George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for enactment of the extensive tax package forth by President George W. Bush to reduce the tax burden on all Americans. I agree with the President's statement in his address to a joint session of Congress on February 27, 2001, that the ``American people have been overcharged.'' There was a $236 billion tax surplus during fiscal year 2000 and we expect a tax surplus of $268 billion this year. If the people continue to be taxed at the same amount, the government will accrue a $5.4 trillion surplus over a ten year period. This is not the government's money, but money each American taxpayer could use to pay for increases in energy costs, their children's college expenses, reducing credit card debt or save for retirement. Why should the government sit on a large tax surplus while each individual interested in investment could be receiving a maximal return? Taxpayers are due for a tax refund in order to resuscitate a slowing economy and keep it strong. President Bush has proposed a bold and fair tax relief plan that will reduce the inequities of the current tax code and help ensure that America remains prosperous. His six key components-replacing the current tax rates with a simplified rate structure, doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child, reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples, eliminating the death tax, expanding the charitable deduction to nonitemizers and making the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent-touch the lives of all. In concert, these changes will enable all taxpayers to retain more of their own money and they will support our American economy. Many of these measures have already been introduced by members of Congress. The passage of H.R. 3 is a positive first step in achieving a simpler tax structure by immediately reducing the marginal rates from 15 percent to 12 percent with President Bush's reduction of all brackets by 2006. It also helps families by repealing the mandatory reductions in the additional (three or more children) child tax credit and the earned income credit for taxpayers subject to the alternative minimum tax. These are positive steps for immediately helping those who need it most. Some have expressed concern about the equity of President Bush's tax proposal and criticize it by comparing the amounts of money people in each tax bracket will ``receive'' if it passes. Under President Bush's plan, lower income individuals would actually receive a greater percentage of tax relief in relation to their current personal tax burden once all tax credits are considered. For instance, the marginal federal income tax rate would fall by over 40 percent for low-income families with two children and nearly 50 percent for families with one child. Contrary to some charges, single filers falling in the 15 percent tax bracket after the tax cut will also receive a tax cut. They will have their first $6000 taxed at 10 percent rather than 15 percent, or if they have a dependent, the first $10,000 would be taxed at this lower rate. In the case of couples filing jointly, the first $12,000 would be taxed at this lower rate. If no other tax credits are claimed, someone filing as an individual without dependents would expect a $300 tax break per year. This can range anywhere from 7 to 12 percent less in total taxes. One argument made against these tax proposals is that they reduce our capacity to pay down the national debt. I agree strongly that paying down the national debt must be a priority. Both the President and I believe that we can both pay down the debt and have tax relief. In fact, the President's plan places debt elimination before tax cuts in his budget outline submitted to Congress on February 28, because retiring the debt can enhance the viability of his tax cut. The charge that those who favor a tax cut oppose debt reduction is wrong. The President's plan will accelerate debt retirement payments to record rates by proposing to eliminate $2 trillion in public debt over the next 10 years. Actually, the President's budget pays down the debt so aggressively that it effectively cannot pay off all the debt when it would be possible to do so in 2007. The remaining $1 trillion in public debt, which is composed of savings and special bonds, cannot be retired until after 2011 when it becomes due. Even after the President's tax cut and spending priorities, the government is still projected to have $1.3 trillion in excess cash balances in 2011. Budget projections these past several years have been overly conservative. $850 billion of unexpected tax revenue was collected, and combined with debt service savings, revenue intake underestimates contributed to about a $1 trillion surplus. The Congressional Budget Office and the Administration continue to use conservative estimates in order to accommodate slower growth. Theoretical projections are a necessary part of the budgetary process and policy making each year. Consideration of the future of Social Security, Medicare and debt reduction are all based on theoretical projections. There are inherent uncertainties in making 10 year budget projections; however, the President's Budget creates a $1 trillion reserve over the same amount of time. This can be used to aid in Medicare and Social Security modernization. In all, the tax cut will only amount to one quarter of the projected surplus, leaving room for program maintenance, growth and unexpected situations. I am proud that Congress has made protecting Social Security its highest priority with the passage of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act. Now, 100 percent of the Social Security surplus cannot be touched for other government spending. President Bush has pledged to keep the promises that America has made to its senior citizens by signing this bill. We must eliminate the death tax--a major reason for the dissolution of family-owned small businesses, farms and ranches upon the death of the owner. Originally enacted as a temporary tax to raise funds for national security emergencies, this tax first helped create our Navy in 1797 and fund the Civil and Spanish-American wars. In 1916, the tax was made permanent. Once the current $650,000 threshold is met, the tax consumes up to 55 percent of the remaining estate. This money will have already been taxed first as income, then possibly as capital gains or property. The impact on Eastern Washington farmers and ranchers is particularly severe. In order to be viable, even the smallest farm operation must have about $500,000 tied up in equipment. If the farmer owns the land, the value is at least $1.5 million. On paper, this farmer is worth $2 million or more. This makes it difficult for the farmer to pass his property and business on to his family after death. The same is true for small businesses, where the owner's children are not the only ones affected. Those who lose their jobs when the business is partitioned and sold face even more dire circumstances. I support the legislation that would phase-out the death tax over ten years. Defeated only by President Clinton's veto during the last Congress, I hope it can pass this year. This tax package is right for our country. It meets our needs and obligations for the future while helping all of Americans who pay taxes. It is becoming more and more evident that we need to do something to strengthen the economy. Tax relief is needed now.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, The Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act locks away the entire $2.9 trillion Social Security and Medicare surpluses, protecting it from increased government spending and tax cuts. I am proud to be part of the first Congress in thirty years which paid all the government's bills without raiding the Social Security Trust fund. This legislation guarantees that we continue to protect the surplus by creating a ``lock box'' which ensures that the surplus can be used only to pay beneficiaries. Though the prognosis for the Social Security trust fund has improved with the strong economy, Social Security is still scheduled to begin drawing on the surplus by 2015 and the trust fund will be exhausted by 2037. It is Congress's duty to ensure that the surplus is there for senior citizens while we work to reform the program for future generations. I am proud to support the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox. Senior citizens, as well as all Americans deserve to know that their benefits will be there for them when they retire. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) to elevate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service to Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. Companion legislation is also being introduced today in the other body by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain). The Indian Health Service (IHS) is the lead agency in providing health care to the more than 550 Indian tribes in the United States. Services ranging from facility construction to pediatrics assist approximately 1.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives each year. The IHS currently falls under the authority of the Public Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The IHS Director is the top administration official charged with carrying out the federal trust responsibility for IHS, but he does not report to the HHS Secretary. Designating the IHS Director as an Assistant Secretary of Indian Health would afford IHS a stronger advocacy function within HHS, and allow for increased representation during the budget process. Currently the ability of the IHS to affect budgetary policy is limited, in part by the Director's inability to directly participate in budget negotiations. It is also important to note than an Assistant Secretary leads the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) although the IHS budget exceeds that of BIA. This legislation has the strong support of the American Indian and Alaska Native community. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 2000, I missed rollcall votes 531, 532 and 533. I request that the record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, while I support the hard work of House conferees in crafting this conference report I want to express concern that an amendment I had offered to H.R. 4465 was dropped in conference. The amendment expressed concern about the state of NASA's research and analysis programs (R&A). Through peer reviewed grants to individual scientists, R&A provides the basic research which is the seed corn for space exploration missions. While these activities often are not glamorous, and do not make for pretty images on CNN, they are essential for increasing the return to taxpayers from more visible and expensive flight programs. Unfortunately, NASA been underfunding this activity. Despite projected overall increases in the NASA budget in the outyears, R&A is expected to be flat funded at best, and may in fact suffer further funding reductions. In 1998, the National Research Council Report ``Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs'' offered significant new findings and important recommendations for strengthening this activity as well as Data Analysis (DA) programs. Six explicit recommendations were offered, but despite their clear potential for improving the effectiveness of flight programs, NASA has implemented few if any changes. My amendment simply required a review of the status in implementing the recommendations in the report, barriers to implementation and specific guidance on optimal funding levels. The provision was considered non-controversial by the full Appropriations Committee and was adopted by voice vote. While Members of Congress regarded this as a common sense, good government amendment, NASA objected most strenuously to being held to the basic recommendations of the Space Studies Board. In an effort to preempt my language, NASA requested an interim assessment of Research and Data Analysis in the Office of Space Science. This September 22, 2000 letter report from the Space Studies Board (SSB), which I am including for the record, hardly notes enthusiastic support for the 1998 recommendations. It suggests that while NASA has been effective in talking about change in this area, little action has been seen to date. As the letter report notes: ``While the board supports the steps noted above, there are still two concerns to be addressed. First, many of the OSS responses to the 1998 report's recommendations are planned rather than ongoing activities, and so any assessment of their effectiveness must await their implementation. Second, there are areas where the plans appear to be incomplete or where the attention being given may be inadequate.'' The board concludes by noting that ``it cannot, however, be confident that these recommendations will be met until an explicit implementation plan is available.'' I note that this was an ``interim'' report for only one of NASA's three science offices, and that more comprehensive analysis is required. I expect that NASA will continue to work with interested Members of Congress and the SSB to ensure that these sound recommendations are actually implemented. The fact that this amendment was dropped from the final conference report should in no way be seen as a diminution of Congressional interest in this issue. I can assure the agency that unless concrete steps to towards implementation are undertaken, further Congressional action is likely. Research and analysis activities are critically important and the SSB has made sound recommendations for improvement which should be heeded. I would also like to use this opportunity to bring to Members' attention, and that of VA policy, program and budget officials, the legislative history and background surrounding the inclusion of $5,000,000 for the Joslin Vision Network (JVN), developed by the Joslin Diabetes Center. The Conference Agreement of $5,000,000 for this effort is based on the following components. Dr. Sven Bursell of Joslin Diabetes Center presented Outside Witness testimoney to the VA/HUD Subcommittee describing a $5 million plan for the JVN to be deployed within the VA beyond the FY 2000 level, and for the refinement of the JVN system toward a Windows NT platform and a seamless interface with VA Medical Care software. Dr. Bursell outlined the two major elements of the $5,000,000 plan as follows: $3 million would be used by the VA and Joslin to expand to additional sites with the most need for portable advanced detection and begin to train personnel and equip additional VA facilities to utilize the JVN technology; and $2 million would be provided to the Joslin Diabetes Center to complete the refinement of the original, prototype system (equipment and software) to the point that the VA can purchase and utilize advanced detection equipment and reading center technology. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Sam Gejdenson and I testified together before the VA/HUD Subcommittee on April 11, 2000, in support of the Joslin Diabetes Center plan. Our bipartisan request for approval and funding of the $5,000,000 Joslin Diabetes Center request was approved in the Conference Agreement on H.R. 4635. Congressional intent underlying this item is clear. The VA should endeavor to implement this plan as expeditiously as possible in order to bring improved care to VA patients suffering from diabetes. Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Office of Space Science On September 22, 2000, Space Studies Board Chair John H. McElroy sent the following letter to Dr. Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA's Office of Space Science. As you requested in your letter of June 16, 2000 (Appendix A), the Space Studies Board (the Board, Appendix B) has conducted a brief review of actions taken by the Office of Space Science (OSS) that are relevant to recommendations in the board's 1998 report Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis. The statement of task for this review is provided in Appendix C. The Board conducted this assessment on a ambitious schedule in accordance with your request for feedback by September 2000. The Board was provided with relatively little written documentation of NASA's plans for improving the OSS R&DA program. The review was based, in part, on inputs received from relevant standing committees of the Board--the Committee on Solar and Space Physics, the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, and the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. A major source of information for the review was a pair of short papers provided to the Board on July 25, 2000, by Dr. Guenter Riegler, director of the OSS Research Program Management Division (Appendixes D and E). Dr. Riegler then briefed the board's executive committee and standing committee chairs at a meeting on August 16 at the National Academies' study center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. At that meeting, members of the Board reviewed and discussed the information from NASA and the Board's discipline committees' responses and assembled this consensus assessment. The board concluded that the proposals that Dr. Riegler described for responding to the 1998 report are appropriate; however, a final assessment awaits action guided by a concrete implementation plan. general observations The 1998 Space Studies board report analyzed the roles and contributions of R&DA grants in the research programs of NASA's three science offices, and it presented a set of strategic and programmatic recommendations to enhance the R&DA programs. The Board reaffirms the conclusions of the 1998 report: research and data analysis activities are critical elements of a viable space science program. The Board is aware of a number of actions within OSS that are under way or planned that will strengthen the R&DA programs and that will be entirely consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 report. For example, Dr. Riegler described plans to reallocate current budgets and to seek funds for new projects that will provide selected increases in data analysis funding at an overall rate of 8% per year. He also reported on the OSS intent to provide explicitly for data analysis funding in all new projects when they are initially proposed. Further, Dr. Reigler described a regular process of ``senior reviews'' of the research grants program that would complement the senior reviews of operating spacecraft mission programs and provide a mechanism to accomplish a number of actions recommended by the Board in the 1998 report. While the Board supports the steps noted above, there are still two concerns to be addressed. First, many of the OSS responses to the 1998 report's recommendations are planned rather than ongoing activities, and so any assessment of their effectiveness must await their implementation. Second, there are areas where the plans appear to be incomplete or where the attention being given may be inadequate. In the remainder of this report, the Board provides additional comments on those areas by addressing each of the six major recommendations in the 1998 report in order. assessment of the oss response to the 1998 ssb recommendations 1. Principles for Strategic Planning The first recommendation of the 1998 report addressed a number of aspects of managing R&DA programs strategically. To be able to do so requires, of course, a strategic plan for the program as a whole and an approach that integrates attention to R&DA into that plan. In its May 2000 review of the OSS draft 2000 strategic plan, the Board indicated that while many aspects of the draft were solidly grounded, the document still lacked several important aspects of a strategic plan, as follows: Although the draft document is called ``The Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan,'' it lacks, in fact, some key characteristics of a strategic plan. For example, the document does not explicitly discuss how choices were or are made in setting priorities, and it does not identify priorities for missions or other program elements that are presented in the plan. . . . Regarding the integration of R&DA into that strategic plan, the Board's May 2000 report said: The OSS draft plan should reflect a clearer sense of the priorities for R&DA, the linkages between R&DA and other parts of the OSS program, and the overall importance of R&DA in the space science enterprise. Finally, also needed is a more explicit discussion of the OSS strategy for achieving balance between flight mission development, supporting ground and suborbital research, theory and modeling, and data analysis. . . . The Board is aware of OSS's plans to institute a new senior review process for evaluating the research grants program (Appendix D), probably on a triennial basis, to complement the senior reviews for operating satellites. Together these two reviews will go a long way toward responding to regular evaluations of balance as recommended in the 1998 report. What is apparently missing, however, is a process to integrate these decisions and to look across the whole program strategically. This integrating function is particularly important for handling cases in which senior reviews of operating missions and of the grants program might arrive at different conclusions. The NASA Space Science Advisory Committee may be a possible venue for integrating the senior reviews and evaluating balance across OSS. 2. Innovation and Infrastructure The second recommendation addressed the need to examine stragically the requirements, priorities, and health of research infrastructures at universities and NASA field centers. This issue was also addressed in the Board's review of the OSS draft strategic plan: The OSS draft document says little about what responsibility OSS assumes for universities. It notes the intention to ``maintain essential technical capabilities at the NASA centers,'' and although it recognizes the role of scientists at universities in research and planning, and in developing the next generation of space research professionals, it is silent about intentions of OSS to maintain essential capabilities at universities. . . . Furthermore, a long-standing question within NASA has concerned the extent to which universities should be considered to be vendors, sources of members of the technical workforce, integral partners, or some mix of those roles. The OSS plan could be strengthened by more clearly recognizing that the universities are elements of the fabric of space science and that their capabilities also need to be nurtured. Dr. Riegler called the Board's attention to plans within the executive branch to strengthen government-university partnerships, based on the ``Principles of the Federal Partnership with Universities in Research'' laid out in the National Science and Technology Council's report Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21st Century. He cited several proposed NASA initiatives to increase university involvement in developing space hardware and infrastructure. These plans, if implemented, will enhance the research infrastructure in some areas. However, based on the information provided by OSS, the Board concluded that a more systematic assessment of research infrastructure along the lines recommended in the 1998 report is still needed. 3. Management of the Research and Data Analysis Programs The third recommendation focused on the need to assess the distribution of grant sizes in each of NASA's science program areas. NASA presented data regarding grant sizes in different areas of the OSS research program as well as a description of the logic and history of the differences in sizes among those research areas. However, there does not appear to have been any systematic assessment across the program. In addition, the Board recognizes that a response to Recommendation 6 of the 1998 report is required in order to conduct such an assessment. Finally, the planned senior review of the research grants program described by NASA could be an appropriate vehicle for carrying out this systematic review. 4. Participation in the Research and Data Analysis Programs The fourth recommendation emphasized the value in preserving a mix of university and non-university participation in technology, instrument, and facility development. OSS did not provide the Board with any information indicating that OSS has conducted or plans to conduct a systematic evaluation of the mix of university principal investigator awards and non-university funding for technology, instrument, and facility development. The Board notes that in assessing the mix of institutions involved in technology development, NASA should also promote university- industry-field center partnerships. 5. Creation of Intellectual Capital The fifth recommendation addressed the use of training grants as a way to ensure breadth in graduate education. NASA indicated an intent to increase the number of (or introduce a new element into) training grants in the university program; however, no actions had been undertaken at the time of this review. The Board is interested in seeing an implementation plan for this initiative. 6. Accounting as a Management Tool in the Research and Data Analysis Programs The sixth recommendation addressed the need to establish a uniform procedure for collecting data on R&DA funding and funding trends for use as a management tool. This issue was also raised in the Board's reports on technology development in OSS and in the report Federal Funding of Astronomical Research. NASA presented plans for acquiring the types of data recommended in the 1998 report, and the Board views this plan as a positive response. These plans would involve using a single contractor to administer the proposal review process as a means for collecting the data. If appropriate data are collected (e.g., on trends with respect to discipline, class of activity, and type of performing institution), they will provide a useful management tool for assessing the balance among elements and participants in the R&DA program. However, these data on R&DA funding will be incomplete until NASA implements full-cost accounting at the NASA field centers. In addition, these data will be required before OSS can respond appropriately to Recommendation 3 of the 1998 report. concluding remarks The Board believes that OSS's proposals for responding to the recommendations of the 1998 report are moving in the right direction. It cannot, however, be confident that these recommendations will be met until an explicit implementation plan is available. The Board is prepared to assist OSS in any way it can.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my good friend and colleague. The gentleman from Ohio has served with distinction for the past 6 years as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. During that time, he has worked tirelessly to make Federal programs work better for the American public. From day one, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) rolled up his sleeves and got to work identifying critical issues that needed to be addressed, has, throughout his chairmanship, asked tough questions on how the taxpayers' money is being used and how effectively the Federal bureaucracy is working. The Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations funds all the National Parks, the National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and public lands in this country. Those lands comprise more than one-third of the land base in this country. The subcommittee also has funding responsibility for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs, critical energy research, and many cultural programs such as the Smithsonian Institution. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) took over as chairman of the subcommittee in 1995, he immediately focused on targeting critical core programs for funding and eliminating programs that had outlived their usefulness or were duplicative of other efforts. As a result, five agencies were eliminated, and over 50 other programs were terminated. The gentleman from Ohio has stood by his philosophy that some programs must be done, others are important to do, and still others may be worthy for consideration to the extent that funds are available. The gentleman from Ohio's trademark ``must do,'' ``need to do'' and ``nice to do'' categorization has continued throughout his tenure as chairman and has made the Interior appropriations bill a balanced and admirable product each year. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) recognized 6 years ago that the agencies funded by the Interior bill were accumulating large maintenance backlogs and that efforts to start new programs and expand existing ones were exacerbating a $15 billion maintenance backlog program. New programs are politically very popular, and the gentleman from Ohio took a brave stand in holding the line on new programs in order to, in his words, ``take care of what we have.'' In addition to the annual appropriations process, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has held an unprecedented 26 oversight hearings to identify long-standing critical program problems and needs and has taken action to fix those problems and those needs. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has never shied away from controversy. He highlighted major problems with the National Park Service construction program, including a $1 million rest room construction and a bloated centralized construction bureaucracy that discouraged cost containment and the use of local expertise. He put a stop to the excessive spending and dramatically pared back the Denver Service Center that controlled the construction program. He held two hearings on the South Florida Restoration Initiative, which deals with restoration of the Everglades, and identified major cost overruns. His efforts uncovered the lack of a strategic plan for this 20-year multi-billion dollar program. As a direct result of the gentleman from Ohio's scrutiny, this program is being managed more cost effectively, and individual projects are being integrated into a focused long-term strategy. To address the maintenance backlog on our public lands and in our Federal museums, art galleries and Indian lands, he instituted an aggressive maintenance funding effort and minimized new land acquisitions and new programs in order to pay for this long overdue maintenance initiative. One of the highlights of his tenure as chairman is his creation of a national recreation fee demonstration program for our parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other public lands. Under that program, the fees that are collected go right back into on-the-ground improvements to provide for visitor safety and enjoyment on our public lands. To date, over $500 million in fees have been collected to supplement the increased funding provided through appropriations. These fees have been used for services to benefit visitors to our public lands and to preserve the taxpayers' investment in these lands for generations to come. Other tough issues the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has addressed include critical financial management reform in the Forest Service to correct financial mismanagement in the Forest Service; trust management reform in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the need for a coherent and responsive National Energy Strategy that includes cooperation among the Federal Government, industry and the States. He was ahead of his time on the energy issue. The need for a national energy strategy has been highlighted over the past year as fuel oil and natural gas prices have risen dramatically and certain parts of the country are experiencing electric power shortages. The staff members of the Subcommittee on Interior have asked me to convey their respect and heartfelt admiration for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). They include Debbie Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, Chris Topik, Angie Perry, Andria Oliver and Steve Glomb. They join me in our beliefs that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) is a truly great man who stands by his beliefs and has the courage to do the right thing. As the gentleman from Ohio concludes his 6th year as chairman, the people of this country have much to be grateful for as a direct result of his leadership and tireless efforts on their behalf. I join everyone in this Chamber in giving our great expression of support and admiration for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula).

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, too often in this place each of us in our respective positions on an issue seek perfection. We want it only our way. And I think this bill, this measure, this appropriations conference report is a picture of bipartisanship, of compromise, of not everybody getting everything they wanted in particular in the context of this bill. But, overall, it is a good package. It provides prescription drug assistance. It provides tremendous agriculture research. It gives us a chance to lift sanctions on food and medicine for countries that we have previously sanctioned unilaterally for all these years. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. I wish I had it a different way in some respects for my purposes, but that is not the nature of this legislative system. So I would say to my friends on the other side respectfully, certainly they did not get it all 100 percent the way they want, but it is a great step forward. This rule should be adopted. Anyone who supported the position that I have taken on limiting sanctions on food and medicine, I urge them on both sides of the aisle to support this rule, support this conference report, and let us get this to the President and get it signed so we can move agriculture forward. This bill has $100 million in food bank assistance. Try voting against that. That is not advisable. It has prescription drug assistance in it. It has in it agriculture research that will help our farmers compete in a world market. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee. He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in support of this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine needs. It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area of lifting sanctions on food and medicine. In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard. We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the imposition of sanctions unilaterally. The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine unilaterally by our country. Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has been a leader in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba. I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic, good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in our country. I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure that would work for their needs and their particular positions and policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be, this is a good package. I hope it passes this House.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the progress we have made this year in our effort to lift unilateral food and medicine sanctions. Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, will open up significant new export markets for American farmers. This provision is the result of hard work by many Members and the unfailing support of a broad coalition that refused to let this issue fade into obscurity in the waning days of this session. The overall purpose of this title is unmistakable--unilateral food and medicine sanctions are eliminated and new procedures are established for the future consideration of such sanctions. As the author of this provision, I would like to briefly outline Congressional intent, to ensure that agencies charged with implementing this legislation fully appreciate the expectations of the Agriculture Appropriations conferees. In drafting this provision, it was not our intention to derogate from current law or the flexibility provided for in present regulations which do permit limited exports to some unilaterally sanctioned states. Similarly, the intent of conferees is to expand export opportunities for food and medicine beyond that currently provided for in law or regulations. We expect that regulations implementing this provision will liberalize the current administrative procedures for the export of food and medicine. A section by section explanation follows: Section 901--Title This section contains the title of the Act. Section 902--Definitions Definitions in the section are broadly drawn to allow maximum benefit to exporters of agricultural commodities and medicine and medical products. Non-food commodities are included in the definition of ``agricultural commodities'' and as Section 775 further clarifies, for purposes of administering Title IX of this Act, the term ``agricultural commodity'' shall also include fertilizer and organic fertilizer. ``Medical device'' and ``medicine'' should be interpreted reasonably to mean all products commonly understood to be within these categories, as explicitly recognized by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and including products such as crutches, bandages and other medical supplies. Section 903--Restriction This section prohibits the President from imposing unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions without the concurrence of Congress in the form of a joint resolution. The President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural and medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of enactment, though Section 911 provides a 120 day waiting period to allow the implementation of appropriate regulations. Section 904--Exceptions This section provides a number of exceptions to Section 903 to ensure that the Administration has sufficient flexibility to impose or continue to impose sanctions in unusual instances. While seven particular exceptions are provided, they are narrowly drawn, in recognition of the conferees' expectation that food and medicine sanctions should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, these exceptions should not be used to impose sanctions permanently, consistent with Section 905. Conferees expect that the President will abide by the spirit of the language and submit for Congressional review all sanctions to be imposed under this section, unless extraordinary circumstances require extremely timely action. Section 905--Termination of Sanctions This section provides for a sunset of any food or medicine sanctions imposed under Section 903, not later than 2 years after the date the sanction become effective. Sanctions may be maintained only if the President recommends to Congress a continuation of not more than 2 years, and a joint resolution is enacted in support of this recommendation. Section 906--State Sponsors of International Terrorism This section requires licenses for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices to Cuba or to the government of a country that has been determined to be a state sponsor of international terrorism, or any other entity in such country. These licenses shall be provided for a period of not less than 12 months and shall be no more restrictive than license exceptions administered by the Department of Commerce or general licenses administered by the Department of Treasury. While this section provides the Administration with flexibility to determine licensing requirements, it is the expectation of conferees that presumption in favor of sales will fall on the side of exporters, consistent with the title of the act, to support enhanced exports. Consistent with this expectation, it is the understanding of the author that the Department of Commerce would be the lead agency for all exports and related transactions under this title, all of which would be subject to a general licensing arrangement. In the case of exports to Cuba, it is the understanding of author that current restrictions on shipping to Cuba will continue to be waived for licensed exports. Exports to the Government of Syria and the Government of North Korea are expected from the licensing requirements of this section, and to the extent a private sector emerges in either country, these entities should receive the same treatment. The section also requires that procedures be in place to deny exports to any entity within such country promoting international terrorism. This language is only intended to give the Administration narrow discretion in the granting of licenses for exports to specific sub-entities that are directly involved in the promotion of terrorism. Finally, the section requires quarterly and biennial reports on licensing activities to determine the effectiveness of licensing arrangements. Section 907--Congressional Procedures This section requires that a report submitted by the President under Section 903 or 905 shall be submitted to the appropriate committee or committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. A joint resolution in support of this report may not be reported before the eighth session day of Congress after the introduction of the joint resolution. Section 908--Prohibition on United States Assistance and Financing Section 908(a)(1) prohibits the use of United States government assistance and financing for exports to Cuba. However, consistent with the overall intent of the measure, this prohibition is not intended to modify any provision of law relating to assistance to Cuba. The provision also restricts the use of government assistance for commercial exports to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan, unless the President waives the restrictions for national security or humanitarian reasons. In recent months, the Administration has taken several steps to liberalize these and other restrictions on agricultural trade with Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. As such, it will be in the best interest of U.S. agricultural producers and our balance of trade if the President uses the waiver authority in subsection (a)(3) to promptly waive these restrictions before the current sanctions are lifted 120 days after enactment of this bill. If the President's waiver authority is not so promptly exercised, the restrictions in subsection (a)(1) could act to restrict exports of agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices to these countries more than under current law. This is certainly not the intent of this legislation. Specifically with regard to Cuba, subsection (b) of section 908 prohibits the financing of U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba by any United States person. However, in order to accommodate sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba, subsection (b) specifically authorizes Cuban buyers to pay U.S. sellers by cash in advance, or by utilizing financing through third country financial institutions. While they cannot extend financing to Cuban buyers, U.S. financial institutions are specifically authorized to confirm or advise letters of credit related to the sale that are issued by third country financial institutions. Under this procedure, third country financial institutions can assume the Cuban risk associated with these transactions and issue letters of credit free of Cuban risk to be confirmed by U.S. banks. The provision of such a ``firewall'' against sanctioned country risk is consistent with the role played by third country banks in transactions with other countries subject to U.S. sanctions. U.S. financial institutions may act as exporters' collection and payment agents, confirm the third country letters of credit, and guarantee payment to the U.S. exporter. The provision of such export-related financial services by U.S. financial institutions (commercial banks, cooperatives, and others) will allow U.S. farmers, their cooperatives, and exporters to be assured that they will be paid for exported commodities. Subsection (b)(3) of section 908 requires the President to issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section. In addition to waiving the restrictions on assistance as appropriate under subsection (a)(3), these regulations need to facilitate the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices. In particular, the regulations need to accommodate these specifically authorized exports by waiving the restrictions with respect to vessels engaged in trade with Cuba found at 31 C.F.R. 515.207. Section 909--Prohibition on Additional Imports from Cuba Section 909 reiterates 31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibiting from entry into the United States any merchandise that is of Cuban origin, has been transported through Cuba, or is derived from any article produced in Cuba. Section 910--Requirements Relating to Certain Travel-Related Transactions With Cuba This section requires the Secretary of Treasury to promulgate regulations to authorize travel to, from, or within Cuba for the commercial export sale of agricultural commodities. Aside from this expansion in permissible travel transactions, tourist activities in Cuba are not authorized. Section 911--Effective Date This title shall take effect on the date of enactment and apply thereafter in any fiscal year. Unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions in effect as of the date of enactment shall be lifted 120 days after enactment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in favor of this rule and stand in favor of this Interior Conference Report. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I have been proud to work with the Democrats and Republicans. Certainly my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), has done a masterful job of being sensitive to all sides of these issues of conservation and reinvestment and fire protection and all the things that go into the Interior Appropriation Bill. One thing is certain about this business: Nobody is ever satisfied. We cannot ever get perfection, but the conference committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, struggled over this bill to try to make it right, to get it the best we could for everybody concerned. People in my part of the State of Washington are very concerned about CARA and the mandatory spending requirement. Whether it is needed or not, it is mandatory. I think our system of appropriations and discretionary spending in the years ahead is going to be better to have the Committee on Appropriations and the Congress as a whole making these judgments about conservation lands on an annual basis rather than forcing a mandatory spending program whether it is needed or not. So I have great respect for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). But I think he has to have great respect for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as well as myself and others who worked so hard to craft this compromise to make sure that it meets the White House's needs and the Republicans and the Democrats needs, and that is fair under the circumstances. If we vote against this bill, we are voting against National Park Service operations; against fire remedies that occurred this summer in the West; we will be voting against Indian Health Service. That is critically important in my part of the country and across this Nation, as Indian populations have increased in their health needs. We will be voting against the weatherization grants if we vote against this bill. The bottom line for me is this is a fair compromise. It puts the conservation decision-making right where it ought to be, on Congress, making its best judgments on an annual basis, and I hope the membership will approve it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to pay tribute to a gentleman who is not only a friend but a great part of the Fifth Congressional District of Washington. His name is Gordon McLean. He is the Administrator of the Whitman County Community Hospital in Colfax, Washington. He has been working in my office the last couple of weeks on the issue of health care and helped me prepare these remarks today for delivery to the House. He is not only a valued friend but a valuable part of the medical community in eastern Washington and really across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's health care system needs a transfusion that only Congress can provide. I am delighted to recognize the extraordinary health care system we have in my Fifth Congressional District of Washington, a model of cooperation, collaboration, and creative solutions to the challenges facing an industry continually pressed to do more with less and never make a mistake. Without a transfusion in the form of further Medicare and Medicaid relief, this system is in jeopardy, and it is not alone. The lack of reasonable and necessary reimbursement for quality health care services is affecting health care systems across our country. Right here, in what people in my State call ``the other Washington,'' one major hospital totters on the brink of closure, while another copes with a strike by nurses. Ever more often we see headlines about patients dying or being injured because of medication errors, short staffing, too much overtime, misuse of restraints, unsafe bed rails and overworked interns. Many of these reports are exaggerated, based on flawed or insufficient study and embellished by tabloid sensationalism. But we must admit that there is often an element of truth in every report. In a hospital, a reportable accident or a situation prompts a root- cause analysis that is conducted to get to the root of the problem, change policies and procedures, and take steps to ensure the risk is reduced or removed. The truth is that more and more of these reportable incidents can be traced back to insufficient funding. The truth is that there will be more safety, service and staffing incidents until Congress provides a funding transfusion not only for hospitals but for community clinics, home health, and hospice services, graduate medical education, and all the vital components of our health care system. The Balanced Budget Act was a timely and appropriate effort by Congress, and I also believe that the reduction in projected payments for Medicare and Medicaid was intended to be reasonable and necessary. One intended consequence was what we eastern Washingtonians describe as separating the wheat from the chaff. There needed to be some pruning of excess duplication and abuse, shaking out those who saw Medicare as a gravy train. While painful and maybe a little too aggressive at first, the Medicare crackdown on Medicare fraud was timely and appropriate as well. Yes, it has been difficult for the last 3 years, but I believe our health care system is now and will continue to be healthier for the experience. At the same time, even Mother Joseph, who pioneered health care ministries in our great Pacific Northwest, the Mother Joseph we honor in our Congressional Hall of Statutes, understood the meaning of no margin, no mission. And it is this deteriorating margin in the health care industry that prompts my comments today. The new reality is that our extraordinary system of health care in this country, designed to care for the ill, injured and infirm is itself infirm, unstable and tottering. Yes, this system sacrificed for the cause of a balanced budget. Yes, there have been the pains of change as the system has become more efficient and productive. Needless to say, Medicare compliance is a priority for providers who have received the message from Congress. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have gone beyond intended consequences and are in the realm of serious systems failures if there is no boost to margins for health care providers. One of the first rules in medicine is, ``First do no harm.'' I believe we have reached the point of harm in many programs, from graduate medical eduction to home health. We recall the urgency to balance the Federal budget. We achieved that goal. And we recall how reductions in projected Medicare and Medicaid patients' payments made a significant contribution. I believe too significant. For example, 3 years into our 5-year program, we find the hospital inflation rate running at three to four times their Federal payment updates. The hospital inflation rate is driven by wage and benefit demands in a labor shortage environment, the rising cost of supplies, replacing and adding new technology, responding to greater numbers of uninsured, and adding staff to cope with the increasing complexities of administration. While I use the hospital example, I am speaking for the entire health care system. Each component faces similar as well as unique challenges. The one common denominator they share is deteriorating margins. Congress has been besieged by countless messages from health care providers telling us of the unintended consequences of the Balance Budget Act; that our reconciliation efforts last year were appreciated but were not enough; and that a 2-year transfusion is needed now. There is another saying in medicine. ``Bleeding always stops.'' The challenge is to determine the cause of the bleeding and take action before it is too late. Today, I ask my colleagues to join together in a bipartisan effort to recognize the extraordinary health care system we have in America, acknowledging enough is enough, and providing prompt and appropriate Balanced Budget Act relief to stem the bleeding, and to do no more harm to one of our Nation's most valued assets; the American health care system.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Colorado, both great friends of mine, with respect to their commitment to curing the disease of diabetes that affects so many people around this world, especially in the United States of America. This bill is a great bill with respect to its attention to diabetes. It creates a national registry to track the incidence of juvenile diabetes; it establishes long-term epidemiology studies, in which persons with type 1 diabetes will be followed for 10 years; it addresses type 2 diabetes in youth; it creates a critical trial infrastructure for juvenile diabetes; it provides a look at animal studies, which will provide hope and promise that a true vaccine can be developed to prevent type 1 diabetes in humans; and it also contains a loan repayment program to encourage research. Overall, this bill is a very good effort as it relates to diabetes, and I am very much supportive of it. I hope that all the 270 members of the House Diabetes Caucus will get on board and support it as well.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of the International Relations Committee, particularly the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, in moving this important resolution forward. Today we are considering the Senate version of the resolution I introduced, H. Con. Res. 249, which has 11 cosponsors. As the chairman has noted, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the People's Republic of China should immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary and her son, and permit them to move to the United States. Kadeer is a 53-year-old entrepreneur from China's Xingjiang Autonomous Region. As a member of the Uighur minority, she emerged as a symbol of how minorities could succeed in China. However, her relationship with the Chinese Government deteriorated after her husband's emigration to the United States in 1997. Sidik Rouzi has become a prominent critic of China's Xingjiang policies and testified last summer before the House Congressional Human Rights Caucus. On August 11, 1999, Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary, and two of her sons were arrested in Urumqi, China and charged with ``illegally providing intelligence for foreign organizations.'' She was apparently arrested en route to a previously scheduled meeting with U.S. congressional staff. A member of my staff was part of this official delegation, organized under the auspices of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Program of the U.S. Information Agency. The arrest prior to a meeting with an official delegation was an affront to Congress. Members and staff should be allowed to travel internationally and conduct their official duties without fear that their visit will trigger retributive action by the host country. One purpose of this staff delegation was to encourage mutual understanding and cultural exchange--the arrest was clearly contrary to this purpose. Such intimidation should never accompany an official delegation visit. Even more troubling, Kadeer was convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison for merely mailing copies of local newspapers to her husband in the United States. Apparently, her high crime was to mark and fold the newspapers in such a way that she was illegally revealing state information. In February, I received a letter from the Chinese Ambassador noting ``Ethnic secessionism in Xingjiang and Tibet is a deep concern for us. I hope our American friends could put themselves in our shoes when approaching this issue.'' I do not believe that Chinese concerns about ethnic affairs merit a suspension of human rights. Indeed, this resolution merely calls for the People's Republic of China to adhere to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees citizens the right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated and forbids arbitrary arrest and detention. Even though a Chinese court dismissed this case last November for lack of evidence, Kadeer was tried again. The second trial lasted all of two hours, and according to Human Rights Watch, neither she nor her attorney were permitted to even speak. China signed this Covenant in 1998 and has an obligation to respect the civil and political rights of all Chinese citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity. I urge my colleagues in the House to join the other body in passing this important resolution. China should immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary, and her son, and should allow them to move to the United States. Vote in support of this resolution and send a strong message to China that they must respect the political rights of all of their citizens.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, when I was in my district over the 4th of July weekend, I read a newspaper article in my hometown paper that deserves the attention of the House. The article explains how Jud M. Lockwood, of Spokane, WA, came to write a very moving paean to the American flag. Mr. Lockwood is a veteran of World War Two and he fought in North Africa and Europe. He knows first-hand of the sacrifices our fellow Americans have made to defend our nation and believes that the American flag is the living symbol of the price of freedom. Last year, Mr. Lockwood decided to write the story of the American flag. In five short paragraphs, writing from the point of view of the flag itself, the story brings to life the silent symbol of America. Mr. Lockwood is urging all Americans to take the time to read the story of our flag. I wish to join his crusade by entering into the Congressional Record Mr. Lockwood's story, as well as the newspaper article describing his passionate efforts to promote this worthy cause. Thank you Jud Lockwood, both for reminding Americans about the history and symbolism of our flag, but also for standing up for the flag in its time of need more than 50 years ago. An Inspiration for Patriotism (By Tracy Eilig) In a neon orange Hawaiian shirt, Jud Lockwood folds his arms behind his head, rocks back in his easy chair and tries to explain how the idea came to him. He can't. He hasn't a clue. He woke up one morning and the idea was in his head, like a baby in a basket left on the doorstep. But he's taken care of it ever since. Or, maybe, the idea has taken care of him. ``I woke up and thought, `I fought hard for the American flag and so did millions of others, and maybe I could write a story to give it the credit it deserves,' '' he said. His wife, Ruth, was skeptical. ``Jud, you can't even write a good letter,'' she said. But Lockwood sat down in his living room last fall with a yellow legal pad in hand and wrote. He came up with five paragraphs and 479 words that he wants everyone in America to read. Lockwood calls it a story. But it's not really a story or a poem. It takes the point of view of the flag talking about itself in a way that ends up like a history lesson, a reminder and an admonition It's sort of a red-white-and-blue Post-it note of patriotism; ``When you pledge your allegiance to me, remember that it stands for `Liberty and justice for all.' Please rest assured that I will fly over your last resting place. Love and respect me as I shall be yours forever.'' That's the final paragraph. It brings tears to Lockwood's eyes. ``My thrust is to get it out to the people because we should all respect the flag,'' he said, ``To me, the flag is priceless. I am a firm believer that it's an emblem of peace in the world and as long as the flag flies we're safe.'' A retired insurance salesman, former mayor of Omak, Wash., and former manager of the Omak Chamber of Commerce, the octogenerian and his wife moved to Spokane four years ago. He is a World War II veteran, having fought in North Africa and Europe. He remembers watching fleets of B-17s fly over Italy on their way to bomb German targets. Some of the planes would vanish in a black cloud, in taking a direct hit from anti-aircraft fire. In Tunis, he huddled with the rest of the troops as German Messerschmitt fighters strafed and bombed their positions. ``You're just at their mercy,'' he said. It was a part of the war that Lockwood brought home with him in 1945 and lingered for a while before vanishing. Sitting at the dinner table, the sound of an airplane would make him race outside and dive for cover. ``I think you get fear built up in you,'' he said. But Lockwood would do it again. He'd go to war for his country again even at his age. ``Freedom is priceless as far as I'm concerned,'' he said. To Lockwood the flag is the embodiment of that freedom and everyone should respect it. It's that belief that has driven him for months. With the help of a neighbor in his apartment complex, Lockwood got his flag story edited. With the help of the building manager, he got it formatted on paper with stars in the background and stripes around the border. With the encouragement of his wife, daughter and strangers he's met along the way, he's tried to sell his admonition to respect the flag. He copyrighted his story and then made himself business cards. He puts blue and red edging on them by hand with a felt-tip marker. He finishes them with a sticker of, naturally, an American flag. He's gone to schools. To fire departments. To the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Everywhere, he tries to sell copies of his flag story. ``Do you realize 600,000 immigrants enter the country annually?'' he said. Every one of them should have a copy, Lockwood thinks. Why not? He's taken his story to congressmen. He's offered it to banks. He'd like it to be printed on the back of brochures for political candidates. He's sold about 500 trying to cover his expenses and given away hundreds of other copies. ``I would like to get this into a national concern. Maybe someday, one of my children will take over,'' he said. ``I would like to see the flag story on the Statue of Liberty, put into bronze or something.'' Lockwood woke up one morning with his version of the American dream. He took care of it, made it grow. It's taking care of him, too. Before the idea for his flag story came to him, Lockwood was feeling a little adrift. ``I really didn't do much. I'd walk downtown, got involved with my church. Basically, I don't think I had a lot of direction until this bombshell--this story hit,'' he said. ``I wonder if I didn't have this, what really would I be doing?'' But it's a question he doesn't need to probe. He's got his mission. ``I get carried away, each day I get up seeing where I can sell them. I think the possibilities are unlimited. It keeps me going, keeps me active,'' Lockwood said. ``It gives me a goal every day to go out and meet people.''

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed with the gentleman from Kentucky the fact that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is conducting an economic mitigation study associated with the Lower Snake River in my congressional district. In addition, NMFS may direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct an engineering study on how to breach the dams. Language addressing Corps funding for such a study is included in H. Rept. 106-693, the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4733). The report states, ``The amount provided for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program does not include funds for engineering and design, or other post- feasibility phase activities, associated with breaching Lower Snake River dams.'' It is my understanding that it is the intent of the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies subcommittee that no funds are included for NMFS for engineering and design, or other post-feasibility phase activities including economic mitigation studies associated with breaching the Lower Snake River dams.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just think the gentleman makes some good points. I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina. But coming from a farm State and being part of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, we do look carefully at the problems that come up in different parts of the country and try to address the needs where they can best be addressed, at the universities or land grant universities who have an ongoing research program. It is popular to say, ``This has a funny name, jointed goat grass research,'' for example, ``Let us try to strike it;'' or asparagus research, like my friend from Colorado had an amendment which I opposed. But it really, I think, diminishes a bit the work of the members of the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations who look at all of these challenges in agriculture research and try to use their best judgment to make sure that problems are addressed for farmers, so we can sell crops and grow them, and grow them healthfully.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me. I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, with some concern about this rule, but with a commitment to vote for it. I will vote for it, not because I am happy that the provision that I had worked so hard to get into the appropriations bill will not be protected, but because of the very strong commitment I have received from the House leadership to make certain that the agreement that has been reached between the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is one that I believe is in the best interest of the country and I believe is in the best interest of moving the agriculture appropriations bill forward and completing our appropriations process. I have been working on this issue of lifting sanctions on food and medicine to the countries that our Nation unilaterally sanctions for 3 years. It is a turnaround in my thinking, because I came to Congress in 1995 thinking that unilateral embargoes on food and medicine are in the best interest of our Nation. But I have changed my view. I have changed my view because I do not believe that food and medicine should be used as weapons in foreign policy against governments or people, I should say, that we disagree with around the world. We disagree with the leadership of Fidel Castro. We disagree with the leadership of other countries that are terrorist in nature. But we must have some compassion and some feeling for the people that reside within those countries. That is what my amendment was designed to accomplish was to yield our sanctions policy such that we help people and still oppose dictator governments around the world. I wanted to say here that I have great respect for the passion with which my friends from Florida expressed their views on this issue. I know they care deeply about this policy. We disagree on policy. We are friends. I have great personal respect for them and anybody else who disagrees with me on this policy. But I feel this is the right policy for agriculture. It is the right humanitarian policy for our Nation. So faced again this year with the potential for having no relief on the policy of sanctions that have been imposed unilaterally by this country on food and medicine, I felt we had to sit down and negotiate some agreement that may not be perfect. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a perfect agreement; but I believe it is a workable and valid and helpful agreement as we seek to lift sanctions on food and medicine for people of the world and give Congress a chance to be a part of that sanctions relief. Not just the President imposing it, but having the Congress have some help as well in trying to implement this policy. It was my expectation, and is, that this measure, this agreement that has been reached, and it is a commitment by our leadership, by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and the leadership of the House that it would be put on the military construction supplemental bill today or tomorrow, that is still my hope, so that we can have a chance to vote for this. But in lieu of that, I have the commitment that it will go on the Agriculture Appropriations bill in conference, and I will be a conferee, and there will be other conferees as well who feel that this agreement is a fair one. It is not a perfect one. But if we do not implement this agreement, then I fear that we have no agreement, and the policy to lift sanctions on food and medicine will die for another year, and that is wrong. That is wrong for the people of the world who need food and medicine. So I would just say to my friends on the other side, and they are my friends in this fight, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), many, many Democrats who worked with us on this issue, it is not what we want completely, but it is an open door, a change in policy for the first time in 38 years, and more with respect to our policy of unilaterally sanctioning people of the world on food and medicine. It is not perfect, but it is evolving. I think, if we do nothing, we implement and keep that policy as it has always been. I think that is wrong for the world. It is wrong for American farmers. It is wrong for American humanitarian groups. So I just conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I know that there is criticism of this agreement, but it is workable. It is going to accomplish the objective that all of us who feel that sanctions imposition is wrong. It will lift them. It is a start, and I think it is in the best interest of the Nation. So I am going to vote for this rule, and I am going to vote for the bill. I am going to fight my heart out along with my colleagues who feel strongly as I do that this is the right policy to lift these sanctions on food and medicine to make sure that it becomes law. The President mentioned it today in his press conference. I think we are very, very close to getting the White House to agree to this. It is not perfect, but we are working hard to get to this result. So I know there are Members who want to vote no, and that is their right. But I am going to vote yes because I have faith that the commitment that has been made to me on this issue and this subject will be met.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the Clinton administration should improve its Border Patrol hiring record. While I am grateful for three additional agents, the Spokane sector which stretches through three States from the Cascade Mountains to the Continental Divide still needs 12 additional agents to get to full staffing. I understand this process takes time and will continue to work with the chairman and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on this matter.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his good work on this bill, and certainly on this subject.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rogers). I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his strong interest and support in increasing Border Patrol staffing. This issue is of particular interest to me because I represent a northern border district. My district, as well as other areas along the northern border of Washington State, are facing growing immigration and illegal narcotics concerns. I wonder if the chairman would provide me guidance on the likelihood of getting additional Border Patrol agents for the northern border.

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment, which would block the continued implementation of the VERA system, a change which would cripple the VA. An identical amendment was offered last year and failed on a vote of 158-266. On April 1, 1997, the VA began to implement the VERA system, which allocates health care resources according to numbers of veterans in each of 22 regional VISNs (Veterans Integrated Service Networks). The Hinchey amendment would jeopardize health care in a majority of VA networks by blocking continued implementation of this system. Before VERA, funds were allocated according to the historical usage of VA facilities, adjusted annually for inflation. When veterans migrated to the West and the South, funding continued to be concentrated in the Northeast. The VERA system directly matches workloads with annual allocations, taking into account numbers of basic and special care veterans, national price and wage differences, and education and equipment differences. More efficient networks have more funds available for local initiatives and less efficient networks have an incentive to improve. Some regions do see a substantial change in their health care allocations under VERA, but all VA network administrators agree that this reform is crucial to the sustainability of VA programs. The amendment proposes to prohibit funding for the VERA allocation model, creating a significant question about what model the VA would use instead. Presumably, the authors of the amendment would support a return to the allocations of FY96. When FY00 levels are compared to FY 96 allocations, such an adjustment would mean that 20 of 22 VISNs would lose money. Some areas would be particularly devastated by such a reallocation: the Pacific Northwest would be cut 24 percent, the Southeast would be cut 14 percent, the Southwest would be cut 15 percent. To restore funding for these 2 VISNs at FY96 levels, all 20 other VISNs would take an approximate hit totaling $132 million. If VA was forced to recompute allocations according to the old model, the cuts would be even more severe. The two VA medical centers I represent would see their budget cut by more than $9 million this year if we restored the old formula. Such a budget hit would cripple the vast majority of VISNs across the country. VERA is working--of the 22 VISNs, only ONE, in the Bronx, saw its overall allocation decrease from FY99 to FY00. I believe that we should encourage the VA to continue moving forward with this successful initiative. Please join me in opposing the Hinchey Amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

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