George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman from Nebraska's efforts to provide Americans with information in order to make educated decisions about their health care needs. However, I have concerns with his amendment. Though the gentleman's amendment does not change the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality basic statutory authority, it does increase funding for comparative and cost-effectiveness studies by the AHRQ. I am fearful that by earmarking new funds for this explicit purpose, it may set AHRQ in the wrong direction. I support efforts to reduce prescription drug costs by educating patients about what medicines best treat their ailments, allowing individual patients to make their own decisions about their health care needs. However, I fear that by promoting this amendment as a way to cut prescription drug costs it will turn comparative and cost-effectiveness studies into a means of implementing health care rationing by federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. An agency that calls itself a ``big dumb price fixer.'' The answer to reducing health care costs is not by limiting patient access to the treatments they need. I am concerned that government-run cost-effectiveness studies being promoted as a cost control tool will allow CMS to use these studies to pick and choose which medicines should and should not be available to patients. Making determinations in this way are biased against newer treatments that can cost more up-front but save more over time. In short, this amendment encourages the federal government to direct medical care and promotes a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to medicine which is bad for patients.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of this bill, and I rise particularly to support the funding for diabetes prevention and control activities that are contained in it. As the cochairman of the Diabetes Caucus in the House, I believe that increased funding for these programs is of utmost importance, and I thank the committee for its attention to the issue of diabetes. This bill increases funding for NIDDK over the last year's level by $47 million and increases funding at the CDC by $300 million over last year's level. The progress made to date with this money that has already been appropriated by the House is very impressive, and I want to emphasize to the chairman and the Members that clinical trials involving the transplantation of insulin-producing cells into individuals with Type I diabetes has brought us within reach of a cure. Of the approximately 200 patients who have received these transplants, 160 of them no longer need to take insulin. If you are involved at all with diabetes, you know how significant this is. It is a life-saving event. So as we consider the bill, I know there are some upcoming initiatives that we need to emphasize, and they will be very important in the prevention of diabetes in America, and in turn they will save taxpayers' dollars. On March 31, 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Department would be launching a diabetes detection initiative. The goal of the initiative is to encourage people at risk with diabetes to get tested and to refer those who test positive for a follow-up. About 6 million people in this country have diabetes, but they just do not know it. So by supporting this initiative in the future, the committee and the House can help these people avoid the devastating complications of diabetes, because they are so much a part of the Medicare cost that we face in this country. I have been working to develop a national diabetes strategic plan with the American Diabetes Association and the Office of the Surgeon General along with former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been a leader in this effort to bring a cure to diabetes, and the details on this announcement will be made later in the coming months, but it is very exciting, the initiatives that are out there. The committee has an excellent record on diabetes prevention funding, and I am certain that the needs of these meritorious programs will be recognized as we go to conference on this measure. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his good work.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I joined a growing number of my colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. I sponsored this legislation because I believe that Syria presents a unique threat to the peace, security and stability in the Middle East. Syria is geographically central in the region, but it is also central to the peaceful evolution of the region. Continued Syrian sponsorship of terrorism threatens to unravel renewed efforts at peace in the region. President Bush's Road Map is at risk because of this state-sponsored terrorism and we must indicate the serious consequences of Syria's destabilizing activity. This legislation gives the President the leverage he needs to persuade the Syrian regime to reconsider its role in the region. The fall of Iraq represented only the first in a series of positive changes that will sweep through the Middle East in the coming years, and Syria has an opportunity to be on the right side of history. The possibility of this legislation becoming law should be understood as a clear warning about the position of the House of Representatives. At the same time, I do not believe that H.R. 1828 is a perfect bill. It needs to be improved before it is sent to the President for his signature. I am cosponsoring the bill out of a desire to move this legislation forward, but believe a number of changes are necessary. First, the legislation must specifically define the meaning of ``food and medicine'' in Section 5(a). Specifically, this section should be brought into conformity with the definitions of ``agricultural commodity,'' ``medicine'' and ``medical device'' included in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387). Enactment of this legislation three years ago signaled Congressional intent to prohibit unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. To ensure there is no confusion by implementing agencies that have historically demonstrated hostility to excepting categories of exports from unilateral sanctions, it is necessary to include very specific definitions. Second, the legislation must incorporate sunset clauses for both the authorization of sanctions and for any sanctions that are imposed through Section 5(a)2. Congress should not impose sanctions in perpetuity, for while we are often quick to impose sanctions; we are not nearly as effective at repealing dated restrictions. Sanctions, fundamentally, should be an aberration to how the United States approaches other nations. Our bilateral relationship should stress engagement over restrictions, but in certain exceptional cases, sanctions may be necessary. These sanctions should be temporary in nature to encourage future Congressional scrutiny of the continued value of the restrictions. Should sanctions be perceived necessary in the future than future Congresses are likely to extend the prohibitions beyond the sunset period. Sunset periods also encourage rogue regimes to recognize that there is an opportunity to improve their relations with the United States. Should rogues wish to reengage with the United States, they need only to change their behavior. Regular Congressional review of sanctions ensures that this change in behavior will have a chance to be acknowledged. Conversely, permanent sanctions can backfire by signaling to the rogue state intent to isolate, irrespective of the nation's willingness to respond with reforms. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act outlines a two-year sunset for unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions. H.R. 1828 must incorporate a similar sunset provision. Third, the legislation must provide greater flexibility to the Executive Branch in the imposition of sanctions. Section 5(b) provides a waiver from the imposition of sanctions if the President determines that it is in ``the vital national security interest of the United States to do so.'' Such a waiver sets the bar too high and is potentially restrictive of the exercise of foreign policy by the Executive Branch. The Libertad Act (P.L. 104-114), for example, sets for a ``national interest'' waiver for Title III sanctions. Fourth, the legislation must place a greater priority on cooperation with our allies in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions tend to be effective when they are imposed under a multilateral framework. Unilateral sanctions isolate the United States as much as they isolate the targeted nation. Diplomacy, as in nature, abhors a vacuum and will fill it. A loss of American influence will be replaced by other nations unless sanctions are imposed through a broad, multilateral coalition. The United States must persuade other countries to join us in sanctioning Syria if we are to have significant influence. I offer these reservations and recommendations out of a desire to improve H.R. 1828. I recognize that peace in the Middle East depends on change in Syria. But I also believe Congress should adhere to the limitations outlined above in the imposition of unilateral sanctions. When unilateral sanctions are imposed, they should be limited in scope and limited in duration and provide significant flexibility to the Executive Branch. H.R. 1828 can be amended to incorporate these recommendations, which must be made before the legislation is sent to the President for signature.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 17, 2003. I missed three votes due to my sons high school graduation. Had I been present I would have voted YES on: Roll Call Vote #279--H. Res. 276--Ordering the previous question on waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 342 to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize programs under the Act, and for other purposes. Roll Call Vote #280--H. Res. 171--Commending the University of Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs for winning the NCAA 2003 National Collegiate Women's Ice Hockey Championship. Roll Call Vote #281--H.R. 658--The Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Act.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debates.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome here to the Chamber today Dr. Tom Erickson, the interim pastor at National Presbyterian Church who offered the opening prayer. We are thankful for his presence today, and we are thankful that he has devoted himself to a ministry in the Presbyterian faith. Dr. Erickson is no stranger to Presbyterian ministry and commitment to God. He has served a lifetime of ministries in Spokane, Washington, my home town, in California and Massachusetts; and he most recently retired from a very large church in Paradise Valley, Arizona. He brings to the ministry a kindness, a grace, a wisdom, a commitment to Jesus Christ, a commitment to his faith and a commitment to compassion around this country and to those he ministers to and serves. He is a credit to the ministry of the Presbyterian faith. We are so delighted that he has committed himself, even after retirement, to an interim position here in Washington, D.C. at the National Presbyterian Church in Washington, a church of great tradition and history. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for almost 49 years. They have three beautiful daughters who are adult children, and they are devoted to those dear children and to each other and to their faith in God. We are delighted that Dr. Erickson could be here today, and we certainly welcome him and thank him for his prayer this morning.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose today is intended to expand the service opportunities available to young children under IDEA in an appropriate facility or facilities in conjunction with a parent and the best recommendations of the individualized family service plan team. It is an expansion of services available to children, not a contraction under IDEA. The reason for this amendment is for the following purposes: In my district of Spokane, Washington, eastern Washington, the City of Spokane, we have a great facility called the Spokane Guild School. They have a dedicated board of trustees and dedicated volunteers and operational people from Dick Boyser to Rick Melanson and to Jim O'Connell to many, many others who have looked at the services that are provided by the Spokane Guild School and found them to be so superior to other environments that may be available to young children who are experiencing muscular conditions or neuromuscular conditions that need attention at an early intervention age. So what they have done over the years is determine that perhaps existing law would exclude them from providing services for these precious children because it is not necessarily in a natural environment. But my amendment intends to make sure that the definition of natural environment includes the kind of facilities like this, the Spokane Guild School and many others in our State of Washington, and perhaps around the country, so that the children are benefitted in conjunction with the requests and expectations of parents and the IFSP team. So this is not a threatening amendment. To the disability community it is an enhancement. About a year or so ago about the request or suggestion of Mr. Melanson and others, we put $500,000 in to make sure that the government of the United States understands the value of this kind of environment for children suffering these kinds of conditions that need desperate help at an early age. We were able to get that money in to do some studies, to make sure that the model that exists in the State of Washington through the Spokane Guild School may be replicated around the rest of the country because it is enhancing for students and little children, not diminishing. I have had Undersecretary Bob Pasternak from the Department of Education come to our district, and he did so willingly and with a critical eye, but also a welcoming expectation about the great services that are available even though they may not be precisely in a home environment. I will speak for him and say that we were delighted to have him come, and I believe he was delighted to be able to be there. In the visit that Undersecretary Pasternak made, he made an impression on us as a caring person in the bureaucracy of the Department of Education and in government, but also a person who wants to, in his best expectations, have children served properly who are subject to the IDEA. So we have a lot to offer in this environment. We have a State legislature in my State, the Senate passed legislation that said, Congress, please allow this expansion or interpretation of IDEA to cover a place like the Spokane Guild School. It passed the House by 96 to nothing. It passed the Senate in our State 49 to nothing. So it is a bipartisan, comprehensive, high-expectation measure that helps children. So I would just urge the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the minority Member, certainly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) are all dedicated to the best interest of young children, and I would hope this amendment could be accepted. It is a good amendment. It is going to help children at the best level for the parents and for the children and the team that supports the child. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and thank the minority Members who support this amendment. It is good for children, it is good for IDEA, and is a proper expansion, or I should say interpretation of existing law. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. The gentlewoman is correct. Her interpretation of my amendment is exactly correct, and it is appropriate for children and the team approach to making sure that services for children are properly provided.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Washington [Mr. Dicks] that will provide an equitable settlement of the meritorious claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians concerning its contribution to the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. Similar settlement legislation was enacted in 1994 to compensate the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes as a consequence of the Grand Coulee Dam. That legislation, P.L. 103-436, provided for a $53 million lump sum payment for past damages and roughly $15 million annually from the ongoing proceeds from the sale of hydropower by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Spokane settlement legislation, which I am introducing today, would provide a settlement of the Spokane Tribe of Indians claims directly proportional to the settlement afforded the Colville Tribes based upon the percentage of lands appropriated from the respective tribes for the Grand Coulee Project, or approximately 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes pursuant to the 1994 legislation. Though the proposed Spokane settlement is proportionately less, the losses sustained by the Spokane Tribe are substantially the same as those sustained by the Colville Tribes and arise from the same actions of the United States Government. The difference being that the Spokane Tribe lost its entire salmon fishery, the base of its economy. Grand Coulee Dam is the largest concrete dam in the world, the largest electricity producer in the United States, and the third largest electricity producer in the world. It produces four times more electricity than Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and is three times its size. Grand Coulee is one mile in width; its spillway is twice the height of Niagara Falls. It provides electricity and water to one of the world's largest irrigation projects, the one million acre Columbia Basin Project. The Grand Coulee Project is the backbone of the Northwest's federal power grid and agricultural economy. For more than half a century, the Grand Coulee Project has produced enormous revenues for the United States Government and brought prosperity to the Pacific Northwest. The construction of the dam and the electricity it produced, helped pull the Northwest out of the Great Depression. It provided electricity to the aluminum plants that built the air force that helped to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II. To the Spokane Tribe of Indians, however, the dam is a monument to the destruction of their way of life. The Dam flooded their reservation on two sides. The Spokane River--the ancestral umbilical cord to Spokane existence and the heart of their reservation--was changed from a free flowing waterway that supported plentiful salmon runs, to barren slack water that now erodes away the southern lands of the Reservation with every change in the reservoir level. The enormous benefits that accrued to the Nation and the Northwest were made possible by uncompensated and irreparable injury to the Native Americans of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers. From 1927 to 1931, at the direction of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investigated the Columbia River and its tributaries. In its report to Congress, the Corps identified a number of potential sites and recommended the Grand Coulee site for hydroelectric development by either the State of Washington or private concerns. Shortly thereafter, the Columbia River Commission, an agency of the State of Washington applied for and, in August 1933, was granted a preliminary permit from the Federal Power Commission for the water power development of the Grand Coulee site. However, on November 1, 1933, Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior and Director of Public Works Administration, federalized the project under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Excavation for the dam commenced on December 13, 1933. However, its legal authorization was in question and Congress reauthorized the Dam in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. As pointed out in 1980 in the Final Report of a Federal interdepartmental Colville/Spokane Task Force: In spite of the fact that the Act authorized the project for the purposes, among others, of reclamation of public lands and Indian reservations. . . . no hydroelectric or reclamation benefits flow to the Indians. The irrigation benefits of the project all flowed south of the Reservation. In 1940, very belatedly and inadequately (at the urging of the Department of the Interior), Congress did enact a statute to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate whichever Indian lands he deemed necessary for Grand Coulee construction and to receive all rights, title and interest the Indians had in them in return for his appraisal of its value and payment of compensation by the Secretary. The only land that was appraised and supposedly compensated for was the newly flooded lands. Pursuant to this legislation, 54 Stat. 703 (1940), the Spokane Tribe received the grand total of $4,700. There is no evidence that the Department advised or that Congress knew that the Tribes' water rights were not extinguished. Nor had the Indian title and trust status of the Tribal land underlying the river beds been extinguished. No compensation was included for the power value contributed by the use of the Tribal resources nor the loss of the Tribal fisheries or other damages to tribal resources. Although the Department of the Interior and other federal officials were well aware of the flooding of Indian trust lands and other severe impacts the Grand Coulee Project would have on the fishery and other critical resources of the Spokane and Colville Tribes, no mention was made of these impacts or the need to compensate the Tribes in either the 1933 or 1935 authorizations. Federal inter-departmental and intra- office correspondence of the Department of the Interior from September 1933 through October 1934 clearly demonstrate that the Federal government knew that the Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated for the flooding of their lands, destruction of their fishery and other resources, destruction of their property and annual compensation from power production for the use of the Tribes' land and water resources contributing to such power production. As pointed out in a 1976 Opinion of Lawrence Aschenbrenner, the Acting Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior: The 1940 act followed seven years of construction during which farm lands, and timber lands were flooded, and a fishery destroyed, and during which Congress was silent as to the Indian interests affected by the construction. Both the Congress and the Department of the Interior appeared to proceed with the Grand Coulee project as if there were no Indians involved there.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I do think it is important that we put this debate into perspective. This is a good thing we are doing. We should be debating issues of expenditure of taxpayer dollars. This is not holy pictures. This is an important time for our country to talk about how we spend billions of dollars in this country. Why in the world would our legislative body cede the authority for that to the administration? I respect this administration, but this is a congressional responsibility. And just because there is a difference in position on the issue that is before the House does not mean that this is posing for holy pictures. I think that is an objectionable declaration about what this is. This is in the best traditions of this House. On the Committee on Appropriations just this week we had a fabulous debate on this precise issue and on an amendment that was very near to this one. It was a broader amendment, frankly, that gave the President great waiver authority to decide whether exceptions could be made with respect to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. So beyond being something that is frivolous, this is very serious business, and I would argue to my colleagues that this is in the best tradition of this House to talk about this issue of how we spend the money that the taxpayers send to us to decide how to spend. It is not unreasonable that we make a judgment about what foreign countries should benefit with taxpayer dollars that are sent to Washington by loyal Americans. But it is the Congress' decision to decide whether a priority might be American jobs and American companies and allied countries, companies, and jobs. So what is wrong with having friends in the world and communicating with those friends and especially creating jobs in this country? I would argue that anybody who votes against this has the potential to favor French job creation rather than American job creation. How in the world are we going to feel in 2 months, when perhaps our country would award a contract to a German or a French or a Russian company to the exclusion of American interests, to an American company that could do the job just as well? I would argue, my colleagues, that we should be concerned about that. So this is a good debate. This is a good amendment. It is the amendment that I intended to have before the House before a point of order was raised. So that is fine. I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) being there to offer this amendment. But we should never confuse a good debate and a difference of opinion on the issues as being unworthy or worthy. We can make our judgments about the validity of our arguments, but to say that this is not worthy of the House or not an appropriate debate as to how taxpayer dollars will be spent misses the mark. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This is what we are sent here to do, to guard the Treasury of the United States. This is the taxpayers' money. This is the people's House. The House of Representatives decides the appropriations for this country. I urge us to exercise our obligation and to vote for this amendment, and I believe it will pass.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering to withdraw the amendment which has been designated 11 by the Chair with the expectation that the real amendment number 11 will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) in due course under the same circumstances, so we will be able to debate in full the issue before the House, rather than be denied on a technicality.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I did was put number 11 on the text, expecting that that is what the Chair was considering at the time that I called up the amendment. So I guess, my sense is, Mr. Chairman, we have two number 11s, and my understanding was that the Chair was clear with respect to what amendment we called up. There is only one amendment with a slightly modified text, and that is the one that we should be debating and that is what I am expecting to be debating.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My understanding is that there is some confusion at the desk about the text of the amendment. It was originally designated as number 11. I substituted another text of language that was, my understanding was number 11. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text that was substituted well ahead in place of the original amendment be considered as read.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time agreement. I rise in support of this amendment, which has one fundamental premise attached to it. That is, it is a limitation amendment that says that American dollars to be used in the reconstruction of the post- Saddam Hussein Iraq will not be able to be expended to countries that were the coalition of the unwilling: France, Germany, the Russian Federation, or Syria. It is a commonsense amendment. It is an amendment that was discussed at length in the Committee on Appropriations earlier this week, and it underscores one fundamental concept, and that is that in the postwar Iraq, there will be American dollars expended for reconstruction, and in that reconstruction effort, it seems only commonsensical and advisable that American taxpayer dollars be spent for American corporations that are doing business there, to create jobs in this country, and also to provide corporate and contract authority to companies and entities that are part of the coalition of the countries that assisted America and Great Britain and the rest of her allies in this joint effort to try to liberate the country of Iraq. It seems to me to be common sense. It seems to me to be well expected with respect to a responsible expenditure of dollars, American taxpayer dollars in postwar Iraq. It also recognizes that there will be many kinds of expenditures and contributions across this world to help the people of Iraq get back on their feet. This amendment does not prevent the French or the Germans or the United Nations or anybody else from participating in that reconstruction effort. The limitation is not with American tax dollars. So I am pleased to present this amendment. I believe it has broad support, and I am happy to acknowledge the cosponsorship of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), Mr. Kennedy the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on an issue that deals with American agriculture. Today, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, the House full committee passed a supplemental appropriations bill to assist our soldiers and military folks with respect to the prosecution of the war in Iraq, and provide other humanitarian aid and other financial assistance to the region of the Middle East and assist in the war effort there, and recognize the importance of supporting our fighting men and women in that theater. Also, as part of the appropriations measure that passed the House Committee on Appropriations today, there was a provision that relates to food assistance for the people of Iraq, and a preparation for the understanding that our country has committed itself to try to help the people of the Middle East region, and certainly the people in Iraq, who are the innocent victims of a tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. I want to address a portion of the appropriations bill that deals with the agriculture commitment that the country has made in the supplemental appropriations bill. It is a good measure. It is a supplemental that is supported by the President, by the majority party, by I think a unanimous vote in the Committee on Appropriations today, to provide assistance to the troops and make sure that our military receives all that it needs. The section that I want to refer to in the appropriations bill that we will have a chance to debate and vote on later this week, and certainly in conference with the Senate, the other body, next week and hopefully to get this measure signed into law by the President before April 11, is a measure that has to do with the integrity of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Bill Emerson was a former Member, a wonderful man from Missouri, a dear friend and a colleague of many Members of Congress, who passed away; and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Fund was created in his memory, and properly so. That Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust was created to provide food aid on an emergency basis to countries around the world who are struggling for food in times of emergency and dire straits and national consequence. Our country has been very forthright in providing this assistance and making sure that the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is not only stocked with adequate commodities, but also cash to purchase commodities when the need arises; and it has done millions and millions of people a world of good in making sure that they are able to eat. And it is out of the goodness of the American taxpayer and the American system that we provide that assistance. What we have seen in the use of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, administered by the Department of Agriculture in our country, is what I perceive to be a distortion of the operation of the trust. About a year ago, last summer in fact, there was a determination made by USDA to sell onto the open market soft white wheat, which is manufactured, grown, produced in my part of the country, the State of Washington. In doing so, the actions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture depressed the price on the open market of soft white wheat. Over the course of the last few months, since November, additional efforts have been undertaken by USDA to sell wheat stocks, soft white wheat stocks, in anticipation of humanitarian needs around the world. In the most recent activity in the trust, there has been a move by USDA to monetize soft white wheat in order to obtain cash, which would then be used to buy other commodities, rice and others, which may be useful in Iraq. Now, I have no quarrel with the idea that we need to provide food aid to Iraq. This is a war-torn country with people starving at the hands of Saddam Hussein. America, as it has in the past, is ready at the present to provide assistance to the people of Iraq. So it is not an issue with me over how or whether we should provide food aid to the people of Iraq. There is an issue as to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's operation, administration of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. What we have seen is the monetization of soft white wheat at the expense of the farmers who grow soft white wheat and at the expense of the market which is driven by the amount of wheat that is on the market at any one time. The price of wheat, we have seen in my farm country, has gone from $4.80 cents a bushel in November to a range of about $3.15 cents to $3.25 cents per bushel currently. The market collapsed to a no-bid market on March 21, just a week or so ago, on the rumor that the Department of Agriculture was going to dump more wheat on the market and raise cash for other commodities. What my admonition to the USDA has been is, do not monetize soft white wheat so you can buy other commodities. Let us make sure, as we face the needs of the people of Iraq and the humanitarian commitment that our country is willing and able to make, let us make sure this is a wartime cost which is necessary to assist people in other parts of the world who may be facing disasters, natural or otherwise. So what we are trying to do is make sure that the USDA, number one, follows the intent of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and that the process is in place to do so in a fair manner, commodity to commodity, around the country, and not place a monetization practice in place which then puts soft white wheat farmers, for example, at odds with rice growers in different parts of the country. So the monetization prohibition, which I think is sensible for our government to operate and administer the food aid programs of our country, is part of the appropriations bill that passed in the Committee on Appropriations today and will be before the House of Representatives, most likely later this week. So that is one restriction that needs to be in place. And the Department of Agriculture must listen to this development which has been undertaken by the House, by the legislative branch of our government, and not do more monetization, not undertake more monetization of one commodity which places farmers which grow that commodity against farmers of another commodity that may be suitable for distribution in Iraq. In addition, the House has put $69 million additional food aid money, unrestricted, able to have any commodity on the market be purchased, to meet the needs of the people of Iraq; and that is an acceptable and appropriate activity development on the part of the Committee on Appropriations and this House and the legislative branch. It is likely to stay in the bill all the way through the process in dealing with the other body as well as the reconciliation with the House conferees to come up with a final supplemental appropriations package that will assist in the war effort, including humanitarian aid assistance. I am here, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize most definitively that monetization of commodity that places one grower against another is bad agriculture policy in this country. It is a disservice to the agriculture community, which is struggling for price support and market price in any event; and it puts farmer against farmer, which is an unacceptable condition. In addition, the misuse, I would argue, of the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust to assist in Iraq when additional moneys are being poured into the war effort as part of the defense bill, as part of the supplemental appropriations bill to assist those good people of Iraq who need the assistance from food aid, there is no need to further monetize or further distort the market for soft white wheat or rice or any other commodity that is subject to administration under the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust. The third point I want to raise is that in depressing the market by government action, which puts more commodities on the market and lowers the price of any commodity, what we are doing is then under the loan deficiency payment program of the farm bill, the agriculture policy in this country, what it is doing is subjecting the taxpayer to additional expense by virtue of that market price going down below the loan deficiency payment level that then kicks in so that there is more taxpayer assistance to farmers because of that low price. My strong point and my strong message to USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture should not be taking actions which depress the price which then expose the taxpayer to other liability in aid to the farmer. Instead, let the market decide what the commodities market price should be. And so when you monetize and sell one commodity to buy another, you distort the market, and that is what USDA in my opinion has been doing and doing improperly. I come to the floor tonight to make this very strong message to USDA and any others of the eight government agencies who are involved in the decision to monetize soft white wheat. This is bad policy. We should not be doing it, especially in light of the prohibition on monetization that exists in the current House appropriations bill that passed the Appropriations Committee today and will likely come to this House floor sometime this week, hopefully, and then be reconciled with the other body's version of the supplemental appropriations bill and then be signed by the President most likely at the end of next week. I am urging caution on the part of the USDA. I have had conversations with the agency. I have had conversations with USAID to try to make the point that help is on the way in terms of money and prohibition on monetization; and my great hope is that the agencies of government who are committed to helping the agriculture industry in this country, the farmers who grow the products that you and I consume, that there will be some restraint on the part of the USDA, that there will be a cancellation of any other notices to monetize soft white wheat so that rice can be purchased, because there is additional money in the pipeline that is going to be coming to the rice growers of the country or the wheat growers of the country to provide the commodity needs that will meet the expectations and the requirements of the people who are suffering in Iraq. We have 69 million additional dollars. We have $250 million for PL- 480 assistance. There is additional money that will help the poor, starving people of this war-torn region. We will do that and we should do that but not at the expense of the commodity growers in the eastern district of Washington State or other States around the country who are affected by a misuse or mismanagement or a distorting impact that comes with monetizing the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust. I will be pursuing this issue in due course to make sure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies understand the consequences of monetization, the impact on the markets and the impact on the taxpayer. Ultimately, the taxpayers when prices go way down in the soft white wheat market are going to have to bear the burden. That is not what the farmer wants. The farmer wants a market price. We had a market price of $4.80 a bushel some several months ago but because of, in part, additional dumping on the market of U.S. Government agency stocks, the price has gone down, and we now have a further crisis in farm country. We cannot afford to lose the agriculture infrastructure in this Nation. If prices are so low that farmers are not going to grow commodities, we are going to find ourselves in days and months and years ahead, hopefully not, we are going to find ourselves facing the challenge of being independent agriculturally. We are going to be dependent on other countries of the world for our agriculture. That is unacceptable, and that is what we are trying to prevent by allowing market forces to have an important part in agriculture policy, not a distorting impact because of determinations made by USDA, our own Agriculture Department, which has the mission to help the farmers and the food needs of people in this country. I would just say, too, as we look at the dependence that we have on fossil fuels, on oil from the Middle East countries, we are now in a war that has as a factor in it the issue of oil reserves and who is producing oil reserves. We are dependent on foreign countries. We cannot allow that to happen in America as it relates to our dependence on agriculture commodities from overseas. That is why we need a robust agriculture economy here and proper administration of the Bill Emerson trust, the humanitarian trust, proper administration of the food aid programs, proper respect for agriculture interests and the value of markets and the value of the movement of markets, prices go up and down; but let the markets operate what the prices are rather than have the government be involved in distorting the market. If we have a hands-off policy or a helpful policy, as opposed to a hurtful policy by our U.S. Department of Agriculture, we will be a lot better off. I would say to the Speaker and my colleagues, be on the lookout for any market distortion that might be coming out of government agencies as it relates to agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to support this idea that monetization is not a good thing when you are trying to put farmer against farmer by our own Department of Agriculture, because the goal ultimately is to have a robust agriculture economy providing enough food so that we can continue to provide assistance to natural disaster consequences and the people who are subject to natural disasters or food shortages or drought or any other consequence that comes around this great world, that America can help solve by providing food aid.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003. I know first-hand about the difficulty involved in managing this disease, as my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes when she was 6. I have hope in the rapid pace of research in this area and believe that one day soon there will be a cure for my daughter and the millions of Americans with diabetes. The legislation we are introducing today is an important step toward this goal. It is a promising time for research on diabetes, and those suffering from the disease and their families are filled with hope. One of the most exciting recent advances, and the focus of this legislation, is pancreatic islet cell transplantation. Many have hailed the breakthrough in this area as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. In 2000, researchers in Edmonton, Canada, were successful in isolating islets from donor pancreases and transplanting those cells into a person with diabetes through an injection. These injected islets then begin to function and produce insulin, and this procedure appears to offer the most immediate cure for diabetes. This procedure has become known as the Edmonton Protocol and of the approximately 200 patients who have been transplanted using variations of this protocol, nearly 80 percent remain insulin independent beyond 2 years. The research is moving forward quickly, and researchers around the world are trying to replicate and expand on this success and make it appropriate for children. I am proud that exciting advances are underway in the State of Washington. Recently, a clinical research team at the JDRF Center for Human Islet Transplantation in Seattle performed the first three human islet transplants in the Northwest. All of these individuals were suffering the effects of advanced diabetes complications prior to receiving the transplant, and all three have now achieved critical post-transplant success in the management of their blood sugar levels. I am heartened to know that the Seattle program team plans to continue its research in the future. The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003 contains four provisions that I believe will help move this research forward. The first section of the bill provides a regulatory incentive to organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to procure additional pancreases. One of the major challenges in promoting research on and transplantation of islet cells is the shortage of pancreases. Approximately 2,000 pancreases are donated each year, and only approximately 500 of those donated are available for use in islet cell transplants. Clearly, this is not nearly a large enough supply considering that millions of Americans have diabetes. While OPOs do receive credit from CMS for pancreases retrieved and used for whole pancreas transplants, they do not receive credit for pancreases retrieved and used for islet cell transplantation. This creates a disincentive for OPOs to retrieve pancreases for research or islet transplantation. My legislation attempts to provide an incentive to OPOs by directing CMS to provide credit to OPOs for pancreases retrieved and used for research and islet transplantation. The second section of this legislation creates a federal inter-agency committee to coordinate efforts in the area of islet transplantation and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on regulations and policies that would advance this exciting area of research. The goal of the human clinical trials is to demonstrate success over a longer period of time, and move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to standard therapy covered by insurance and appropriate for all individuals with diabetes. The third section of this legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on clinical outcomes and comprehensive cost-utility analysis that will be important in moving toward this goal. The fourth section of this bill creates a Medicare demonstration project. A significant percentage of individuals with type I diabetes has kidney failure and becomes Medicare eligible before the age of 65. Insufficient data exists to determine the efficacy of a simultaneous islet-kidney transplant or an islet transplant after a kidney transplant for individuals with type I diabetes. By directing the Secretary of HHS to create a demonstration project to test Medicare coverage for individuals with type I diabetes, we can assess the value of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants or islet transplant after a kidney transplant. I encourage all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for his kind introduction and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to pay recognition today to particularly one of the members of the space shuttle who was lost last Saturday, February 1, knowing that America lost seven heroes, and one of those was from my hometown of Spokane, Washington. Michael Anderson, the Columbia space shuttle's payload commander, grew up watching planes at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane and graduated from nearby Cheney High School. Even as a young man, his dreams were far off in the stars. He once said that he could not remember a time when he did not want to be an astronaut. He followed his fine father into the Air Force and received his commission after graduating from the University of Washington in 1981. He was so proud of his service to his country and to wear his ROTC uniform around campus during a decade when that was not particularly popular, and his family and community have likewise been very proud of him. During his distinguished service as a pilot, he earned a master's degree in physics from Creighton University, and he kept his dreams in the stars. Finally, in 1998, he got to fly the mission he had been waiting for for nearly 20 years: his first flight into space was aboard the shuttle Endeavor. I had the great privilege of meeting Michael Anderson in 1999 when he accepted my invitation to speak to students at schools around our hometown about the space program. The children were wide-eyed as they listened to his stories, and they laughed particularly hard at his story about trying to catch M&Ms in his mouth without the effects of gravity in space. Michael had a warmth about him that moved those children, and his courage and service inspired those children to reach for their own dreams, be they in the stars or down here on Earth. Michael's accomplishments, his courage, and his discipline are representative of the crew he flew with and a source of pride for our community. His continued dedication to space and science tells us that after a full investigation we should continue to pursue human space flight. For Michael's sake and the sake of the other crew members, we must keep reaching for the stars, lest their sacrifice be in vain. As Americans, this tragedy should teach us all that we must not treat space missions as routine. All astronauts are accomplished individuals willing to put themselves in danger for the sake of bettering humankind and advancing mankind's dream of space exploration. They are courageous, they are committed; and we owe them all a debt of thanks for their service, not just in times of tragedy, but every day. At a time like this, it is natural to ask who is at fault and what happened. But I believe that this is not the time for fault-finding, for recrimination, and for blame. We must come together and support the families of these astronauts and unify to support the entire NASA family. As we move forward, I have vast confidence in Administrator Sean O'Keefe, Deputy Administrator Fred Gregory, and Associate Administrator Bill Readdy. The public face of the shuttle program over the last few days, Ron Dittemore, also a native of my hometown of Spokane, has also stepped up in a time of crisis and has performed admirably. Mr. Speaker, the entire NASA team deserves our thanks for pulling together and demonstrating firm resolve to get to the bottom of this incident. And as we consider what went wrong, we must also consider NASA's future. As a member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, we know that this year we will pass a NASA authorization bill, a bill that even before this tragedy promised to be the most important measure since the start of the shuttle program. We will evaluate the future of the shuttle fleet. We will weigh upgrades to the orbiters against the substantial investment required to make the next-generation reusable launch vehicle a reality. We will examine the appropriate balance for scientific investigation and engineering achievement. We will prioritize between observations of our own planet and a better understanding of our solar system and our universe. But I am confident that at the end of the deliberations, we will conclude that human space flight must continue, because space continues to be the final frontier; and as long as we can look upward at night and be fascinated with the prospect of unknown worlds, human space flight will be part of our space program. I believe that Michael Anderson would not have us choose otherwise.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unavoidably absent on January 8, 2003. I ask the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 7, final passage of S. 23, the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Extension Act.