Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I think the Congresswoman has brought up another point, and that is, the nature of this agent who is a covert agent operating under cover for her own protection, and those people, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) indicated, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) indicated, the people that she worked with, the people that she had lunch with in various countries around the world are now suspect. But it was interesting in the litany of excuses for this misconduct that we have heard out of the White House for the last few days or at least their operatives around the country, one of the excuses I have heard is that the deputy chief of staff, Mr. Rove, did not know that this CIA agent was a covert agent. He just did not know that. And, therefore, he wants to excuse that misbehavior since he did not know she was covert. Maybe she could have been just a receptionist at the front desk. There is a problem with that. When you out a CIA agent, you darn well better know whether they are covert or not before you violate your security clearance in outing that CIA agent. And unless we hear a real good reason that Mr. Rove asked the CIA and was told inappropriately or something, there is no excuse for someone in the highest levels of government, with supposedly the sophistication working at the right hand of the President of the United States, not to know you did not out a CIA agent knowing they could be covert. The damage that has been done here to our security, to Joe Wilson's spouse, to our trust in the Federal Government, was occasioned, regardless of the intention of the deputy chief of staff, one way or another there has been an abuse of both the family and our sense of national security.

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for joining me. I would like to conclude with a couple of comments. This is the greatest Nation on Earth, and it is the greatest because it works on a principle that our citizens should be in control of our democracy, not people in power. It works on the assumption that that power will not be abused. It works on the principle that our elected officials will tell us the truth. It works on the principles that people's wives should not be attacked when a person fulfills their patriotic duty to go to Africa and ferret out the truth. It works on the principle that people are human and they can make mistakes; but when they make mistakes, they ought to be candid and forthright with Americans. And the sooner the President of the United States is forthright and tells us what happened in this situation, the better off both for the White House and for us as a whole. And if it refuses to do that, which it is now stonewalling in its finest tradition of those who were caught red-handed, it is refusing to give Americans information. That is why this House of Representatives needs to pass this resolution of inquiry so that we can have a bipartisan review of what happened here. Why? So that we can regain the bipartisan trust we need to go forward with and deal with our pressing problems in Iraq, our pressing problems with the threat of terrorism, and we can get back on track in this government. Before I close, I want to thank the Wilson family for their courage in going to Africa. I want to thank Mrs. Wilson for her courage as an employee of the CIA. I want to thank them for their courage in standing up to the administration that has so willfully abused them. And I hope that the truth that they have worked so hard to bring to the American people will ultimately prevail in this affair.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we would stand for the proposition that political pettiness does not justify a breach of national security. I hope we can have bipartisan consensus on that. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. INSLEE. Would it be fair to say that if these assertions are true, someone put political convenience ahead of national security? I will make that a rhetorical question.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I have to say, one of the troublesome things to me now that this disclosure has come up, here the person, at least one, there might be more people who are responsible for this besides the Deputy Chief of Staff; there may be more than one, but at least one was a person who talks to the President at least several times a day. I cannot understand when this came out why the President did not demand his inner circle to give him an affidavit saying they were not involved in this, and get to the heart of this. Instead, the President of the United States, who works across the desk from the gentleman who is at least one of the people responsible for this leak, the most powerful man in the world could not get a straight answer. Now, if he did not get a straight answer on this important thing, then the President should exercise what he promised the American people he would do, which is to send that person on to other pursuits, and we will see whether the President meant what he said in that regard shortly. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and mention one other thing and ask for his response. There is one other excuse that we are hearing floated about this today, and I have heard some people defending the White House saying, well, this was not really that big of a deal. We might have said there was yellow cake in there anyway, because we really did not know; we would have thrown that up in the State of the Union address anyway. So no harm, no foul. I want to read something that Secretary of State Rice said on July 26, 2003, ``My only point is that in retrospect, knowing that some of the documents underneath may have been, were indeed forgeries, and knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in. And if there had been even a peep that the Agency did not want that sentence, or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the Director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would not have been done.'' Here we have the person sent by the CIA to get this information, reported back these were forgeries, reporting back it is highly unlikely there is yellow cake there, but the President put it in anyway, and then Secretary Rice was candid. She said we should not have put that in. So let us not let this sort of octopus defense of squirting ink around this thing obscure a central truth. The President gave false information to the American people, and for one reason or the another did not report what his own agent, the CIA, had sent, and then his administration punished that person. This cries out for action by Congress.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today as part of the ongoing effort of myself and some of my colleagues in an endeavor we style the Iraq Watch. The Iraq Watch is a group of Members who are committed to the principle that we should not forget the Iraq war, a war started based on false information and based on the principle that Members of Congress owe it to the American citizens to continue our inquiry, to continue our critique, continue to review the operations of the administration in the initiation and the prosecution of the efforts in Iraq. We do so because we have a heartfelt and deep belief that we owe this to our troops in the field who are performing with valor and distinction in Iraq; we owe it to American citizens whose sons and daughters and wives and husbands have been called away to Iraq; we owe it to those who believe that the prosecution of war should not result in the reduction of American civil liberties; and we do it in the name of those who believe that even during the fear and anxiety caused by war that we still as citizens must demand our elected officials recognize and respect basic matters of American democracy. In these issues, the effort we have been involved with for over a year now about once every couple of weeks, we believe that the administration regrettably has fallen very, very short of what American citizens ought to demand of their Federal Government. So today, in a continuing series of the Iraq Watch, we intend to talk about several aspects leading up to the war and a matter that has now become of very great public interest. If I may note, it is with great sadness I note the passing of an American Marine today in operations in Iraq, to add that proud Marine to the names of over 1,750 Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq, the over 13,000 Americans who have had very serious injuries in Iraq and to those families who will not have their family members coming home. I know every Member of this Chamber of both parties, our thoughts, prayers and compassion are with every one of those families. It is in part because of their continuing sacrifice in Iraq that we feel very strongly that Members of the House of Representatives have an obligation, a duty not to just let things slide by, to let this administration just sort of pass by unchallenged and uncriticized in the prosecution of this war. We believe this Chamber, which is the people's House, has an obligation to blow the whistle when things are done wrong, to force the administration to fess up to mistakes they have made, and to hopefully get back on track in this Nation where we are seriously off track at the moment. What I would like to talk about in Iraq Watch today is a very serious issue that resulted in part on the initiation of this war, and that is that leading up to this war, the administration, the President of the United States, exercised their best efforts to convince Americans that Iraq had or was very close to developing a nuclear capacity and that this was a primary rationale for the President of the initiation of the war in Iraq. Indeed, in the President's State of the Union address standing right behind me in this Chamber, the President of the United States addressed the joint session of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, members of the Cabinet, and most importantly the American people; and he told the American people that our intelligence services had learned that Iraq had in fact obtained what is called uranium yellow cake, and he told the American people that this was well established. This yellow cake is a mineral from which uranium fissionable material can be developed, it is a precursor to an atomic weapon, and its acquisition would be of concern to the American people. The President told the American people that this was a fact, that there was no doubt about this fact and that as a result of that, he led this Nation, against many of our positions against the war, myself included, in a war based on what turned out to be false information. We know it is false information for two reasons: one, because we have now gone through the most extensive search for weapons of mass destruction in human history in Iraq and found zero, zero yellow cake, zero precursors to nuclear weapons, zero triggering devices for nuclear weapons, zero indication that the things the President had told us were fact, in fact, turned out to be falsehoods and a war has resulted and 1,700 of our sons and daughters have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the sands of Iraq and that is continuing. We had an earlier notice that this was false. The earlier notice we had was because the Central Intelligence Agency had concerns about this issue. Before the President's State of the Union address, they had received some suggestions that this was not fact and in fact was hyperbole at best and in fact that this claim about yellow cake may have been false. So they dispatched a gentleman who had previously served with distinction in the Foreign Service, a gentleman named Joe Wilson, to Niger from which this yellow cake was supposedly obtained by Saddam Hussein, this brutal thug, this dictator who had caused so much damage in the world; and Joe Wilson, continuing in many of his patriotic duties, went to Niger to investigate this claim. What Mr. Wilson found was that this claim was, in laymen's terms, bogus. He came back to the United States and he reported to the agency that in fact this was a fraudulent claim, there was not a basis for it, it was highly unlikely that any such transaction took place and highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellow cake. He issued a written report in that regard, or a written report was generated from his report. Yet despite the fact that an agent dispatched by our government went to Niger, the scene of this alleged crime, and reported back that this was a falsehood, the President of the United States told the American people that this was one basis that we had to send our sons and daughters into mortal combat in Iraq; and it was flat, plain false. Why did that happen? Before I tell you a little bit about the story that occurred after that, I want to tell you just a little bit about Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson has served with distinction in the State Department. Joe Wilson is a guy who does not fit the mold of a person with sort of a pinstriped suit. He is a foreign diplomat who, to use the vernacular in the main street, has guts. Joe Wilson was the last American State Department official out of Iraq before the Persian Gulf War; and he was responsible, according to the first President Bush who honored him for his work leading up to the first Persian Gulf war when he was stationed in Baghdad, he was honored for helping save scores of Americans to get them out of Baghdad before the first Persian Gulf war started because, as you recall, Saddam Hussein had threatened Americans, to kill them when the war started when they were still in Baghdad. Saddam Hussein essentially threatened with death anyone who helped Americans get out of Baghdad before the first Persian Gulf war. Joe Wilson, who was sort of our agent in charge of the embassy in Baghdad then, went down and held a press conference with a rope around his neck and said, you can come get me first, Saddam, because I am taking my people home. That is exactly what he did. He faced down that brutal dictator at the cost potentially of his own life to help American lives. It was interesting. I just met a woman by accident 2 weeks ago who served in the Foreign Service who told me that Joe once went, and just before the war, to take care of some children who had been moved back to Iraq from the United States, to try to save them before the war started at great risk to his own life. Joe Wilson is a guy with guts who stood up for American lives and did it when he went to Niger to report on this yellow cake, who reported accurately, who served his country; and the President of the United States, after he gave him the truth, got up, stood right there and told the American people that there was yellow cake from Niger and it was false. Joe Wilson is someone we owe a debt of gratitude to. What has happened to Joe Wilson since he told the truth about the President's war in Iraq? Did this administration give accolades to this Joe Wilson the way the first President Bush did? No. Did they call him up and thank him for pointing out this error in the State of the Union address? No. Was a letter sent by the President of the United States to thank him for his courage in standing up to Saddam Hussein like the first President Bush did? No. Did the President of the United States or the State Department or Scott McClellan or anyone else thank Joe Wilson for his contribution for telling the truth to the American people? No. What did this administration do to this citizen who shared the truth with the American people? It is a sad story, but I am going to share it with you and you know it. What they did was to go after his wife to try to damage her, to hurt her career, to punish Joe Wilson for pointing out the truth. We should expect any administration, Democrat, Republican or whatever party, to punish lies, not to punish the truth. But this administration punished a truth-teller and frankly an American, maybe hero is too strong, but I think it approaches, a guy who showed some real courage under fire in Baghdad once before and in Niger a second time and they punished him. They punished him. They could not get to him, so they went after his wife. I do not know what is a lower thing to do under the code of the West in American Western Civilization, to go after a truth-teller's wife, to punish them when he has told the truth and spoken the truth to power. It is difficult to speak truth to power and Joe Wilson did it, and look at what he got as a result. What he got was essentially an outing of his wife who news reports suggest worked for the Central Intelligence Agency as a covert agent, an agent undercover, and what he got were press reports because of an administration we now know leaks intentional leaks to the media to disclose that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. What a ``thank you'' to an American who did something at the request of this administration. What a great note of appreciation to essentially, number one, destroy his wife's career because once one is outed in the CIA, of course, they cannot be a covert agent anymore, number one; number two, potentially jeopardize her safety when she has been a covert agent working on weapons of mass destruction issues; number three, jeopardize the people whom she worked with who now could be suspect in her covert operations; and, number four, damage the national security of the United States by compromising a CIA agent, which this administration did. Now, who did this in this administration? There has been some suggestion about that. There has been some suggestion that one, at least of the administration people who did this, is the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House, and that Deputy Chief of Staff, when questions were raised a long time ago about that, about whether the Deputy Chief of Staff had, in fact, disclosed this information, let us ask as Americans whether this administration upheld its obligation to us to tell the truth. We elect the President of the United States. It is an exalted and important position, but they do work for us, and they owe us the obligation of truth in matters of national security. Let us find out what the President's officials and the administration officials told Americans about this subject in the last several years, whether the Deputy Chief of the White House was responsible for or involved in any way in this issue. We have a briefing on July 22, 2003, a briefing where Scott McClellan, who is the press secretary for the President, on July 22, 2003, in the White House, a question was asked: ``Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?'' McClellan: ``John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.'' We would like the administration not to operate that, to leak information about CIA agents, to punish somebody who told the truth. We will see a little later in this conversation whether they did. July 23, 2003, answer by Mr. McClellan, when asked if Karl Rove did that, Mr. McClellan said, ``I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.'' We go on to an interview with Mr. Rove on September 6, 2003, Andrea Owen of ABC asked Mr. Rove, ``Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of a CIA agent to the press?'' Rove: ``No.'' September 29, 2003, again to Mr. McClellan: ``Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this, or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . . '' McClellan: ``I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.'' Question: ``Yes. But I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President or if he just talked to you and you're here at this . . . '' McClellan. ``He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.'' Question: ``How does he know that?'' McClellan. ``The President knows.'' We now have at least four instances where the President of the United States, through his spokesperson, has told us that the Deputy Chief of Staff was not involved in any way, in any way, at disclosing this information to destroy a CIA agent's career. But it is not just four times. On September 29, 2003, question to Mr. McClellan: ``Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?'' Answer by McClellan: ``I've made it very clear from the beginning that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.'' A question to the President. Essentially people are starting to ask what will the President do when he finds out who leaked this information. Well, let us find out what the President said he would do. On September 30, 2003, question: ``Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it . . . '' The President: ``Yes.'' Question: ``Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .'' The President: ``Listen, I know of nobody--I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.'' October 1, McClellan: ``The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.'' October 7, and I will skip the question for a moment. McClellan: ``I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this.'' And that included Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, and Lewis Libby. ``And that's where it stands.'' Question: ``So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?'' McClellan: ``They assured me that they were not involved in this.'' So the President subsequently said he would do what he should do if he found someone was involved in any way in leaking information. He said he would fire them. And when he was in Europe last week, when he was asked what he would do if he found that out, when asked if he would fire them, he said yes. So we have this situation where we now find, through hard evidence admitted by the lawyer for the Deputy Chief of Staff, that, in fact, Mr. Rove told Mr. Cooper, a news reporter, that, in fact, he told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked through for the Central Intelligence Agency. And for 2 years now, the official position of the President of the United States telling the American people has said, My Deputy Chief of Staff had nothing to do with this, never mentioned it, never leaked a word, never hushed it, never gave an inclination about it, totally ridiculous. And now we know the sordid truth. And it is sordid. It is sad. We should be talking about some other things here rather than this. But we believe that the truth is important to the American people. Americans deserve the truth. They deserve not to have an administration to punish Americans who stand up against power, and that is what they did. We now find phase one a failure of the administration to hush this up and bury this story. They denied it for 2 years. They said it was ridiculous for 2 years. They tried to suppress this information for 2 years. They refused to be candid with the American people for 2 years, and that approach has failed. So what approach are they now using to try to wiggle out from this most terrible abuse of our national security? Let us go through their sort of defenses now. By the way, it is interesting the White House now refuses to comment on this. That has not stopped the majority party talk machine from launching an all-out offensive against Mr. Wilson today. We can read-- they're still defaming Mr. Wilson today. They still have not given up thinking that if they can destroy Mr. Wilson that we will forget about the falsehood that the President used in starting this war. We are not going to forget because this really is not about Mr. Wilson. It is about our sons and daughters in Iraq. And it is about American democracy and our right to have the President tell us the truth. And we are not going to forget. So let us see what strategies they are using now rather than just suppressing the truth. They are using the strategy that Mr. Rove did not use the name Valerie Plame. All he said was it was Joe Wilson's wife who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency; therefore, they think no harm, no foul. Whom do the Members think they are identifying if not Valerie Plame? Unless Karl Rove thought that Joe Wilson was a polygamist, had ten wives so we could not tell which one it was, it is pretty clear whom he was identifying. Just like I started this Special Order today and I made reference to the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, everyone knew whom I was talking about. I did not use his name, but we know who it was. That dog just will not hunt. It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to try to fall back on that as some excuse for violating the security laws of the United States. So that one will not work. Second, they argued that, well, it was unintentional, did not really intend to do this. That might be because we all make mistakes, we all make misstatements, we all misspeak on occasion, myself included. Perhaps we should just forgive and forget that. Except for one thing. It is clear it was not. It is clear it was not a simple accident. The reason we know it was not a simple accident is for 2 years they covered up the truth of what happened. When people act guilty and suppress the truth, frequently it means they were guilty. And this was not innocent conduct where for 2 years the White House was saying it was ridiculous that Karl Rove would be involved in this, ridiculous. I actually think it is ridiculous now that they are not taking responsibility and being accountable. We should not have to be arguing about this right now. They say that they were just explaining, they were just explaining how Mr. Wilson happened to be in Niger. Mr. Rove could have just explained very easily by saying some people close to Mr. Wilson knew him and wanted to send him to Niger. That could have preserved the cover of this CIA agent, and there would have been no problem. So what we are seeing is a collapse of excuses. This is a collapse of a fabricated effort to protect the Deputy Chief of Staff, which I understand. The Deputy Chief of Staff has been a loyal lieutenant and adviser to the President of the United States, and we can all, to some degree, respect loyalty. But when it comes down to a situation where the President is forced, through his spokesperson, to continue to not tell the truth to the American people, as it has happened here, it is unhealthy for the administration. It is unhealthy for America, and this boil needs to get lanced. It needs to get resolved. We cannot go on with this cloud hanging over the country. It needs resolution. That is why in the next few days, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and myself and other Members will offer a resolution of inquiry calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to get to the bottom of what happened in this situation. And this is a very simple thing that will simply request, actually require, the administration to provide answers to the American people of what happened here once and for all. We need to get this resolved and behind us. We need to find a way, a bipartisan way, to bring our troops home; to find some way to leave Iraq a stable place and bring our troops home. And we need to be involved in a bipartisan attempt to do this rather than arguing about this situation. But until the administration is candid with the American people and we know why an administration punished an American citizen for, number one, going to Niger as requested by the CIA; telling the truth to the administration, number two; three, having the courage to tell the public about it after the President stated a falsehood during his State of the Union address; and fourth, refusing to be intimidated, and I respect people who are not intimidated by power. Joe Wilson is not intimidated by power. He was not intimidated in Baghdad, and he is not intimidated now. We will not be intimidated to get to the bottom of this sordid affair. That is why we hope that on a bipartisan basis we will pass a resolution of inquiry calling to get answers to what happened in this sorry situation. Americans deserve it. It will help us move forward to get to the issues that we need to do. Now, let me also talk about why perhaps, today and the last 2 days, if you have happened to watch the press conferences at the White House, you have noticed Mr. McClellan has been besieged by people who wanted to provide Americans the truth as we now know it about what actually happened here. Now, after telling us for 2 years, being quite willing to talk about this, saying this is ridiculous, this was just a fishing expedition, and that we should not bother with those little people over there in the corner who want to know the truth about this, now, all of a sudden, Mr. McClellan does not want to talk about this anymore. Why is that? You have to ask yourself why, after being so loquacious about this for 2 years, now they do not want to talk about it. Well, I think it is understandable when you think about it. Think about this: Mr. McClellan told the American people that the President knows that the Deputy Chief of Staff was not involved in this, that it was ridiculous. The Deputy Chief of Staff says, no, I was not involved in this. The President of the United States says, no, he was not involved in this, and people who were, we would fire them. Now, you take those three individuals, somebody is not telling the truth. Somebody is not being entirely candid with the American people. The Deputy Chief of Staff is not being candid with the President, perhaps, or the Deputy Chief of Staff is not being candid with the press secretary, perhaps, or the press secretary is not being candid with the American people, perhaps. There is a third possibility, and I am not even going to suggest it on the floor of this House. But somebody is not being candid with the American people about why an American was punished for doing his duty when he was asked to go to Niger. I mean, you think about that. You imagine if the Federal Government tomorrow called you and said, I have this tough task. I want you to go to Africa where it is dusty and hot and a big day is when you get some sugar in your tea, and I want you to find out if there is yellow cake there because we are trying to decide whether to start a war or not. It is a big, big deal. And you go there, essentially out of retirement, and you bring back the truthful answer, and you give it to the administration. They then ignore your conclusion and put it in the State of the Union address anyway, a war is talked about to be started; you have the guts enough to write an op-ed in The New York Times telling America what you concluded, and, all of a sudden, the entire Federal Government comes after you and destroys your wife's career. That should not happen to any American of any political persuasion. And that principle is an important one. This is not the only time this has happened in America. You recall back in the Vietnam era where there was an author who was critical of President Nixon's war in Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg; and he published in The New York Times some information that was critical of the President. So what did the President do? Did he thank him for sharing this information with the public? No. He had people burglarize Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in order to get information to destroy Daniel Ellsberg's credibility. That President tried to destroy their critic's credibility, and that is what happened here. A different way, a different strategy, a different effort, same goal: punish critics of the administration. We went through a Revolutionary War to get rid of King George because we believed citizens rule the country and when citizens exercise their right of free speech and they tell the truth, nobody here in Washington, D.C. ought to be able to punish them. It was a principle worth going to the Revolutionary War about it. And in a small way, we are fighting it right here: that if you are a citizen and you tell the truth, nobody should be able to punish you, even the most powerful person in America. That is why we are filing this resolution of inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who has provided great leadership and who was working on this subject last year to try to bring to the attention of the country this issue. He has shown a lot of courage on this. I thank the gentleman for joining us today.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours we have witnessed the sad collapse of a cover-up. On September 29, 2003, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that he had spoken with the deputy chief of staff of the White House and it was simply not true that he had anything to do with the disclosure of the identity of a CIA agent. He characterized it as ``totally ridiculous.'' And again on October 10, 2003, he said the White House had nothing to do with this terrible disclosure. The President was then asked on June 10, 2004, whether he would stand by the promise to the American people to fire someone responsible for this disclosure, and he answered with a simple ``yes.'' The American people do not want sensitivity training after this sad disclosure of a CIA agent. They need full accountability. The jig is up. The deputy chief of staff needs to come in front of Congress and answer questions about this. And this is not just a matter of a simple violation of Federal law. It is a sad violation of democracy to try to punish a truth-teller, Joe Wilson, who blew the whistle on the ``yellow cake'' false statement made by the President. We know that that is wrong because Mr. McClellan said this is not the way the White House operates. We beg to differ.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I voice my opposition to the Supreme Court's recent decision granting local governments the power to seize private property for economic development. The Constitution protects an individual's right to own a home free of government intervention, and ensures just compensation for any property taken in the name of the greater public good, such as vitally necessary roads or water projects. The Court erred in its determination that private development interests constitute a legitimate public good. Private interests should not justify the bull-dozing of homes in a working-class neighborhood. This divided decision, Kelo v. New London, may represent an open invitation for abuse by local governments and private developers at the expense of hardworking Americans who have a right to their property. While I oppose the Supreme Court's decision, I also believe in the separation of powers and do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to seek to punish the Court for its decision. It is my hope that the Supreme Court has another opportunity to correct this bad decision, and provide greater protections for homeowners.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding representative from the 1st District of the great State of Washington, Frank Maziarski, CRNA, MS, CLNC. Mr. Maziarski will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that this son of Washington was tapped as the 2004-2005 president of this prestigious national organization, and I am honored to count him as one of my constituents. The AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 33,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). Founded in 1931, the AANA is the professional association representing CRNAs nationwide. As you may know, CRNAs are anesthesia professionals who administer approximately 65 percent of all anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and, in some states, are the sole anesthesia providers in approximately 70 percent of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization services. Mr. Maziarski earned his Master of Science (MS) degree and his Bachelors of Science degree in nursing (BSN) from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He was educated in the art and science of Nurse Anesthesia at the Albany Medical Center, School of Nurse Anesthesia, Albany, NY. He spent 21 years as an officer in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, first as an anesthesia provider and then as an educator in the Academy of Health Sciences Schools of Nurse Anesthesia and was a Director of the Phase I (clinical) and also a Director of Phase II (academic) portions of the Nurse Anesthesia programs. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel at Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, Texas. He also spent one year as Chief Nurse Anesthetist of the 93rd Evac. Hospital, in Long Binh, Viet Nam during July, 1968-July, 1969. He is currently a practicing nurse anesthetist and owner of Allied Anesthesia Associates, which provides anesthesia services in and around the Shoreline, Washington area, in my congressional district. Mr. Maziarski has held various leadership positions in the AANA as President-Elect, Vice-President, and Regional Director before becoming the National President of the AANA in 2004. In addition, Frank has served terms as President, President-Elect, Vice-President, Treasurer, and as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Washington Association of Nurse Anesthetists (WANA). He was also appointed by Governor Gary Locke to the Washington State Nursing Care Quality Assurance Commission from 1997-2004 and was elected as its chair twice during his tenure. Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Maziarski has been recognized for both publishing and speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years. He has taken his experience and knowledge from the workplace and AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia related topics before different professional groups. During his AANA Presidency, Mr. Maziarski has played important roles in advocating for the practice of nurse anesthesia and its patients before Medicare and other Federal agencies, promoted anesthesia patient safety through vigorous participation in the interdisciplinary National Quality Forum (NQF), and advanced principles of wellness among practitioners in this high-stress profession. In addition, Mr. Maziarski directed that the AANA be represented before three key subcommittees of this Congress, in which members of this organization testified about the importance of nurse anesthesia education, the roles and contributions of CRNAs in the Veterans' Affairs health system, and the dedication with which CRNAs have provided safe anesthesia care to members of the U.S. Armed Forces at home and abroad. It is my understanding that under Mr. Maziarski's leadership, the AANA continued to foster an important line of communication with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). While these organizations of anesthesia professionals have not always seen eye-to-eye, both the AANA and ASA are working to ensure the safe administration of powerful anesthesia drugs, and have shared interest in patients' safe access to anesthesia care with respect to Medicare regulations governing locked anesthesia carts. These two societies' professional working relationship may not have been possible without the continued initiative of AANA President Maziarski and his ASA counterpart. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. Frank Maziarski, CRNA, MS, CLNC, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, our proud troops in Iraq last night deserved an address that showed a President committed to effectiveness and truth. The sad fact is that these administration policies are based on failure and falsehood. The failure is that, a full 2 years after the Iraq war started, we still have less than 15 percent, less than three battalions, that this administration has effectively trained that are ready for combat operations to replace American military personnel and bring them home. This is a spectacular record of failure. After 2 years of us here in this Chamber demanding that the President train these troops so that they can replace the American GIs and Marines, we have three battalions, and that is it; after 2 years? This has happened because of the rose-colored glasses that this administration has worn, thinking we were going to be greeted like liberators in Paris. They were wrong. And it is based on falsehood, falsehood when the President stood right behind me and said that there was WMDs. There was not, and now he is trying to bait and switch.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our amendment seeks to improve our investment internationally in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. There is a certain irony that while this amendment comes to the floor of the House now, the President is addressing the Nation about the Iraq War right now, a war in the middle of an oil-producing region that the world is largely dependent upon to sustain its economy. The instability of that region in and of itself ought to point out the need to use the Export- Import Bank to encourage the development not of the fossil fuel energy sources but renewable energy sources and energy efficiency standards. So our amendment would simply say that we have to use at least 5 percent of our energy products in renewable energy projects so we do not have to remain dependent on fossil fuel. A couple of things that have happened to indicate the wisdom of this: In the last couple of weeks, oil has topped $60 a barrel. And since dinosaurs went to die in the Mid East, that is where the oil is. We have to break our dependence on oil internationally from any source. Secondly, we have seen the effort by the Chinese government-owned oil company to buy a domestic United States producer as a precursor, a predecessor, of future disputes over this resource that we are now largely dependent on. We need to break our addiction to oil. We need to get serious about renewable energy. And the third fact that has happened in the last several weeks is that we have learned that the debate about global warming is over. Debating whether or not global warming is occurring in large part or significant part during human activity is like now debating gravity. And just two facts that I hope that some Members who may be listening tonight may consider: A picture here of a glacier in Antarctica over a several-month period, showing a block of ice breaking off the Antarctic, 26 miles by 11 miles in width, breaking off, a phenomenon that is now occurring with, if not regularity, more frequency now as an indication of global warming. I noticed seeing in the newspaper yesterday tourism is booming in Alaska because tourists say they want to see Alaska before it melts. We are now seeing with our own eyes the symptoms of global warming across our hemisphere. We need to do something about it. The science behind that, this is not just anecdotal. I would ask anyone when they think about energy sources to consider the fact that carbon dioxide now is at levels that we have never seen before in the history of the planet. I refer you to a chart which shows the changes in CO2 levels and temperature levels that have occurred on the globe over the last several thousand years. This chart basically shows that while there have been changes in the last several hundred thousand years, we have never seen spikes of carbon dioxide, the major global warming gas, like we have now. Here is the present. We show that our carbon dioxide levels, over 376,000 parts per million, are the highest ever in global history since we have been able to ascertain, even looking at the trapped air bubbles at historical levels thousands of feet down in the glaciers. What we see is the prediction, Mr. Chairman, that if this Nation and the world does not become serious about renewable and clean energy, those levels will spike to unprecedented levels, up to 980,000 parts per million by 2100. In the next century, we will have carbon dioxide levels, by 2100, three times higher than they have ever been in the history of the world, at least for several hundred thousand years. We have to get serious about this issue. Our amendment would be one small step. I would like to pass it tonight. We will not, because a point of order has been raised against it. But I hope this is one small moment when Members can think that the next time we have an opportunity to get serious about global warming or respond to the needs of our grandkids, do not let this happen to this great Earth. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, those who believe in privacy and not being dictated to by the U.S. Congress in their most private, intimate decisions should vote against this amendment. Two friends of mine my age recently went in for prostate treatment. When you go in for prostate cancer, they tell you you have a choice of various alternatives. Some may give you a higher chance of survival, but also a higher chance of impotency. A University of Chicago study showed that if you tell men that they have a chance of impotency that cannot be cured because you do not have access to these ED drugs, they will, 68 percent of the time, take surgery that could lessen their chances of survival. This is not recreation. These are helping men make decisions that are going to help prolong their lives. We should reject this amendment.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and leadership. Mr. Chairman, I will close briefly by saying this is an important amendment. I appreciate the Chair's acceptance of it. We hope that the administration does listen to the voices in Congress that are basically saying if we can train one more trainer one day earlier, we should do so; if we can provide one more piece of equipment for the Iraqi security forces one day earlier, we should do so; if we can employ one more interpreter so that these folks can be trained earlier, we should do so. This amendment will hasten that. I hope the administration will bear heed on that, and that General Patrais is successful. Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my colleague Mr. Inslee's amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill, which lifts the $500 million cap on funds within the Iraq Freedom Fund for training the Iraqi National Army. Earlier in this debate I offered and withdrew an amendment that would have increased funding for training the Iraqi National Army by an additional $500 million. This Amendment would have doubled the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq Freedom Fund. If Mr. Inslee's amendment is accepted into this Appropriation, I will work with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha to insure that additional funds are appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army. The Inslee amendment reinforces the point that the best way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take care of their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only train these inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to pay troops to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they face. At this time of danger for our troops, this Amendment reiterates the fact that we need to be transferring more responsiblity upon the Iraqis to take care of their nation and develop a plan to remove our U.S. troops. Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly, this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds too simple, but the truth is we have no other solution, that is unless you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. There is an old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the best way to maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National Army supplementing the heroic effort of our troops. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and their mission is not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action. We must move to the obvious solution, that the Iraqi National Army must soon take over their own nation and provide for the protection of their people. Therefore, I reiterate my strong support for the Inslee Amendment and the appropriation of additional funding to train the Iraqi National Army. Our troops should be able to return home with an exit strategy of success.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It lists the cap that is presently written into the bill to limit the amount of money that we would commit to the training and equipping of the Iraqi securities forces, to limit that to $500 million. I hope that we are united in the belief that the way to bring our troops home is to fulfill the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces so that they can become responsible for Iraq's destiny and our troops can coming home in dignity and as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a balancing act, but these accounts are in balance. This Bureau of Industry and Security is going up under the proposed bill by $10 million. It is going up $10 million, and under our amendment it would still go up $5 million. It would still go up 7 percent. This agency is getting bigger. It is having more capability under our amendment than it did last year, and it is going to have an ability to do its mission. But we will also at the same time with my amendment try to keep some of the toxics and sewage off the beaches that our constituents are going to see this summer in numerous places around this country. And the challenges that we face in the oceans have not been going down. They are becoming greater. It does not make sense for this Congress year after year to cut the attention that we give to the beaches across this country and the lake shores from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi to the Gulf Coast and the Pacific. This is not our prioritization. Without this amendment there is an imbalance. Let us have both these accounts go up. Under my amendment, both of these accounts go up this year, and that is the prioritization. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a small, but I think meaningful, amendment that will stop some of the cuts that have been going on for several years in our Coastal Zone Management account that aids so many communities on the coast and our watersheds across the country. Unfortunately, we have continued to seek cuts in the NOAA budget, which have also impacted the Coastal Zone Management program over the last several years, this year a $500 million cut in the NOAA budget. Our amendment would restore simply $5 million to the Coastal Zone Management account to be used in numerous places across the country. This summer our constituents are going to be going to the beaches, but unfortunately there is some bad news at those beaches. We have got algae, red tide, closures of shellfish beds in New England. We have got fish in 22 sites in coastal waterways found contaminated with toxics. One third of the beaches in the Great Lakes have been closed due to septic and sewage problems at one point or another in the last several years. We have got problems in our beaches, and we do not want to allow cuts to continue to occur to this Coastal Zone Management account. I want to note this account is not just for the West and east coasts. This includes watersheds across the country, for instance, in the Ohio Cuyahoga County project to address some problems at Euclid Creek; in Pennsylvania in Bucks County, an award to help handicap access of Silver Lake Nature Center. This really is a nationwide program, and there are nationwide problems that we want to address. There has been a strong bipartisan support for this program. I note the President, on our national oceans policy, has suggested we need increased, not decreased, funding with our coastal beaches, which are real jewels in the crown of our national assets. This money would come out of the Bureau of Industry and Security. That bureau in this year's proposed budget would get a 14 percent plus- up. After our proposal, they would still have a 7 percent increase. So under our proposal, we preserve our beaches. We simply restore this to levels we had in 2002, and we still increase this agency that is responsible for export controls in the Department of Commerce. This is something to really get back to where we were in 2002 to protecting our beaches. We commend this to our Members. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in April 2005, the House of Representatives once again passed an antiquated and outdated energy bill that fails to address the grave realities that our country faces today. With record high gasoline prices, we need an energy bill that diversifies our automobile fuels and encourages domestically manufactured fuel efficient vehicles. With millions of family wage manufacturing jobs lost since 2001, we need an energy bill that takes bold action to tap into American ingenuity in order to lead the world in new clean energy technology, rather than playing catch-up to the Japanese, Danish, and Germans. Just as concerning is that our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, creates a need to establish an energy policy that allows us to end our historically objectionable policies in this area. Additionally, the science is clear that our greenhouse gas emissions are threatening to significantly change the world's climate, yet this energy bill does not even contain the words ``climate change'' or ``global warming''. The House passed Energy bill does little, or nothing, to address these mounting concerns. That is why I, and several of my colleagues, have joined together to introduce the most innovative and comprehensive energy plan in recent decades, known as the New Apollo Energy Act. New Apollo seeks to solve America's energy crisis through technological innovation much in the same way that President Kennedy channeled the resources of the American people in the 1960's to meet the challenges of the race to the Moon. The New Apollo Energy Act has the three simple goals of: (1) breaking our addiction to Middle Eastern oil, thereby increasing our Nation's homeland security; (2) creating millions of high paying domestic jobs; and (3) addressing the environmental problem presented by global warming. Highlights of our New Apollo Energy Act include: Significant tax incentives for the development, manufacturing, and purchasing of domestic clean energy technologies; Investment in energy efficient infrastructure and regulatory oversight; An oil savings provision that requires the President to use existing authority to reduce the daily consumption of oil by 600,000 barrels by 2010 and 3,000,000 barrels by 2020 (approximately what we currently import from the entire Middle East); Increased funding for LIHEAP and weatherization projects; A 10 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2021; Electric grid reliability standards; Appliance efficiency standards; A renewable fuels standards set at 8 billion gallons by 2013. The New Apollo Energy Act creates jobs. It is often falsely assumed that environmental protection and innovation comes at a cost to the economy, yet study after study concludes that environmental stewardship and technological ingenuity can walk hand in hand. The University of California at Berkley reported that the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment, than the fossil fuel- based energy sector. The Apollo Alliance has found that a substantial federal commitment to clean energy could yield up to 3.3 million jobs nationally. The University of Michigan concluded that United States stands to lose 38,000-207,000 jobs if the domestic automotive industry fails to retool their plants to adjust to the growing hybrid vehicle market. Further, the Department of Energy has estimated that standards just on clothes washers, water heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts will create 120,000 jobs through 2020. The New Apollo Energy Act reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We no longer have to accept an energy bill that fails to encourage the usage of renewable energy or one that fails to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. The Department of Energy's own independent research body--the Energy Information Agency (EIA)--concluded that under the Administration's proposed energy plan over the next 20 years, our oil imports will increase to 80 percent, and gas prices are likely to rise 3-8 cents, which would be the equivalent projections of enacting no energy bill at all. The EIA has also reported that despite the electric utilities' repeated claims that a renewable energy standard would hurt consumers and the economy as a whole, a 10 percent renewable energy standard by 2020 would cost consumers almost nothing--about the difference of 1 percent spread out over the next 15 years. The New Apollo Energy Act reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, the New Apollo Energy Act provides tax credits and loan guarantees to develop more cellulosic biomass and biodiesel while providing incentives to produce and purchase energy efficient projects and developing new efficiency standards for the home. Most importantly, this bill includes a tradable greenhouse gas permit scheme that closely resembles McCain-Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act. In 2010, our bill would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels. This would also include an auction for 5-10 percent of the permits for new entrants. As Members of Congress we are continually amazed that many of our colleagues have yet to accept global warming as fact. Many of us have seen the effects of global warming with our own eyes--the disappearing glaciers in Glacier National Park, the melting permafrost in the Arctic, the disintegration of ice shelves, the rapidly rising temperatures, and the sudden appearance of birds and other animals in places where they have never before existed. Global warming is about as much a theory as gravity, yet some in Congress continue to ignore nature's warning signs. Congress needs to embrace a policy that directly confronts the problem of climate change with the kind of innovative technology that has made science aware of these issues. The New Apollo Energy Act is revenue neutral. This bill is funded by closing corporate tax shelter loop-holes, and from funds generated by the carbon emissions cap and trade program set up in this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, we have known for some time that the Bush administration refuses to exercise any leadership in dealing with climate change. We now find out not only are they failing to act, they are cooking the books and the science involving this issue. We read in the New York Times this morning a White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents. Philip Cooney, White House counsel and environmental quality chief of staff have been cooking the books that we pay for with our tax money on the science of climate change; and because the administration has turned the government of the United States over to the oil industry lobbyists, they are not sharing the real science with the American people. It is one thing to debate. I suppose if you want to debate gravity, you can do it, but at least let Americans know what the science is in this regard. We are paying for this science, and the President is cooking the books and not sharing it with us. As a result, we find tundra melting in the Arctic, the glaciers disappearing in Glacier National Park and major changes that our kids are going to have to deal with. Madam Speaker, the Bush administration should stop cooking the books when it comes to climate change.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight both to talk about a serious challenge of our country and some very optimistic news in that challenge. The challenge is to adopt an energy policy that will really be up to the problems we today face; and the optimistic news is that tomorrow with 15 of my colleagues, I will introduce the New Apollo Energy Project. The New Apollo Energy Project is a project that will really create a vision for this country's energy future that is up to the technological prowess of this country, that recognizes our can-do spirit, that recognizes the three challenges that I will talk about tonight, and will step up to the plate and solve those challenges. And it is about time for the New Apollo Energy Project because, indeed, we have challenges. The New Apollo Energy Project of the bill we will introduce tomorrow will face three distinct challenges that we have in this country. It will face them head-on, and it will solve them. The first challenge that we face is somewhat related to the problems in the Mideast, the oil-producing region of the world that my colleagues were just talking about for the last hour. We know on a bipartisan basis that it is unhealthy for our personal national security; it is unhealthy for our ability to advance the cause of democracy, to be addicted to oil from the Mideast. It is unhealthy for any party who is in control of the White House. It is unhealthy for us across this country to have to make judgments about our foreign policy based on the politics, for instance, of the Saudi royal house. Our addiction to Middle Eastern oil has cost this country dearly, and we must break that addiction. As I will talk about later, there is one way to do it and that is to adopt new technological fixes to wean ourselves off of oil so that this country can experience a new burst of democracy and spread it around the world, not afflicted and shackled to this pernicious addiction to Middle Eastern oil. The New Apollo Energy Project, I am happy to say, we will introduce it tomorrow, and it will take, I believe, the strongest, boldest, most ambitious step that this Congress has seen to try to deal with that problem. The second problem: we are losing manufacturing jobs in this country by the thousands. We had a 14 percent reduction in manufacturing just in the last several years, since this last President took office. That is unconscionable. We need to adopt a new high-tech, new energy vision in this country that will make sure that the jobs associated with the efficient use of energy and the new production of energy are grown here in the United States. It is a sad commentary that the most fuel- efficient cars now are being built in Japan. The jobs of the future, building fuel-efficient cars, need to be in the United States of America. Those jobs need to be here. Why are the jobs associated with the production of wind turbine technology which is actually the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, why are those jobs going to Denmark? Those jobs ought to be here. Why are the jobs associated with the solar cell industry going to Germany? Those jobs need to be in the United States. The New Apollo Energy Project will seize on the basic can-do spirit of America to grow our homegrown technologies to bring those high-tech jobs and manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. We need to lay a lot of steel and copper to wire this country for the new sources of technologies that we need. Those jobs need to be in the United States of America. As I will talk about in a little more detail, the New Apollo Energy project will address that problem by growing over 3 million jobs in the next 6 years in this country associated with these new energy resources and efficiency systems. So, first, we have a security concern. Second, we have a jobs concern. And the third concern is a global one, and that is the challenge of global warming. As we know from the National Academy of Sciences today, which came out with another report, another nail in the coffin of those who urged to take no action based on global warming, it is a fact. Arguing it would be like arguing gravity at this point. There are uncertainties of how significant it will be, but we need to step up to the plate and address global warming, and the New Apollo Energy Project is the most ambitious bill that has ever been introduced in this House to deal with that issue in ways that we will address. So this New Apollo Energy Project will address three problems: A security problem associated with our addiction to Middle Eastern oil; a jobs problem associated with the loss of jobs going overseas due to other countries being advanced and getting ahead of us in this game; and, third, the need for our Nation to stop global warming. Rarely do we have a trifecta in one bill that will address three separate issues. But this needs to be done. The reason we define our bill as the New Apollo Energy Project is it draws some inspiration from John Kennedy, who stood behind me here May 9, 1961, and said that America was going to put a man on the Moon in 10 years and bring him back safely. When he challenged America to do that, it was a very audacious, bold challenge. We had not even invented Tang yet. Rockets were blowing up on the launch pad. Many thought Kennedy had really engaged in a hallucinatory plan. But Kennedy recognized something that we should now recognize, which is that Americans, when they are challenged to invent new responses to problems we have, Americans come through. In my district, we understand the power of innovation. Boeing Company, I represent the area north of Seattle, where we are going to build the most fuel-efficient jet in the world, the Boeing 787. It is going to have 20 percent more fuel efficiency. It is going to be one of the most comfortable jets ever. I am looking forward to riding in it. That is the power of innovation. My district includes the Microsoft campus. We understand the power of innovation. America has the greatest innovators the world has ever seen, and now it is time to harken back to the Kennedy spirit of putting a man on the Moon, to say we need to adopt a new energy policy that is equally ambitious and equally optimistic, and this is a very optimistic plan. If I can, I would like to say that we have good news, too. We are developing a more bipartisan, I think, and across the ideological spectrum viewpoint that we have to deal with these issues: security, jobs, and global climate change. I want to address the security issue. I happen to be a Democrat, but this is not just a Democratic issue. I am very interested in a letter sent to President George Bush on May 24, 2005, signed by a whole host of past Cabinet officers in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, people who have been involved in the security challenges of the United States: Robert McFarland; James Woolsey, former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, former chief of the CIA; C. Boyden Gray, former chief of the Agency in the Bush administration; Admiral William Crowe, U.S. Navy retired; Honorable David Oliver, former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. A whole score of folks involved in the defense of the security of this Nation. Basically, their message to President Bush was simple, that we have to develop alternatives to oil and that our addiction to oil presents a security risk to the United States. They said very pointedly, I thought, that with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but 25 percent of the current world consumption, the United States cannot, cannot, eliminate its need for its imports through increased domestic production alone. They understand that the dinosaurs went to die somewhere else, mostly in the Mid East, and we need to develop alternatives to oil. They went on to urge the President to adopt improved efficiencies and rapid deployment and development of advanced biomass, alcohol, and other available petroleum alternatives. They said that action to prepare for the day that when we need to wean ourselves from oil will pay dividends for our national security, our international competitiveness, and our future prosperity. They made some really specific proposals, these security experts. They said that we should make it a national top security priority to significantly reduce our consumption of foreign oil through improved efficiency and the rapid substitution of advanced biomass, alcohol, and other available alternative fuels; and this effort should be funded at a level proportionate with other priorities for the defense our Nation. They look at this as a defense issue, as does our New Apollo Energy Project. They said the Federal Government should consider mandating substantial incorporation of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and flexible fuel vehicles into Federal, State, municipal, and other government fleets. The New Apollo Energy Project that we will introduce tomorrow does these things and much more because it recognizes the security threat to the United States that these security officials recognize and it takes action today. Now I would like to, if I can, talk about the threat of global warming. That is one of the reasons we need to take action associated with the New Apollo Energy Project. There are some very interesting things that happened this week on the front of new energy. The National Academy of Sciences essentially yesterday came out with a report which concluded, as have the International Panel of Sciences previously studying this effort, that the earth is warming. A substantial portion of that is caused by human activity, that warming will occur even if we stop today because the carbon dioxide that causes global warming stays in the atmosphere for decades, and called for action now, not 10 years from now, to deal with this threat. This is the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most nonpartisan, prestigious groups in America. It joined other academies across the world actually yesterday in issuing this manifesto. The reason they are saying that is quite clear. Global warming is a well-understood principle. Energy light, an ultraviolet spectrum can come through the atmosphere. When it bounces back, it is in the infrared spectrum. Unfortunately, in part, carbon dioxide traps infrared energy and does not allow it to radiate back to space. Actually, it is a wonderful thing. If it was not for this aspect, we would have a frozen planet on our hands. But the fact of the matter is too much carbon dioxide causes global warming. We know that is happening. As the Academy of Sciences said today, we know it is happening through melting glaciers, changes in biological standards up and down the coastline, melting tundra in the Arctic, the disappearance. Glacier National Park will not have glaciers in 75 years at this rate due to global warming. So how do we know this is occurring? If I can refer to a couple of charts here, we see with our own eyes some changes, and I will get to the theory of why this is happening. But we have seen with our own eyes some very substantial changes in our world as a result of global warming already. This is a picture of the ice sheet in the Antarctic. And if I can refer to the glacier, it is the Pine Island Glacier as it comes down into the sea. It shows pictures on September 16, 2000; November 4, 2001; November 12, 2001. It shows a breakup of the ice coming down into the Antarctic. This piece of ice here is roughly 26 miles long and 11 miles wide. That is a substantial piece of the Antarctic breaking off, and this phenomenon we have now seen in substantial places across the Antarctic. Now, obviously, one piece of ice does not the puzzle make, but what we are seeing now is these things with our own eyes. This is not a hypothetical issue. If one travels to the Glacier National Park, they may say, where did the glaciers go? They melted. If they travel to Alaska and they see some buckled housing, it is because the tundra is melting. If one goes to Denali National Park and ask why trees have moved up, it is because the weather is getting warmer. We see this with our own eyes. The reason this has happened is because of carbon dioxide. I actually stumbled across a pretty amazing chart today, disturbing and amazing. What this chart shows is the carbon dioxide and temperature levels going back from today, which starts here at zero, going backwards 400,000 years. So, basically, this chart shows carbon dioxide and temperature levels over the last 400,000 years. Scientists know this because they find trapped particles of air, air bubbles essentially in glacier ice going back during that period; and they can analyze the air to determine both the carbon dioxide in these bubbles when they were trapped 400,000 years ago and the temperature by looking at the isotopes of oxygen and the concentration of trace materials. So we have a very good unarguable, all the scientists agree on this, record of what the earth has done. There are three salient things from this record. Number one, we see that there is a very close correlation between deviations in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. The CO2 levels as shown in the red line, we will see deviations over the last 400,000 years up and down. These are parts per million from about 180 at the bottom to 380 at the top of this yellow section. So what we see is carbon dioxide levels have gone up and down, in some cycles, over the last 400,000 years. But it is pretty interesting because the temperatures, if the Members notice the blue line, pretty much follow in a regular path the red line. And what we see is that temperatures have followed changes in carbon dioxide levels. It is a very close correlation, as we are seeing now. Because what we are seeing now is an explosion of carbon dioxide. It is sort of human- caused volcanic of carbon dioxide which is sending CO2 levels through the roof. The second thing that was interesting in this chart is that when we come to today, which is this spot right here on this graph, this red line shows CO2 levels, and it shows the CO2 levels that are expected by the scientists as a result of our burning fossil fuels, putting CO2 into the atmosphere. And what it shows is today we are at about 375 parts per million. For every million molecules, there are about 375 molecules of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is higher today than at any time in the last 400,000 years on earth. Anytime in the last 400,000 years, we have more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have ever had in the last 400,000 years, and it is getting hotter rapidly. Ten of the last hottest years we have had in the last decade. Temperatures are rising. But what is disturbing is that the scientists are projecting CO2 levels to continue to go up essentially on a vertical line looked at geological time. By 2050, we are expected to have 550 parts per million. Our CO2 will be up here, almost twice the highest level ever in the last 400,000 years of unrecorded history. That is under a business as usual if things go well. Now, there is uncertainty in this. We do not know exactly what is going to happen. If things go well, the optimistic assumption, if we do business as usual, is by 2050, my children's lifetime, we will have 550 parts per million, almost double the carbon dioxide we had then. By 2100, my grandkids' lifetime, we will have 980 parts per million, almost three times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than has ever been in global history as far as we can tell. It is disturbing when we see what has happened already in our world to think of this curve exploding in this nature. That is why the National Academy of Sciences is calling for action today. That is the good news. We have some scientists who want us to act. The bad news is the Bush administration refuses to do so. In fact, we read in today's New York Times that the chief of staff of the Department of Environmental Quality for the administration actually cooked the books and edited reports to change them to make it look like this is not such a big deal. That is very disturbing when you look at the real science that the National Academy of Sciences has projected. Well, those are the challenges we have. The fact of the matter is, we can take action on this. We can take action now, starting tomorrow with the New Apollo Energy Project. Basically, the New Apollo Energy Project is going to take a multiple approach to this. It recognizes that there is no silver bullet to this issue. There are many things that we all need to do and industry needs to help in to solve these multiple energy policies. But one thing it does not do, it does not do like the energy bill did that passed this House, that gave 94 percent of all the taxpayer dollars to the oil and gas industry, one of the largest obscene subsidies, using taxpayer money to subsidize one of the wealthiest industries in American history already. It does not do that. It does not take the money out of taxpayer dollars and give it to the likes of Exxon, who last quarter had $7.5 billion profits. Why do they need subsidies when fuel is at $55 a barrel already? It does not do that. It uses a host of approaches to deal with this issue. Now, one of the first things it does is it does what you would do if you want to reduce your energy consumption. The first thing is we stop wasting energy. The best way to create energy is not to waste it, not to throw it away. Unfortunately, because of some industrial policies that have not used efficiency, we are not using our heads when it comes to being efficient in use of energy. Let me show you one of the most discouraging things when you look at our national policy of some years. This is a chart of the fuel economy, fleet fuel economy, both truck and car, from 1975 to 2005. I think it is one of the most troublesome graphs I have seen, because it shows a real failure by this U.S. Congress and, frankly, by some folks in deciding what cars and trucks to make for us. What it shows is in 1975, this middle line basically is the average fuel mileage that a combination of our cars and trucks got. In 1975 we were getting a combination of about 14 miles per gallon, back in 1975. In 1975 we made a conscious decision to demand that our auto industry produce more fuel efficient vehicles, and they did. They were supremely successful in responding to that congressional mandate. They almost, well, not doubled, but went up at least 65 percent, up to about 1984, when our fuel economy got up to about 22 miles per gallon combined. So we went from about 14 miles a gallon to 22 miles a gallon in less than a decade. A pretty good achievement, because we put our minds to it. We used our design capability, we advanced safer, roomier, more comfortable, more fuel efficient cars, and we did it because we used our brains. People designed and built cars that did that because we demanded through the U.S. Congress that that happen through something we called the corporate average fuel economy standards. Then in 1985 the government basically fell off the wagon. They stopped making any more requests for further fuel efficiency, and our fuel efficiency since that time has actually gone down since 1985. So today the industry as a group provides us vehicles that get less gas mileage than our vehicles did in 1985. Now, think about that. Since 1985 we have invented the entire Internet, we have perfected space travel, we have mapped the human genome, we have got cell phones for our kids coming out our ears, but the cars we drive get less fuel mileage than they did in 1985. That is a failure, and we need to do something about that. We need to put our heads together, and the New Apollo Energy Project in part takes a small step. It does not specifically increase the standards, but it suggests we do research, we do research in finding how to have more fuel efficient cars in a whole host of ways, just like these national security experts suggested that we do. It was pointed out to me by the architect of this plan, if we had simply continued this rate of improvement to 2005, if we had not stopped in 1985, we would be free of imported oil today from Saudi Arabia. Think how that would be a better situation. So the first thing we do is we do not waste fuel. We do not waste energy in our buildings, and our new Apollo Energy Project has new building research and standards to try to encourage industry to provide us more fuel efficient buildings, one of which is to have the U.S. Government adopt more advanced standards for building Federal buildings. That is just a start. States are doing this around the country. My State, the State of Washington, just adopted the most progressive efficiency standard for public buildings, and we ought to do the same. And we do this in the New Apollo Energy Project so we do not waste. We do this in a variety of ways. We give consumers incentives. We give advanced tax breaks. If you buy a fuel efficient car, we give a tax break, unlike the House bill that passed here a few weeks ago. It gives producers incentives. We want to save the domestic auto industry in the United States. It is in deep, deep trouble and we want to save it. There are two ways. Number one, we give it substantial assistance to get back on its feet through use of in some of its retooling expenditures and its tax treatment, and in a way I hope we will also assume some of the health care costs ultimately, the legacy costs of our domestic auto industry. But that is not all we have to do to save the domestic auto industry. We also have to grab back the market share we are losing to the Japanese and soon the Chinese in fuel efficient cars. We take steps in that direction. Third, we take some regulatory approaches. We realize there are certain things we simply have to do to get this genie back in the bottle. One of the things we have to do is limit the amount of carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere. We do that by incorporating the standards over in the Senate. Senators McCain and Lieberman are leading an effort to establish a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the air. We do this now for nitrogen and for sulfur. It is time to do it for carbon dioxide. We have learned that that gas, that toxic material, that pollutant, could cause us more problems than all of these put together. We have been very effective. This is one of the real success stories in what we have done to clean up our air. We have cleaned it up of nitrogen, for sulfur to a significant degree. If the administration does not roll back our mercury standards we hope to increase our safety for our kids from mercury. But we have not done it for carbon dioxide. That is the granddaddy of it all when it comes to changing our entire climatic system. So we need to add that pollutant to the list we control. We know this works. We do a cap and trade system and we force polluting industries to bid, if you will, so we have the most efficient way to bring efficiencies to our production and manufacturing systems. Then we use the money generated from that auction to pay for the research and application of these fuel efficiency standards. By the way, this is one of the great virtues of the New Apollo Energy Project. It is paid for. We have a $600 billion in real terms deficit, and we need to pay for things, and this is paid for. We have provided a mechanism for paying for every penny of expenditures in the New Apollo Energy Project through two means: Number one, this auction of permits to put carbon dioxide in the air, which will generate billions of dollars; and, secondly, by closing a couple of corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to move jobs offshore and then get tax breaks for doing that. On a bipartisan basis we ought to close some of those. So we pay for this bill, it is fiscally responsible, and I think that is important to do. Now, why do we have optimism this is going to work? Well, for one reason, it is working. Let me tell you about some successes we are having in that regard. First off, it should be noted this is not pie-in-the-sky by any means. I will just show you a picture and note a couple successes. This is a picture of the Hathaways' home in Loudoun County, Virginia. They built this home for about $365,000, which is in the realm of building costs here, not too different from houses of this nature. When they built this home, they wanted to incorporate state-of-the- art technologies to try to reduce their energy usage. They built a home that did just that. They built a home that incorporates solar cell technology in the roof, some passive solar heating in the way they designed the home and oriented it, an in-ground heat pump, which is extremely efficient. This in-ground heat pump is just amazingly efficient. They used additional insulation and a few other whiz-bang items to try to reduce their energy consumption. What they did is they produced, and I cannot recall the exact square footage, but you can see it is a pretty good-sized home, it looks nice, they produced a home that is attractive, comfortable and uses zero net energy off the grid, because they produce energy. First off, they use it efficiently, and they produce energy through their solar roof system and their net consumption is zero. The way they can make it zero is while they are producing more energy than they are using, which happens frequently, they are feeding energy back into the grid, so their meter on the side of the home runs backwards a good part of the time when they sell back to the energy utility the energy they are generating. When you net the two out, they have a zero consumption. This is today, within about 60 miles of where I am standing, and it is working today. But it is not just solar and those techniques. The good news is that our investments in these technologies over the last several decades are paying off big time, as they say. If you look at all of these new technologies, you find a very consistent dynamic, and that dynamic is that the more we build, the cheaper it becomes. Right now in wind power we are building the largest wind turbine farm in North America in the southeast corner of Washington State. Some farmers are going to do pretty well in the leases associated with these wind farms. These wind farms 20 years ago would have been very expensive. They started about 20 years ago and the electricity produced from them was much more expensive than gas or coal. As we developed the technology and produced more turbines, the cost has come down. Now in Washington State the cost of wind power is just about market-based with the cost of alternative fuel of gas turbines that you would have to produce to provide an alternative. In fact, I just saw some plans, one of our utilities is going to have 5 percent in the next decade of their energy produced through wind. This is a real functioning system. If you look at what has happened at the cost, in 1980, the cost was about 35 cents per kilowatt hour. That has come down to by 2000 to about 3, 4, 5 cents, depending where you are, this incredible reduction just in the last two decades. That a combination of new technology and the scales of production as you ramp up. What we find as we start to implement these things is they become much less costly. That is why a lot of people who sort have been naysayers of new technology say it will cost too much. Of course it will. The first time you build something it usually costs quite a bit. Look at our defense array. Guess how much the first laser beam we built cost for the Defense Department? The same thing in solar cell. PV is photovoltaic. We see it cost about 100 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980. That has come down to 21-23 cents in the year 2000, and that curve is going to continue. The same for biomass, which we are very excited about. We have a plant going in we hope in Monroe, Washington, shortly for biomass. I met about a month ago with farmers in Eastern Washington who want to start an industry around mustard and grape seed to develop oils to fuel our cars and heat our homes. You look at biomass, 1980 again about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. That is down to about 7 cents now, and that line is projected to continue down. The same with geothermal and the same with solar thermal, basically just heating water on top of our roofs, which is very efficient as well. So the good news is that as we focus on these energy systems they become much more efficient and thereby less expensive. So this is one reason that we have a sense of optimism in that regard. Now I want to come back to, if I can just for a moment, to the certainty both of the reasons for optimism and the certainty for the need for action here. We know that we are the best innovators in the world, and we know we are people of science. And the science has shown that science works, and that is why these costs are coming down. The science has also shown the necessity for action. I do want to refer to this report that was just issued by the National Academies of Science yesterday. It says that there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. Here is a pivotal statement. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the earth's climate. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilized instantly at today's levels, the climate would still continue to change and adapt to the increased emission of recent decades. It went on to talk about the negative ramifications of climate change, increases in the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice sheets, a major impact on low-lying regions in the world. At the level that the sea is predicted to rise, which is .1 to .9 meters, in Bangladesh alone 6 million people would be at risk for flooding. Science tells us that we need to act, and there is no excuse, no excuse whatsoever for this administration to dig in its heels and refuse to act. The President, it is interesting, because I have heard him say both publicly and to me personally that he realizes that this is an issue that he has to address. Yet he has refused to lift a finger to limit carbon dioxide emissions. He has refused to lift a finger to address the rest of the world, to try to engage the rest of the world in dealing with this issue. He has refused to lift a finger to stop this Chamber from adopting an oil-soaked policy that might make former friends in the oil and gas industry rich but will impoverish the taxpayer directly through their taxes and our grandchildren through its climate. This is inexcusable. Anyone with any respect, any decent shred of respect for the whole nature of scientific inquiry who willfully blinds themselves to this great threat, to this beautiful little blue globe we live on, cannot be said to be acting as a steward of the Creator's Earth. We are stewards of this Earth for future generations. It is our primary reason for living, and this administration is woefully inadequate in its discharge of that responsibility. That is why I am pleased that myself and others tomorrow will introduce a bill that will get this great Nation engaged in using its talents to solve this problem. Because a country that did put a man on the Moon, who responded to John F. Kennedy's challenge in the 1960s, is equally able to respond to the challenge of energies in this century and much more so. Because we have seen, we have witnessed firsthand the incredible powers of this country when we challenge ourselves to use our technological prowess to invent our way out of the pickle which we are in now. So I am happy that we are going to use not just one technology here, and it is not just solar and it is not just wind. We should do research, and my bill will call for research, in clean coal technology. If we can find a way to burn coal and not put carbon dioxide in the air, we should do so. There are significant challenges in that: Where we will store the carbon dioxide if we cannot separate it from the gas stream? Those are big challenges, but we need to do the research, and we should not be blinded from those potential solutions as well. It has to do with simple things like using management of our transportation systems to try to reduce our costs. It is by maximizing some of our public transportation systems. It is like some of even our zoning requirements to try to reduce the number of miles we have to drive to get to work. And, fortunately, with the Internet explosion, we are finding ways to reduce some of those, some of those expenses as well. The point is that we have to let a thousand flowers bloom when it comes to energy, and our bill will do so by encouraging a whole raft of new research projects from soup to nuts on dealing with this issue. I am very pleased to say that this bill will be introduced tomorrow, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this. Because we are all, all in this together, and this should not be a partisan bill. We see good leadership from John McCain on this over in the Senate and others. We see leaders in renewable technology on the Republican side of the aisle here in the House. And we are hoping as time goes on we will adopt a bipartisan vision along the way of the new Apollo Energy Project. America deserves it. We are up to it.