George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill today. As the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) stated, he and I and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and many others from farm country introduced this sanctions exemption legislation over a month ago in anticipation of the effect of the Arms Export Control Act upon the agriculture industry in this country. I, representing the State of Washington, am particularly affected by the seriousness of this sanctions policy that was adopted in 1994. I must say, I was just home in Pullman, Washington, and Walla Walla and Davenport, and some of the very high quality farm wheat-producing parts of my State and our country. I must say to my colleagues, there is great concern about the effect of sanctions upon American agriculture; most particularly, our relationship with the countries of Pakistan and India. Pakistan is a very important trading partner to the State of Washington. We export 90 percent of our wheat in our State, soft, white wheat, and Pakistan has been a very good customer. As we in this country have learned in the 1980s with the embargo of the Soviet Union, the self-imposed embargo, the unilateral sanctions that were imposed cost my State and my region dramatically. We lost market share in that part of the world that we are still struggling to recover. I must say, I am very supportive of this bill. We struggled with the cost issue. We passed this legislation, we not only introduced it a month or so ago but we passed it in the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies on which I serve on the Committee on Appropriations in a bipartisan way, we passed it in the full committee, and it has passed the full House. We just did not have a chance to get it worked out on a cost payment basis through the agriculture appropriations conference. The Senate has not finished their work yet. The other body has not finished its work yet. I respect the other body for bringing this bill to the floor, but we are going to do our best to make sure that all is fair and square regarding cost. The most important thing is if Pakistan buys wheat on the market Wednesday, tomorrow, with their tender, it is critically important that we do not interrupt that ability by Pakistan to deal with American farm interests. If we do not lift these sanctions and have it in place by today, then we lose. Our farmers are unilaterally going to lose because our market would be shut off by these sanctions in position. I must say to my colleagues, let us struggle through the cost part of this sanctions issue and lifting the sanctions issue, but we must stand up for our agricultural interests and the farmers of my State and Nebraska and Kansas and every other State that deal with agriculture, or else our farmers are in great jeopardy. I am pleased to speak in favor of this bill, and urge its adoption by this House.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4103. I am proud to serve on the National Security Subcommittee on Appropriations and would like to first acknowledge the outstanding work of Chairman Young and Mr. Murtha in putting together this legislation that meets so many needs while still falling under our budget limitations. The subcommittee staff also deserves recognition, having worked long hours scrubbing this bill to maximize every defense dollar. This bill devotes substantial resources to improving the working conditions for our men and women in uniform. Increased funding for maintenance and spare parts has been a priority for our subcommittee and this year was no different. The Administration consistently underfunds these accounts and the Services always identify requirements that exceed the request. I was pleased that we were able to add more than $200 million over the President's request for aviation spares, $300 million for real property maintenance, and $500 million for base operations and support. This bill provides substantial funds for research and development which will rapidly move next generation technology into the field. Our combat forces will have a substantial edge over opponents in the future because of the investments this bill provides for weapons research as well as for medical research. Enhancing the survivability of those who serve should be our first priority, and I strongly support research which benefits this end. I am pleased that the Committee supported funding for promising ultrasound research, which may revolutionize trauma care by stopping battlefield hemorrhaging with ultrasound waves. The Committee also funded substantial research to address the growing threat posed by chemical and biological weapons. One innovative approach that is funded in this bill would utilize photoacoustic signatures to detect harmful toxins. I am proud that both of these projects will be conducted at the Spokane Intercollegiate Research and Technology Institute, an emerging regional leader in science and technology research. Medical research also benefits military readiness and morale by ensuring that soldiers in the field stay healthy, while their families are taken care of at home. As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I support a research project in this bill which will contribute substantially to our understanding of diabetes. The legislation provides a $6.4 million for the second year of a 2-year pilot demonstration project [PE# 630002] with the Joslin Diabetes Center, a world leader in diabetes research. This joint project with the Army is pursuing critical research, and soldiers and their families will realize substantial benefits. This Subcommittee has devoted significant attention to the issues of information security and the Year 2000 problem. The Administration has told the Services to take care of this problem out of hide and didn't request any additional funding, even though January 1, 2000 is only 17 months away. Despite optimistic projections from the services and reassurances from the Administration, reports from GAO, the Defense Science Board and Congressman Steven Horn have unanimously proclaimed that current progress is inadequate. Failure of defense systems could be catastrophic and I do believe that identifying funding for this situation is an emergency. But this bill also contains strong language which will contribute to a Y2K solution. No new funds can be spent on developing or modernizing any information technology system unless it is certified as Y2K compliant. The bill also requires the Department to develop contingency plans for Y2K failure and directs aggressive testing and simulation to ensure that we are ready in time. This is an excellent bill, Mr. Chairman. While there are still many unfunded requirements facing our armed forces, this legislation does an outstanding job of addressing the highest priorities within the constraints of the Balanced Budget Agreement. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support this agriculture appropriations bill and to salute the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and, most especially, the people on our subcommittee, but also in addition the great professional staff that has assisted in putting this bill together, which been such a good resource for all of us who serve on this committee. In particular, we have had a rather arduous undertaking to work through the issue of sanctions exemption that appear in this bill, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) mentioned in her opening statement. Fundamentally, this sanctions language is going to be of great assistance to the agriculture community in this country. The industry, the economy of agriculture, has never been more important with regard to low wheat prices in the West and across the country for other commodities. It is insane that our country would impose unilateral sanctions on the industry that is there to provide food and fiber and assistance to people who are hungry, not only in our country but in all countries of the world, not the least of which are Pakistan and India, which deal very prominently with my State of Washington, in the export of wheat products and wheat to Pakistan. It is a huge market for us, and for the law to impose unilateral sanctions seems to me wrongheaded. What we tried to do on the subcommittee was to provide the fastest method possible to get the sanctions exemption under the Arms Export Control Act, so we added it to the agriculture appropriations bill, and, through a bipartisan effort, not just within our committee, the subcommittee and the full committee, but outside the committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from North Dakota Mr. Pomeroy), the gentleman from Kansas Mr. Moran), the gentleman from my own State of Washington Mr. Hastings) on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Montana Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. (LaHood) and many others, who got involved in saying we must exempt these sanctions from agriculture. It is in the bill, it is a very important measure, and I am delighted it was able to stay through the assistance of a lot of people. Other than that, this is a bill that funds agriculture research very, very effectively. It goes above the President's request for budget approval of agriculture research and it restores the facilities that were reduced in the budget by the President to Prosser, Washington, and Mandan, North Dakota, which are two very important facilities that will very much help agriculture and agriculture research. One of the things we passed when we adopted the farm bill two years ago was that we assured the farmers that we must have a strong agriculture research component if the freedom to farm concept was going to be successful. Not only research, but tax relief and exports. Those three components were the most important, as well as regulatory reform. This bill restores some of that agriculture research funding that is so critical to agriculture research and the success of the agriculture economy across the country. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of the special grants. I know it is nice to say ``Let's have everything peer-reviewed,'' but there are some areas of the country that have unique disease programs or yield problems that need a special grant. So I am here to argue very forcefully in favor of special grants, some of which benefit my Pacific Northwest region of the country, but other regions of the country as well. That is a very important component of this bill. One other thing that I think is very important that is not precisely agriculture-related but affects the welfare of people around the country has to do with diabetes. In the bill we have language that would provide for a pilot demonstration project to rural residents of Hawaii and Washington. They will get access to state-of-the-art health technology and education related to diabetes and diabetes complications through the existing Extension Service county office structure and communications system. Josslin Diabetes Center, located in Boston, Massachusetts is recognized as the world leader in diabetes research and clinical care. It is going to lend its technology and advanced care pilot program not only through the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, but through the Department of Agriculture. It is going to help Native American people all over this country if we can have this diabetes demonstration project undertaken. Remember, diabetes affects all races and religions. It especially hits our minority populations, and through this Extension Service assistance, diabetes research will be advanced and people will be helped. We are going to restore PL 480 programs in this bill. We are going to restore the market access program. We are going to have food distribution program language through the Department of Agriculture that is going to greatly help Native American children. We now give fatty foods through our program under the Indian reservation distribution program, and, with the language that we have imposed here, the Department of Agriculture will be working with the Indian Health Service in trying to work through and make sure we give good food to these Indian children, who are the beneficiaries of this food program, all be they laudable, but we want to be sure these kids are not unnecessarily treated to diabetes. So, overall, this is a great bill. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from New Mexico Mr. Skeen) and all the professional staff and the full Committee on Appropriations looked very carefully at this bill, and we very much support it. I urge all of my colleagues to resist many of these amendments that would change this bill. Let us pass it today and really assist American agriculture to the greatest extent that we can.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to object to this amendment because it is going to have a negative impact on the Wildlife Services Research Center and the mission of the wildlife services in my State and other Western States. Let me just explain to my colleagues that reading from a story that appeared on June 22, Monday, in USA Today, it headlines, ``Arson Fires Ruin Two Agriculture Department Research Stations.'' The fires occurred in my State over on the west side of the State near Olympia, Washington. They were reported to cause $400,000 worth of damage to these two research facilities that are used for animal damage control. They are in the animal damage control buildings. The buildings were gutted. This are clearly arson and the investigators are looking into the possibility that animal rights or other protest groups were involved. So my suggestion is that this amendment sort of feeds into that idea that any research that is conducted at the Federal level that looks at animal pest control or animal predatory control is bad money expended. I reject that argument. About a dozen State and Federal employees out of these two wildlife research centers develop repellents to keep animals such as deer, elk and beaver away from timber in the early stages of growth. So this whole idea that somehow wildlife services are bad or somehow a subsidy for the control of these kinds of problems is just wrong. I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just listened to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), speak a moment ago about subsidies for agriculture, and agriculture never changes. I want to dispel everybody of that notion. This is silly. I do not know whether the gentleman from Tennessee voted for the farm bill or not, but if he did not, or if he did, and a majority of this House did, it made an agreement with people in wheat and peanuts and sugar and the rest to change this system gradually. There is nothing wrong with that. The commitment is to the farmer. It is easy to say, let us cut everybody off tomorrow. That is fine. I am not one for great subsidies, either. But in the farm bill, we said we were going to gradually make an agreement to eliminate any assistance over a period of years. We did it with peanuts, we did it with wheat, we did it with sugar. We should stick with it. My argument to anybody who wants to object and wants to change the agreement we made in the farm bill that the majority of this House voted upon, and the President signed into law, is stick with the commitment. Stick with the commitment to gradually adjust our thinking in this country relative to agriculture. That does not mean change peanuts or change sugar or change wheat overnight. It is stick with the agreement. That is what I object to on this amendment is that we are suddenly saying, let us get more pure, and we are going to change this overnight. A commitment is a commitment with the farmers of this country. We ought to stay with it. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation on behalf of more than thirty original cosponsors to exempt federally guaranteed agricultural commodities from the application of sanctions under the Arms Export Control Act. Recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan forced the Administration to impose sweeping economic sanctions on both countries, with potentially devastating consequences for American agricultural exports to South Asia. Under the terms of the Arms Export Control Act, the President has very little flexibility in the imposition of sanctions. When a non- nuclear weapon state detonates a nuclear device, the U.S. government is required to terminate sales of defense articles, end foreign military financing, oppose all loans from international financial institutions, and prohibit all commercial loans from U.S. banks, except for the purchase of agricultural commodities. The Act also requires the government to deny any credit guarantees or financial assistance by any department or agency. This sanction could effectively cut off any federally guaranteed agricultural exports to either India or Pakistan. These new sanctions come at a difficult time for many American farmers, who are experiencing historically low grain prices, and who could now be locked out of a market of 1.1 billion consumers. Some of these sanctions may have a place, and U.S. interests are certainly served by limiting the flow of technologies and financing that contribute to weapons proliferation. But having failed to deter nuclear testing, what continued purpose do the broader, unilateral sanctions serve? If international competitors quickly fill the market that the U.S. has unilaterally abandoned, the effects of most sanctions will be negligible. In a classic case of unintended consequences, the sanctions on both India and Pakistan may severely impact certain sectors of the American economy while having relatively little consequence on the target nations. I am particularly concerned about sanctions which deny all U.S. credit guarantees to both nations, a prohibition which could unintentionally punish American agricultural producers. Export credit guarantee programs administered by the Department of Agriculture are a critical tool for foreign agricultural sales, but the Arms Export Control Act could effectively cut off any federally guaranteed exports to either India or Pakistan. Such sanctions come at a difficult time for many American farmers, who are experiencing historically low grain prices, and who could now be locked out of a market of 1.1 billion consumers. The issue goes beyond the specific programs guaranteed through the Department of Agriculture by undermining American's reliability as a supplier. Sanctions introduce an uncertain element that makes our trading partners reluctant to do business with us when more consistent, reliable trade partners are available. International competitors have already indicated a willingness to fill orders for American agricultural commodities. Our farmers lose twice in this situation--we miss the first sale and will have difficulty convincing the governments of India and Pakistan to buy from us in the future. This legislation provides a necessary clarification of applicable sanctions under the Arms Control Export Act. While I believe that the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to make this determination, the terms for an exemption remain unclear and require codification. This effort must be part of a larger process of reviewing the effectiveness and hidden costs associated with unilateral sanctions. Legislated, mandatory sanctions force diplomatic flexibility to the side in favor of a chainsaw approach to carving out foreign policy positions. The Arms Export Control Act has forced the President into a corner and marginalized the role of the United States in South Asia. Pulling India and Pakistan away from the precipice of armed confrontation will require an element of delicate maneuvering that should be accommodated in the U.S. Code.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise my colleagues that representatives of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation will be meeting with each of you today to advocate more Federal funding for diabetes research to cure this very serious disease. Diabetes is one of the leading causes of death and disability in America. Now these JDF representatives are not paid lobbyists. They are individuals from all walks of life, of Democrat and Republican Party affiliation. They are male and female, Democrats, Republicans, of all religions, and only caring about one thing. That is curing diabetes. They will tell you their personal story about diabetes. They will ask you to become a member of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, which now numbers 159 Members. They will ask my colleagues to show that they care about diabetes. So I urge my colleagues to welcome these individuals to your offices, listen to their stories, fund the Federal research to cure diabetes, and welcome them to Capitol Hill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, the death tax is one of the most egregious forms of taxation. Frank A. Blethen, publisher of The Seattle Times, gave a compelling speech on May 14, 1998, on this subject at the Family & Independent Owners Conference in Washington, D.C. I rise today to bring the attention of all Members to Mr. Blethen's remarks, a summary of which follow. After hearing his comments, I urge all Members to support repeal of the death tax. If repeal of a specific tax would actually decrease the federal budget deficit, wouldn't you think such repeal would be a non-partisan Congressional and White House priority? If repeal that tax would result in saving our country's family-owned businesses, including most minority and female owned businesses, wouldn't you think that such repeal would be the highest priority of every state's Congressional delegation, and every local community's Chamber of Commerce? If Congress had an easy way to create jobs, stimulate the economy and to be the champion of families, wouldn't you think they would jump at the chance? And, if in addition to job growth, the repeal of this tax stimulated other actions that our nation covets like long-term business investment, philanthropy, and saving money, wouldn't you think Congress would jump at the opportunity? Repeal would turn one of our country's most harmful public policies into a powerful positive public policy overnight. So why isn't Congress jumping at the opportunity? Simply put, too few people understand, or appreciate, the negative economic impact of the Federal Estate Tax. And too few people understand the substantial economic and public benefit, which would come from repeal. Most people, including many family businesses still misperceive the tax as a ``benefit for wealthy people'' rather than the small and business public policy issue, which it is. Once one examines the facts, it is easy to see that this tax is very poor public policy because it destroys jobs, minority-owned and small businesses. Once politicians understand the devastating negative impact of the death tax on today's economy and on America's families, their perceptions will change. Smart politicians in both parties will position themselves as champions of families, family businesses and minority businesses. They will stimulate jobs and investment in our local communities while reducing the federal deficit. We need to create a new, accurate perception, that the death tax is, in fact, a very serious broad-based family and middle class issue as well as an economic and jobs issue. We need to educate people that this tax destroys family businesses, minority owned businesses, jobs, investment, and doesn't even contribute to the federal budget. We need to eliminate the perception that the death tax is a rich person's issue. Everyone has many opportunities to combine education with a grass roots effort. Death tax repeal will not negatively impact Federal budget revenue. The estate tax generates only 1% of the Federal budget (approx. $16 billion). 65% of that so-called contribution is spent on compliance and enforcement. Consequently, less than \1/3\ of 1% of the Federal budget revenue comes from this tax (approx. $5 billion). Repeal would dramatically help the economy and would reduce the Federal budget deficit. According to several studies at least 145,000 new jobs would be created in the first year of repeal, personal income would rise $8 billion annually, family businesses would stay in business, job preservation would be enhanced, and long-term investment would be enhanced. Plant and infrastructure investment would be enhanced and the trend in most industries towards consolidation would be reversed. Philanthropic giving would go up, minority-owned business would be preserved, female-owned business would be preserved, business innovation, and creativity would be stimulated, and savings would increase. Primarily because of the death tax 70% of family business don't survive the first generation, 87% don't survive the second generation, less than 5% survive the third generation, and this misguided tax is the primary reason for the inability of minority owned businesses to perpetuate themselves. The burden of this public policy now falls on the middle class. When workers are laid-off and family businesses fail, the negative trend towards a two-tier society is accelerated--encouraging corporate takeovers and the consolidation of industries. This leads to workplaces characterized by layoffs, job reduction and disinvestment. The death tax started early in the 20th century targeted at a few super rich families. Most people still believe this is a ``soak the rich'' law and that repeal would only benefit the rich. Most Americans are appalled that the death tax rate is 55% and that everything it applies to has already been taxed at least once. What can you do? Educate yourself. Contact and lobby your Congress person and Senator. Identify and work with key Congressional staffers. Lobby the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee. work with your local chamber and the U.S. Chamber, as well as any other business association you have a relationship with. Inform other industry groups. Contact and educate other family business owners. Use and promote the use of the free print ads we have developed at the Seattle Times. Use and promote the death tax web site (deathtax.com) [The Seattle Times was found in 1896 by Alden J. Blethen. The newspaper is currently owned and operated by 4th and 5th generation family members. Six members of the Blethen family are employed full- time, three of whom are long-term members of senior management; another family member is actively involved in governance; and four more are employed during the summer. The Seattle Times is the largest evening newspaper left in the country. It is one of a handful of locally owned, family-owned metropolitan newspapers left in America. The Times and Blethen family are committed to perpetuating local, family ownership in spite of the overwhelming pressures to sell to large, public, foreign owned newspaper chains and despite personal and corporate resources that are drained away from the business and the community to deal with the estate tax. Individual family members have foregone significant personal wealth to continue family, local ownership. Fourth generation deeply involved with estate planning since 1975.]

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Police Week to recognize the service of all the law enforcement officers in the 5th Congressional District of Washington who have answered the call to public service. Society places large responsibilities on our law enforcement officers and they perform tasks well beyond the call of duty. They are often the first contact individuals have with government. They should be commended for the great wisdom and compassion they show when assisting individuals during times of great personal sorrow. By nature of their profession, law enforcement officers encounter individuals every day who reject every moral and ethical code of conduct. In some cases, police risk their lives, emotional well-being and future happiness to ensure that our laws our enforced. They should be commended for their samaritan service. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement is not a profession for everyone, but it is a worthwhile calling. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take some time this week to thank a law enforcement officer in their community for all the hard work and dedication they give us all.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Drug-Free America Task Force, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous organizations and individuals interested in finding ways to reduce drug use. One of the studies that caught my attention was a study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. It stated that a 12-year-old who smokes marijuana is roughly 80 times more likely to use cocaine than one who does not, adults who as adolescents smoked marijuana are 17 more times likely to use cocaine regularly, and 60 percent of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use cocaine. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the key to reduce overall drug use is to find ways to curtail the number of our children who use drugs. As a parent, I realize that the lifestyle decisions my wife and I make will impact our children. Our children are fortunate that they have had a good example set for them, but there are many kids whose parents or other role models send them the wrong message that drugs are acceptable by their own drug use. I believe the government has an obligation to punish more severely those who influence the children of America by using or possessing drugs in their presence. Mr. Speaker, the Save Our Children Act, which I am introducing today, sends a strong message that drug use or possession of drugs around children will not be tolerated. Under current law, there are enhanced penalties for the distribution of a controlled substance to persons under age 21 by persons over age 18 (21 U.S.C. 859); employment of persons under age 18 for violation of the Controlled Substance Act or unauthorized distribution to a pregnant individual (21 U.S.C. 861) and distribution or manufacturing of a controlled substance in or near schools, colleges or youth-centered recreational facilities (21 U.S.C. 860). The Save Our Children Act, Mr. Speaker, fills a gap in our Sentencing Guidelines by directing the U.S. Sentencing Commission to enhance the sentences for the commission of a drug offense in the presence of a minor. While the Sentencing Commission is given discretion to amend the Sentencing Guidelines, the Save Our Children Act sets a minimum of two offense levels greater or 1 year whichever is greater for the first offense, and 4 offense levels greater or 2 years for a second offense. I urge all my colleagues to consider becoming a cosponsor of my legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the outstanding public service work being done by broadcasters across America and especially in my district in eastern Washington. The Washington State Association of Broadcasters recently completed a survey of its membership and the results were extremely encouraging about the level and types of public service rendered on a daily basis by radio and TV stations in my State. I want to particularly praise the fine work done by stations in my district, the fifth of Washington. KXLY-TV created a school attendance award that helped decrease truancy in Spokane middle schools. KHQ-TV spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for the ``Success by Six'' program that is helping children throughout Spokane middle schools learn to read by the time they are 6 years old. KREM-TV recently raised more than $166,000 for programs benefiting women and children, such as the YWCA Transitional School for Homeless Children. And KAYU-TV is teaching kids lessons about fire safety with PSAs throughout their children's programming. There are many more examples of this kind of public service provided on a daily basis by local broadcasters in Washington State and across the Nation. We should thank these outstanding broadcasters who truly share the spirit of outstanding public service.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am here today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), but I was troubled by a comment that was made, a statistic, even though it may be true, about a high number of incidents of fraternities and sororities engaged in drinking and drug use on campus. While I know there are incidents that happen on campuses today, as they did when I was in college, and I know they probably always will with regard to alcohol and abuse of alcohol, but I do not want the impression left, Mr. Chairman, that all sororities and all fraternities and all students on all campuses engage in this kind of activity unlawfully. There are a number of national fraternity organizations, national sorority organizations, and nonfraternity and sorority organizations, the dorm leadership, employees and others who are very concerned about the alcohol problem, and they are making a very concerted effort in a very proper way to stop this kind of abuse on campus. So while I do commend the gentleman for his amendment and realize that we need to have some statistical information that is appropriate under the circumstances I think we also have to recognize that on campuses today there is a very large group of students, Greek and nonGreek alike, who care very deeply about good conduct on campus and an anti-alcohol and antidrug abuse program. So I do not want the impression left that all Greeks and all, as my colleagues know, nonGreeks alike are abusive of alcohol and drugs, because they are not. And we have incidents around the country that show that there are problems with alcohol abuse and drug abuse, but there are an awful lot of good kids and an awful lot of good fraternities and sororities who are making a very strong effort to stop this kind of activity and speaking out very forcefully in favor of an antidrug abuse and anti- alcohol policy. So with that, I would be happy to support the amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for the yielding me this time and for the introduction. It has been interesting to listen to this debate today and hear the advocacy on the left, and people who are opposing this legislation today advocating so strenuously for people who use needles and drugs illegally. I want to submit to my colleagues that there is a moral outrage that is misplaced there; that we do not hear any moral outrage asked for and stressed by the other side for people who are the only legitimate users, one of the only legitimate groups of users in the country of needles legally and for health purposes, and that is the diabetics in our society. Sixteen million people in our country have diabetes. A million children have diabetes. It requires that they inject themselves with a lifesaving product called insulin three times, four times a day, legitimately, at a great cost to them. But we do not hear that. We do not hear our friends who are opposing this legislation advocating strenuously for the diabetic, for people who are, through no fault of their own, through no illegal activity, through no misbehavior in their life-style, contracting this disease. So where is that moral outrage? I think we have to look at this as a cost-benefit analysis. Diabetes consumes billions of dollars a year; 27 cents out of every Medicare dollar goes to the cost of consequences of diabetes. We do not hear anybody saying give free needles or have a needle exchange for diabetics. Where is the moral outrage? The moral outrage is in favor of the drug user. In my judgment, I think it is clear that this needle exchange program, although some may work well in some communities for some purposes, they perpetuate illegal drug use, not drug use of insulin injections or diabetes prevention but illegal drug use. I suggest to my friends, if we are going to have the moral outrage that I question here in favor of people who are drug users, drug abusers and injectors of illegal substances that cause tremendous pain in our society, stand up and fight for the diabetic, the people who use needles, who use needles legally to live. Do not have this perpetual constituency that my colleagues seem to want to defend time and time again. I support this measure and I hope the House will pass it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Not needle exchange programs.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Great.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill designed to help farmers participating in the PL 480 Food for Peace Program who have experienced trouble moving their product by rail to U.S. ports. Under PL 480, the Department of Agriculture invites farmers and processors to sell their product (e.g. grain, peas, lentils, barley) to the federal government. At the time they advertise their tender, the Department also specifies where and when the product has to be delivered. Farmers and processors are able to calculate their bids based on the cost to produce, the cost associated with rail shipment, the time normally required to get empty rail cars, and the time needed to have the railroad move cars to the port specified by the Department. Successful bidders sign a contract with the Department prior to shipping their product, but they don't receive payment from the government until after it is delivered to the port. This arrangement has generally worked well over the years, but last summer and fall a large number of farmers and processors--through no fault of their own--experienced tremendous difficulty abiding by the terms of their contracts with the Department. Rail congestion in the midwest and west caused many shipments to arrive late, thus missing sailing dates and generating expensive damage claims against farmers and processors. My bill would hold farmers and processors harmless against these kinds of damages. It is unreasonable for the government to hold farmers and processors liable for damages in instances where they make a good faith effort to load and transport their product on a timely basis. Farmers and processors surrender their product to a railroad for shipment to a port, but they have no ability to control its delivery and, under current program rules, they pay damages for late arrival. As an aside, I am aware that the Department of Agriculture has relieved some PL 480 participants from damages arising from last summer's rail service difficulties in the midwest, but I don't think it prudent to leave the issue of future damages to the discretion of the Department. Farmers and processors need the certainty of knowing that they will not be liable for transportation problems beyond their control. I ask all Members to cosponsor this legislation. The PL 480 Food for Peace Program is an important market for many farmers and processors, but under the current rules, it presents a whole host of unknowns that jeopardize future participation, especially in light of ongoing rail service problems.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater tragedy in life that all of us must face at some time or another than facing a debilitating and serious and chronic disease. It touches Democrats, Republicans, people of all races and religions. It is a fact of life. It is my pleasure to be here tonight to talk in support of not only the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, but to stand up in support of that national health organization that leads the world in health research. I just happened to visit for the second time the National Institutes of Health a week ago Monday. And I commend that visit to every Member of this body; to go out to the NIH and see the resources that we have there, that we taxpayers fund in order to try to make lives better by curing disease. It is a remarkable experience to see it and to meet with the leaders of the centers and the institutes, the 21 centers and institutes of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, it is celebrating its 50th year, approximately, this year, having been the Public Health Service over the years and being the National Institutes of Health in recent times. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the history is a proud one. There have been tremendous developments and progress achieved by the scientists, the researchers, the medical professionals, the nurses, the administrators at the National Institutes of Health. It is worthy of a Federal taxpayer commitment to enhance this research, to seek cures in our society for the very serious diseases which affect all Americans and, indeed, all people around the world. I think we have to look at what increased funding would do. It would certainly help bridge the gap between the National Academy of Sciences and the NIH. There is research going on, scientific research going on throughout this entire government. The Department of Defense has a breast cancer facility and bank that looks at the incidence of breast cancer and blood work that would lead to cures for this terrible disease. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration does tremendous work on microgravity. In fact, as we speak, there is a satellite and a space station somewhere and a research facility somewhere engaged with NASA doing this great research that is going to help people deal with the chronic diseases that affect their lives. Mr. Speaker, I happen to have a special interest in diabetes research. In fact, I am proud to be one of the cofounders of the Diabetes Caucus with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), and 158 Members are now part of this Diabetes Caucus. We set out over the last three years that I have been in Congress to work very hard to raise the interest level and the understanding of diabetes. The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, has been a great leader in terms of providing additional funding for NIH, for the research mission to cure diabetes, because diabetes affects about 27 cents out of every Medicare dollar. It is spent in the treatment of diabetes and the very serious complications that can come if a diabetic does not take care of himself or herself. Things like blindness, amputations, heart disease, kidney failure, all of those things are consequences of lack of treatment and lack of care for the disease called diabetes that is a killer disease in our society. So it has been our pleasure, with the other 157 Members, along with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) and myself, to push very hard this idea that we have to have increased funding at the National Institutes of Health, in specific terms the National Institute for Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which does this great research on how to cure diabetes. Mr. Speaker, if we cure diabetes, we will have a better society. If we cure cancer, we will have more productivity among all Americans and around the world. So it is in our interest, our national interest, to dedicate ourselves to increased funding for the National Institutes of Health. When I visited the National Institutes a week ago Monday, I had a chance to meet with the director of the National Cancer Institute, and he showed me some graphic pictures of a gentleman who was a patient there of the hospital at NIH with skin cancer, a terrible outbreak. Terribly devastating consequences of that disease are present today in our society. Through the research that has been done at NIH to introduce the concept and the substance of Interleukin, to allow the body to beef up its damaged-cell fighting capability, its natural mechanism for fighting disease, that Interleukin component works wonders. In fact, I had the chance to meet the gentleman who was the subject of the pictures I was shown with his cancer developed earlier in last year. And now I looked at him, and I know through this great research effort, his skin was clear. So this is one example of how we can cure this disease called cancer 50 percent of the time. We cannot cure all the cancers in America and in the world, but we can cure about 50 percent, I am informed. So it is in our interest, having been touched by cancer in my own family and having been touched by diabetes in my own family, it is in our interest to devote ourselves to this effort to increase research funding for this great institute. Along with that increased research funding, I think we need to encourage the NIH, encourage the scientists, the 55,000 scientists around the country, through our university systems who do NIH research as NIH grant recipients, to make sure that the money we devote to this institute and this agency is spent wisely. I do not doubt that it is, but I also feel as though we can focus better, perhaps, the resources of America, to allow the NIH to focus better and the institutes to focus better, to work better toward preventive cures and prevention of disease. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and I and others and the Speaker of the House this year, and a lot of Democrats, voted very forcefully in favor of the balanced budget agreement which provided $30 million for diabetes research for five years, $30 million times five; and $30 million times five, $150 million, for Native American research, which is a population disproportionately affected by diabetes. Speaker Gingrich and others worked very hard to get Medicare coverage for the preventive side of diabetes, mammographies in women, prostate analysis in men, and the colorectal screening, all covered now and in this year in the Medicare program. That is going to save dollars on the other end. And with this kind of research for treatment and cures through the NIH, we are going to be a better and healthier and happier and more productive and less wasteful society. The Diabetes Working Group that we introduced is going to help focus the NIDDK, National Institutes for Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in how we set a chart, set a pathway to cure diabetes. I think it is a great model, Mr. Speaker, for other institutes to follow: To marshal the best minds, the best researchers, the patients, the children, the people who are affected by these devastating diseases, chronic conditions, mobilize them to chart a path, to chart a course to a cure or to better treatment or to making life easier with a particular disease. That is what the Diabetes Working Group is doing. In fact, they are meeting this week again, all of these great minds and great scientists from around the country, to focus on how we can chart a path for additional research dollars to be spent, all in the cause of curing diabetes and its complications. I think we have to recognize also that the consumer has a say in all of this, and increased funding for NIH, doubling the funding over the next five years, coordinating that funding with other scientific research throughout the government, has to have as a main component a consumer involvement. If we go out to the National Institutes of Health and see the National Health Library, it is hooked up to the Internet. It gets thousands of hits per month, per week, per day, to see and learn about disease and how NIH is working so very dramatically to help cure and treat those kinds of diseases. That is a component that is very much a part of this NIH funding doubling. So that we can have the consumer who is touched by multiple sclerosis or AIDS or Alzheimer's or diabetes or cancer or Parkinson's or all the other diseases that are prominent in this country, they have a resource in the National Institutes of Health to touch immediately, to find out about that disease, to help a loved one get through it, to learn about it. I know that is a common occurrence when people are touched by a disease. The first inclination that we all have is to find out about it, to learn about it and figure out how we can understand the current treatments. This is a value to doctors. It is a value to the consumer. It is a value to the researcher. And, by the way, we have to get good researchers funded through the NIH, the basic research that is done there and the applied research that is done there. So this is a joint effort that joins diseases, it joins medical specialties across the board. It joins people from Congress, it joins special interest groups who care deeply about a particular disease. It joins the teachers and students, and families. It joins all Americans in one common cause, one common objective. That is to cure disease in America and throughout the world. The United States is the leader in that effort. It is the leader because we have the best scientists, the best minds, the best technology, the best resources and the greatest commitment, I submit, to reach this great goal of curing disease globally. So I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and thank the Speaker and all the others who care deeply about this issue. We will join with our colleagues and make this a reality in the next five years and hopefully get it all done this year.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 202.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act. According to the Small Business Administration, 19 cents out of every revenue dollar is spent on complying with federal, state, and local regulations. When you consider that there are over 22 million small businesses in the United States, these regulations more than add up--they cost jobs--they stifle the American dream. For too long Congress has passed mandates on small businesses and federal agencies have regulated compliance without even considering its impact on a business. Mr. Chairman, today Congress is going to do the opposite--we are going to bring some relief to small businesses. I hope my colleagues will review this legislation with small business in their district in mind. H.R. 3246 has four provisions, but I want to focus my attention on Title I, the Truth in Employment Act. Under current labor law, job applicants may or may not be seeking employment for personal reasons, they may be seeking employment as a union agent solely in order to unionize the organization. This tactic, otherwise known as salting, is not truthful nor does it benefit the company for which they hope to work. Mr. Chairman, in salting situations a company is put in the difficult position of deciding either to hire a union salt or face NLRB, OSHA and EEOC inquiries and possible federal fines. In some cases, salting has been used by labor unions to harass or disrupt operations of companies that have not been favorable to their cause. This is not right and I believe Congress should act. A small business in my district has faced salting. The Company had some openings and sought applications. There were salt applicants and non-union applicants. One salt applicant told the company boss that his union determined that this Company was on the union hit list and that it better hire him or face the consequences. The salts had no desire to work at his company--only to unionize it. The company chose to hire the most qualified applicant, which this time was non-union, and his company was hit with NLRB grievances equal to the number of salt applicants. The company has spent thousands of dollars fighting these and other NLRB grievances. In the end, the federal government forced him through the NLRB to pay backpay and agree to hire those union salts on future jobs--union salts who have no desire to work for his company. Mr. Chairman, salting affects hard-working small business owners. Unions have a valid place in American enterprise, and most union members are hard working, well intentioned employees. Unions have a heritage of which they are proud, but salting is a practice that hurts the labor movement, gives it a bad name, and doesn't serve well the cause of organized labor. I believe Congress should outlaw this tactic. I urge my colleagues to help small businesses in their district by supporting H.R. 3246.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the ranking member in support of H.R. 3211, which will do much to restore the honor of burial at Arlington National Cemetery. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned that burial at Arlington has been granted to nonveterans because of special waivers. My constituents were equally concerned by the reluctance of the administration to release names and details about those buried under the waiver process. So I acted on these concerns by introducing a bill of my own, similar to the legislation before the House today, to ensure greater scrutiny and full disclosure of waiver requests. H.R. 3211 requires the Secretary of the Army to maintain a register of those buried at Arlington and requires that this register be made available to the public. While I understand the privacy concerns that limit the initial disclosures of waiver recipients, I also believe that this reluctance created the unfortunate perception that the administration was trying to hide something. Arlington is a public cemetery, and we should have the full public disclosure which this bill provides. I also agree with the emphasis that this bill gives to educating veterans about Arlington. This bill will require the Secretary of the Army to publish a pamphlet describing eligibility requirements. Such materials are needed to reassure the veterans community, as well as to clarify eligibility requirements. I have heard stories of veterans awarded the Silver Star who deserve burial at Arlington by any measure, but they do not realize they are worthy of this honor or this opportunity. This bill corrects that problem by providing the Secretary the materials needed to educate this community. This is an outstanding bill, Mr. Speaker, that corrects the significant loopholes created by the waiver process and reaffirms our belief that only a very honored few deserve to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 227 even as I acknowledge the good work our soldiers have accomplished in Bosnia. I spent several days in that war-torn region a week ago meeting with the various parties and visiting with our troops. And while the morale of our soldiers remains high, I don't think it is fair to them or to the American people to extend our mission in Bosnia indefinitely without Congressional approval. In December 1995, the President told Congress that the mission in Bosnia would last ``about one year.'' By November 1996, he had decided that the mission would be extended until June 1998. And now, somewhat disingenuously, the President has told us in the supplemental request that while ``I do not propose a fixed end-date for this presence, it is by no means open-ended.'' What does this statement mean? To me, it means that Congress will be expected to continue appropriating billions of dollars for a deployment that we have never authorized. The arguments raised in opposition to this resolution today have focused on the negative strategic implications that passage of this resolution would entail. But our first obligation in this body must be to uphold our Constitutional responsibilities, and it is imperative that we play the foreign policy role clarified by the War Powers Resolution. Congress must have a voice in this seemingly endless deployment. I look back to the warning that Secretary Perry offered in testimony in November 1995. He said then that: ``we must not be drawn into a posture of indefinite garrison.'' I fear that we are approaching a position of indefinite garrison, without Congress ever authorizing this deployment. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution--to support this resolution is not to condemn the mission in Bosnia, it is simply to reassert our Constitutional duty.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act, introduced by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith. The Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act would bring clarity to the legal process for landowners who make property rights claims under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As we all know, the Fifth Amendment requires that no person be deprived of property without the due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for pubic use without just compensation. As I have listened to the debate, I do not believe there is disagreement over the need for just or fair compensation. However, there is disagreement over the best way to ensure the rights of private property owners are protected. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Tucker Act is needed because of the procedural nightmares many private property owners face when seeking judicial relief from any outright taking of land or its restriction of use by a federal agency or regulation. Under current law, a claim must be made in two separate federal courts, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and a federal district court. The CFC will hear the money claims against the U.S. government while district courts will address the legality of the federal action. This jurisdictional split has been called by many the ``Tucker Act Shuffle.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 992 is not anti-environment, nor will it amend any environmental law, as many of my colleagues have said. H.R. 992 would simply allow private property owners to seek redress in only one court, either the CFC or a federal district court. I believe that streamlining the legal process will greatly reduce the length of time and cost of litigation, which is both good for the private property owner and the federal government. I thank my colleague from Texas for introducing his bill at this time, and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 992.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a subject that is on the minds of all Americans, the pursuit of justice by the Independent Counsel. In recent weeks, we have seen the personal character and motives of Kenneth Starr subjected to an unprecedented number of insults and attacks by friends of the President, attacks which are designed to delay justice and shift focus away from the truth. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, these attacks only tarnish our system of law in America. Our criminal justice system was designed to operate outside the political arena. It was intended that officers of the court would seek justice based on the presentation of the facts and the determination of whether conduct based on these facts was unlawful or not. The search for truth and determination of the facts has sadly become an indictment by political operatives of the Independent Counsel and his office. Diverting attention from the facts of this case does not serve justice, it simply demeans the Presidency. Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Independent Counsel statute in response to the Watergate experience of 1974, assuring that an independently appointed court official would best be able to seek justice involving allegations against high government officials. Moving the prosecution process outside the White House best assures that credible allegations of wrongdoing against such officials will not go unchecked. It is certainly not in our national interests for a President to investigate himself. The history of the Independent Counsel statute is interesting. Congress reauthorized it three times. President Clinton himself signed the reauthorization legislation in 1994. Many Members of this Congress back in 1994 voted for such reauthorization. Under the law, the Independent Counsel is given the same investigative authority as the Department of Justice. The authority includes conducting grand jury investigations, granting immunity to witnesses, and challenging in court any privilege claims or attempts to withhold evidence on national security grounds. We must also understand, Mr. Speaker, that obtaining testimony by subpoena is an important investigative tool to determine the facts of allegations of wrongdoing by the President. Without facts, neither truth nor justice can be preserved. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General appointed Mr. Starr through a judicial panel and maintains full authority to remove the Independent Counsel. Mr. Starr was not appointed because he was without integrity; he was appointed because he is a fine lawyer, possessed of substantial legal skills and experience, and respected for his character and honesty. If President Clinton genuinely believes Mr. Starr has acted beyond authority, the Attorney General may remove him for cause and appoint a different Independent Counsel. The power to do so resides in this President. If the President believes the insults that his spokesmen level at Mr. Starr, then the President should seek removal. If he does not agree with those insults, the President should instruct his defenders to stop their public criticism, criticism that is not designed to learn the truth, but to deflect it and bring contempt on our justice system. With international challenges facing our country, the public needs reassurance that our highest national leader is truthful, that his representations to us are reliable, that we can trust his word on matters of national security, that he is an honorable representative for all Americans. Under the circumstances, the President's sacred honor is in question. All the criticisms against the Independent Counsel by political operatives of the President do not change that at all. Their criticisms serve not the best interests of the country nor the one standard that Americans support most, the truth. Mr. Speaker, all Americans need to know that our President is honorable. Seeking the truth should not just be another political campaign. Assaulting our legal system and the officers of the court who administer it, who serve under it, may have temporary political benefit. Public opinion polls ebb and flow, but the long-term damage is more lasting. Public distrust of our legal system, the system in which we want our citizens to have faith, will result from a contradiction of the noble American principle that we are a country of laws, not men. That rule of law and justice is of paramount importance to a civil society. No person, no matter how popular, is above the law. Mr. Speaker, we should all take a careful look at the phenomenon unfolding before us, the gaming of our justice system, where criticizing legal authority is the defense weapon of choice, where putting a proper spin on the evidence is a substitute for being truthful and honest and accepting the consequences. Free societies governed by laws fairly administered can prevail over political tyranny only if citizens have faith in and respect for authorities charged with enforcing the laws. Law is the embodiment of the moral sentiment of the people. The laws of our country are the most perfect branch of ethics. Laws should be like death, which spares no one. It has been said that every violation of truth is a stab at the heart of human society. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, our society, our country, needs the truth in this instance. To people of integrity, there would be no conversation so agreeable as that of a man, be he the President or the independent counsel, who has no intention to deceive. The withholding of truth can be a worse deception than a direct misstatement. Searching for the truth is the noblest occupation of mankind. Obscuring it is a curse on our society that will damage our institutions of government and our national spirit for years to come.