countries; and then in those countries with which they can compete with us, they will undercut us even more. They will raise the prices in the sanctioned countries to get the sale, they will lower the prices in the competing countries in order to beat us out of a sale. Iran is a prime example. I disagree absolutely with the government of Iran and their policies of terrorism around the world and oppression, but they are buying wheat from Canada, Australia, and the European Union. Americans are getting nothing from nor realizing any sales to this country. So my argument is that before the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, we have the issue of sanctions relief. I think we ought to have sanctions relief in this bill. It is an opportunity for us to say we are not going to use food and medicine as a weapon of foreign policy. Iran cannot shoot grain back at us, but they can sure buy our grain and help our agriculture community in eastern Washington and around the country that want to sell to this country. I know there is a problem with Cuba, and I understand that issue. And I am willing as one Member of the House to address that issue and discuss it and try to come to some reasonable solution about it, given the political consequences of some Members of the House. But I think as a general proposition, Mr. Speaker, we ought to raise sanctions, lift them, so that our agriculture community can survive in a free market system in the years ahead.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1487, the National Monument NEPA compliance Act of 1999. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor. Since President Clinton abused the 1906 Antiquities Act in 1996 and designated the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument without any participation from the surrounding public interest directly affected, citizens from across eastern Washington have contacted me to express their concern about how this type of action could happen again and affect their livelihood. While I, too, want to preserve the heritage of our public lands, especially given their importance to the history, commerce, and recreational possibilities of our region, we should not be afraid to let people participate in this process. Mr. Chairman, experience has taught us that ambiguous laws and Federal directives give the power of interpretation and enforcement not to citizens and local elected officials, but to Federal agencies. This often means that they could set policy at odds with the priorities of local government, businesses, property owners, and other citizens. A great variety of individuals, from fishermen to farmers to businessmen to loggers to Native Americans, depend upon the public lands in the Pacific Northwest for their recreation and livelihood. I have made it a priority to protect the people's right of access against intrusive Federal programs, and most importantly, to give my constituents an opportunity to participate in such important public policy decisions. Such public input should be an integral part of this process, and can still lead to environmentally sensitive policies. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote to include the public, and join me in supporting H.R. 1487.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and am proud to be a cosponsor. We send a clear message to Russia with this legislation that any assistance to Iran with weapons of mass destruction or missile systems will be grounds for ending fruitful scientific relationships with the United States. We are forcing Russian scientists and government entities to choose between a symbol of international peace, the space station, and the proliferation of deadly technologies. When the Science Committee considered this legislation last week, it accepted an amendment I offered that tightens the bill slightly. The Government of Russia has consistently argued that ``rogue'' elements within the scientific and military establishment are exporting deadly technologies to Iran. It is conceivable that this fiction could be maintained, and private labs or independent agencies could continue to proliferate to Iran, even as they receive taxpayer funding for work on the ISS. This legislation ensures that this would not be the case, as the bill now prohibits extraordinary payments for the ISS to any foreign person or entity that Secretary of State finds has materially contributed or attempted to contribute to the proliferation of WMD or missile technology. The legislation also prohibits the indirect financing of such proliferators through another entity. For example, NASA could not make a payment to the RSA if it knew that a subcontractor for the work was involved previously with proliferation. This is consistent with Executive orders 12938 and 13094 which prescribe procurement, assistance, and import bans for proliferating entities or countries. The current legislating essentially codifies these Executive Orders, raising their profile and raising the stakes for Russian entities that choose to engage in proliferative activities. With this bill, we demonstrate to Russian entities that there is a long-term consequence to cooperating with Iran on missile or WMD programs. H.R. 1883 terminates ISS funding for these Russian labs if they have been designated as proliferators subject to the executive orders. As the President said in his statement on EO 13094, ``being able to offer both incentives and disincentives enhances our capacity to deal with these threats.'' Clearly, this bill also allows for incentives and disincentives. Russian entities are encouraged to work with NASA on space station issues and are firmly discouraged from working with Iran. In a statement on the same Executive Order, Vice President Gore said that ``today's Executive Order . . . will explicitly bar assistance to and imports from entities now being investigated by Russia.'' Again, we are going no further than the Administration's stated intent of barring assistance to proliferative entities. This is an important bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, 5 months ago, the American agriculture sector celebrated the signing of groundbreaking market access agreements with China. In April 1999, Chinese Premier Zhou Rongji signed three bilateral agreements with the United States designed to open agricultural markets. These agreements concluded decades of discussions on sanitary and phytosyntax trade barriers which had locked American farmers out of Chinese markets. Upon signature, China agreed to immediately begin implementing these agreements, permitting access to China's vast markets. The larger issue of Chinese WTO accession was not resolved in April, but the side agreements were considered a significant victory for American farmers. China has long relied on technical barriers to block American products. For more than 20 years, wheat from the Pacific Northwest has been banned because of unfounded concerns about TCK smut, a wheat fungus. The rest of the world recognizes that TCK poses no threat to human health and does not affect the quality of the product, yet China has maintained its ban for all of these years. Meat producers have largely been shut out of the market because China has only allowed imports from five approved U.S. plants and all citrus growers have been locked out because of concerns about Mediterranean fruit flies in certain regions. In signing the three agreements, China agreed to accept USDA certification for meat safety for U.S. exports of pork, beef and poultry; eliminate the current comprehensive ban on citrus fruits and eliminate restrictions on the import of Pacific Northwest wheat. All future SPS disputes will be settled scientifically. The potential consequences of the agreement were tremendous and touched most agriculture districts in the United States. But unfortunately, the disagreements remain only a distant unrealized potential. Three weeks ago, a member of my staff traveled to China to discuss implementation of these agreements. The Director General of American Affairs within the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Corporation indicated that China did not intend, did not intend, to implement the agreements until discussions were concluded on WTO accession. Such a decision would be in direct contravention of the April agreement, which held that implementation would begin immediately. Agricultural producers should not be held hostage to WTO negotiations, and I expect China to uphold its bilateral commitments. We as a Congress, we as a country, we as people who care about our agricultural sector, should expect China to uphold its bilateral commitments. This should serve as a test case if Congress discusses permanent normal trade relations with China later this year as a part of a WTO agreement. If China delays action on agricultural agreements that have previously been signed, it raises serious questions about the sincerity of other commitments to implement market access agreements. The April draft WTO agreement would have resolved a wide range of other outstanding market access issues: trading rights, distribution, quotas, reliance on state trading companies and export subsidies. The U.S. Trade Representative did a great job in moving China toward a tariff based system, with extremely low tariff rates, but if China is unwilling to act on the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement, it seems likely that we may see continued reluctance on other aspects of any WTO agreement. So I am sending a letter to President Zemin and President Clinton urging immediate implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements, and I urge any Member of this body who represents producers of wheat, pork, poultry, beef or citrus, to join in the signing of this letter. With low prices already hurting our farm leaders across the country, we should not stand by and let them continue to be locked out of one of the largest markets in the world. China should implement the side agreements; and it should do so immediately, and I would just say to my colleagues, this is an indication, I think, of disrespect for the agricultural sector in our country, which needs exports. We are fighting desperately to get our products into other countries; and now that we have reached this agreement, it seems to me that China should follow through on what they previously agreed to in April of this year.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his comments and his commitment to agriculture and his interest and his expertise in trade issues.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the last Speaker make his points about serving our veterans. I think defeat of the Hinchey amendment serves our veterans as intended by the Congress and by those who are subject to movement in this country. The veterans populations that are moving out of the northeast and going elsewhere, to the south and the west, would be disserved by this amendment. So I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment. This would block continued implementation of the VERA system, a change that would cripple the VA. An identical amendment was offered last year. It failed in this House by a vote of 146 to 285. The House has spoken on this issue previously, and it has been against the position taken by the author of this amendment and those who support it. On April 1, 1997, Mr. Chairman, the VA began to implement the VERA system, which allocates health care resources according to the numbers of veterans in each of the 22 regional VISNs, the Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The Hinchey amendment would jeopardize health care in the majority of VA networks by blocking continued implementation of this system. Before VERA, funds were allocated according to the historical usage of VA facilities adjusted annually for inflation. When veterans migrated to the west and the south, funding continued to be concentrated in the northeast. The VERA system directly matches workloads with annual allocations, taking into account numbers of basic and special care veterans, national price and wage differences, and education and equipment differences. More efficient networks have more funds available for local initiatives and less efficient networks have an incentive to improve. Some regions do see a substantial change in their health care allocations under VERA, but all VA network administrators agree this reform is crucial to the sustainability of VA programs. Last August, the General Accounting Office reviewed the VERA system in response to congressional direction in last year's VA bill. Overall, VISN 3 and VISN 4, and the VA nationally, have increased the numbers of veterans served. Increased the numbers of veterans served. As measured by patient satisfaction, access to care also has improved, according to surveys. The report notes that the two VISNs, 3 and 4, increased veterans access to care despite reductions in the buying power of their allocations by increasing the efficiency of their health care delivery system. That is the issue here. That is how the system is intended to work. The GAO also concluded that greater oversight of the system is required. And that is good also. But the goals of VERA, to reduce inequities and allow the VA to serve more veterans, are being met. This amendment proposes to prohibit funding for the VERA allocation model, creating a significant question about what model the VA would use instead. Presumably the authors of the amendment would support a return to the allocations of 1996. Compared to fiscal year 1999, allocations of such an adjustment would mean 17 of the 22 VISNs would lose money. Some areas would be particularly devastated by such a reallocation. The Pacific Northwest, my district, my region, would be cut by 16 percent; the Southeast by 14 to 16 percent; the Southwest would be cut 17 percent. To restore funding to these 5 VISNs at fiscal year 1996 levels, all other 17 VISNs would take an approximate hit totaling $220 million. If VA was forced to recompute allocations according to the old model, the cuts would be even more severe. The two VA medical centers I represent would see their budgets cut by more than $9 million this year if we restored the old formula. What does that do to my veterans? I respect the comments about other veterans, but this hurts veterans no matter what. Such a bigger hit would cripple the vast majority of VISNs across the country. I believe we should encourage the VA to continue moving forward with this successful initiative. We should oppose the Hinchey amendment. And if my colleagues are from any of these other States, Southwest, South or West, they should oppose this. Because it is essentially saying go back to the old system and perpetuate inefficiency in some of these veterans areas. So where the veterans are going, the veterans are receiving money for their health care, and that is appropriate. If there are fewer veterans in the Northeast and more veterans in the South and the West, the South and the West ought to get more allocation to help the veterans' health care needs of those regions. I have the greatest respect for the authors of this amendment and those who have spoken in favor of it, but freezing the existing system or changing it dramatically, as I think this amendment would, is a disservice to veterans nationally. It may argue in favor of the veterans in that region, but it hurts the veterans nationally. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as the House has done in the past.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the amendment which freezes Legal Services funding essentially from last year. But I rise more importantly in support of John McKay whose name has been taken in vain here today. John McKay is from my State, an excellent lawyer with a great background in history in our State. He decided to come out of private practice and come to Legal Services to head it up, to bring it back to its core mission. So I have taken a bit of concern and offense at people who have discredited John McKay. John McKay is a decent, honorable, certainly not a deceitful man. He is a good lawyer and good person trying to do a tough job. Now, Legal Services Corporation has its problems. It has had its problems in the past. It has allegations of problems today. John McKay is trying to fix those problems. He is not the cause of the problem. He is trying to fix them. So he is a good person with a tough mission, and we ought to help him accomplish that mission to bring this Legal Services Corporation nationally back to its core mission of helping people who are poor. In my State of Washington, the Legal Services Corporation is doing a fine job. I have had Justice Richard Guy of the Supreme Court come to my office. Attorney Bill Hislop, who is head of our Bar Association in Spokane, Washington; Jim Bamberger who has worked very hard for Legal Services; Nancy Islip, these are good people trying to make the core mission of Legal Services effective. I have had my problems with Legal Services. I have had good conversations with these people who are in charge in my State. I think they have been very responsive. The farm community is less burdened by the Legal Services Corporation practices of the past than they are today. That is progress. That is progress at the hands of John McKay. If one is poor in this country and one is hungry, our government provides one with food. One can get it immediately. If one does not have housing, the government helps one. But if one has legal problems, one cannot go to law school and get help. The Legal Services Corporation provides the poor with this kind of help, and we ought to insist on accommodation by this corporation, but we ought to support them.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his gracious yielding of time even though we disagree on this. My colleagues, I think this is a legislation that is ill-advised. And I commend to the sponsors and the managers today, the gentlemen from Florida, Massachusetts, and Georgia, to the National Conference of State Legislatures vote which occurred on July 29, just a few days ago, by a vote of 41-7. Forty-one States oppose H.R. 2031, including Massachusetts, Georgia, and Florida. These State legislators who made this judgment believe that the direct shipping issue should be resolved at the State and local levels of government. And so I think there is a disconnection here between a perceived problem, as I see it, by the sponsors and an actual problem. I come from a State and represent a district, Washington State, and the Fifth Congressional District, where we have emerging small wineries who do direct customer transfers and shipments. They are not trying or do not violate the law. But there is a chilling effect that this legislation would have on it on this emerging business. It is clear to me that this is a job loser to the extent that there is a restriction on these emerging companies over the Internet. What they do and what they have explained to me very clearly is there is a very complicated process they must go through in order to ship a bottle of wine or a case of wine from manufacturer A to customer B in another State. The Federal Express transfer company has to make sure there is a signature on the other end from an adult over the age of 18 able to buy this kind of product. And if not, it has to be sent back. So it is the shipper and the shipping company that is the most at risk. So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Virginia further clarification. I heard the gentleman say in the colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia that under the example that the gentleman from Georgia gave, that the attorney general of a State where there was an alleged violation relating to a sale to a person under 21, I thought I heard the gentleman say that if there was a violation, that the State attorney general would thereafter be enabled under this amendment to prohibit any further Internet sales into that State, even though it was to someone over the age of 21. Did I misunderstand the gentleman?

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the clarification. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Goodlatte amendment, which I believe improves significantly on H.R. 2031. The proponents have argued that this bill does not inappropriately interfere with Internet commerce. It is true they worked very hard to avoid any reference to the Internet on this legislation, but the reality is quite different. A great many of the wine sales we are discussing occur over the Internet sites of small wineries. The entrepreneurial owners of these wineries have learned, like many other small businessmen and women, that the Internet levels the playing field and makes it possible for small proprietors to reach customers. These companies cannot afford sales departments or national advertising. They are forced by their size to rely on Internet sales. That is what I want to be sure that this legislation does not prohibit. This amendment ensures that Internet sales by wineries are not treated any differently than any other product. The Internet Tax Freedom Act blocked the imposition of new Internet taxes, and this amendment ensures compliance with that act. Proponents of this legislation have called small wineries and brewers bootleggers and smugglers, suggesting somehow their intent in selling wine is criminal. To the contrary, these small businesses play by the rules and only want an opportunity to sell their superior product in the interstate marketplace. There is no pressing problem of minors buying cases of ultra-premium wines, and the authors of the legislation have shown no evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding the few news clips that they have discussed. I have talked with wineries in Washington State about the supposed problem of minors purchasing alcohol. They have told me that in fact they know virtually all of their customers. Their buyers have in virtually all cases bought wine in person from the winery in the first place. These are repeat customers who have taken the time to travel all the way to rural wineries in eastern Washington. Once they get home, these customers enjoy the superior product that Washington State provides and that these wineries provide, and they want to order again. Many of these customers are from other States and would be unable to purchase wines with this legislation. Small businesses are the actual target of this legislation. These small wineries will never be able to ship their product through normal distributor channels. They simply do not produce enough to be worth the large distributors' time. These producers bottle 2,000 cases a year, an insignificant amount to a distributor, but a very significant quantity when the survival of these small businesses is on the line. We are adding a winery in our State of Washington every 18 days. It is a growth industry that creates new jobs in rural areas. These are small wineries, specialty wineries. Any Member representing constituencies that rely on Internet telemarketing or catalog sales should be concerned about where this legislation is taking us. From the perspective of the States, this bill is all about taxation. Any company or industry that is perceived to be circumventing State laws, State taxes through mail sales, could run afoul of such efforts in the future. This is why the National Conference on Legislators has opposed this bill, because of a belief that the problem should be resolved at the State level. I am still concerned about this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for the time and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for their kind remarks. I am proud to be the sponsor of this legislation along with the other 8 members of the Washington State congressional delegation to name the Federal Court House in Spokane, Washington, my hometown, the Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse and the plaza in front of that courthouse as the Walter F. Horan Plaza. As the successor to Tom Foley, I came to know him very well in the 1994 elections, and I must say, as difficult as elections can be, the one that occurred in 1994 in my judgment and I think in the judgment of many other people was one that was carried on with great dignity and discussion and debate of the issues and the leadership that was proper for the future for our Fifth Congressional District. I won that election with mixed emotions frankly. I felt terrible for my predecessor who had served for 30 very long years and dignified years and years filled with great service, and I felt sorry that he ended his service with an election like that which occurred in 1994, but at the same time I was pleased to be able to represent the Fifth Congressional District and go forward in the years ahead, wanting to have good representation for the entire east side of the State of Washington. So it was bitter sweet in many respects, but my respect for Mr. Foley certainly is not bitter sweet. It is undying, it is unyielding, it is constant, because I have had him as my representative before I came to public life for 30 years and Mr. Horan for the prior 22 years, virtually my entire adult life until I was elected in 1994. So I have known these two men and watched them represent eastern Washington and the State of Washington's interests with great dignity, with certainly unquestionable respect for the institution of Congress and respect for the people of eastern Washington. During law school I happened to serve as a law clerk in the Spokane County Superior Court, and my prime judge for whom I was assigned was William F. Williams, a very close friend of Foley who was later a Supreme Court Justice in our State. But I also served as a law clerk for Thomas S. Foley's father, Judge Ralph Foley. So Tom, the former Speaker, comes to this institution with a very distinguished background, a distinguished family. His mother and father were very highly recognized and respected in eastern Washington, as was Thomas S. Foley. He served, as was stated here, for 30 years representing our district as Speaker of the House, as majority leader, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, a chairmanship that was vitally important to eastern Washington and the agricultural community that exists there even to this day. I saw Mr. Foley in Japan earlier this spring, and in characteristic conduct he conducted himself and has conducted himself as a representative of the United States of America in Japan with great respect and dignity, just as he did here in this House for so many years. I just want the people of eastern Washington, the people of this country, to know that in designating this courthouse in the name sake of Tom Foley and Walt Horan we are paying tribute and respect to their work for all of us in eastern Washington and in our State of Washington, our beloved State of Washington. So it was with pleasure that all of the members of our delegation signed onto this bill that I introduced, most notably Democrats and Republicans alike who had worked with Mr. Foley and Mr. Horan in some respects and have enormous respect for those two men. So I thank the House for considering this bill, I urge that it be adopted unanimously and that the respect and dignity that is due Mr. Horan and Mr. Foley will continue under the name sake of the Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse and the Walt F. Horan Plaza.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce The Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Act. This legislation will provide for a settlement of the claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians resulting from 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. That Act, 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 to the Colville Tribes. The Spokane Settlement Act, which I am introducing today, provides for 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. 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 interdepartmental and interoffice correspondence from September 1933 through October 1934 demonstrate the government knew 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 power production. Congress passed legislation in 1940 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 has in them in return for his appraisal of its value and payment of compensation by the Secretary. The only land that was appraised and compensated for was the newly flooded lands for which the Spokane Tribe received $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. In a 1976 opinion, Lawrence Aschenbrenner, Acting Associate Solicitor with the Department of the Interior's Division of Indian Affairs, stated, ``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 . . . 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 Colville settlement legislation of 1994 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. This Act provided for a five year statute of limitations to file claims before the Commission. While the Colville Tribes had been formally organized for over 15 years at this point, the Spokane Tribe did not formally organize until 16 days prior to the ICC statute of limitations deadline. In addition, evidence indicates that while the Bureau of Indian Affairs was aware of the potential claims of the Spokane Tribe, it does not appear that the Tribe was ever advised of the potential claim. Since the mid-1970's, both Congress and Federal agencies have expressed the view that both the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated. The legislation I am introducing today will provide for compensation to the Spokane Tribe. There is ample precedent for such settlement legislation that addresses the meritorious claims of a tribe and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.