Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is true. And the Hanford site, this is going to be a 50-year recovery effort. But some of the problems in the State of Washington, perhaps less known, but every bit as concerning, are water quality issues now, of some of the toxic chemicals that have been, by necessity, associated with the Department of Defense sites. And I can say without hesitation that the people of Tacoma and Federal Way and Paulsville, Washington do not believe it is necessary to allow a degradation of their drinking water standards in their kids' drinking water in order to have the most secure Nation we have. And the reason they are confident of that is they have seen the dedicated men and women of the Army and Navy work with these communities to solve these problems. So they cannot understand why this administration would come in for what appears to be simply idealogical reasons and gut the protections that have assured citizens that their Federal Government is not going to let tetrachloride or some of these other heavy metals get into their drinking water. It just does not make any sense to them when we have been able to solve these problems because of the flexibility that the gentleman alluded to. So we hope that this effort will be beaten back and that the common sense that has been used, both by the Department of Defense and our local towns around this country, will prevail.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a minute, I am glad he brought this point up, because we out in Washington State think the administration's effort to essentially gut, and it really is gutting, five major environmental bills for the Department of Defense activities is seriously misguided. The reason I say that is out in Washington, we have a whole host of military establishments. We have the Akamai Firing Center in eastern Washington. In my district we have the Bangor Nuclear Submarine Facility. We have the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. And at every single one of those sites, we have had the Department of Defense work with our local communities and we have solved some of the environmental challenges without any great failure of training or security. The Department of Defense has worked with these local communities to solve a problem with the sage grouse at the Akamai, to solve the problem of water quality in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, to solve a salmon habitat issue at the Bangor facility. And this proposal to gut these environmental protections is really a solution looking for a problem, because the Department of Defense in the State of Washington, one of the most heavily defense-oriented places in the country, has not experienced any particular qualm or difficulty in solving this problem.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly talk about the Arctic, because we were on the banks of the Ivishak a couple summers ago. I have been to Yellowstone, I have been to Glacier, I have been to the Grand Canyon; and this area is the most biologically dynamic place I have ever been, one of the most beautiful places I have ever been in my life, and certainly it will not solve our energy needs. People sort of feel about the Arctic the way they feel about the Mona Lisa. They may not get to see the Mona Lisa. The advocates of drilling are saying it is going to be a small footprint, just a relatively small oil production facility. I think that is a little bit like putting a small mustache on the Mona Lisa. It is small, but it is still disfiguring, and Americans do not want it. I hope that we will have an opportunity to offer a new approach to energy in this year's debate that is akin to a new Apollo energy project for America that will be as bold as the Apollo project that John F. Kennedy stood in this Chamber in 1961 and challenged America to go to the Moon in 10 years. We think the U.S. Congress ought to be challenging America to go to a future of self-reliance in energy to break our addiction on Middle Eastern oil, to adopt and embrace a goal of reducing our global warming gas emissions and, in fact, grow jobs in America. That is what we need, a visionary, bold, creative energy policy; not one that relies just on the technologies of the past, but one that will, in fact, engage the American talent and that can-do spirit. We know that Americans have the most creative talent in the world. We have created most of the technologies of the last century. Now it is time for us to create the energy technologies of the next century. We know the world will beat a path to the door of the country that does this. We do not think we should give these markets of wind turbines to Denmark, or the market for fuel-efficient vehicles to Japan, or the market of solar power to Germany. We believe those jobs should be right here in the United States. So we hope to offer, and in fact, we will be going to the Committee on Rules tomorrow, to offer America a new Apollo energy project which will, in fact, attempt to use all of our sectors in a creative way; to do research on coal to see if we can find a way to sequester the climate-changing gases of coal emissions; to help both consumers in the auto industry to get more fuel-efficient cars; to help our local domestic auto manufacturers with tax breaks for the retooling expenses they are going to need to make fuel-efficient vehicles; to help improve some of the productivity of some of our oil wells in our domestic facilities now. Because we believe that America ought to adopt the can- do spirit of a new vision of energy, rather than simply relying on the old, the old types of technologies that we have used. So I appreciate the opportunity to talk with the gentleman. In fact, we may be back tonight or tomorrow to talk some more about that.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, he just prompted a thought. One of the problems on this sort of assault on environmental protection by this administration is that it is not just one front, it is a multifront assault on environmental protection. One that the gentleman just alerted me to is the attempt to weaken our ability to successfully prosecute Superfund toxic waste dump cleanups, and the gentleman may have talked about this this evening, I do not know. But in my district, I live right across the harbor from a site called the Waco Creosote Plant. It was an old creosote plant, where a lot of the lumber they brought in, in fact some I think may have gone to the Panama Canal construction project, was created there. Creosote is really effective at killing little bugs that might get into your pilings, but it is very, very toxic. It has some very, very nasty chemicals in it. That stuff is on a point at a harbor right across the bay from where I live on a little island just west of Seattle. That Superfund site now, to clean it up, is costing tens of millions of dollars to successfully clean up that creosote, because it is leaking into Puget Sound now, and that stuff is a carcinogen and we believe it has caused some pretty awful things to happen to the fish that a lot of people like to eat. In fact, the shell beds, the shell beds are closed around this area. You cannot eat the clams and oysters and the like. But the administration, despite the ongoing demand to clean up not this one, but thousands of toxic waste dumps around the country, has decided not to fund those by canceling the tax that would pay for this cleanup. That are now paid by the polluters. Before we have had a policy that the polluters will pay to clean up this pollution, rather than John Q. Citizen. This administration wants to take the cost of the cleanup of this creosote toxic waste dump, and there are thousands arose the country, and take it off of the polluters who put the creosote in the ground, who should be morally, ethically, and legally responsible for that, and put it over on the taxpayers, so the taxpayers have to pay for this cleanup. Well, I can tell the gentleman that my neighbors do not think it should be their job to clean up the creosote that these companies put in the ground, because they were not following the law for decades. And we believe the administration is flat wrong in trying to take care of these special interests by putting that enormous cost of these cleanup efforts on to people who are playing by the rules, earning a paycheck, paying their house payment, and they are now having to pay their taxes for that Superfund cleanup. Mr. Speaker, it is one manifestation of how special interests here in this Chamber have got their way when they should not get their way. These cleanups ought to be borne by the polluters. Not only is it an equity issue, but the clear fact of the matter is that because of the costs associated, these are billions and billions of dollars, one little cleanup on my little island, it is about 16 acres, is going to cost something like $20 million or $30 million, and we need to repeat that across the country to keep this stuff out of our water. If we do not keep that polluter-pays concept, these jobs are not going to get done. So this is related to the issue, and I just want to point out that it is not the only assault that we suffer.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to mention a very important charitable project by our National Association of Letter Carriers, who have been engaged in this for several years. On the second Saturday in May, which will be May 10 this year, letter carriers in over 10,000 cities and towns will be delivering much more than mail on their routes. They will be collecting food donations left for them by their caring patrons on the 11th annual letter carriers national food drive. I want to take this opportunity to commend the letter carriers for this incredible charitable endeavor. This effort by the letter carriers is the largest 1-day food drive in the Nation, and it has resulted in the last 10 years in over half a billion pounds of food donations to our local communities. I hope everyone listening will participate on May 10 by leaving a box of nonperishable food next to their mailbox before their mail arrives. It will help the estimated 30 million people who go hungry every day in America, including 12 million children. Congratulations to our letter carriers for a job well done.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate it. We will continue to get our efforts to get a dialogue going in the House. The gentleman has written the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I have written the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). We will continue these efforts. Before the gentleman goes, I will note just a little problem we will be working on. I met with a group of reservists last weekend because we are having these longer deployments and longer call-ups and one of the things we need to work on is make sure they get adequate health care when they switch from one coverage to another as well as adequate travel reimbursement because, unfortunately, we will have longer deployments. I will be talking with the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for joining me and I thank him for his leadership on this work. Madam Speaker, we are talking about inaction is not an option when it comes to Iraq. And I point this out because I feel that in the debate, those who have supported a largely unilateral war, which is the situation we are in with very little international support, those who support that position have suggested that there is only two decisions here, war or passivity, war or inaction. I think it is very important to note that the course we are advocating is that we continue to squeeze down on this tyrant. And that it is important to realize that we ought to engage the power of the international community to isolate him and to continue this disarmament program, and I think just in the last few days we have continued to see success in the inspection process, and it is important to realize no inspection process is going to be totally effective in the first 24 hours or the first 30 days. It took us years in the 1990s but the disarmament program and the inspection protocol, although it was not absolutely foolproof, in fact destroyed more weapons of Saddam Hussein than were destroyed in the Persian Gulf War. That is a significant fact that is sometimes forgotten. It ought to give us some degree of optimism about continuing the inspection protocol which is so important, which we ought to make stronger. By the way, when it comes to these inspections, if we have to double the number of inspectors, if we have to triple the number of inspectors, if they need to go up a factor of ten, it is cheap at twice the price. Because frankly this inspection protocol is costing us a few million dollars a year. A war will cost somewhere between 60- and $120 billion a year to the United States taxpayers. And we ought to advocate with the United Nations to have a more rigorous inspection protocol and accomplish that. The second question I would ask and I think is important to answer in this debate, is the President's assertion, his implicit assertion, that Saddam Hussein was behind the horrendous attack on our Nation September 11 supported by the evidence of our intelligence services? And I am afraid to say that that assertion is wholly unsupported by the evidence. If Saddam Hussein were connected with the September 11 attack on this Nation, I would not hesitate for 5 seconds to vote for an action by the United States, even largely unilaterally, as we did in Afghanistan, because the Taliban was directly behind the attacks of the United States of America. It was responsible for thousands of deaths. I have listened closely for months now for some shred of meaningful evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken with his decade of failing and refusing to ally with the al Qaeda, and all of the sudden the September 11 attack, and that has been wholly missing in this debate. I have gone to repeated classified briefings; and I obviously will not disclose what were in those briefings, but I have come away from a review of the entire record and not seen meaningful evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. Frankly, it is not too surprising, because anyone who has studied the Mideast understands that there is a dramatic difference between the thinking of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and the type of tyranny and oppression that Saddam Hussein has advocated, because al Qaeda has been a fundamentalist Islamic group, and they have called Saddam Hussein, as recently as several weeks ago, an apostate, who is a secular tyrant; and they have been oil and water, and it is a good thing that they have been. I serve on the Committee on Financial Services, and as recently as yesterday we had the Homeland Security Department, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Treasury; and we were looking at money laundering and issues about the financing of terrorism. I asked our three agencies whether there was any evidence that they would share with us that there was any financing by Saddam Hussein of the September 11 attacks, and I asked them a very specific question, because this is fundamental to the President's argument. They did not present one shred of evidence that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11, and this is very important in this debate. It is not important to know whether Saddam Hussein is a despicable, loathsome human being who has been a tyrant, who has tortured his citizens, who has started wars, who one can find no virtue in whatsoever. That is an accepted fact, and we should not be naive enough to think otherwise. When it comes to deciding whether America should go to war, it would be a huge mistake to go to war based on an illusion that this is the person responsible for September 11; and unfortunately, and it is unfortunate, I think, I saw a poll the other day that the President has convinced 42 percent of Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind September 11 when his own intelligence agencies know otherwise. That is unfortunate in this debate. The third question I would ask that is important to ask is what is the relative threat posed by Iraq relative to the threats posed by other nations and non-nations around the world, and that is an important question, because there are an unlimited number of threats to our personal security. It is unlimited, and there is a hierarchy of how imminent and how dangerous they are, and if we simply focus on Iraq and if we are willing to go to war in Iraq, to the detriment of our ability to deal with other threats that I believe are more imminent and potentially more lethal, it will be a bad decision by the United States. So if I can, for a moment, talk about some of these other threats. The President has indicated that Saddam Hussein has attempted to obtain fissionable materiel and nuclear weapons. This is true. It is clear that Saddam Hussein has tried for decades to obtain a nuclear device, and he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in his multiple- decade efforts, but other countries have not been unsuccessful. North Korea, the country that the President of the United States told us is not creating a crisis, a country that has probably got fissionable materiel and is on the course to have several nuclear weapons in several months, that recently intercepted our reconnaissance aircraft, which has been involved in infiltration of various other countries, who is acting in a fanatical, totally unpredictable manner, who may have or will have shortly nuclear weapons that can reach Japan, who is developing missiles that can reach the western coast of the United States in a few years, that is an imminent threat to this country. Unfortunately, America's response to North Korea has been damaged, hindered and limited due to the President's concentration on Iraq, and I have to stand here to sadly say that if Saddam Hussein could, potentially, I do not know how with the inspection process, but with our inspection process under way, he is decades away from a nuclear weapon. North Korea is months away from nuclear weapons that are deliverable to other nations and potentially the Western United States in several years. That is the number one threat to the security of this Nation and the President, who only has 24 hours in the day, has been making a lot of calls about Iraq, and has not had time to make calls about North Korea; and we have to be aware of the presence of these other threats. Second threat, Iran. I was in Israel about a year and a half ago, and I met with the number three or five person in the Israeli defense force, and I asked him what he was most concerned about in threats in the region and to the security of Israel. Obviously, the intafada, creating the havoc and destruction, is first on his mind; but he told me, and he had a lot of concern in his voice when he told me this, that we had to really crack down on a country that started with the letter I in the Mideast, because they were very, very dangerous to the regional security of the area and to the security of Israel, and that country was Iran. Because he told me that, because of the assistance of Russia, Iran was making significant progress to nuclear weapons, and his statement to me almost a year and a half ago has been borne out by the intelligence photographs we saw last, I guess it was, Monday now in our newspapers about the cascade of centrifuges that Iran has developed to develop fissionable materiel in relatively short order for another nuclear power in the Mideast. That is a clear and present danger to the security of the Mideast and ultimately to the United States, but the United States has not been able to deal with that threat because it has been so focused on Iraq, and I think that is most unfortunate. While we are fighting a war in Iraq, if that breaks out, these other nuclear-armed countries, or very shortly will be, will be perfecting their weaponry under the cover of this war of Iraq. While we are fighting a country that is trying to make balsa wood airplanes, that we are now told was the reason to go to war, and I will come to that in a moment, we have got to be very cautious about focusing on one threat to the detriment of our ability to deal with others. Fourth question, are we making progress in disarmament of Iraq? I have been actually relatively pleasantly surprised at the rate of progress we have made. It seems like every week or two we have been able to make progress in the disarmament of Iraq, and the folks listening probably are more familiar than I am; but it is important to note that progress continues as it did in the 1990s. I think we cannot be naive. There is no way to guarantee absolute 100 percent disarmament of Iraq unless it becomes under our military control. It would take years to conduct searches of every nook and cranny in Iraq; but what we can say, I think with a relative degree of assurance, is that we have stopped Iraq's efforts to the extent they existed, which were quite rudimentary, at least in the last year or two, toward a nuclear weapon. We have significantly impaired any ability to have a meaningful bioweapons hazard program, and we are on the way to assuring that the destruction of the delivery system or potential delivery system to the al-Samoud missile system, which I think now we have destroyed about 40 percent of their missile system, we are making real progress. The question in my mind is why stop that progress now in favor of a war while we are continuing to make progress on this effort? I do not believe there is a good answer to that question. Fifth question, what would be needed in postwar Iraq? Here is where I think unfortunately the administration is wholly not up at least at the moment to the task of what they have said their goal is in Iraq. The President has offered a variety of statements as to what his goal is in Iraq. He has said that he has wanted to wage war or may want to wage war in Iraq in order to preserve the sanctity of the United Nations to make sure that the United Nations has credibility, and he has said that he is concerned about Iraq's threatening its neighbors. He said that it is for our own personal security, and he has said that he wants to free the Iraqi people from this tyrant; and I want to address that last goal of freeing Iraq from this tyrant. The reason I want to address that is, to me, that actually if there were a legitimate reason for a war in Iraq would be the one that would be most telling and most consistent with the facts and the evidence, and the reason is because there is no question but that innocent Iraqis, by the millions, have suffered at the hand of this tyrant. It is an appealing thought to believe that we could free them from that control of this despot. That is appealing. I have to say that in reviewing the plans, or lack of plans, and the commitment, or lack of commitment, of this administration, the ability of George Bush to bring democracy to Iraq, at best, is highly speculative; and I will tell my colleagues the reasons why. Number one, exhibit A, Afghanistan. I believed war in Afghanistan was necessary from a personal security standpoint due to the tie of the Taliban government to the September 11 attack; but we had a perfect opportunity to, in fact, try to establish a democracy, and this administration has blown it big time. To the extent that when it came time for this year's budget, to put money in to help the rebuilding of Afghanistan, to help restore democracy to keep out the return of the Taliban, do my colleagues know how much money they put in their budget? Zero dollars, zero dollars for democracy in Afghanistan. Their explanation was they forgot, and I think that was very candid. The President's administration forgot about the goal of democracy in Afghanistan; and today we are faced with the same problem we had after there were efforts to kick the Russians out, which is the return of the Taliban and the return to tyranny and return to the war lords because we have not made the investment that is required to get the job done in Afghanistan; and if we want a template, unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, if we want a template of what the Bush administration would do in Iraq, look what they have done in Afghanistan, which is to basically say we are going to take care of about a 10-block area around Kabul so we can say we have got some vestiges of a country. That is a farrier and I have not seen anything better planned for Iraq. We have been asking on a bipartisan basis for the administration's plans on a postwar Iraq for months and months now; and we have been given, I do not know how to say this charitably. I am searching for a way to say it charitably. A joke perhaps is the best thing to say on what their plans are on a postwar Iraq. Here is a country, cobbled together after the British Empire left the Mideast, of three distinct ethnic groups that have never worked together except under the heels of a despot with the Kurds who the administration has already decided to sell out to Turkey for the 15th time to the Kurds, the Kurds who are now finally enjoying some degree of autonomy under our no-fly zone. We have got the Kurds some freedom today from Saddam Hussein because of our no-fly zone and think of the irony of it. The President may be on the cusp of a war, and he has agreed to turn them back to Turkey, and in fact, that is overstating a little bit, but he has allowed Turkey, under the secret deal he wants to make, to come into the Kurds' territory; and what an irony it is that the President says he wants to restore democracy in Iraq, and the first deal he cuts with Turkey is to allow them to come back in and again be dominant over the Kurds who are now free for the first time in decades. That is the type of shady dealing and efforts that have plagued us in our Mideast policy for years. And to think that we can break these eggs and put them back into the democracy category with the lack of commitment of this administration is wholly speculative and most disappointing to the poor people of Iraq. And I think anyone who knows the history of these people knows how terrible their conditions have been. Frankly, if we had an administration that we believed we could have confidence would really commit to the democracy in Iraq, for the long- term future, and who made the commitment financially and otherwise, I would be a lot more willing to look at the idea. But we do not have that right now in this administration. Talk about a financial commitment, we are talking about tens of millions, perhaps in the billions, of dollars in a postwar Iraq. And the President has not even factored in the cost of even the attack, much less the postwar cost into his budget, nor have my friends on the Republican side of the aisle. What type of commitment do we think we can make to the international community to in fact build democracy in Iraq when we basically have said we are not going to spend a dime to do it and we have been afraid, Congress and the administration, to build into our budget the cost that it would take to do this? No, perhaps building democracy in Iraq after a war could be a great vision, but we have certainly not seen the vision to make it happen. Six. What are the real goals of the administration in Iraq? Here is something I think that is very important in the discussion. The discussion we have heard, and it has changed over time, but when the President went to the United Nations at one time, he said his good deal was the disarmament of Iraq. The problem is, and the reason I believe we have had so much problem in winning and building an international coalition, unlike the success that the first President Bush enjoyed, is that President Bush, in the very first statement of his administration, said that was not our goal at all. He said our goal was simply to remove Saddam Hussein, period. No ifs, ands, buts. No disarmament. Saddam Hussein was going to have to go. When the President said, as he did most recently last week, that it is simply about removing Saddam Hussein, it did not matter what benchmarks he made, did not matter what inspections we had or what disarmament he would do, he was going to have to go, well, that would be attractive; but it has damaged our ability to build an international coalition to deal with this despot. And it is an unfortunate contrast to the skills that the first President Bush demonstrated in building an international coalition to deal with the threat in Iraq. When the first President Bush spoke with respect to our international partners, we were clear to them about our goals, we hewed to the commitments we made to our international partners, and we did not tell our international partners that we were going to do what we were going to do, and it did not matter what they thought. That is what the first President Bush did, and he was successful. This administration has violated all those fundamental precepts of human communication, which is respect for one another. The other goal is the President has said he wants to make sure the United Nations resolutions are honored. That is a legitimate goal. He has implicitly said he wants to show respect for the United Nations and build it up as a coalition, an international body that can deal with this. That is a laudable goal and an important one, but it certainly is shortchanged and has its legs cut out from underneath it when in the same breath the President says he wants to respect the United Nations, but then says he is going to ignore the United Nations if they do not do exactly as he wants them to do and he will start a war anyway. You do not instill trust in your colleagues, or in the United Nations, when right out of the box you say you are just coming to them for a rubber stamp and you are going to start a war anyway. It is not the way to build respect in the United Nations. It is one of the problems we are having now in trying to build an international coalition to deal with this problem. Seventh question. What has changed since Congress voted on this resolution? I thought it was unwise then for the U.S. Congress to derogate its constitutional duty to make a decision about war when it voted to essentially allow one person, one person in this country, to make the decision to go to war, rather than the elected officials here in Congress. When they drafted the Constitution, they said Congress had the power to declare war, so that one person would not have that awesome challenge and responsibility. Nonetheless, Congress did that, and my side of the vote did not prevail. It is important to have this discussion now because since that decision, other potential enemies of the United States have used our continued concentration and obsession, and I will not use the word obsession, I will strike that word, but our concentration on Iraq has allowed them to continue to develop their own nuclear weapons programs. And we have been totally ineffective in dealing with those other issues, and that calls for Congress to have a debate about what the current state of this situation is. And we should have one. The eighth question. Has the President really leveled with the American people about the ramifications of this war financially and otherwise? The sad fact is that he has not. He has refused to even discuss with the U.S. Congress what the costs are going to be. And at the same time that we are going to incur from $60 billion to $120 billion in cost, the President, unlike any other wartime President in American history, and every other wartime President in American history has leveled with the American people, and they have told the American people what the war would cost in lives and treasury. They have been straight and said we need to pay this. And this President has not been straight with the American people about the cost of this war, either in lives or treasury, because he wants his tax cut above everything. Above everything. At the same time we are going to spend an additional $60 billion to $120 billion, he continues to try to ram through these tax cuts, which is his number one ideological belief. Now, to me, when we have seen our soldiers and sailors off to harm's way in this war, and they are making this sacrifice, it does not seem to me to be right that the President of the United States says we might have a war overseas, but we are going to have a fiscal party at home. That is irresponsible, and it does not respect the tradition and the willingness of Americans to sacrifice together when we do face a mutual security threat. Number nine. What does a war in Iraq do to our security on the downside? Because many of us believe, and I believe, that while a war in Iraq and the elimination of Saddam Hussein's rule could reduce a particular threat that he presents, it could create greater threats in many other ways. I believe that in balancing those threats there is as much potential increased harm to the United States, in threats to our security, as there is benefit. And there are multiple reasons for that. The most obvious reason is what is happening in Iraq today, where we have kicked Saddam Hussein out of a particular region in the northeast corner of the country and al Qaeda has moved in. It is a great irony. We have seen the sort of picture of what Iraq is going to look like in a post-Saddam Hussein world. Because in this corner of chaos, where there is no state, it is like a little Afghanistan about a decade ago. The fundamentalist Islamic movement has moved in and this group has now got about 700 fighters that are grouping in Iraq. Not under or allied with Saddam Hussein, but they are using the absence, this vacancy, this vacuum of state control to regroup and potentially plan attacks against the United States of America. By creating a chaotic situation in Iraq, we not only inspire the hatred which we have heard so many people talk about of young Muslim folks in the Mideast, but we will provide them a place to group, which is in a vacuum of what used to be Iraq. It has been said by many people that a war in Iraq could be sort of the great dream of Osama bin Laden. Because no Osama bin Laden is going to bring down the United States in his wildest imagination. His dream is to incite a war between the West and Muslim nations. And his dream can only be accomplished in one possible way, and that is if the United States acts in a way which will prove to folks in the Muslim nations that in their view that we intend a colonial empire in the Middle East, which I do not believe we do. But to them, having an occupied Mideast Muslim nation, occupied for potentially years, and we have been in Germany for over 50, the ramifications of the recruiting efforts of Osama bin Laden are obvious. I cannot think of a single thing that could potentially allow the regrouping of the al Qaeda network other than a war with Iraq, eventually. This is truly one battle we could win but lose the war. That is why war does not always buy more security. Sometimes it buys less, even if you win the first battle. And I think we should think about that. Tenth. What would a largely unilateral war do to America's moral leadership in the world? I will close on this point, because I think it could be the most important for the long-term future of our Nation. I believe America is a unique country that has a unique responsibility for moral leadership in the world. The world looks to us for leadership. It looks to us for an idea of what is acceptable conduct by nations and men. It looks to us to lead in the establishment of a rules-based society, because that is the genius of America. We have rules here and we follow rules here. Other countries do not. They do not have rules they follow in a lot of countries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, an empire we contained in a way that certainly makes Saddam Hussein look like a petty little maggot, but we contained the Soviet Union for many, many decades, and we should think about that in regard to Saddam Hussein. But we have this moral leadership, and we wear the cloak of moral leadership in the world, and we are looked to all over the world for leadership. The Statue of Liberty is not just about immigration. That flame is about leading the world in a lot of ways, not just economically. It is my belief that should we go it alone, largely alone, which is the position we are in at the moment, if there is a lack of success developing an international coalition, which there has been a spectacular failure at this moment, if we act without United Nations sanctioning, we will have damaged our ability to fulfill the destiny of America to lead the world to a new civilization internationally, not just along the borders of our country. That is why it is so important for us to work with the international community to maintain what we have right now, which is the admiration of the world. Think about what has happened in the last 12 months, where in the weeks following September 11 the world embraced us. There were headlines around the world in various newspapers. We were all Americans. Think how far that has changed because of the reaction against the United States and this administration acting so cavalierly in certain regards. It is disappointing. But we can regain this. We can regain our position. We can continue to keep this tyrant in his box. We can build an international coalition. We can succeed in these inspections. We can continue our no- fly zone. We should continue to work with the international community. And in the days ahead, we hope that the President will listen to the American people and the voices from around the world in doing that, because that is America's destiny.

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I have come to the floor tonight to discuss our Nation's policy in Iraq and before I discuss that most important issue I would like to make a couple of preparatory comments. First, I would I want to express my respect, admiration and appreciation for the men and women of our Armed Services who are today deployed in the service of their country, who are already assisting the security and freedoms of our country today, regardless of the outcome of our national policy in Iraq. And I think it is important to note in any discussion of our national policy that the very reason we have the opportunity to discuss and debate these issues on the floor of the House of Representatives are the contributions past, present and future of the men and women of the America's armed forces. Because the very right of freedom of speech would not exist without the courage and dedication of our soldiers and sailors and Air Force personnel, Marines and Coast Guard and there are others. We would not have the ability and other Americans would not have the ability to protest, to question their government's policy but for the dedicated courage of these individuals. And I have a particular personal connection and admiration for them. In the last 2 weeks I have gone to two deployments of citizens and my neighbors to the Middle East. I went to the deployment in Bremerton, Washington of the 8th Navy Hospital Unit who left about 2\1/2\ weeks ago and watched them say good-bye to their husbands and wives and children for the service of this country. And I have them in mind when I am deciding what position to take in Iraq. I have the sailors of the U.S.S. Rodney Davis, a U.S.S. frigate that shipped off last weekend from Everett, Washington now bound for the Middle East and watched them say good-bye to their loved ones on that dock, and I have them in minds when I think about what our policy ought to be in Iraq. Regardless of what Americans think their policy should be in Iraq, I think we should stand absolutely unanimously as we did in Congress here, in the House last week when we passed a resolution respecting and pledging our support and our prayers, which the brave men and women have tonight and today, in the sands of the Middle East, and we have should not forget them in any stretch. Second, I want to say that I think that the U.S. Congress needs more discussion, not less, of America's policy in Iraq. And I think it is very disappointing to many Americans that there has been a pall of silence in the House about Iraq for the last several months. It is disappointing because while every democratically elected legislative body around the world or many of them have been debating this subject, the very citadel of democracy, the U.S. House of Representatives right here, the People's House, has been almost absolutely silent on this issue, and I think that is not in the best traditions of democracy. To that end, we have invited some of my Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), to lead an effort to debate what should be our policy here in the House of Representatives, and to date we have not convinced them to agree to that type of debate in the House and I think it is very unfortunate. I hope that some of my Republican colleagues will engage with us in that discussion in the near future, and we have hope the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would reconsider and would allow debate to occur on the floor of the House in this regard. And the reason I say that is while this House did cast a vote, which I believe unwisely abrogated our constitutional authority to make the decision on war to the executive branch, a lot has happened since that decision months ago. This Chamber should be debating what the right course of action is in Iraq. We owe it to the soldiers and sailors of the 8th Hospital Unit in the Navy and the people of the U.S.S. Rodney Davis and all Americans to decide and debate this subject. And I think it is most unfortunate that the House has derogated its responsibility to make that decision and punted it over to the White House down on Pennsylvania Avenue. So I hope that we can inspire additional debate. I have come to discuss this today. I wish we had others to join us who has a different view about Iraq. Now to the substance of Iraq, I will pose about 8 or 10 questions that I think that we need to have answered before a war starts in Iraq. The first question I would pose is, is a policy of inaction in Iraq the right and acceptable policy for America and the international community? And I will answer that with a resounding no. Inaction is not an accepted policy when it comes to Iraq. And fortunately inaction is not what we have at this moment. We have a policy of keeping this thug, this tyrant, this diabolical dictator in a tight little box and that is where we ought to keep him, and we ought to continue and promote and make stronger our inspection protocol to find and root out and disarm this tyrant. And we have been having success in that regard in the last several weeks. And we ought to continue and enhance and strengthen our no-fly zone, which denies that dictator effective control of 70 percent of his country. And fortunately, and this is very difficult to the Iraqi innocent citizens under this tyrant's control, but we ought to continue this economic sanction policy as well to keep this tyrant in his box. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has joined us and I yield to him.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that this bill itself is a case of legislative malpractice. It is legislative malpractice because it will not deliver the goods to doctors in a reduction of their premiums because there is an outright total and utter failure to deal with insurance reform, which the evidence has shown is necessary to get a reduction in premiums. We ought to listen to the story of a 23-year-old lady named Jennifer, a newlywed in Washington, who went in for a simple medical test and was told she had a rare form of cancer. She had an extended period of chemotherapy, she had a hysterectomy, and they then took out part of her lungs. She went through years of medical procedures and the test was faulty. She never had cancer. Now, I do not know what the right dollar figure is for a woman's loss of the ability to bear children, but I know it is not $250,000. I know it is not what Ken Lay earned in about 2\1/2\ weeks, and I know that that decision should be made by 12 citizens sitting in a jury box rather than people answering to special interests in the United States Congress.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans have grave concern about this administration's policy in Iraq, and I am one of them. Several of us have come to the floor today to express those concerns. But before I do so, I would like to relate a story from this past Monday when I went to the deployment of the United States Navy's frigate, the U.S.S. Rodney Davis, where I saw off a group of what looked like awfully young sailors to the potential war zone. Mr. Speaker, I went there to tell those proud sailors something that there is unanimity about in America. I went to tell them that no matter what people in America think of the policy in Iraq, every single American is proud of our men and women in the military service. I wanted to tell them that because the very freedoms that many Americans have been exercising in various places across this country in the last few weeks are the freedoms that our service personnel protect, and the freedom of speech to dissent against our government's policies would not exist without the courage and dedication of our men and women in uniform. So I told them that all Americans of every stripe, short, tall, east, west, Democrat, Republican, that during their mission, our prayers would be with them and our support would be with them in every way shape and form. But I thought it important to come back and think about the policy in Iraq real hard, Mr. Speaker, because these were young men. Mostly men. There were some women. A mother came up and she was bawling, and she said, about her son, the sailor, ``He's just a boy. He's just a boy.'' He had only been out of bootcamp for just 2 weeks. Upon reflection, I thought to myself that it is old men like us who send young men to combat, and so we should think real hard about it. With that in mind, I want to pose some questions that millions of Americans to the President before he launches this war in Iraq. Number one. Why should America abandon its long-term bipartisan belief that we should work with the international community in a multilateral effort at security in favor of an internationally nonsanctioned preemptive attack on another nation? Why are we compelled to break with this long tradition, that has been embraced by Americans, that civilized countries need to work together to stop aggression for mutual security rather than to open the door to war so that every country that is aggrieved can start another war against another one? Why should we give Pakistan the sanction to attack India without international sanction? Why should we give the sanction for any country to attack another country absent imminent threat without international sanction? And why should our President tell the United Nations that they can just stick it in their ear and that America is going to start a war anyway? That is a question that the President has not adequately answered to date and that needs an answer before a war starts. Frankly, it is a little troublesome that our President has said that he respects the United Nations; that he wants the United Nations to be effective; that he wants the United Nations to work together, but tells the United Nations it does not matter a fig what the United Nations thinks, because America is going to start a war anyway. This has not helped to build multilateral international support for the greatest country in the world, which is the United States of America. And we need that question answered before a war starts. Second question. How many billions of dollars of taxpayer money are being used to buy votes for this war? We have heard of tens of billions of dollars for Turkey. Now we hear the administration trying to buy votes around the world for this war. We need to know how many billions of dollars of taxpayer money are going to buy these votes. And the reason I say that is that unfortunately, and I think it is most unfortunate, if this war starts, it will not be a coalition of the willing. The international community will look at it more as a coalition of the bribed. And that is not something our country needs to be proud of. We need to be proud, and we are proud, of our men and women in uniform, but this is not a message to be sending internationally. Third question: After months and months and months of inquiry by Americans across the country, where is the compelling evidence that Iraq was behind the September 11 attack on this country? We have asked. We have searched. We have given the benefit of the doubt to the administration in every way we could, and that evidence has been wholly lacking. Fourth: Why abandon inspections right in the middle of this effort? Why abandon something that is making progress? Why abandon the process that is destroying these missiles? And, lastly, why create a chaotic situation in Iraq that can be a breeding ground for the al-Qaeda to regroup, like is happening right now in northern Iraq under our northern fly zone. No, we should keep this tyrant, this thug in his tight little box and we should work with the international community to keep him there. Mr. Speaker, I hope that no war starts until those answers are in to the American people.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues and the citizens of this great nation that March is National Eye Donor Month. I rise also because cornea transplantation is an issue with which I have had some personal experience. One of my sons is one of the 46,000 patients who receive cornea transplants each year, Through the altruistic act of donation, my son's quality of life was substantially improved. These transplant surgeries can relieve patients of glared or blurred vision, painful swelling, and can effectively avoid corneal blindness, something that afflicts over forty thousand Americans every year. As you may know Mr. Speaker, the first corneal transplant was performed in 1905, and the first eye bank opened in New York in 1944. Since then, eye banks have flourished nationwide and over half a million patients have received the gift of sight. These nonprofit organizations have also been instrumental in the advancement of medical science. Their facilitation and safeguarding of these precious gifts have allowed researchers to promulgate transplant procedures that have resulted in extraordinarily high success rates. The achievements of eye banks are self-evident. Currently, eye banks meet our nation's need for corneal and sclera tissue. In 2002, 50,857 corneal grafts, given by over 46,000 donors, were supplied by U.S. eye banks. Today, every American who needs a corneal transplant can expect to receive one due to the generous donation of another. It is also important to note that the number of eye and tissue donors is enormous when compared to donors of solid organs. Approximately 10 individuals donate eyes and tissue for every person that donates organs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that over one million Americans age 40 and over are currently blind, and that an additional 2.4 million are visually impaired. It is speculated that over the next 30 years, with the retirement of the Baby Boom Generation, this problem will double. I would therefore ask and encourage my colleagues, as well as all Americans, to sign a donor card and to speak with their loved ones about their donation wishes. Under the auspices of the Eye Bank Association of America, the restoration of sight is a miracle that has become reality in our lifetime. I urge this Congress to celebrate their accomplishments, and to become more involved in matters relating to transplantation.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, bringing this to our Nation's attention with this resolution. The reason I have come to join the gentleman this evening to talk about this important national matter is I represent the first district in the State of Washington, in the Seattle area; and I live in a place called Bainbridge Island, a little island directly across Puget Sound from Seattle. Back in the 1940s, pursuant to an order of the American President, the United States Army marched 277 Americans of Japanese American descent down to the Taylor Landing dock and at bayonet point essentially sent them to camps for the duration of the war. These were our neighbors on Bainbridge Island, good people, great people, some of whom still live on Bainbridge Island; and we think it is appropriate and important for the Nation to remember that injustice, that mistake, where an America did succumb to fear, and this day of remembrance is one way to do that. The reason I think it is important for America to do that is two- fold: first to honor those individuals who went through this experience, but had their sons and daughters serving in the military during World War II, and then returned, a lot of them, to Bainbridge Island to become important parts and leaders of the community, and we want to honor their commitment and contributions to our national and local communities. But I also think it is very important for us in the future for us to learn from this experience, because we are undergoing some similar strains right now. We understand what fear is again like, like we experienced in the 1940s; and it is very important for us to realize what can happen if you succumb to fear, what can happen to civil liberties, what can happen to civil rights, what can happen to your basic freedoms. So learning from that experience is important that we not replicate it and we not again give in to our sense of fear that the Nation may hold. I should alert the gentleman, as you know, we are doing some things on Bainbridge Island. We are starting a national park, a national memorial, we hope, in a bill the gentleman helped pass the last session of Congress that the President has now signed, which will memorialize this event at the very site where the very first Japanese Americans were interned. These were the first Americans who were subjected to this, the very first detainees. Some great people on Bainbridge Island, a fellow named Clarence Moriwaki is doing tremendous work, Frank Kinamoto, to memorialize this event and to teach Americans for future generations about what can happen when we succumb to fear. So this is one part of telling this story, and I am happy to be able to. I will tell you just one good story, if I can, about Bainbridge Island, though. There was a lot of sorrow and sadness, and I have always been so impressed with people who went through this experience but came home willing to be good Americans and leaders in their local community and got over, maybe did not get over, but surmounted the sense of bitterness that certainly must have been there. I have just been so admiring of that sense of courage and true commitment to America. But another little spirit that I saw, we dedicated a county park to a place where a radio interception facility was on Bainbridge that actually intercepted the December 7 radio transmission to the Japanese ambassador in Washington D.C. One of the fellows intercepting those messages on the day that my neighbors were interned, he took a day of furlough and went down to one of his buddies to get his refrigerator and his pickup truck to make sure he protected them all during the war for his pal. He took a day's furlough to do it. That is part of the American spirit too. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership to make sure that America knows this story.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the weekend before last, I attended the deployment at the 8th Hospital Unit, some proud sailors from Bremerton, Washington. We wanted to show our support for our troops and our sailors. And that is why I was so chagrined to return home to find out that the President wants to cut funding for these sailors' children. That is right. The President has proposed cutting $10 million from Federal assistance to the Central Kitsap School District. Why would the President, at the very time we are deploying our soldiers and our sailors to the Mideast, want to cut the educational funding for these proud American servicemen's and women's own education? It is flat wrong. This $10 million hit on the budget of my local school district is going to adversely affect the children whose mothers and fathers are now flying to the Mideast for service to their country. We will do everything we can to stop the President of the United States from cutting educational funding at the very time that our people are deploying in the Mideast in order to finance the tax cuts for the rich that he wants to push through this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will develop a bipartisan consensus that this is a very bad idea to cut the impact aid funding that is going to so many heavily service-dependent economies in our region. If we do so, it will strike a blow for the men and women and their children who ought to have their schools protected at the time we are in the Mideast.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cardin substitute on the basis that not all welfare reform plans are created equal. The Cardin plan, I believe, is the superior plan for one basic reason. That reason is that it will work. It will work where the rubber meets the road, which is actually getting people to have livable-wage jobs, rather than to put them in temporary make-work positions where they are going to wind up right back up on the public assistance program. The reason I believe it will fundamentally succeed is that the Cardin plan recognizes the reality that without providing people child care while they are going to school, while they are going to vocational school, while they are going to community college, they will not succeed in breaking the chains of poverty. The Cardin plan makes allotments to States to allow that to happen. I have to tell my colleagues, the States are in big trouble and they are incapable of doing this job right now without assistance. In my area, at the Edmonds Community College, Shoreline Community College, we have enrollments at Shoreline Community College of thousands of students over-enrolled in this program to break the chains of poverty. We need to give these students child care to make sure kids are not waiting in the parking lot while mothers are in, or fathers are in, retraining but, in fact, are cared for during their development years. I have to say that this is going to cost the State of Washington $144 million. Where is the help from Uncle Sam? The Cardin bill will do it. It will make welfare reform work.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit which would remove the corrupt, dirty little disgusting antienvironmental riders that were picked up on this bill as it went through this process that simply are wrong. We ought to remove them. We ought to be ashamed of the antienvironmental riders that were added like leaches on the body politic. We should have good, honest debates about money around here; but we should be ashamed of the leaches that get added to legislation in the dark of night that are against the environmental values of this country, and there are three of them that ought to be removed that will be in the motion to recommit, and I will tell Members what they are. Antienvironmental leach number one: we in Congress pass environmental laws, and they ought to pertain to everywhere in America, in all 50 States in America. But in an unprecedented antienvironmental rider, the majority party, unless Members vote for this motion to recommit, says that the environmental laws of the United States passed by this Congress do not apply in one of the most beautiful places in America, the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska. What possible excuse is there for telling Americans that in one of the pristine spots in this country the laws of the United States of America do not apply? What excuse is there? Members have said in this wilderness designation there is no judicial review. What kind of Congress passes laws and then says we let the executive ignore the law by not having a judicial review? That is not a Congress that I know or should be proud of. We should get rid of this antienvironment rider. Leach number two: the other side in this bill has attempted to simply say we are going to salvage logging, essentially without meaningful protection or laws. We have to remove it. Leach number three: there is a dirty little secret of a back-door deal to try to open up the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, and that is wrong. It should not be done in the dead of night. Join us to pass this motion and get rid of the antienvironmental riders.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, America is all aware of the tragedy of our seven losses, but I would like to pay particular tribute to two American stories that bear repeating as we think about our loss. First, I want to pay tribute to the very unique life of Dr. Kalpana Chawla, a woman who had such an incredible personal story that became now an American icon. Dr. Chawla was born in India and raised in a small town called Karnal in the Punjab region. She at an early age decided to become associated with space, and she went to the University of Punjab and later received a degree from the University of Texas, and now has become a part of the tradition and story of American and international progress. She served both in the last space shuttle flight, the Columbia, and in 1997; and the world is proud of her. But what I want to say particularly is I think Dr. Chawla's story is one that can be embraced by America in the sense that we have been a magnet for people of incredible ambition and talent that have helped America lead the world in technology in a whole host of ways. But this is also a story of success for India. India rightfully shares the privilege and honor of having raised and educated Dr. Chawla early in her life. And it is a story of success in my district where many people have come from India, have been educated in India, but who are now successful in developing software at Microsoft and other companies, are now providing medical services to our constituents and our families, are now designing aircraft at Boeing, and are part of the American dream of keeping America on the cutting edge of technology. So her heroism and success is a symbol both for the American commitment to continue growth but to success for other countries, and particularly India, in their ambitions. And we honor her and her family for her incredible contributions both to America and India and to the world. Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute particularly to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, who grew up in Spokane and has his picture in Cheney High School. To Lieutenant Colonel Anderson's family, we simply say that we believe that he has a legacy of perhaps the highest accomplishment for any American; and he has inspired those who will come behind him in Cheney, Washington and in Washington and in America. We honor him.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough when the Republicans adjourned Congress and went home for the holidays without doing the work of taking care of those who were unemployed through no fault of their own, hard-working Americans; but it is worse, it is a darker dereliction of duty to today bring a bill to the floor and refuse to allow an honest debate by America's representatives to truly cover the unemployed. That is a darker dereliction of duty, and it is darker because while the Republican Party says that there is no money in the Treasury to cover $2 billion to $4 billion to take care of people who are out of work, the day before that, the President said, but we have $400 billion to give out to the wealthiest Americans. It is a dark day for democracy. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had all of these new Members of Congress who came here and they stood right here and they looked right up at their grandparents and their kids and they waved and they were really proud, rightfully so, to be Members of the people's House, because they knew that they were in a place that the entire world looks to for the practice of democracy. But on the first day of business, they are here for the shutdown of democracy. They are here where the Republican Party is basically saying to Americans, you poor peasants, take it or leave it. We are putting a bill out here, and you can take it or leave it. We are not going to allow an improved bill even to be voted on. That is a callous dereliction of the oath of office to democracy. Now, I rarely get exercised about procedural issues. I do not think Americans could give two hoots normally about what happens procedurally here in the House and we spend too much time arguing about it is. But when we bring a substantive bill to the floor and tell people who are out of work who cannot make their house payments, who cannot make their kids' tuition payments, that you are going to give them a take-it-or- leave-it proposal and if they do not like it, they can just walk out of here and sulk, that is simply wrong. It is wrong for democracy. I am not going to go down without raising my voice. Mr. Speaker, up here we have Hamarabi, a bust of him for creating a great legal code, and now his country is ruled by a tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Things can go backwards in democracy. This is a step backwards in the democratic process.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to something my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), said about the basic improvement in this bill, or improvement in the Republicans' position since last year. I think she is correct in what happened, that when the Republicans had a penurious proposal last year and then went home without adopting one, and caught heck when they went home, they improved their position. This is a better bill, I want to agree with her on that. But there is another group that is being abused by this failure today, not just the unemployed. It is the unrepresented. Because when we bring a bill to the floor where two or three people get into a room and decide what the bill is going to be, and bring it out to this floor and tell the American people that that is their only solution, that is a form of tyranny. It is a step down the road to a government that does not respect democracy. Unfortunately, it is the first time it is happening, and it is going to happen over and over and over again during this Congress. That is why I am here today raising my voice against it, saying that we cannot have a democracy if we bring a bill to the floor and do not have an alternative for the American people to consider. It is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Congress will send to the desk of the President of the United States for his signature, the Homeland Security bill. This bill will create the Department of Homeland Security, an agency charged with safeguarding Americans and the American way of life. When enacting this bill, we must be careful not stray into invading American's privacy when using the regulatory tools provided for in this bill. I refer specifically to the vague authorizations in this bill that would give this new Federal agency broad authority to push the privacy envelope. Section 201, paragraph 14, charges the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure with the responsibility of establishing a secure communications and information technology infrastructure that specifically authorizes the use of ``Data-mining.'' Since ``Data-mining'' has no statutory definition, I am concerned that we have not adequately established that the Department of Homeland Security does not have the green light to adopt an all encompassing program that invades the privacy of every American without their permission or knowledge. We were recently notified that former Rear Admiral John Poindexter is developing a Total Information Awareness program to monitor the everyday transactions of Americans. We cannot allow this to happen. I do not believe that this statutory language is meant to allow the Federal Government to obtain whatever list, public, private, or commercial, to profile Americans. It is clear that the American public does reject this approach, as they soundly voiced their outrage for other privacy-eroding proposals such as the FBI's ``Carnivore'' system, and the Department of Justice ``TIPS'' program. It is vital that this body adopt standards to define such terms as ``data-mining,'' and to do so early in the 108th Congress. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to report from the Democratic cloakroom that when we saw this spontaneous tribute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), somebody said, You know, he is a really nice guy, and there was universal shaking of the heads affirmatively. That is the highest praise. This has been a tremendous opportunity to work with the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and Utah is a beautiful state and you have made it a little nicer being such a gracious person here.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, America is a great Nation because it always at times of toil and tumble has followed great principles. We have always matched the might of our Armed Forces with the force of our great principles, and it is a great American principle that at times of international trouble, we work with the international community, not without it. It is a great American principle that we do not launch unilateral first strikes without the support of the international community and the vote of the U.S. Congress. The Spratt resolution follows and upholds those great American principles, and the underlying resolution violates them. No Congress should give any President a blank check to start a unilateral first strike for any reason, anytime, with or without any allies. This Nation gave the world the great principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion and ought to lead the Nation in the concept of going forward on the arc of human history which is working together for mutual security rather than backwards to the law of the jungle. I do not want to vote to make it the legacy of this generation of American leaders to send us backwards where a strong nation devours the weak, and we do not work with the international community. There is a practical reason for doing this. As General Hoar, or Zinni, I cannot remember which one, said, why would we supercharge Osama bin Laden's recruiting efforts with a unilateral first strike? The Spratt resolution imbues great American principles. We should follow it is the American way.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this week I will vote against a unilateral, ill-timed, go-it-alone war on another nation. We do not owe Saddam Hussein any more time. We do not owe him anything. But we do owe our soldiers and our Marines, our sons and our daughters, every effort to try every means before war; and it is clear that we have not yet exhausted all of our options before opening the door to war. We will not allow the pain of last September to spread a cloud of fear that would shroud our judgment, our sense of international justice; and we must not be distracted from the war on terrorism in which we are already engaged. We will equal the power of our Armed Forces with the force of our principles; and one of those principles is that America should lead an international coalition, not just go it alone. This is the American way.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, at its heart this debate tonight is not about Saddam Hussein. That debate is finished. We know that he is a tyrant and a thug. The debate tonight is about what our vision of America in this new age of new threats should be, and the one thing we should all agree on is America is the greatest Nation on Earth because it has always hued to certain principles. It has always matched the might of its Armed Forces with the force of its principles. It has never resorted through trial and tumult and storm to shortcuts even in times of difficulty. And there are three principles that we should think about tonight: number one, it is an American principle that we engage the international community in a system of mutual security and international law; number two, it is an American principle that countries do not engage in first strikes absent international accord or truly imminent threat; number three, it is an American principle that the United States Congress is the group that makes the declaration of war. And unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this resolution violates every single one of those basic tenets of American democracy. They have put some legislative lipstick on it. They put some nice fuzzy language around it. But ultimately it violates this rule: no Congress should give any President a blank check to start a unilateral, ill-timed war, to let him start a war for any reason at any time with or without any allies. And in doing so, these principles are violated. Let me address the first one, the basic principle that America stands for international cooperation, and this has been a bipartisan principle for decades in this country. Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have worked with the international community to develop international law, international support systems; and we have led the Nation in doing so. We have led the Nation, because a world where countries can strike one another without international support, without a true imminent threat, is a law of the jungle. This Nation, even in today's threat, should lead the world forward to international law, rather than backward to the law of the jungle. This concept is more important after September 11 than less, and it is more important because of what the generals have told us, General Hoar, General Zinni, General Clark. We need to heed their advice, because what they have told us is simple and alarming. They have told us that if we engage in a unilateral attack in the Middle East, it has the capacity of supercharging Osama bin Laden's recruitment efforts. There is no victory in the destruction of one tyrant while breeding 10,000 terrorists. It is true that a unilateral attack that inflames the Middle East has the capacity of reducing our security rather than increasing it. This violates an American principle. Second, we have a principle of honoring our troops. We do not owe Saddam Hussein any more time. We do not owe Saddam Hussein anything. But we owe the soldiers and sailors and our sons and our daughters who we would send into the streets of Baghdad the ultimate effort to go the last mile to see if we can resolve the disarmament, and the total disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, before war. We owe our soldiers and sailors to make war the last option, not the first step. I got a letter from a mother from Wenatchee, Washington, this week making one plea to me that when I took this vote, to say that she understood her son could be involved in a sacrifice at the cause of liberty, but not until every option is exhausted, and every option has not been exhausted. That is why we should pass the separate resolution, which will call for the President to go to the United Nations, get a tough, certain, guaranteed disarmament effort, and get this job done. Third, we are a people who keep our eye on the ball. We have a principle in this Nation of not becoming distracted, and we do not know why we should take our eye off the ball, off the threat of al Qaeda, which 1 month ago was listed as a high threat of repeated terrorist attacks in this Nation, and go put our precious resources in dealing with what the CIA yesterday said was a low threat of terrorist activities. It does not make sense to the American people to do that. So for those purposes and those principles, international cooperation, honoring our troops, and keeping our eye on the ball, Mr. Speaker, we should reject this resolution and pass the Spratt amendment. This is the American way.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell my colleagues about a woman, I will call her Jane, and she is a citizen of the State of Washington. She went in for a routine test, a mammography, a biopsy was done, she was diagnosed as having breast cancer. She had a double radical mastectomy because of that diagnosis. She then developed a blood clot that went into her bowel and she required her bowel to be removed. She then developed another blood clot that caused gangrene in her leg, and they had to cut off her leg. Some time later, a subsequent review, a quality control assurance review, found that the diagnosis was inaccurate. The pathology report was flat dead wrong. She never had cancer, she never had anything that required significant surgery. She is a woman without breasts, without a bowel, and without a leg due to a failure, either of a physician or of a medical device, both of which would be affected by this legislation. Now, I do not know what is just to do in Jane's situation, but I do know this: the first people that should be making that decision are 12 of her peer citizens sitting in a jury box looking at the evidence, the second should be the State legislature, and the last should be the U.S. Congress. We should reject this legislation.