George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say this does not gut anything. The Nethercutt amendment simply says comply with the law, so we do not have huge lawsuits later. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I object.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot do that. Because there is $22 million dollars to deal with; and I made an amendment, and I want a ruling on this amendment.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just point out to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Blumenauer), he has not read the law with respect to Northwest Mining Association versus Babbitt, 5 F. Supp. 2d 9, DC District Court, 1998. That is absolutely contrary to the statement that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has just made. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that I am interested in the gentleman from New Mexico's comments. The gentleman has come out and says he wants to breach the dams in the lower Snake River. So I do not give much credibility to the idea that this is somehow antienvironmental. It is just not.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion, but he is wrong. We are not trying to stop anything. We are trying to make this government comply with the law. Everything that has been done, the $56 million that has been submitted on this issue, it is going to remain. We are not going to stop anything. But, doggone it, if you are from the east side of the State of Washington, and the gentleman is not, these decisions by these agencies have real consequences on our people. So I am not persuaded by the idea that this is somehow stopping anything. It is simply saying comply with the law. That is something this administration has not done. It ought to stop right here. We are going to use this ICBEMP project, but, doggone it, do it right. Do not rush to judgment and use any means to get to your end, and that is lock up our region, frankly, and do things that are going to hurt our people. So this is in the best interests of our people. We are going to have litigation if we do not do this, my friend; we are going to have litigation if we do not do it. So I am saying to my friends is, this issue is separable from the national monument issue, and all the crying about antienvironmental is just wrong. This is the most environmental thing we can do, is make sure we are not tied up in litigation on the other side of the issue. Comply with the law, administration; do what you are supposed to do, and do not confuse this with some antienvironmental attitude. It is not. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and do the right thing for this country.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr Chairman, this amendment adds $22 million to the Indian Health Service to provide urgently needed medical service to the American Indians and Alaska Natives and to recruit and retain essential medical personnel for the provision of these services. As a Member who represents several Indian tribes, I have been on my reservations repeatedly to see the decrepit facilities that are currently in existence for Indian Health Services. I happen to be very involved in the diabetes issue. Alaska Natives and American Indians are 2.8 times as likely to have diagnosed diabetes as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. Nine percent of all American Indians and Alaska Natives 20 years or older have a diagnosis of diabetes. Between 1991 and 1997, the prevalence of diabetes increased to an all major high. Indian tribes in every single State in which Indian populations reside have terrible health problems, from dental problems to diabetes problems, to heart disease. It is an epidemic in some cases around this country. Diabetes is prevalent among Native Americans, in some cases at a rate of 65 percent of a particular tribe. It is a disgrace. Anybody who has been on an Indian reservation, whether it is in my State or elsewhere, and looks at the Indian health care facilities is stunned to see how bad they are. This is a good expenditure of $22 million. Goodness knows they need it. It can be used to the benefit of the Indian population, American Indians and Alaskan natives. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues that this is a good expenditure of money for an account in this bill that is woefully underfunded. The President's budget has been previously terribly underfunded for the Indian populations in this country. We owe them that. We owe them $22 million. Let us serve the needs for diabetes and dental health care and other health care needs of our Indian population.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I just want to assure the gentleman that I am one who increased NEH in conference last year, and perhaps the way to handle this is to deal with it in conference when we have a chance to analyze how much money there is and is not and have a chance to work through it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to commend the gentlewoman for her wonderful speech and her wonderful remarks and her heartfelt feelings about the arts in this country. I have many of the same feelings despite what this amendment may mean to her. And I know all of us feel passionately about how to spend the taxpayer dollars. It is tough. We are in the majority. We have to make this budget fit together. There was a comment earlier about how much money we spend on Indian health care. We are $30 million of an increase from last year. It could be $500 million that we need to spend. I would spend it gladly. This House has been energized by the idea that Indian health is a problem in this country. I will respect the gentlewoman's feelings about having kids see the arts. I am a dad. I know. But I also feel passionately that as I see little Indian kids suffering, and I mean this, I have spoken at diabetes health care conferences for Indian health in San Diego and elsewhere in this country. It is a dramatic problem. If we were all king and queens, we could wish more money everywhere. But we cannot. So my sense is this: There is $22 million I think that Indian health care kids and families would benefit from. That is a priority of mine. I voted for the National Endowment for the Arts allocation in this country. We are dealt the hand we are dealt. We have to make this budget fall together. We want to pay down this national debt. We want to save Social Security. Our defense condition is in trouble right now. So we cannot do it all. This, I believe, is a better expenditure of money. When you look at the relative value, I think this is a better expenditure. That is my view. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a different view. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has a different view. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) feels differently. So does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). God bless us. That is the way we are able to be in this House. We make judgments, and we make our best judgments. But I hate to have you all ascribe bad motives to us or trickery or fooling with the system. I really feel this is the best expenditure. That is why I offered the amendment. I reject anybody who says that there is any other motive. This is my best judgment based on the people that I represent and the needs that I see out in this country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) greatly. He is a good person, but he does not need to do this with respect to impugning my motives. When we did not have $22 million in this account when we were voting on it in the committee. And my friend knows it. There is $22 million sitting here. I have made my best judgment as to how it can be spent. If we would have been sitting in the committee, I probably would have put it with diabetes research. That is one of my great things. Or defense spending. Or education spending.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Again, I voted for a $30 million increase from last year. I did not vote for a cut. The President's budget has been lower for years. He comes up higher this year, and you say it is a cut.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered as an opportunity to have the House take a second look at the debate that occurred earlier with respect to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. We have had a chance for the House to be fully informed, Members on both sides of the aisle, with respect to the particular amendment that was debated earlier. I have had a chance to emphasize the importance of this issue to us in the northwest and the western States; and after deliberation, I felt it was appropriate that with that additional understanding that the House would have a chance to reconsider its prior judgment with respect to my amendment, and I believe again it is an important amendment to us in the West. I think it is appropriate that it be considered by the House and I would urge the adoption of the amendment so that this bill can move forward and proceed to conference and then we can have a complete discussion of all the issues in the bill at that time.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I had previously intended to offer an amendment to this bill, which would increase the Star Schools Program up to last year's funding level of about $51 million. My amendment would have increased this program a little over $5\1/2\ million with offsets proposed for administrative costs in the Department of Education. I have decided not to offer the amendment formally, but to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of our subcommittee to get some assurance that this issue will be considered in conference. The purpose of the Star Schools Program is to capitalize on new interactive communication technologies which allow educators to improve instruction in mathematics, in science, foreign languages, adult literacy and other subjects, especially to traditionally underserved students. The Stars Schools Program was first authorized in 1988 and was reauthorized most recently under title III of the Improving America's Schools Act. The program allows the Office of Educational Research and Improvement to make grants for a duration of 5 years, allows the authority to make awards to special statewide projects and special local projects. The program has been really a very effective program in my district, the east side of the State of Washington. It has provided services to more than 6,000 schools in every State, the District of Columbia, and several territories. About 1.6 million learners have participated in the student staff development parental and community-based activities produced under the Stars Schools Program. I visited the STEP Star Program in Spokane, Washington, which is the Star Schools Program offered by Educational Service District 101 in my 5th Congressional District of Washington. The program is tremendously impressive, and I must say we held a town hall meeting with several schools in rural communities outside of the Spokane area, and it was very effective. I especially commend the work of ESD 101 Superintendent Terry Munther and Government Affairs manager Steve Witter. We could have interactive communication and discussion of not only issues of the day, but the opportunity for students in local, rural communities to have the same opportunities to learn as students in urban communities. It is a very great program. It is well operated. It services children as it should, regardless of geographic location. So I am delighted that the chairman of the subcommittee is willing to enter into this colloquy and to talk a little bit about this, and allow me to say a few words in support of the program, because I think if we had a vote on it, we would have a good chance of passage; but I do respect the process here of trying to make sure we stay within our budget limitations, but also try to solve the funding issues that affect very serious programs like this one in the conference. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the assurance of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) that we will seek to increase funding for the Stars Schools Program up to the level of last year to the extent that we can during the conference with the other body.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo the comments of my colleague from Washington State, not just on the term limits issue but most specifically his warm phrase for our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I have been on this subcommittee all the time that I have served in this body the last 5\1/2\ years. The gentleman from Ohio was my chairman, my first chairman as the Subcommittee on Interior assignment was made, one that I have thoroughly enjoyed, not just because of working with colleagues on my own side of the aisle but colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well. I think it is significant that not only the predecessor chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Yates, but the current ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have such high praise for the work and the commitment of the gentleman from Ohio to the good work of the Subcommittee on Interior. I speak not only for the gentleman from Ohio's expertise in learning and understanding and knowing and having good judgment about the intricacies of this bill and the specifics of it because it is so vitally important to the soul of this Nation. It not only covers the arts and the humanities but the parks and the recreation efforts and really the maintenance of the national treasures that are under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Interior, but it really speaks, I think, very highly that these men and these people who serve on this subcommittee on opposite political sides of the aisle but on the same human side having respect and admiration for our chairman. It is sort of a bittersweet time that the chairman will not be the chairman after this year, but I again join my colleagues in appreciating the legacy he has left. Not only has he been a gentleman to me, but he has been a gentleman to every single member of the subcommittee and every single Member of this House. He is also a gentleman to his staff. This committee staff is here. You can tell the value of a Member in some measure by the value that the staff places upon that Member. This staff loves this Member. They respect him as we all do, and they love him dearly. So they have committed themselves not only to the cause of good government regardless of party but the cause of the good leadership of the gentleman from Ohio. He has been one who has treated every Member with respect, not arrogance or not dismissal but respect. I think that is the sign of a good leader. It is the sign of a good Member of this body. It is the real charge and responsibility of any chairman regardless of party. You do not see partisan politics playing a part most of the time, 99 percent of the time, with this chairman. He is trying to be evenhanded with respect to all Members. I listened to the gentleman from Colorado tonight speak on the rule and state that he was grateful for the inclusion of some provisions in this bill after working with this chairman and our subcommittee but was opposed to the bill. A narrower-minded chairman might have said, ``Well, if you're not going to support my bill, your provisions are not going in this bill.'' But this is the modern era of fairness in politics, I hope, and I expect, and I believe, especially with the gentleman from Ohio at the helm. I join not only the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) but virtually every single Member of this body in paying tribute to the gentleman from Ohio, thanking him profusely for all the good work that he has done and his commitment to the interior jurisdiction of this government, this Congress and trying his best and our best to have the best bill that can ever come out of this House as it relates to the national treasures of our public lands.