Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I come before the House of Representatives to pay tribute to Walla Walla County on its 150th birthday. Nestled in the valley of the Blue Mountains, Walla Walla County anchors the southern end of the 5th Congressional District of Washington State.

During their exploration of the Louisiana Purchase, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark passed through Walla Walla County on the Nez Perce trail on their return trip East. In the 1800s, numerous settlements, forts, and trading posts were established in the region by fur-traders. The Walla Walla Valley was also home to a diverse Native American population including the Walla Walla, Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Cayuse tribes. In fact, the name Walla Walla is of Indian origin and means ``many waters.''

The 1st Washington Territorial Legislature created Walla Walla County on April 25, 1854. After the Washington Territory was established in 1853, Walla Walla County was established a year later and stretched from the crest of the Cascades to the crest of the Rockies, an area now represented by 13 congressional districts. Today, Walla Walla County is home to many wonderful towns, including Walla Walla, Waitsburg, Prescott, Burbank, Dixie, Touchet, Lowden, Wallula, and College Place.

Walla Walla is known for its gorgeous scenery, expansive farmlands, miles of beautiful forests, and historic cityscape. Although the area is famous for its sweet onions, Walla Walla farms produce vast amounts of wheat, barley, apples, asparagus, alfalfa, carrots, cherries, corn, garbanzo beans, and green peas. More recently, Walla Walla has become one of the fastest growing wine producing regions in the country.

Walla Walla County is a wonderful place to live. It offers year-round cultural events including theater, musical performances, art displays, and wonderful festivals. The county is also home to three institutions of higher learning: Walla Walla College, Walla Walla Community College, and Whitman College, all of which add greatly to the vitality of the area. The city of Walla Walla is also home to what Sunset magazine named as the ``Best Main Street in the West.''

If you haven't made vacation plans or visited Walla Walla and its surrounding area before, this is surely the time to come to Washington and join us in celebrating Walla Walla County's 150th birthday. Walla Walla County is one of the most beautiful places in America, and I am proud to say I represent this area and the people who call it home.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I will be joining with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), to introduce the High-risk Non-profit Security Enhancement Act.

Our legislation has three key components. It directs the Department of Homeland Security to provide $100 million in grants and loan guarantees for security enhancements at non-profit organizations that are at high risk of international terrorism. It assists local law enforcement agencies that provide security for regions with high concentrations of non-profits with $50 million in grants. And the bill establishes an Office of Community Relations and Civic Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate this program.

Since September 11, the Federal Government has dedicated significant resources to improving the security of government facilities. We have successfully deterred attacks for more than 2 years, but we must remain vigilant and continue to devote resources to potential targets.

As government facilities have fortified against the threat of terrorism, terrorists may turn their attention to less fortified, but equally symbolic, targets. Leading non-profit organizations may become targets as an unintended consequence of our efforts. They represent the heart and soul of our communities, and the forces that want to destroy America understand their value. They believe they understand the importance of these organizations in our culture and our society.

This legislation will protect non-profit organizations throughout America, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 23, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the following: Rollcall vote No. 72 on Approving of the Journal; Rollcall vote No. 73 on H.R. 958, the Hydrographic Services Amendments of 2003; Rollcall vote No. 74 on H.R. 2408, the National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act of 2003; and Rollcall vote No. 75 on H.R. 2489, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe Distribution of Judgment Funds Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2754, the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. However, I am concerned about one provision which was added to the statement of managers concerning the Bonneville Power Administration. Incorrect language was added stating ``the conferees are aware of the Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to Bonneville Power Administration's financial accounting practices and expect Bonneville to rectify the situation as soon as is possible.'' The Department of the Treasury has not expressed concerns relating to BPA's accounting practices. In fact, a letter from Treasury Acting Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Brian Roseboro, to Stephen Wright confirms that no concerns about BPA's accounting practices exist. The letter, dated November 18, 2003, states:

Dear Mr. Wright: The Department of the Treasury received

the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2754 and reviewed the

sentence on page 171 that reads, ``The conferees are aware of

the Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to

Bonneville Power Administration's financial accounting

practices and expects Bonneville to rectify the situation as

soon as is possible.'' The Department of the Treasury has not

expressed any concern about the financial accounting

practices of Bonneville either privately or publicly. Please

let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian C.

Roseboro, Acting Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Record to reflect the fact that this sentence added to the Conference Report is incorrect, and the letter from Under Secretary Roseboro corrects the Record.

Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 2003, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote nos. 569-573.

Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On rollcall 569, ``yea;'' on rollcall 570,'' yea;'' on rollcall 571, ``yea;'' on rollcall 572, ``nay;'' and on rollcall 573, ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the funding prices for first responders put forward by both the House and the Senate in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

I feel especially gratified knowing that both chambers and the Administration have prioritized for this critical need by allocating resources in H.R. 2555 to solve the communication problems facing our first responders.

Already, our region has prepared the ``Puget Sound Interoperable Communications Program'' that will test and deploy new and emerging interoperability technolgies in and around the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. This innovative program will significantly enhance the Puget Sound region's local, State and Federal first responder communication capabilities.

This particular geographic region was chosen because of its high- density population, presence of critical infrastructure, high threat areas, disparate communication systems and diverse user base. The project will be implemented throughout portions of the City of Seattle, City of Tacoma, City of Tukwila, Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma. This implementation will also integrate with other responder initiatives in the State.

This project will create a shared infrastructure architecture utilizing the latest advances in technology that ties public and private networks and multiple communication devices together in a secure interoperable environment.

This implementation will demonstrate that a cost effective, secure interoperability solution can be achieved by using existing equipment and off-the-shelf mobile devices. Over time, this project will be incrementally expanded and become part of the Statewide Public Safety Interoperability Program.

My colleagues and I look forward to working with the Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to help make this important program a success.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time and commend him for his leadership not just on the issue of education for students in the District of Columbia, but for all the aspects of this bill that benefit the District of Columbia, our Nation's capital.

I do not think we should overlook the good parts of this bill and the dedication that has been placed on making this bill very responsive to the needs of the District of Columbia, over and above the issue of education for the students here.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) who has been I know a strong leader on advocacy for the District of Columbia, and the team of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have been responsible in trying to address the needs of this District, this Nation's capital, this jewel of a city that we want all of this country to be so proud of.

I want to reiterate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Frelinghuysen) comment about the $10 million in this bill for vouchers. Why in the world would we not want to use this new money for an education purpose that the mayor and otherwise people feel is appropriate for these children? And why would we say, let us not have that $10 million go to kids? It will be lost if it is not used for this purpose. So I would argue that this is a responsible course for this committee, this Congress, to take, to use this $10 million, to give these kids a chance. It is not all the thousands of children who need the money, but it certainly is going to help parents and children who are in need in this educational environment in which we find ourselves.

As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is such a strong leader on advocacy for the District of Columbia and good government has stated, this is an effort that the City wants, I would argue, that the mayor wants, and he is taking a very difficult, but responsible, position to help the kids of this District.

So my comments are really to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his dedication as the new chairman to this bill, to this City, to the needs of this City, and also to commend his partner in this effort, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who is also dedicated and committed to trying to do what is right for these children. But I think we should make sure that when the day is done, that we vote in favor of children, vote in favor of the new $10 million to go to parents and children to improve their education capabilities and to improve their education experience here in the District.

So I rise in support of that concept and that mission that I think we have today to try to pass this legislation, but also pass this very important amendment that is such a part of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Tom Davis) attention.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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. 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.