Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) in one second. One comment following up on that. There is some good news here. We have bipartisan support for this bill for the Baggage Screening Act, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been a great leader for some great reform efforts, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). We are going to pass this bill if we get a vote. We are going to have tons of Republicans vote for it if we can get a vote, because we have a bipartisan belief we do not want to be on airplanes with bombs in the baggage compartment. We feel very confident we are going to succeed on this if we can simply ask the leadership of the House to schedule a vote. I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to tell my colleagues I particularly appreciate his comment about maintaining the confidence in this industry. I represent thousands of Boeing workers, and let me tell my colleagues that if we do not act in this Chamber and if the majority leadership does not allow us to act in this Chamber for airline security and another plane goes down, I have got Boeing workers by the thousands that are going to be out of work more than already. This is an economic issue, in addition to a safety issue, but I want to know what the coming debate will be in the next week in this House; and which I am, frankly, concerned about, one of the reasons I came here tonight. The only reason that has been advanced not to give Americans this peace of mind when they ride in an airplane is some dollars. That is the only reason. There is no technical reason. There is no value reason. There is no constitutional issue. It is simply some dollars. We are going to have a debate in this Chamber in this week because one side, predominantly the aisle, is going to want to take the dollars from a Federal Treasury, do about 60 to 120 billion dollar tax cut, most of which for large corporations, capital gains or something, and many of us believe the first dollar that is spent ought to be on security because security is the biggest demand for this Nation right now. We believe the money that it is going to take to mobilize the industrial base to build these machines, which are already designed, and there are four of them already at Seattle International Airport, I saw them in operation the other day, they are good machines that I know work, that ought to be the first dollar that we spend in this stimulus package that is going to come up. If we are going to stimulate something, we should stimulate airline security because it creates jobs, it creates wealth, and it creates safety. With a known threat that we have right now, we are going to have debate with some of the Members across the aisle who want to give that money away in capital gains tax.

Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). Just one comment first. This should not be a theoretical or a rhetorical argument. We had an experiment with private enterprise in the airlines making decisions about airline security. We had our experiment. It ended unsuccessfully on September 11, and there really should not be a debate here. We have had our test, and it failed. The Federal Government needs to now mandate safety, and I will tell my colleagues some good news. I think we can get a 100 percent inspection a lot quicker than I think one of our fellows indicated. I will tell my colleagues why. We have already been talking to some of the manufacturers, and they can ramp up dramatically their production rate above what we have had when we put out a Federal contract to buy these machines, give them a guarantee. We produced what, I do not know, 5,000 P51s in a year and a half in World War II. That is the same type of mobilization we need now. We need to mobilize the industrial resources in this country to build these machines and other things. I am very confident we can do it. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. The good news here is that Americans have the expectation that these bags will be screened for explosives. They have the current expectation. And the good news is we have very good technology to accomplish that. There are several machines, several new generations of technology which have a very, very high probability of finding an explosive device, any explosive material; in fact, it can distinguish the density essentially of explosive material and with a high degree of success they find if there is a bomb in the luggage. The problem is that we do not have enough of those machines deployed in airports today and the ones that are deployed have not even been used fully. They have only been used in a very small percentage of passengers. So we believe it is incumbent on the U.S. Congress to pass a requirement that 100 percent of these bags be screened, and it is also appropriate for the Federal Government to assist the airports in which these will be located with the significant costs of these machines. They are not cheap, but it is my belief that the airline flying public believes this is a very worthwhile investment that ought to be made and if it is a dollar or two on tickets, we believe it ought to be paid and we think it ought to be part of our security package. I would now like to yield to another cosponsor of the Baggage Screening Act, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Let me give a note, too, to thank the two gentlemen, for the families of the Lockerbie tragedy, that have helped us so much. The families of the Lockerbie tragedy for 13 years have been asking Members of the U.S. Congress to act. Tonight we are adding our voices to the effort. Let us make sure this happens for the flying public.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is, I am sure, a sincere amendment; but it probably sets a record for ill timing. Because on the day where I just walked out of the cloak room and I saw CNN running a headline that the FBI is warning that we should be on the highest alert for terrorist attacks, on a day when the country is extremely concerned about our ability to deal with bioterrorism, we have a Member amendment on the floor of the House to cut money out of the CDC people whose job it is to find out if there is dangerous bacteria in our environment. I cannot imagine a worse timed amendment, but I think there is a bigger problem with what we are considering on the floor of the House than just that. The fact of the matter is our House is on fire, and we are dealing with all these ideological issues. We should be dealing with the security of the United States of America now that we are 30 days past this tragedy. Let me tell my colleagues why that is of concern. When my colleagues and I get on a plane next Friday or tomorrow to go back to our districts, did my colleagues know that almost all of the bags that go into the belly of the airplane we get on will not be screened for explosive devices? Over 90 percent of the bags that are going to be in the luggage compartment of the plane we get on on Friday will not have been screened for bombs. Now, what are we doing about that problem today? Nothing, not a single thing for a month after this terrorist attack. We have not done a dang thing on this issue. What have we done? We gave $15 billion to the airlines. Have we done anything to require employees to walk through magnetometers so they cannot carry bombs on to airplanes. We have not done anything. The fact of the matter is these ideological concerns are trumping the security interest of the United States. We have got a bill to deal with airline security so that the people who guard the magnetometers will have some modicum of training, will get maybe a little more than minimum wage. Many people think they ought to be Federal employees. I think they ought to be Federal employees like FBI, like Marshals, like fire department. But these ideological concerns are keeping even a vote on the floor of this House to do anything like that. I just hope that, number one, this amendment will fail; and I hope that the leadership of this House will bring to the floor of the House in quick order, starting at about noon tomorrow, some security bills so this House can vote on them because that ought to be the order of the day.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some information to my colleagues that is pertinent to our next several hours of us in the House of Representatives. The reason I say that is in the next several hours probably about 80 percent of us will be getting on airplanes. We are going to go out to Dulles, some to National. We are going to get on airplanes to fly back to our districts to work with the people who have been so traumatized by our recent losses, and that is part of our duty to do it. But what the information I want to share with my colleagues is that when we get on those airplanes in the next several hours, we will be getting on the airplanes with 100, 150, 200, maybe 300 other Americans. All of those Americans will be getting on airplanes that have not had the baggage screened for explosive devices when they are put in the belly of the jets that we get on. The sad fact is that today I have found and many others in the last few weeks, much to our surprise, that our security apparatus does not screen for explosive devices on bags that are put in the baggage compartments of our airlines. The reason that we have not done that in the past is two-fold. Number one, the theory has been in the past that we do not have to screen for bombs in luggage. All we have to do is to make sure that the people who put the baggage on get on with the plane, under the assumption that no one would want to go down with the plane. Well that assumption is certainly moot after September 11. That basis for our strategy has greatly outlived its purpose. The second reason that we have not screened for bombs on aircraft in the baggage compartment is that it has involved some cost. But, Mr. Speaker, I can state that I am very, very confident that the hundreds of people that are going to get on the airplane at Dulles and National today believe that the cost is worth it to screen for bombs in the baggage compartment of airplanes. The threat is too great, the potential loss is too great, and the available technology is too good not to use it. The fact is we have technology that can sniff with high level, actually not sniff, but they use another technology, a high level of probability will catch explosive devices, but we are simply not using it. As a result of that, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and myself and 14 others introduced yesterday the Baggage Screening Act which will require that bags shall be screened for explosive devices before they go on an airplane 100 percent. Right now maybe 5 or 10 percent are screened. That is not enough. That means 90, 95 percent of our bags are not screened for explosive devices. That is not good enough security for American people. The reason we introduced this bill is that today and in the next few days, we are attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus on a security package for airlines. We want to bring to the attention of our leadership that this feature needs to be in our security package. We need to screen for explosive devices. It is the right thing to do. We need to find a way to pay for it. If we do that, a lot of Americans will feel a lot more confident. If we take away nail clippers from passengers, let us keep the bombs out of the baggage.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this relatively simple amendment will allow farmers to receive assessment and technical assistance from the Department of Agriculture in assessing and developing renewable energy resources on their farms. We have learned that farmers have tremendous potential in developing their wind resources. In our State, we have seen some tremendous development of wind turbine energy on agricultural lands. Biomass is a great potential as well as solar. We think that this is an appropriate use of flexible dollars for farmers to ask for assistance to develop these new technological resources in a very environmentally friendly way. We appreciate the committee's cooperation in assessing this potential.

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

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, family farmers are hard working and disciplined; but I want to point out that there are some other groups of people who provide us nourishment, and one is the family fisherman and fisherwoman. I know a guy named Rudy who used to run a boat called the Shirley Anne when there were abundant salmon stocks in the State of Washington. His family does not fish any more because the salmon are gone, destroyed, caput, because we have silted up the rivers and destroyed a great natural resource. What this amendment will do and why I am supporting it in part is it will expand the number of farmers and crops who can use this money to help other people who provide food, namely fishermen and fisherwomen. I do not think that is too much to ask. We are taking only 3 percent of the people who benefit from this, and we are spreading it around to every farmer in the country and saying if they want to help, they are going to have this money simply for conservation. Let me point out also, this is not a question of taking money away from farmers. It is only a question of what they will do in return for the money. All this amendment suggests is instead of asking them to grow corn, help us grow some fish because it is not corn that is on the Endangered Species Act, it is fish. We are asking farmers who want to help to be allowed to help in that regard. I want to quote the President of the United States, who has been doing a good job for us lately. His administration policy statement says, ``While overall farm income is strengthened, there is no question that some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments.'' Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 would only increase this disparity.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and Minority Leader Gephardt for their leadership in bringing this to the attention of the House. I and about 100 other Members were in New York City to see the devastation. The personal loss of life there is so stunning it defies description, but I think it is the responsibility of this House to very promptly deal with the loss of income, the loss of living ability of many other families across the country that have been caused by this terrorist act. In my neck of the woods, I represent the area north of Seattle. We have 20 to 30,000 workers at Boeing that may have layoffs hit them in the next year as a result of the decline in airline usage in the next year or so. There are 20 to 30,000 families as a direct result of this terrorist act that are looking at a loss of health care benefits, potentially a change in their career and a real problem paying the grocery bill. It seems to me very important for our Chamber this week to pass a measure that will give assurance to those families that they will not be left out in the lurch when we deal with this terrorist act. There are a couple of reasons for that, I think. One, we have got to realize that while we have responded to the immediate corporate needs of the corporations that run our airlines, and I think that was an appropriate and necessary thing to keep this infrastructure going in our country, it is impossible for me to go home and explain to my families at Boeing who have been directly laid off as a result of these terrorist acts why the U.S. House would deal with the needs of the corporations, legitimate as they are, and not deal with the personal needs of the workers who have been damaged as well. They have needs to pay the grocery bill and their rent that are every bit as much pressing as the needs to keep those lines of credit going for the airlines. We hope that the House will send a strong message this week when we pass the airline safety bill that we are going to deal with airline workers as well. It just is not right to sort of shuffle off individual family members' needs to the back of our legislative calendar. That just is not right. We need to deal with that at the same time. I want to applaud Speaker Denny Hastert of our Chamber who has helped us find unity in dealing with this challenge in the last several weeks. We hope that he will be successful in forging a bipartisan consensus on how to deal with these laid-off families' needs as well as the corporate needs that we did. The second reason I think this is necessary is this is part of our counterterrorism effort. Our conflict involves our military and our intelligence forces, but it also involves depriving the terrorists of what they want, which is a disruption, instilling fear in the American people. To the extent that the American government provides a safety net, provides security to families, we defeat the terrorists. This is a counterterrorism effort when you tell the terrorists they are not going to succeed in putting 130,000 families out on the street, away from their homes, with an inability to deal with their financial crisis. This is a way of beating the terrorists in their efforts to strike fear in our heartland. And, third, we are going to have to talk about a stimulus package. I think it is appropriate that we deal with this on a global basis or a national basis, but if we are going to stimulate anything, we need to stimulate the ability of these people who are laid off, these 130,000 families in the next several months, let us make sure they can stay afloat to send a message of confidence to the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will all be successful this week, not next week, not next month, not at the end of the legislative calendar, but in our next round of discussions to help these families. I, again, thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his leadership.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the firefighters in New York did not panic and neither should we. Tomorrow, when the sun comes up, Americans all over this country are going to ask this question: Why in this Chamber do the big dogs always eat first? Twenty or thirty thousand Boeing laid-off workers who build the airplanes by their sweat of their brow are going to ask: Why are we using taxpayer money to help companies with CEOs who make $35 million a year, and for the machinists, they get zero? Bipartisanship does not mean the whole thing for the corporation and not a part for the worker. Help airlines, and put some ``no's'' up there to make sure we get a clean vote up there next week.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for Speaker Hastert whom I believe has done a great job showing a unified stand to the world in the last week. But I represent 20 to 30,000 Boeing employees. The one thing I can tell them is you just cannot ask them to eat good intentions. We cannot be sure that we are going to get anything out of this House except this vote tonight. To my friends on this side of the aisle, let me suggest to you this to think about when you vote for this motion. Sure, we may see some package that addresses workers' rights. But I have not heard anything from my friends across the aisle that say it is not going to be attached to some poison pill. We need to show respect for the people who need help tonight. Support this motion.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in honor of four heroic individuals from Washington State who gave their lives protecting our precious national forests. On July 10, 2001, Tom Craven, Karen Fitzpatrick, Jessica Johnson, and Devin Weaver died while battling a fire in the Okanogan National Forest. The House of Representatives, rightly so, has already passed a resolution honoring these firefighters, but I would like to share with my colleagues, and indeed the rest of the nation, a little more about these courageous young Americans whose lives were cut far too short. Tom Craven, of Ellensburg, began working for the Forest Service as a firefighter in 1990. Tom earned 11 letters from Cle Elum High School in football, track, and basketball, and played football at the College of the Redwoods in Eureka, CA. He graduated from Central Washington University in 1997, and was the first member of the Craven family to graduate from college and obtain a degree. A devoted family man, Tom is survived by his wife, Evelyn, and his two children. Karen Fitzpatrick, of Yakima, had just graduated from West Valley High School where she was an honor student, soccer player, and musician. She was involved in the Department of Ecology's Youth Corps, active in her church and the Kiwanis Key Club, and loved to cook, bake, and sew. Karen is survived by her parents, John and Kathie Fitzpatrick. Jessica Johnson, of Yakima, graduated from West Valley High School in 1999 and was a junior at Central Washington University majoring in Food Science and Nutrition. She loved the outdoors and was strong in body and spirit. A volunteer at West Valley Fire Department since 1998, Jessica is survived by her parents, Jody Gray and Rick Johnson. Devin Weaver, of Yakima, was enrolled in Yakima Valley Community College since 1999 and was planning to pursue a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Washington. He loved the outdoors and enjoyed backpacking, hunting, and camping in his free time. Since the eighth grade, Devin worked for his father's silk-flower manufacturing business and always volunteered for extra work assignments. Devin is survived by his parents, Ken and Barbara Weaver. Firefighters are on the front lines, every single day, saving lives and safeguarding our property and natural resources. While most of us would immediately flee a smoky, fire-engulfed home, building, or forest, these brave souls choose to enter these dangerous places sacrificing their safety for ours. I want to thank them personally for their bravery and their courage. Their heroism is of the same rank as so many other American patriots who have lost their lives in service to our country. Tom, Karen, Jessica, and Devin--you are in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a special responsibility to speak tonight. I represent Bainbridge Island just west of Seattle. It is full of great people, and it is a great place to live. In early 1942, the United States Government herded up some American citizens of Bainbridge Island and marched them down to a dock and put them on a ferry boat and put them in camps. I think the Congressman from that district owes it to the people now who are feeling the human passion and anger that is very understandable, to urge this country not to repeat, or even its private citizens, to repeat those kinds of mistakes. I also have a responsibility tonight to speak in favor of this, because in my district some knuckle-head defaced a mosque in Lynnwood, Washington. Near my district, an armed man was arrested yesterday threatening to burn down a mosque. The child of my staffer's sister had to be taken out of day-care because somebody phoned in a bomb threat due to the heritage of the folks at the day-care center. I do not think those acts are American. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the American act. Today I asked one of my staff to go to that mosque in Lynnwood, Washington and talk to the people. By happenstance, when he drove up to the mosque, there were about 50 cars that drove up loaded with foodstuffs and flowers and Christians who had come from their churches to tell that mosque that that was not an American way and not consistent with religious liberty and our brotherhood in this country. That was an American thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am proud of some things that are going on in my district, too. Let us tell the people who are angry about this, and I understand anger. Tomorrow morning I am going to call two of my constituents whose son was lost in the Pentagon. I understand passion and sorrow and anger. But those who have it, let us tell them that if you want to have an effective strategy to win this war against terrorism, let us let the Muslim people of the world know that we stand against terrorism and for brotherhood and respect for all religious faiths.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, as I walked down here, I saw in the cloakroom NBC News reported that from cell phones they could tell that the people on the Pennsylvania flight fought the hijackers, and that that flight was likely targeted for the building where we stand. The vision of the World Trade Center and the vision of the Citadel, symbol of democracy for this globe, leads me to know in my heart and in my gut, this is the right thing for our Nation to do. Our enemy does not understand our national family. He perceives our freedom of religion as weakness. He perceives our freedom of speech as lack of discipline. He is about to discover that he is wrong on all counts.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 hours I have heard a very powerful statement from thousands of Americans, a question. That is: What can I do? I would suggest three things: We can give blood, not just in the next day, but in the next several months. Number two, we can tell our children that they are safe, and they are safe in their schools. We cannot allow these terrorists to create an image and a feeling of fear of our kids when they go to school. Third, and I think most important, we need to talk to our children and tell them that at the same time they are discovering the nature of evil in certain people, and cowardice in certain people, and terrorism in certain people, there is courage in Americans. We can share the stories of these firefighters and these police officers who went into these buildings, so that our children know, as it has always been and will always be, the courage of people, of individual Americans, is going to surmount cowardice.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we must do more to foster and promote programs that encourage and honor our nation's exceptional young adults. On June 9, I had the privilege to participate in a ceremony on the grounds of the Kirkland Youth Center, in Kirkland, Washington, commending the 2001 Eastside Youth Wall of Fame honorees. Each year, the Greater Eastside Hall of Fame, a chapter of the International Youth Hall of Fame, recognizes ``everyday heroes'' from the cities of Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Issaquah, Washington. Community members anonymously nominate youth in the areas of service, courage, creativity, and social enterprise. These activities range from volunteering at local hospitals or community service groups, organizing recycling programs at their schools, assisting children with physical and mental impairments, working to curtail drug use at their schools, excelling creatively in arts and crafts, or serving as leaders and positive role models for their peers. Once selected, the Eastside Youth Wall of Fame honorees have the opportunity to design a ceramic tile, with a personal quote and a picture, which becomes part of a permanent Wall of Fame. I would like to share with my colleagues some of the quotes included on this year's Wall of Fame. One young lady emphasized, ``Give a little more each day than you think you possibly can.'' Another individual decorated her part of the wall with, ``The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.'' Equally inspiring was an honoree's drawing of a diverse group of people, with the quote, ``Everyone should be loved.'' I commend these teens for their perceptive knowledge and selfless actions. Their courage and dedication can be found both in the wall that honors them and in their daily deeds. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking these outstanding ``everyday heroes'' for their civic pride and unselfish commitment to their community. Their contribution to America makes our country a place where these young adults and others like them can continue to realize their dreams. Those individuals are: City of Bellevue: Kirsten Bennett, Erin Ferguson, Rashawnda Fitch, Jasmine Jarvis, Alex Johnson, Michael Lackey, Jennifer Maurer, Kyle Okubo, Brandon Romero, Ilana Rosenberg, Robert Sardy, Kyle Sigirst, Elizabeth Taylor, Sarah Warren. City of Issaquah: Jessica Balkman, Tracie Barrick, Alex Estey, Jacob Grahn, Chris Kenyon, Andrew Koleada, John Lesh, Justin Levitt, Jennifer Littlefield, Nicholas Ravagni, Amanda Shockley, Sara Shreve, Michael Zacharias. City of Kirkland: Stacey Field, Chad Freeman, Katie Gibelyou, Nicole Glasgow, Emily Haines, Charles Harlan, Jamie Hoffstetter, Christina Hunt, Ressia Levin, Cindy Luo, Sonia Luthra, Daniel Miller, Candace Newsome, Arash Nima, Lizzy Pachaud, Jessie Parker, Rachel Rivera-Coe, Taylor Scott, Caitlin Shields, Elliott Smith, Taylor Stafford, Leah Stettler, Maria Stewart, Lauren Wadlington, Reed Walton, Lily Waluconis, Amy Watanabe, Garin Wedeking. City of Redmond: Abhi Banerjee, Nick Benavides, Amber Betterley, Lauren Chambers, Heather Cope, Justin Fleming, Hunter Hargraves, Ashley Howard, Alexander Jackson, Melissa Jensen, Will Nelson, Priti Patil, Payvand Seyedali, David Wolbrecht. Assisteens: Kevin Adams, Danny Beard, Joanna Beard, Katie Bell, Brooks Brown, Margaret Bruya, Adam Clarke, Heather Fallon, Andrea Fay, Lisa Marie Gallinger, Gretchen Gibson, Jillian Gibson, Jake Goss, Ryan Griffin, Michelle Hannah, Erin Hatheway, Libbie Hayward, Laurie Hughes, Kim Koczarski, Katie Kramer, Ruth Lee, Nathan Luce, Mallory Nelson, Molly Nelson, Will Nelson, David Orbits, Katie Riese, Adrianne Serroels, Cory Scheef, Lindsey Sorensen, Rachel Sternoff, Amanda Trau, Lauren Underhill, Chris Van Arnam, Jamie Weaver, Kiersten Williams, Lindsay Winner, Katrina Winsnes, Samantha York.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly introduce the Teachers for Tomorrow Act of 2001, a bill to address the serious teacher shortage in our nation's schools. We have over 53 million students in America's elementary and secondary schools--a new enrollment record. Unfortunately, we lack the most important part of the equation-- teachers! Nationwide, we will need an additional 2 million teachers over the next ten years. There are particular shortages in specific subject areas such as math, science, bilingual education and special education. For the first time in my district in Washington State, teaching positions have remained vacant. We cannot afford to allow the current trend to continue where our best and brightest students ignore the teaching profession or leave it altogether. A million teachers are expected to retire over the next ten years, and they are leaving the classroom faster than new teachers are graduating from college. Even more troublesome is the fact that only half of new teachers in urban public schools are still teaching after five years. These are serious warning signs of a teacher shortage and an upcoming crisis if we do not act to recruit and retain teachers. We must do more to empower new college graduates to choose education as a career. My legislation would permit every public elementary and secondary school teacher to apply for 100% federal loan forgiveness. Current law only applies to teachers that teach specific subject areas or in low-income schools. For teachers of disabled students, specific subject areas, or in low-income schools, my bill would guarantee loan forgiveness over three years. All other teachers would be eligible for loan forgiveness over five years. Loan forgiveness would be granted for continuing education loans, in order for teachers to pursue advanced degrees. Moreover, rather than allowing these financial incentives to unfairly push teachers into a higher tax bracket, any loan forgiveness would be granted tax neutral status. Finally, our teachers deserve to use the benefit of their experience and be able to guide their classrooms and schools with local control. My bill maintains the ability of local schools to make hiring, firing and other decisions as they see fit. Our teachers deserve our highest accolades for educating our nation's children. We ought to thank them for the meaningful work they do every day. I hope that by forgiving federal loans, this legislation will draw more successful students into the teaching profession, and help to retain their experience. I submit to my colleagues a plan to recruit and retain qualified teachers. We cannot shirk our duty to provide a high quality education to every child. I urge my colleagues to meet this challenge and support this legislation.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the majority's bill gives over $20 billion in taxpayer money to the special interest oil and gas industry. Could you not find it in your heart to just do one small thing for the consumer? Could you not throw a bone to the people and the small businesses on the West Coast, in Washington and Oregon and California, that have seen their prices go up 50 to 60 percent? Is that not in your compassionate heart to do that? That is all we are asking. Look at the history of how we got here. For 7 months we have been pleading with the White House, we have been pleading with our colleagues, to pay attention to this crisis in the West Coast. And we are well beyond the issue of whether we should take action or not. I have a letter from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) dated June 12, 2001, asking the FERC to take some action. The point is, they have not taken any action that works. This is not an issue of whether the Federal Government should act, this is a question of whether the Federal Government has acted effectively. It has not. We need help in the West Coast, not just California. Pass this amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that this amendment does not solve the problem that you are attempting to violate one of the most pristine areas in America, the largest intact ecosystem in America. Sure, you may limit this. It is like if a phone company came to you and said, We are going to stick a cell phone in your backyard, you have got a 4,000 square foot backyard, we are going to stick a cell phone in the middle of it, a cell phone tower, and it is only going to be four square feet. What you would say is, no, you are changing the basic character of my backyard. Building another Prudhoe Bay, and I was there 3 weeks ago, is going to dramatically change this wilderness. Why is that important? In part because the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that drilling in the ANWR could reduce the caribou herd, the largest caribou herd in North America by 40 percent. It does it because you want to place an oil facility right smack dab in the heart of the caribou calving ground. You can limit it all you want, but the bottom line is this: you are defacing an American wilderness established during the Eisenhower administration. We should not let George Bush put asunder what the Dwight David Eisenhower administration created. We should not put a mustache on this Mona Lisa.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I was there 3 weeks ago, and I have come to the well to say that those who say that the Arctic Refuge is a barren area and that Prudo Bay is a wildlife refuge are dead wrong on both counts. My grandchildren deserve to hear the same bird song from birds from all 50 States of this Union in the arctic just like I did. Your grandchildren deserve to know that the caribou are going to be there 1,000 years from now, just like you do. Now, we have a disagreement. The majority wants to give $20 billion to the oil companies, and our children's heritage as icing on the cake. That is wrong. Preserve the Arctic Refuge.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, this bill is less a real energy policy for the next century than it is a scandal. It is an environmental and fiscal Teapot Dome. It is the result of $33 million in campaign contributions by the oil and gas industry which has derived $21 billion in benefits from the Federal taxpayers. Where is that going to come from? It is going to come from the Medicare Trust Fund, because our friends across the aisle are refusing to hue to a policy of fiscal responsibility. It is also showing an amazing lack of vision. Forty years ago, President Kennedy stood right behind me and challenged Americans, said, this Nation is going to go to the Moon within the decade. President Bush's energy policy says, Let's not go anywhere. Let's rely on what we invented in the early 1900s, oil and gas. That is why 75 percent of all the fiscal benefits in this bill are for fossil fuels and only 17 percent is for the new technology. It is a great energy policy for the last century.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I do not normally participate in Special Orders, especially at this time of night; but there is something that the House is going to consider tomorrow that I believe we are heading in the wrong direction on, to wit, the President's energy policy, that I felt compelled to come here this evening to speak about the huge missed opportunity that this energy policy represents. Mr. Speaker, as I was walking over here this evening thinking about what I was going to say, I looked up at the dome and thought how beautiful it is. I thought about some of the great inspirational things, the farsighted things that have actually taken place in this building; and the thing that really got me thinking about this issue is when John F. Kennedy stood right behind me at the rostrum and said that America, this was back in the early sixties, said America should put a man on the moon and bring him home safely within the decade. A huge challenge at that time before computers were existent and we had multistage rockets, an enormous visionary challenge to America to move forward on a technological basis, even though some of the technology was not there yet. President Kennedy understood the nature of the space race and the potential capability of the country to move forward, and challenged America with a policy. The President's energy policy, unfortunately, does not challenge America to go anywhere. The President's energy policy, which we will vote on tomorrow in this Chamber, is a continuation of the last 100 years of old technology. I would like to address, Mr. Speaker, why that policy misses so many golden opportunities. Let me say simply that a summary of this energy policy would be simple. It is of the oil and gas companies, it is by the oil and gas companies, and it is for the oil and gas companies. In ways that should be obvious to anyone who will look at this plan, will realize that the oil and gas companies should smile giant smiles when they consider the enormous giveaways by the American taxpayer to this old industry. Of the $33 billion of taxpayer money that essentially is handed out through tax incentives and royalty relief, fully 70 percent or more goes to fossil fuel-based industries, our old technological base. Royalty relief in the millions of dollars to excuse payments that are owed by oil and gas companies to the American taxpayers are written off the books, just excused. Billions of dollars in tax incentives, not for a new industry on the cutting edge of technology but for something that we have been doing for over 100 years, drilling holes in the ground to get oil and gas. This may have been a good policy in 1901, 100 years ago. It may have made sense when we needed to perfect technology, and drilling holes in the ground where we needed to give incentives to the automobile industry. But this massive give away encapsulated in this bill is now 100 years out of date. It is a perfect energy plan for a different century. Mr. Speaker, we would like to make efforts to change that. I have offered an amendment with a Republican colleague of mine, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I offered an amendment to try to reorient some over to clean fuels that do not burn carbon and to give people breaks when they buy an energy-efficient car or build an energy- efficient house, to help the geothermal industry, to help get more efficient transmission systems, to shift just a portion of those tax giveaways to the oil and gas industries over to these new cutting-edge technologies. We felt it makes sense if you are going to give an incentive, don't give it to the giant who has been around for a hundred years stomping through the economy, give it for the new babies on the block who have growth potential, the new technologies. What happened? We are told as of this moment at least, the majority party will not allow us to even vote on that issue. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, for the U.S. House not to get to vote on the distribution of these tax incentives. It is interesting because we are told we are going to be allowed a vote on some policy issues. What I think this proves and oil and gas has said, ``Well, you can vote on these policy issues, but don't touch my money. Don't let anybody else have a fair crack at these tax incentives.'' That is wrong. The second issue I want to address as to why this energy policy is such a missed opportunity is 3 weeks ago, I was on the shores of the Aichilik River up in the Arctic National Refuge, the national refuge established during the Eisenhower administration. I went there to take a look at this refuge and see in fact whether it is something that America ought to preserve. I also spent a day at the Prudhoe Bay oil field taking a look at what an oil field looks like. I came away with two very distinct impressions after 4 days up on the shores of the Arctic. Number one, this Arctic National Refuge that the President wants to violate is the largest intact ecosystem in America. The President is asking us to create an oil field in the very heart of the most pristine area left in America, an area where the largest caribou herd in North America has its calving grounds. He wants us to put oil processing facilities right smack dab where the porcupine caribou herd, over 100,000 strong, calve once a year in their incredible migration over hundreds of miles across Alaska and Canada. The biologists have told us that that could damage the caribou herds. I saw birds from every one of the 50 States in the union, the most prolific bird life I have ever seen. I have tramped around a lot of back country in this country. Simply put, this is an intact ecosystem that is unique. I came away concluding that what Dwight David Eisenhower had created, George Bush should not put asunder. The other reason for that is taking a look at Prudhoe Bay, although I saw some people who I thought were trying to reduce the impact of an oil field on the environment, the fact of the matter is whenever you think of Prudhoe Bay, it is a major industrial complex. It is not a wildlife refuge. It is time for us instead of doing the Arctic Refuge to explore the options we have. That is the third point I want to make. This energy package is a huge missed opportunity because it does not explore the known options that America has to deal with their energy crisis. To give you an example, the President has proposed dealing in the Arctic Refuge. It will take 10 years to get any oil out of the Arctic Refuge. But let us assume that there is some oil there. The fact of the matter is even in the optimistic assessments of what we could do by destroying this Arctic Refuge, destroying what I believe is the heart of a unique ecosystem, if we simply increased our CAFE standards, our average mileage standards for our cars, by 1\1/2\ miles a gallon, just a tiny little scintilla of an improvement, we would save more oil and gas than we are ever going to get out of the Arctic Refuge over decades. We have a clear option. The option of driving and asking our auto industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles is not going to destroy the Arctic Refuge, is more economically efficient and is clearly within our scientific technological basis, knowledge bank on how to do. The reason I know is that is the National Academy of Sciences came up with a report yesterday indicating that we could increase our fuel mileage, and the technology exists for that, well beyond 1\1/2\ miles a gallon in the next 5 years or 10 years. We can build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska, something that I support. We can encourage and allow the 1,000 drilling rigs that are already drilling for oil, and there were only 300 of them 2 years ago, we have already had a massive increase in drilling activity in this country. We have got those three options. We ought to use these options that are within our technological data bank before we run off and try to destroy a unique wilderness that America has enjoyed since Dwight David Eisenhower was President. We have got those options, and we ought to pass an amendment to this bill tomorrow to take those. I am hoping that the majority party allows such a vote. The fourth issue. Two years ago in Bellingham, Washington, a pipeline leaked and the gasoline subsequently exploded. It incinerated three children, three boys. Some time after that a pipeline exploded in New Mexico, killing 10 people, massive fireballs. Since those incredible disasters, guess what the U.S. House of Representatives have done as far as passing meaningful pipeline safety legislation to improve the inspections that are mandated in these pipelines. Absolutely nothing. The U.S. House since those tragedies still, since the U.S. Senate, the other Chamber, has passed legislation, improved legislation this year, this Chamber has not been given an opportunity to vote this year on pipeline safety. Here we have this 300-plus-page energy package coming to the floor, the need demonstrated to build new gasoline pipelines, and 2 years after those tragedies, we still have not been given an opportunity to vote on a pipeline safety bill that for the first time would have a statutory mandate that these pipelines be inspected. The pipeline in New Mexico that exploded killing 10 people had not been inspected in 50 years, because there is no law requiring it. It is absurd for us to try to think we are going to have this massive expansion of energy and not move forward on pipeline safety legislation. I am here tonight speaking for the parents of these children who were lost in Bellingham, saying it is a crime against nature if this House passes an energy bill without passing a meaningful pipeline safety bill as well. We ought to have a chance to vote on this tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I am urging the majority party to allow that vote and allow meaningful pipeline safety legislation to move ahead. Let me just suggest if I can to the oil and gas pipeline companies. It is in the industry's interest to pass pipeline safety legislation. The reason it is in their interest is if we are going to build these pipelines, we have to site them. The industry knows that is hard. A lot of times people do not like pipelines running through their backyard, for understandable reasons. One of those understandable reasons is because the dang things blow up because we have lousy pipeline inspection criteria in our country. We need to gain public confidence in the pipeline safety system of this Nation. How do we expect to site these things if we do not have the public confidence? And we do not right now for good reasons. If we are going to expand our energy network of distribution, we need to win the public's confidence, we need to have a pipeline safety bill. The fifth issue I would like to address, another missed opportunity. The science is overwhelming and observation is overwhelming that we have a problem with the change in the Earth's climate. The science is overwhelming that our contribution of certain gases, carbon dioxide being a principal culprit, are contributing to these changes in the global climate. When I was in the Arctic, I talked to a professor at the University of Alaska who told me that the depth of the Arctic ice has been reduced almost in half in the last several decades as a result of increasing temperatures in the Arctic. The extent of the Arctic ice has been reduced 10 percent. Glaciers are in massive retreat across North America. I talked to rangers in Denali National Park who had only been working there for 15 years who had seen the tree line move north several miles due to increasing temperatures in the Arctic. The Earth's climate is changing and we are one reason for that. But despite that known science, the President has refused to exercise one single ounce of leadership to help this Nation move forward on a technological basis to deal with global climate change. When you look at this 300 pages, I do not have it tonight, but if you look at that several hundred pages of this energy policy, you will not find any commitment to move forward on global climate change issues. It is incredible. It is incredible at the same time the President of the United States tells the rest of the world that they can go hang, we are not going to deal with global climate change, we are just going to come home and do something in America, well, fine, what is the President proposing? In this energy package, nothing meaningful. I have offered an amendment that at least would direct the Department of Energy to report within a year about the most efficient means we could do, things we could do to deal with global climate change, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But instead of even allowing that, this bill has fully three- quarters, three-quarters, of all the tax incentives of $33 billion go to the industry that is responsible for putting global climate change gasses into the air, the oil and gas and fossil fuel and coal industries. Instead of going forward with new technologies, they want to go backward and ignore this problem of global climate change. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, I am afraid the White House is way behind the American public on this. The American public that I am talking about do get it when it comes to global climate change. They want to see reasonable actions taken. They want to see reasonable research taking place. But, instead of that, this administration has given their political friends 75 percent of all the benefits in this bill, instead of the technologies that could fully move us forward to deal with global climate change. A tremendous missed opportunity. The sixth issue, and here is a small issue. I will tell you how maybe small things add up. We have introduced a bill that actually has had some bipartisan support called the Home Energy Generation Act. It would allow Americans when they generate electricity in their home or their small business through solar or wind or other fuel cell technology, it would allow them to sell electricity back to the grid. Your meter, when you do this, would run backwards. If you are not using the energy, you sell it back to the utility. Our bill would say to the utility, it has to buy it back from you. A reasonable request. It is very important to the development of these technologies, solar, wind, fuel cell technology, these distributed energy technologies, it is important because those are the industries that do not contribute global climate change gasses. It is a small suggestion, but I guess because oil and gas does not like it, it might reduce a little bit our demand for oil and gas and coal, we do not find it in this bill. We do not even get a vote on it. That is wrong. We ought to do some common sense measures on this. Seventh, here we have a chance for America to lead on these new technologies by having the U.S. Government buy new technologies. Does it not make sense when the U.S. Government is one of the biggest purchasers of equipment in the world to have the U.S. Government lead by buying fuel efficient vehicles, by buying energy efficient electrical appliances, by making sure that our transmission systems are efficient when we do it for the U.S. Government? Does that not make sense, when the climate is changing? But, no, this bill does not address that issue. It does not have us in the United States Government lead. The only thing the President proposed is to buy a little tiny thing that turns your VCR off when you are not using it. That is a good idea, I suppose, but maybe we can be more effective if we have the U.S. Government buy new fuel efficient vehicles, which we do not do. We are trying to expect Americans to conserve electricity and use efficient vehicles, and the U.S. Government does not even do it. We hope to have some amendments on the floor to change that tomorrow. We hope the majority party will support it. But, again, a missed opportunity of the energy bill. Finally, the eighth point I want to make, we have had an energy crisis on the West Coast. I am from the State of Washington. People I represent have seen their energy prices go up 50, 60 percent, and they are going to go up more possibly as a result of this energy crisis. From the beginning, the President has simply said it is a California problem. I am not going to help. He has done a good job of not helping. We still need some help. I will tell you what we need; we need refunds. The people I represent have been gouged in their electrical bills. For 7 months now we have been beating a drum in this House and outside of this building to ask the administration to lift a finger to help the West Coast, and, finally, after 7 months of banging this drum, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finally issued a ruling that they want to move forward with evidentiary hearings to set a price so that in certain circumstances it is not too high. They also finally suggested that there be refunds, at least to the California citizens. Well, we want to make sure that the energy bill makes sure that this happens, not just in California, but in Washington and Oregon as well. Why should not folks in Washington who have been overcharged for electricity have refunds as well as those in California? We have dragged the administration kicking and screaming to do something about this, but this energy bill needs to put it in law so that no one can backslide in this regard. So, tonight I have offered eight things, and I suspect there are more that need fixing in this bill. We are going to give it every single energy we can tomorrow to repair and fix this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, from what I have heard tonight, we will be denied an opportunity to even vote on quite a number of these subjects. I think that that is wrong. We think this country is not a desperate country. We do not think we are a desperate people. We think we are a creative people. We think we are an optimistic people. We think we are a positive people. We are positive there are things we can do to get us out of this energy pickle, get us out of this global climate change problem, if we will just look at the future instead of adopting an energy policy for the past. Tomorrow we will have a chance to move for that future if we fix this bill, and reject it if it is not adequately fixed. It is an opportunity we ought to seize.