George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, in my previous statement in support of H.R. 2561, I addressed the much needed funds for KC-135 tanker aircraft that this bill provides. It is my hope that the Air Force will look at locating these reengined National Guard aircraft consistent with ongoing total force initiatives to maximize Guard and Active efficiencies through enhanced integration and commonality of equipment. I am also supportive of the quality of life initiatives contained in this legislation. We have provided for significant increases in spare parts, $453 million over the request, equipment repair, $279 million over the request, and real property maintenance, $854 million over the request. We also provide an additional $88 million for soldier support equipment, such as cold weather clothing and initial issue equipment. Spare parts, well-maintained facilities and quality equipment is as important to a soldier's morale as a pay raise, and this bill meets both requirements. As Chairman of the Diabetes Caucus, I am pleased that the bill also supports a continuing project with the Joslin Diabetes Center, which serves to enhance the lives of military personnel and their dependents. The partnership with Joslin will reduce human suffering and health care costs associated with diabetes for DOD personnel and VA beneficiaries, using strengths in the areas of research, detection, prevention and managed care protocols. This legislation will meet critical modernization and quality of life needs and deserves the support of all members.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for the good work that has been done on this bill, as well as express appreciation to the ranking member to try to put this bill together in a way that is fair for all parts of the country who have issues relating to energy and water, especially the work that has been done, Mr. Chairman, on addressing of the salmon restoration funding in the Pacific Northwest. There are tight fiscal constraints in this year's budget, and I appreciate the effort that has been undertaken to address those issues of salmon restoration. The Pacific Northwest has numerous salmon species listed as endangered or threatened, and the committee has expressed concerns about the money spent on restoration efforts. In fact, last year the subcommittee provided $7 million for Columbia fish mitigation efforts by the Corps of Engineers and included report language that questioned the amount of money that has been spent on fish mitigation efforts. Mr. Chairman, we are delighted that we are making progress in the region, and I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to provide $65 million in funding for Columbia River fish mitigation efforts. We must continue to look at all options for recovering salmon, including addressing predation by Caspian Terns, thoroughly evaluating ``PIT'' tag research, and to encourage the Corps of Engineers to make improvements to the current hydroelectric system to improve salmons' survival success rate. It is critically important to the Northwest. I also appreciate the efforts the gentleman has made to address my concerns regarding section 317 of this bill, since it was marked in the full committee last week. I am still concerned about the interpretation of the language, but I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the clarification of the intent that appears in this bill. The Federal Power Marketing Administration, such as BPA, Bonneville Power Administration, provides power in the Pacific Northwest. They are interconnected to other transmission systems. In the case of BPA, the transmission lines are interconnected by areas such as California and Wyoming, and even Canada, and were mandated by law to maintain the safety and reliability of the transmission system. There are times in these remote areas when power marketing administrations may be the only utility capable, because of manpower and having necessary equipment, of restoring downed transmission lines. PMAs may do this for a public or private utility, thereby expending ratepayer funds, but the operations are done based on reciprocal contracts. In the case of BPA, the ratepayers are reimbursed by the incumbent utility for their work. So I appreciate the clarification, Mr. Chairman, that has been done with respect to PMAs providing these kinds of services. I am concerned that the language would be interpreted to prohibit PMAs, including BPA, from providing these reciprocal agreements and could hinder the reliability of the system, especially for remote and rural customers. I appreciate the gentleman's help in this regard.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Defense Subcommittee, I am proud to support the outstanding package that we put together under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha. H.R. 2561 improves on the President's request by adding $2.8 billion for critical defense initiatives. Equally important, when supplemental funds are included, this bill provides the first consecutive year increase in defense spending since 1985. Despite these slight increases, we were forced to make many tough choices in this bill. Persistent underfunding of defense needs and an extraordinarily high operations tempo generated an unfunded request list from the services chiefs totalling some $7 billion. In this legislation we have the advantage of hindsight on Operation Allied Force, which exposed a number of urgent needs that are not addressed in the President's request. I am particularly pleased at what we were able to do for two platforms which I regard as enablers for the conduct of all military operations: tankers and jammers. H.R. 2561 provides $208 million for KC-135 reengining, allowing the Air National Guard to convert 8 aircraft with modern engines. The Kosovo operation showed clearly that we rely on KC-135 aerial refueling tankers for all air missions and both active and guard crews were hard pressed to support the campaign. These forty year old aircraft are the backbone of our global capabilities and new engines dramatically increase their capability, allowing a 25 percent increase in fuel offload capability, a 35 percent reduction in time to climb, a 23 percent reduction in take off distance, while also meeting current noise and pollution standards. Yet, the Air Force has refused to commit seriously to reengining these aircraft which are the legs of the entire service. In previous years, the Defense Subcommittee has wisely added funds for one or two kits a year, but more than 130 aircraft remain to be reengined. Unfathomably, in a period of dramatically increased global deployments, the Air Force has delayed conversions until 2002. This legislation meets the need and puts the Air Force on an economical path to actually integrate modern engines onto an aging airframe for which there is no proposed alternative. The bill also addresses the tactical aircraft jammer crisis. To pay the growing bills on the F-22, the Air Force sacrificed its entire fleet of EF-111A tactical jamming aircraft, leaving the entire DOD with a single platform, the EA-6B Prowler, to perform this essential mission. These aircraft were heavily utilized over Kosovo, performing 717 wartime sorties. But to meet the need, the Prowlers were stretched thin. Coverage of Korea was eliminated, safety standards were waived, spare parts were stripped from everywhere else in the world and squadrons on the East and West coasts were put on alert interfering with training. Two squadrons returning from 6 month carrier deployments were turned around and again deployed to Aviano, instead of seeing their families. In all, 12 of 19 squadrons were at-sea or deployed. The Kosovo operation showed that we simply do not have enough Prowlers to support our national strategy. The operation also revealed other deficiencies that must be corrected. EA-6Bs are not night-vision capable, which requires air crews to fly with external lights, illuminating them to adversaries. They have no data link capability and thus have difficulty discerning the location of friendly and enemy aircraft. And while DOD acknowledges that within 10 years we will face a severe inventory problem, there is no plan to address this issue. Our bill provides $227 million to fund a package of improvements to the fleet. We have included night vision equipment, simulators, a data link capability and funding for a follow-on replacement aircraft. As with the KC-135, this is a national capability that is readily recognized but unsupported by DOD because of limited modernization funds. The lessons of Kosovo demonstrate the importance of both platforms and I strongly support the Committee's actions on these two aircraft. The Committee has managed to address many such modernization shortfalls in this bill while also providing for quality of life initiatives. The bill fully funds the 4.8 percent pay raise and supports pay table and retirement reform. We have increased the Basic Allowance for Housing by $225 million. Our continued concern about pilot retention was reflected in a $300 million increase for aviation continuation pay. Retention is about more than pay however, and the report directs DOD to undertake a comprehensive quality of life study to provide a foundation for addressing other issues that have negative effects on unit morale and readiness. I believe this is an outstanding bill which addresses a wide range of critical, yet unfunded near-term priorities within the Department of Defense. It is essential that we act on the immediate lessons of Kosovo and by directing funding to such areas as tankers and jammers we have improved the overall capabilities of our forces. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am rising today to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because it seeks to ratify a decision by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior which restricts the acreage available for mining under the existing mining law and the existing interpretation of the metals mining law. This, pure and simple, is politics at its worst; and it is legislation being fomented by one person in the Department of Interior who seeks to manipulate the process of approval of mining claims and the conduct of mining in this country. Goodness knows that mining is under assault in any event. But the worst kind of assault is by one person in the Solicitor's Office who claims intellectual superiority over the Congress or anybody else in the country by his sole interpretation of the mining law relative to mining claims and millsites. Make no mistake about mining law in America today. It requires extensive environmental protection, analysis, review and approval both by Federal statute and by State statute. So what our friend down at the Department of Interior seems to want to do today is force this issue on this House and force the issue of his opinion on the mining interests and the mining jobs that are created all over this country but that are fast dwindling. In February of this year, the Solicitor issued an opinion, an opinion that would virtually overturn the 1872 mining law by allowing a miner one 5-acre millsite claim per mining claim plan to be developed. This is an unprecedented decision by the Solicitor and in over 100 years of analysis and interpretation of mining law the law has never been interpreted this way. In fact, our friend, the Solicitor, is expressing an opinion, and again it is an opinion, contrary to the long-standing Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service policy, which is directly contrary in the regulations of the Bureau of Land Management to the Solicitor's interpretation. So it is a nice try, but no sale because it is a misinterpretation and it is an aberration and it should be rejected by the House, by every one of us in the West who respect the mining interests that have been a tradition in the West for years. We ought to be offended by this. We are offended by it, and we ought to resist it. And the rest of the House should not be, shall I say, persuaded by the opinion, the opinion of one person downtown who wants to be dramatic in terms of affecting mining policy in this country. It is not an environmental issue, Mr. Chairman. Companies that are petitioning to operate mines and millsites must still go through, as I said a moment ago, strict environmental law. Stricter than they have ever been. Stricter today than ever in history. And goodness knows also that there needed to be some changes made in mining practices. But the sins of the past should not be presented here today in the present, because mining companies and the mining industry is an honorable business, and the mining companies and the small and large employees and employers who are affected by mining law comply to the strictest environmental requirements in history today. So what happened then is not now. But this Solicitor is living in the past. He has a bone to pick. He has a point of view. He has a particular persuasion relative to the goodness or badness of mining, and he is trying to persuade the rest of the country by one opinion, by an ill-advised opinion I must say, and persuade the House that he is right. Well, he is wrong, and the Solicitor is wrong, and the Department of the Interior is wrong, and it is outrageous that the Department would allow this to stand. So, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues all of us in the West and all of us across the country ought to be very concerned about one opinion trying to affect the industry of this country that has been an honest and honorable one and is currently a respectable environmental practice that is undertaken by companies across this country who are trying to mine the minerals and the resources of this country in a responsible way. We should reject this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2466, the fiscal year 2000 funding bill for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies. This bill provides $14.1 billion for the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Smithsonian, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And I am happy to say that based on the hard work of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and my colleagues, both the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and other valued members on the subcommittee, we have an opportunity to support a bill that will manage and protect our environment; it will maintain our obligations to our sovereign Indian nations; it will protect our Nation's cultural resources and maintain fiscal responsibility. It was not an easy task for the chairman of our subcommittee to come up with all of the pressures of this bill in the form that this bill takes. But it is a good package. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for inserting language that I authored in the report that will force the Pacific Northwest region, which covers my State of Washington, to look at all impacts to the endangered salmon problem in the Pacific Northwest and not just focus on dam removal as the solution to restoration of our salmon populations. It is not the solution. It is a multifaceted problem that requires a great deal of analysis and careful consideration. Right now our region faces an immediate challenge with almost 8,000 pairs of Caspian terns which nest on a man-made island called Rice Island, which is located 20 miles upriver from the mouth of the Columbia River. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that over the past 2 years these little birds have feasted on between 10 and 23 million juvenile salmon that are migrating out to the ocean. These birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for carrying out. I appreciate the committee working with me on report language that requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to come up with a mitigation plan that will include, but not be limited to, transporting these birds to areas that are more in line with their natural habitat. If we come up with a responsible plan for managing the Caspian terns, we will see a positive impact on the number of salmon returning to the Columbia and Snake Rivers to spawn. This is an important piece of the salmon restoration puzzle that we cannot ignore. I am also pleased that within our budget limitations we were able to increase funding for health care provided the Native Americans through the Indian Health Service. The health disparities among Native Americans are profound. One area in particular is diabetes that seriously affects Native American populations and other minority populations in our country. The prevalence of diabetes among Native Americans is higher than it is for the rest of the Nation's population, and the rate is rapidly increasing to epidemic proportions in some tribes across this Nation. For the second year in a row, we have provided funds in this bill for diabetes screening through the Joslin Diabetes Center, a great center dedicated to curing and doing more research and understanding the complications of diabetes. We have also included language in the report to increase the number of podiatrists within the Indian Health Service to attempt to avoid one of the major complications of diabetes through preventive care and early treatment of diabetic foot ulcers for Native American populations. Mr. Chairman, this bill contains a delicate balance for Forest Service funding and programs. As Members may remember, we reached a hard-fought agreement on this issue last year when supporters of active forest management agreed to eliminate the purchaser road credit program. That was a difficult problem to overcome, to eliminate that program. This program primarily affected small timber purchasers, many of which were in my district on the east side of the State of Washington. While the agreement held throughout the process last year, attempts may be made today to unravel that agreement. So I urge all Members, all of my colleagues who may consider supporting a Forest Service amendment, to think hard about the agreement that was reached in good faith last year. We should not destroy the accord that was achieved. All in all, this bill is well balanced. It considers carefully the delicate nature of the programs that are contained within the Interior appropriations measure. It is one that I hope will see great approval in this body. The chairman and the ranking member and all of us on the subcommittee worked very hard to make that balance occur. We still have to deal with the Senate. We have to get a bill that goes through the process to the President. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. On July 20, 1969, the lunar landing module of Apollo touched down in the Sea of Tranquility on the surface of the Moon. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended from the landing module and became the first humans to walk on any heavenly body. This feat established American supremacy in space even to the present day. The Apollo 11 mission represents the success and preeminence of the American Space Program; we must preserve the monuments of this era. Of all the artifacts representing the glory and triumph of the Apollo Program, one in particular stands out--the Saturn V Rocket. The Saturn V is the largest, most powerful rocket ever produced in history. The Soviet Union was never able to even attempt to undertake such an ambitious project. Only three Saturn V Rockets remain in the world today. The U.S. Space & Rocket Center is home to one of these historic vehicles which has the distinction of being designated a National Historic Landmark. The Saturn V at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center has been on display for thirty years, and the elements have caused significant deterioration of the vehicle. Although there is no question that it should be preserved for future generations as a monument of the American Space Program, once again we face budget constraints that make this task a difficult one. Restoration of the Saturn V at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center should be a priority of the Smithsonian. I am hopeful that we will be able to allocate the resources necessary for the restoration and preservation efforts being made by the U.S. Space & Rocket Center before it is too late.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) very much not only for his leadership on this issue of increasing medical research funding in the Government but for his leadership on so many issues. I am grateful to have a chance to talk for a few minutes to acknowledge not only his work but to acknowledge the need for additional medical research through the National Institutes of Health and other agencies of Government which conduct medical research. It is not a small matter that is defined and distributed to the National Institutes of Health for research only. It is a very big issue for not only the human condition in our country but also for other agencies that coordinate with the National Institutes of Health and in doing some very, very important research to try to cure diseases in this country. I happen to have a very serious interest in diabetes and recognize fully the cost of diabetes to society. Twenty-five to twenty-six cents out of every Medicare dollar goes for paying for the consequences of diabetes in our society. So, to the extent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and others in this body, both Democrats and Republicans, engaged in adding preventive care to the Medicare legislation that we set back in 1997 to allow for diabetes education and diabetes test strips, to allow for mammographies and colorectal exams and prostate exams for people in the Medicare population, that is a money saver. So with the preventive care effort that is undertaken by Congress, combined with the research that is being done at the National Institutes of Health, not only on diabetes but on many other diseases, we can reduce this cost to the Medicare system. So it is in our national best interest, in my judgment, that we devote more resources to the National Institutes of Health research and medical research through the National Science Foundation, through the VA Hospital system, through the Department of Defense, and other agencies of Government, the Centers for Disease Control, for example, and others, if we are going to help the human condition. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his work, and I am very serious about the hard work he has done to make increasing medical research funding a reality in our country. It is a wise expenditure of money, of the taxpayers' dollars, because it helps all of us. Diabetes, for example, is indiscriminate in touching not only minority races but the Caucasian population. It hits all ages and stages. It hits native American populations disproportionately to the rest of the populations in our country, and it is a cruel disease that affects so many people. Sixteen million Americans in our country have diabetes, and some 7 or 8 million of them do not know they have it. So not only diabetes but cancer and Alzheimer's and all those diseases that touch people's lives need to be cured. I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) I was out at the National Institutes of Health just last week and met with the Director Dr. Varmus and the other directors of the Institutes talking not only about diabetes but increasing funding. I mentioned to them at the time that I felt the President's budget, which I think is around 2.3 percent, is just inadequate. I know we did an extraordinary increase last year in the appropriations process, and I am proud to be on the Committee on Appropriations and supported it. But we want to do better than 2.3 percent so that we take advantage of these great opportunities for research and cure some of these serious diseases that affect all of us.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one moment more, the gentleman is absolutely right. If we add diabetes into that, that is some $80 billion or $90 billion more in cost to our country, not to say anything of the issue of lost productivity. A person who has Alzheimer's today is most likely an unproductive part of our society. If we can prevent that Alzheimer's or cure it, that person, that sufferer and that family that suffers with that person will be more productive and it will save money long-term. Just in the diabetes research, I should say the diabetes test strips and diabetes education money or provisions that were set forth for the Medicare program, my memory is that it was about a $31 million savings the first year of having that preventive component to health care. So I thank the gentleman for his good work. I am proud to be his partner in all of this. We will have to just work hard and persevere and help humanity by curing some of these diseases through research.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the ``Medicare Diabetic Foot Ulcer Care Improvement and Savings Act of 1999'' with my colleague from New York, Mr. LaFalce. This bill represents an important step forward toward providing people with diabetes with the advanced treatment they need to combat some of the complications experienced due to diabetes. We expect that it will also result in savings to the Medicare budget. The legislation would extend Medicare coverage to include advanced new therapies to treat diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Diabetes affects nearly six million Medicare beneficiaries and treatment for people with diabetes makes up about one-quarter of the Medicare budget--with $1.5 billion per year of that cost emanating from DFUs. The inclusion of such advanced therapies under Medicare would not only significantly improve the quality of care for beneficiaries with debilitating lower extremity wounds but also result in programmatic savings to Medicare. The Lewin Group study found that treatment with recombinant human growth factor gel results in faster and more complete wound healing. They estimate that Medicare would save at least $22 million in the first year alone in reduced DFU-related costs. This potential savings is in addition to the direct benefit to patients of better wound healing and less exposure to the risks of some of the more serious and expensive complications, such as hospitalizations, disability and amputations. A cure for diabetes is within our reach. In the meantime, the Federal government must avail itself of advances in treatment knowledge. In the private sector, new technologies have reduced both diabetes specific complications and overall health care costs. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation which would apply this knowledge to our Medicare program and benefit our Nation's seniors.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, regarding Federal Aviation Administration's acquisitions of transponder landing systems. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2084 and the accompanying committee report directs the FAA to acquire and install several transponder landing systems. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the intent of the report language also directs FAA to move immediately to commission these systems pending a successful in-service review and validation of TLS at the Watertown, Wisconsin, airport, and further, that FAA should perform the in-service review and validation at Watertown as soon as possible?

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia very much for allowing me to engage in this colloquy.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today, this week, children from every State in the Union have come to Washington to participate in the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Children's Congress. As the cochairman of the House Diabetes Caucus, which boasts 265 Members of this body who have dedicated themselves to trying to find a cure for diabetes, it is fitting that we pay tribute to these young people who came here today and participated in a ceremony on the west front of the Capitol to highlight the need to cure diabetes. This is not only an adult disease, it is a child's disease, a cruel children's disease that affects millions of people in this country. It is necessary, it is appropriate that this Congress devote adequate resources to try to find a cure for disease through research. So I am happy to join all the other Members of the caucus in saluting the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and all the children who participated here today. I am especially proud of Nancy Stockton, the delegate from Cheney, Washington. Nancy is a tribute to her family, her community and all young people with diabetes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to welcome to the House today Dr. Craig Barnes, the pastor of National Presbyterian Church, a church with a long and grand history in Washington, D.C. Dr. Barnes is not only a friend but serves as the pastor for me and my family here in the Nation's Capital. For those of us who come to Congress to serve for a time, to be able to find a church home away from home is indeed a blessing. In his worship commitment Craig Barnes brings to all who have the opportunity to hear him, or read his books, by the way, not only a thoughtful and wonderful message of faith but true belief in the grace of God. He has a unique way of clearing the fog away from confusion, despair and uncertainty that sometimes touches all of us in life and preach a message of hope as he ministers to those in need. Mr. Speaker, I am especially delighted that Dr. Barnes is here today and grateful that he would address the House.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 1999, I was absent after 6:30 p.m. to attend my son's junior high school graduation ceremony. I ask that the Record reflect that if I was present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 192, 193, 200, 201 and 202 and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 194 through 199 and 203.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, the policy of the United States of America for years has been to impose unilateral sanctions against trade between our Nation and other nations with which we might disagree on policy matters. The policy of sanctions imposed on other nations with which we might disagree on policy matters is outdated. In 1980, we saw the agriculture markets that were prominent for the United States with the Soviet Union, we saw them disappear with the imposition of unilateral sanctions against the Soviet Union. Representing agriculture as I do, we in the agriculture communities of this country have still not gotten back the markets that we lost in 1980 by virtue of the unilateral imposition of sanctions against the Soviet Union. There are today nations around this country upon which the United States has imposed unilateral sanctions that we are not doing business with, but other countries of the world are doing business with these countries and selling agriculture products and medicines to these countries. We cannot because of our outdated sanctions policy. What my amendment does is, it lifts those sanctions on all countries on which we currently have sanctions for food and medicine only. There is no way in today's world that food should be used as a weapon in international relations with other countries. It is inhumane, it is improper, and what it eventually does is damage the American agriculture community. My State of Washington exports roughly 90 percent of all the wheat that it grows in our State. We are an export State, and we feed the world. But yet our farmers, in a time of great challenge for American agriculture, are at a distinct disadvantage because we cannot sell to some of these sanctioned countries. What my amendment does is lift sanctions on all countries on which there are currently sanctions around the world as those sanctions relate to agriculture and medicine. They involve no direct Federal subsidies, these lifting of the sanctions, but it would allow our farmers to sell directly to sanctioned nations and sell our product. We are at a distinct disadvantage because other countries, our competitors for our farmers, are able to sell to those countries and provide food and medicine to those countries. Because of our outdated sanctions policy, American farmers cannot. This is wrong, it is something that should be changed. The market alone, the dollar market alone for our country and our American agriculture community is $6 billion that we would be able to bring into this country by virtue of sales to those sanctioned nations. Now, I understand the politics of dealing with a terrorist like Saddam Hussein, or the North Koreans or other countries on which we have sanctions and no trade relations. But yet as to agriculture and medicine, it seems to me this is bad policy, because it hurts our farmers. This amendment allows the President to reimpose those sanctions if for national security reasons he feels it is in the national security interests of our country to reimpose those sanctions. So there is a waiver provision in this amendment. This amendment received consideration in the full Committee on Appropriations, of which I am a member, and I am happy to be a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture. It was a wonderful debate. Democrats and Republicans alike debated this issue back and forth. The amendment unfortunately lost by a 28-24 vote. But it was a great debate and it is something we ought to have in this country as we decide how to help agriculture in the free market system as we are moving to under the farm bill and from a humanitarian standpoint how we ought to be dealing with people in these other nations who have corrupt governments but not corrupt people. This is a humanitarian amendment. I fully appreciate the point of order that is being raised against it, I understand that completely, and my friend from Florida and I have discussed this issue at length. I respect him greatly. I respect his views on this whole issue. I understand the likely success of this amendment. But I want to make the very serious point, that we in this country have to make a decision about whether we are going to continue to use food as a weapon and medicine as a weapon. We will be faced in this Congress with the likelihood that the agriculture interests of our country, because of depressed prices, because of depressed markets, will come to this body and say, ``We need more Federal assistance.'' If that is the case, then the logical free market way to get through this is to lift sanctions to allow sales to be made abroad from a free market standpoint. I want my colleagues to know how seriously I view this issue. I hope that the House will take this matter up at the appropriate time. Point of Order

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in light of the gentleman's insistence on a point of order.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one final point relative to this debate. It is a good debate, it is a debate that we all ought to be having. It is a debate that we all ought to be having in this country because it affects foreign policy issues, it affects economic issues for our country. Look what we do in North Korea. We are providing hundreds of millions of dollars of agriculture aid, food aid, at the expense of the taxpayer to a regime that I think by all accounts is a corrupt regime in North Korea. Now I would rather have our country purchase, I should say our farmers sell commodities to North Korea and other such regimes like Iran and Iraq and others with whom we disagree violently on policy issues, but who will purchase our grain and will purchase our apples and purchase our other products, peas and lentils and other foodstuffs that will help from a humanitarian standpoint feed the people of those countries and also feed our farmers in our rural agriculture economy. So on the one hand our country is giving food to North Korea. What I want to do as we debate this in the days ahead, and I am not as pessimistic as perhaps my friend from New York. I think this has a great chance to be enacted this year if enough people will show their concern and compassion for the issue, and debate it and pursue it very forcefully. I think this is the best policy for our country to deal with these regimes diplomatically very forcefully, but not punish them and us by not providing them food and medicine. I just will put a plug in here, Mr. Chairman, for H.R. 212. It is the sanctions relief bill that has been introduced, that I introduced, that has lots of cosponsors, and we can have the debate about which sanctions we ought to impose or not impose on which countries. But from a conceptual standpoint, from a policy standpoint, lifting sanctions is the best policy for American agriculture, and I hope this House will adopt this, and the other body as well, along with the President. This is good policy for our country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment, but not so much respect that I want to vote for it. In fact, I am going to oppose it, simply because what my friend from California just stated is absolutely true. What happens in this Market Access Program is this. Growers and consortiums, Sunkist for orange juice, TreeTop for apple juice, which is very prominent out my way in the State of Washington, get together and they decide how they can best promote their products overseas. They pay half the freight. The taxpayer pays half and the sponsor, the marketer, pays the other half. And that is what is fair about this program. It has been cut down dramatically since I have been in this House. I have seen Members on both sides of the aisle have some concern about this; people, by the way, who do not care much about agriculture and do not understand exports, but they have managed to whittle down this particular expenditure in the agriculture appropriations bill such that it is down to virtually very little when it can do so much. It can do so much. What I think the sponsor does not appreciate, and maybe others who might support this do not appreciate, is that when we submit this amount of money, the small amount of money relative to the rest of the agriculture budget for market promotion, for promotion of our products overseas, that has direct impact on the farmer. It has direct impact on rural America. And talking about big corporate welfare, that is not the case in this particular program. This helps the grower, the farmer, the person who works the land and presents a product that can be exported overseas and dramatically helps our balance of trade. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said, agriculture is a huge benefactor to the balance of trade. It helps our country by exporting products. So, number one, it is a small amount relative to what it used to be and what it is in the agriculture budget; number two, it helps the small farmer, it helps the grower; number three, it helps the American economy, especially the rural economy, because we are essentially buying shelf space and competing with European and other products around the world; and, finally, the governments of these other countries are subsidizing tremendous amounts of money to their growers and their producers to sell products in our country. So this is a small way, a fair shared way that our products can get on the shelf in Europe, and our growers, our producers, our farmers, our market system, the export market system can work in our country. So, again, I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). He is a good Member and has good ideas, but this one is one that should be defeated. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to congratulate him and the ranking member on this subcommittee, a subcommittee on which I am proud to serve, for their good work in trying to craft a bill that stays within the budget caps. Agriculture has some very difficult challenges this year and next, and what I hope this bill will do is provide adequate resources for our farmers, not only in the area of agriculture research, but in other areas in which we think the free market system has a better chance to work. One of the things I am disappointed that the bill does not contain, I am going to introduce an amendment later about it, is the issue of sanctions relief. I feel we need to be in a position to open world markets that are currently shut off from our farmers, and this may not be the vehicle, but we have to open those markets. So open markets, adequate funding of agriculture research, and there will be some challenges to that today, but I think we have to resist those challenges to government-funded research. It is critically important to our farmers. So, I urge support of this bill. I appreciate the good work of the gentleman from Mexico and the people of our subcommittee, and I urge its passage.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what we have to do one at a time. I think we have to make that judgment based on what we have before us. I have got an interest, a strong interest, in biomedical research, which is part of the Labor-HHS bill. That is extremely important to me. But I think we have to make tough choices, and so we are trying to make tough choices. The chairman has in this ag bill in staying within our caps, but as my colleagues know, we have got to get them passed, too. Mr. Chairman, we cannot just not pass something. This, as my colleagues know, we can fight this bill until the cows come home, but we got to get something passed, and that is the chairman's motivation, the chairman of the big committee, the full Committee on Appropriations' motivation, and as my colleagues know, we can look downstream and figure out what we are going to have to face. But let us face it, but let us pass these bills or else we are going to have nothing to pass until the end of the day.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I have listened to well-meaning people here today. The sponsor of the amendment certainly is, and the last speaker certainly was; my friend from North Dakota certainly is. But let us make sure we understand what we are really talking about here. All this discussion about senior citizens being hurt by something that we might or might not do relative to emergency spending or busting the budget caps or whatever the spending argument might be is just false. Nobody is going to hurt any senior citizens. Senior citizens are not going to be touched in this debate on Social Security. It is my generation that is going to be hurt. And the younger people who are baby boomers are going to have to face this Social Security issue. It is not going to affect senior citizens. We are not going to cut Social Security that affects their lives. We are talking about out to 2032, for goodness sakes. So I think that is a false argument as we talk about agriculture. My friend from North Dakota, as a strong advocate of agriculture and rural agriculture, like I am because I come from a district that depends on it, is mistaken relative to the farm bill of 1996 somehow causing the low prices around the world. That is nonsense in my judgment. What is happening is, we are in a world market economy that has some price depressions. It is not the farm bill that has caused problems for our farmers; it is the fact that we do not have markets, for crying out loud. My argument is, we ought to be lifting sanctions on those countries which we have previously traded with that have been good customers of our farmers, in a free market system, not more government control or more government regulation or more command and control farming for the government in our system. This free market system is a good one. Ask farmers. I have asked them, and they have told me: We like the system, but we have to have freedom to market our products overseas, and we do not have it right now, and we need less regulation at the Federal level, at the USDA level. That is what is going to save and help our farmers. So I am all in favor of making cuts wherever we can, but as my colleagues know, the chairman here has worked hard within our budget allocation to do what is right for agriculture. Most of this money in this ag budget goes for food stamps, WIC programs, as my colleagues know, food safety and other social sides of spending relative to agriculture. It is not the farmers that are getting some great windfall. The farmers are hurting. So the biggest part of this budget goes to the social spending side of agriculture which is lumped into the ag appropriations bill. So we are not going to hurt senior citizens in this process where certainly our farmers are needing help, but I think it can be done better in the market economy rather than in more government control. As my colleagues know, more regulations and rules at the Federal level are going to hurt our farmers and restrict them even more. So, Mr. Chairman, let us make sure we understand what we are talking here, and I understand the motivation of my friend from Oklahoma. He has got good motivation, but this bill is within our budget targets, and we are trying to do all we can for farmers as well as the WIC program and food safety and all the rest that is lumped into this very difficult challenge of trying to make the ag budget work and be balanced.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I do not have much time, but I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to support this bill, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. I really want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for his efforts in this regard. He has been a champion of private property rights for many years, I have known him for 23 years, and I respect him greatly. I represent the east side of the State of Washington, one-fourth of the size of our State, and in that portion of the State of Washington there are wonderful open space lands that people inhabit who are very protective of their private property rights. The right to own property is a core principle on which our country was founded. Over the years, the Federal Government has established programs like the World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves, without the approval of Congress, Mr. Chairman, and that overrides the intentions of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress retains the power to, quote, ``make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States.'' The lands designated under the World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves have been so designated without the approval of Congress. So this bill restores the intentions of our Founding Fathers by requiring congressional approval for any nomination of property located in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list. It prohibits any Federal official from nominating U.S. property for designation as a biosphere reserve and prohibits any Federal official from designating any land in the U.S. for a special or restricted use under any international agreement unless the designation has been authorized by law. It simply says Congress is going to be involved in this, these approvals of the disposition of Federal lands. I think they are common sense changes here that restore the role of Congress in the process of changing designation of lands that are Federal lands, and it restores the intentions of our Founding Fathers, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for their engagement and involvement in this.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, American agriculture today and rural communities today face an extraordinary challenge, the challenge of having farm policy change in 1996 with the consent and approval of this Congress and the consent and approval of the President of the United States for the good, to have an opportunity to have less farming for the government and more farming for the market. Overall, combined with the freedom that this new agriculture policy provides and the additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars for agriculture research with the movement toward reduction of Federal regulations that hampered the farmer's freedom to do what the farmer does best, and that is farm for the market and other changes that were made in the 1996 farm bill, it has overall been a good thing. What the American farmer faces today is low prices and lack of markets. Our farmers do not have the ability to market overseas the products that we grow so well in this country. My State of Washington is a perfect example, and the Fifth Congressional District is a more narrow example of a perfect example. That is, our farmers in the Fifth District grow wheat and barley and oats and peas and lentils and potatoes and apples, the best in the world. But yet most of our products, on our grain products and commodities, are exported overseas. My farmers are limited in those exports because of unilateral American sanctions on countries that used to be wonderful trading partners of Washington State farmers and agriculture in the West. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 212, earlier in this Congress as a priority matter for not only the farmers of the Pacific Northwest but the farmers of the country. What that bill does is lift the unilateral sanctions that are currently in place by our government that prevent our farmers from selling to countries that other farmers around the world can sell to. We used to have a fine market in wheat sales to Iran and Iraq and the Sudan and other places that are currently sanctioned. The sanctions are imposed because of our disagreements with the terrorist policies and the enemy policies of these governments. I disagree with those policies of those rogue nations that have used terror in the world and oppression in the world. But yet selling agriculture and medicine to those countries does not in my judgment pose a national security threat on our country. What it does as we unilaterally impose those sanctions is hurt our farmers. So H.R. 212 does two things. It lifts the sanctions that are currently in place for food and medicine only, and it gives the President the opportunity in the event that the President feels that lifting those sanctions poses a national security threat, the President has the ability to reimpose those sanctions on that basis. But in the meantime, it allows our farmers, then, to seek to reclaim those markets that we have lost by virtue of the sanctions. In 1980, President Carter imposed a sanction on the Soviet Union for political purposes. Who did that hurt? It hurt the Olympics, and the American interest in the Olympics, and it hurt American farmers, a market that was a prime market for my farmers in the West. We have yet to get that agriculture market back by virtue of those sanctions back in 1980. Yesterday in the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies on which I serve as a subcommittee member I introduced a narrower version of H.R. 212 which would lift of the sanctions on food and medicine for these countries that are currently sanctioned, but it would not allow any government spending in connection with the lifting of those sanctions. In other words, the taxpayer would not bear any of the burden for allowing our farmers to deal directly with those countries and make sales. It is a $6 billion plus market for our farmers in commodities as diverse as rice and corn and peas and wheat and barley. It is a great market that is exposed to our farmers. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, my friends on the appropriations subcommittee defeated this amendment by a vote of 28 to 24. It was a very close vote, but it was a great debate, and we ought to have that debate again on H.R. 212 and on this next version of this amendment that went into the appropriation bill yesterday. So, I urge my colleagues to study H.R. 212, study the concept of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. It is a humanitarian basis that is good policy for our country, and it will absolutely help our agriculture markets who are struggling to find markets overseas. One final point: In the event that we lift these sanctions and allow farmer-to-country correspondence and sales, it prevents the agriculture community that is in straits from coming to the Congress and seeking Federal tax dollars. It is the free market approach to agriculture success.