Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, next week we will take up the energy policy bill, which really is going to be one of the most important bills, both from an energy and from an environmental perspective, in the next 10 years. It is our hope that during the next few days, the majority leadership will fashion a rule which will, in fact, allow environmental considerations in this bill. We definitely need to improve this bill. We need to improve it by increasing the energy efficiency of our automobiles. This bill does not do it. We need to have additional tax incentives for renewable energy and clean conservation technologies. This bill does not do it. We need pipeline safety to make sure pipelines do not explode. This bill does not do it. We need better efficiency standards. Lastly, we ought to make sure we do not drill in the Arctic Refuge. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Speaker will personally use his energy in the majority caucus to make sure we have a fair and honest debate on these very important environmental measures. Next week the House needs to speak on these. Let us give people in America trust in the environment as well as energy next week.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I think it will help restore Americans' trust in their government. There is a sad context of this debate which is that, unfortunately, the administration has poisoned the well of environmental consideration in this country. When an administration tries to make it easier to use cyanide for mining waste, when it makes it easier to clear-cut international forests, when it backtracks on its climate change commitments to the world, when it tries to drill in our national monuments, how can we expect the American people to trust it when it sets an arsenic level for the water we drink? We need this administration and this Congress to try to heal the breach and the lack of trust of Washington, D.C., right now and the administration policies on environmental measures. There is two ways to do that. Number one, pass this amendment. Number two, next week when our energy bill is on the floor, do not vote for a rule unless it lets a full group of environmental amendments to this energy policy to come to consideration of this House. I hope that this weekend Members will think about what rule they are going to support. We need to have environmental decisions made by this House.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, just as a closing comment, I just want to make one thing clear. This amendment is not about Dick Cheney. We have no interest in embarrassing him. Again, we just want to make clear, this is not about the Vice President personally. We simply are saying that we want our Vice President, whose idea of this was not his, this was not his idea to put this over on the Navy; that is that is why he is not personally responsible for it. If we do it, it is our responsibility. Here is what we suggest. We just think we want our Vice President, when a constituent comes up to him at one of their town meetings that they hold and says, Mr. Vice President, I have to wear a parka; I have cut my energy 50 percent, but my bills keep going up, we just want our Vice President to be able to say, I know what you mean, mine are too. If we pass this amendment, he will be able to say that. I hope we can have bipartisan support of this idea and realize this is not the Vice President's fault.

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

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point, the gentleman from Oklahoma was suggesting that somehow we are personally critical of the Vice President's attempt to move this accountability over to the Navy, and that is not our criticism. In fact, what we have been told is that the Vice President said this was not his idea; and if it is not his idea, I agree with him, it is a bad idea. He is not personally responsible for this. Neither are we criticizing him for use of electricity in his residence. We are told he actually has taken some steps to reduce his electrical usage, and I think that is great. He should be lauded for his personal virtue in that regard. What we are critical, however, of, and the point we are trying to make here, is that this administration, while shifting accountability to the Navy, is not lifting a finger to help get refunds of the billions of dollars that are owed to our constituents on the West Coast. The economic analysis of some folks indicates we have been overcharged $8 billion by electrical gougers on the West Coast, although today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, finally, because we have been pushing them, not the administration, they have finally said we are going to do something marginal for California; but we are not going to lift a finger for Washington and Oregon. Washington and Oregon need refunds. The point we are trying to make is this administration, while it is shifting responsibility for electrical rates to the Navy, will not lift a finger to help us get refunds in the States of Washington or Oregon, because of this worshipping at the alter of the free market. That is the criticism we have of the Vice President. We laud him for his conservation. We now want him to get busy and help us get refunds in the Pacific Northwest.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to read to the gentleman an e- mail I got from a guy named Cliff Sinden a few months ago. He said, ``I saw the press conference with you and the Senator. The message was the U.S. Government won't do a darn thing for you, just conserve. I have cut my electric consumption by 50 percent from last year, and the next 2 months should be even more, with the full effect of my conservation efforts. What reward do I get? A $45 increase in my monthly charges.'' I guess it is true that no good deed goes unpunished. What we are saying by this amendment is that it is important for the administration to have an appreciation of what individual Americans are going through. Sending this signal to them is consistent with the rest of the administration's policies that they do not understand the depth of this crisis, and that is why we think this amendment is important.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the majority leader has questioned my right or anyone's right to bring an amendment of this nature. I will not yield to him one inch. I am not President, Vice President, majority leader, minority leader, committee chair, or ranking member. I am only one Member who understands one basic thing about my constituents: They question whether this administration understands the depth of the problems that they are experiencing. I am only here not to do anything about Mr. Cheney, I am just here asking my colleagues to make it so that the Vice President of the United States, who works for all of us, Democrat and Republican alike, can look Americans in the eye and say, my electrical bills are going up, too.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will assure that the Vice President's budget retains responsibility for the electrical costs associated with the Vice President's personal residence. As Members know in quite a bit of controversy recently, the proposed bill in fact would remove responsibility for those personal bills, those electrical bills at the Vice President's residence and shift them away from the Vice President's budget and over to the financial shoulders of the United States Navy. We think that is a big mistake. We think it is a big mistake to remove accountability while many Americans are having great problems with their own electrical bills, for the Vice President to remove responsibility financially from his budget and shift it somewhere else in the Federal Government. We would suggest that our amendment will benefit three groups of people by assuring accountability in the midst of this energy crisis remains with the Vice President's budget: First, it will help our constituents, our citizens. The reason is, is that our citizens now are experiencing, many of them, skyrocketing energy costs. In my district people are paying 30, 40, 50, 60 percent more for their electrical bills. My constituents cannot send their bills for these skyrocketing electrical rates to the U.S. Navy. We do not think it is the right message to our constituents for the Vice President to say, but I'm going to send my skyrocketing electrical bill, and that bill is skyrocketing, to the U.S. Navy. We think it is the wrong message for our constituents. So it is good for our constituents who expect personal accountability in these expenditures. Second, it is good for the U.S. Navy. We have got a lot of service personnel out there who justifiably are not happy about their housing, their pay, sometimes their health care. It is the wrong message to the sailors to be saying that that budget has got to take on the personal electrical expenses of the Vice President's residence. Third, this amendment is good for the Vice President. The Vice President said he has not asked for this change to be made. This idea was not his, apparently. But the fact of the matter is, and perhaps it is sad to report, but it is true, there are Americans who are concerned about the Vice President's apparent lack of concern for the crisis in energy and some people who have suggested that he might be perhaps too close to the oil and gas industry. Now, I think it would be beneficial if we can squelch those rumors, those rumors that have come up due to these secret meetings that the Vice President has had with the oil and gas industry he now refuses to divulge information about. Let us help him squelch the rumors about that by showing he will be personally accountable in this electrical rate crisis. Some people have suggested that his comments about conservation, saying that conservation is just a personal virtue but not an economic policy, some people have concern that that shows too much closeness to the energy industry. Let us help him squelch those rumors to show he wants to be personally accountable and understands the problems of real Americans in this regard. Some people have suggested that when the Vice President sat for 8 months and did nothing about the electrical crisis in California, Oregon and Washington, some people are concerned that that has demonstrated a lack of compassion and understanding for the plight of people on the West Coast whose energy prices have gone through the roof. Let us help him squelch those rumors to show personal accountability for these. And some people have suggested that the Vice President's willingness to drill in our most pristine wilderness areas demonstrates not being in touch with the will of the American people but a little too close to the oil and gas industry. Let us help him squelch those rumors by showing personal accountability in fact for these obligations of the Vice President's office. Mr. Chairman, perhaps this seems like a small budget item, and it is certainly a small dollar amount, about $180,000, in the context of the Federal budget. But leadership involves understanding the plight of those who are led. We have had a lot of people who are in tough times right now because of the downturn in the economy and the huge escalation in their energy prices. Let us help the Vice President demonstrate that he is in touch with the needs of ordinary Americans and assure that the Vice President's budget will in fact remain responsible for his electrical prices.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor on the abstract, idealogical, theoretical underpinnings of this debate which others have been eloquent on. I have just come to a very parochial, prosaic but, in my district, very meaningful position: this amendment is going to cost jobs of people who do work and export products around the world if it passes. Now, I know that does not sound like a very high-falutin' argument couched in great economic theory, but the fact of the matter is, we are truly, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said, in a life and death struggle in the aeronautics industry to see whether we are going to remain dominant internationally, or whether we will lose the dominant position in the world. It is just real simple. It is meat and potatoes. The fact of the matter is, if this amendment passes, we are going to lose the opportunity to export $275 million worth of products which means thousands of jobs. Because the fact of the matter is, this is, and since a lot of people look at the Ex-Im Bank and think, if we just cut the Ex-Im Bank, these other entities will not have products. People are not going to just stop buying airplanes if we cut the Ex-Im Bank. They are just going to buy them someplace else. This is help for the American worker, not the foreign worker.

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that would be acceptable, of course.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, clearly, Boeing and Boeing workers are not the only ones who have a stake in this controversy. What I am trying to point out is that this has an immediate, real- life ramification for people who this morning got up and went to work in an industry that we are going to have a great chance of losing if we do not use the one very modest tool in our tool box to compete with this international conspiracy, if you will, to gain international dominance in this industry. And this is a very small tool we have. If we look at this compared to the subsidization of Airbus by the European community, this is almost nothing. Yes, Boeing is not the only player in this. But I came here to say that I have people in my district who care about it.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other thing I want to point out is, although Boeing is a significant player in this, there are small businesses, we are talking 5- and 20-person shops, who can avail themselves of this benefit. Those jobs are just as important as the machinist jobs in Seattle. They may not be as visible, but they are just as important. I also want to point out that I believe the future of the Ex-Im Bank is not just manufacturing, it is services. Because when we design various functions for financial services, insurance and the like, those are going to be small businesses as well dealing with intellectual capital. I believe that is more in the future of the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's leadership in bringing this to the House's attention. I just want to share with my colleagues why I think this is so important. Two weeks ago I was on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge where I was told that the ice under the Arctic has lost 50 percent of its depth due to global climate change; global warming, in the last several decades, 10 percent of the extent of the Arctic ice. I was told by the Denali rangers that the tree line on the tundra in the Denali National Park has moved north several miles just while they have been working there in the last decade and a half. The fact of the matter is, we are causing significant changes in the global climate system. What have we received from the current administration in our ability to deal with this? Nothing. The leader of the Free World, the most technologically advanced society on Earth, the contributor of 25 percent of all of the carbon dioxide in the world, even though we have 4 percent of the population, and our administration, do we know what they offered us as leadership? Nothing in Bonn. As a result of that, we need, in Congress, to start showing some leadership on this subject. The gentleman from Ohio has brought an amendment that will, for one of the few times, one of the first times, ask us to consider one of our policy directives on how it contributes to global climate change. Now, given the fact that global climate change is on us already, does it not make sense to have a better mix of funding, of financing of other energy programs, to have an increase in our research budget and financing for renewable energies for solar, for hydro, for wind, for geothermal and less for fossil-based fuels? That is the nature of this amendment. I would suggest to my colleagues that in the next several years in this Chamber, because we are not getting leadership from the White House, it is up to us to do our job to scrub these budgets, to scrub our policy statements, and find a way to encourage the United States to be a leader in climate change. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I was at the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, where the Bush administration wants to drill for oil. While we will be debating whether to change that precious intact ecosystem, I wanted to advise Members that we are already changing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The reason we are changing it is that we are already causing global climate change, global warming. What I found at the Arctic ocean is that the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean is shrinking significantly, almost a 50 percent reduction in depth, a 10 percent reduction in coverage. I went to Denali National Park. The rangers told me that the tree line is moving north already due to global climate change. We are already changing the Arctic. When the world met in Bonn 2 days ago to try to do something about it, the Bush administration sent the United States to the bench and did absolutely nothing. We as a leader in democracy abdicated, due to the Bush administration's ostrich like-proposals to do anything about global climate change. I am urging the Bush administration to act, to lead the country and lead the world to do something meaningful about climate change so we do not destroy the world.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I commend all those on both sides of the aisle who are trying to figure out a way to assist faith-based organizations. But I think, given the nature of the debate, we need to pay due to the devil, and the devil truly is in the details on this important subject. Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate detail that I learned is that in the underlying bill it allows, it condones, it sanctions an employer to use tax-based money to hang out a sign saying we would like a drug therapist counselor, but no Jews need apply. That is wrong. It breaks faith with what Thomas Jefferson was so instrumental in giving to the world, which is tolerance for religious freedom. The separation of church and State is not because faith is only of small importance, it is because it is of great importance. Vote for the substitute which helps faith-based organizations but keeps faith with the idea of religious freedom.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends across the aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for cosponsoring this effort to strike an anti- environmental rider. I just want to share an experience I had last week when I was up on the Arctic plain on the shores of the Arctic Ocean talking to biologists and geophysicists about what is going on in the Arctic. What I learned was that, in a relatively stunning development, fully 50 percent of the depth of the pack ice above the North Pole, the Arctic oceans, have dissipated in the last several decades. Half of the depth has gone away, and 10 percent of the extent of the ice is gone because of global warming that has occurred. I talked to rangers at Denali National Park who have worked there about 15 years and have seen the treeline move north just during their experience. The fact is, this is happening. It is happening four or five times more rapidly in the Arctic than it is in temperate zones, but it is a harbinger of things to come. I am hopeful that the House will not move backwards with this, but in fact will strike this language so we can make a positive statement and move forward. The United States should be a leader. We have been a leader in freedom. It is time for us to become a leader in global climate change, and realize the development for our economy at the same time.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commemorate the dedication of a great Navy Memorial Statue in my congressional district. ``The Homecoming'' will be dedicated on July 4, 2001, in Kirkland, Washington. This bronze statue is the third of its kind in the nation and will be dedicated ``for those families that also served,''--the families that kept the home fires burning while their loved ones fought for their country. We often overlook these unsung ``veterans'' of the battles the United States has fought and this sculpture dramatically calls attention to the families' sacrifices. I cannot help but feel indebted to those who have paid a great individual expense to preserve and strengthen the freedom that we enjoy, and future generations will cherish. The statue is a 7-foot high, 36-inch platform bronze depiction of a returning serviceman embracing his wife and child. It will be installed at Marina Park near the water's edge of Lake Washington at a ceremony on the 4th of July. Kirkland resident Edward L. Kilwein, Sr. is on the Board of Directors of the US Navy Memorial Foundation and, along with the Lake Washington Navy League, spearheaded the push to have ``The Homecoming'' permanently grace the City of Kirkland. Kirkland Mayor Larry Springer, along with a unanimous motion from the Kirkland City Council, assured the expansion of Kirkland's first-class public art inventory that honors the men and women of the US Armed Services and their families. I ask my colleagues in the 107th Congress to please join me in commemorating the dedication of ``The Homecoming.''

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, last week, in California, three former employees of generators of electricity testified that they turned off their equipment at the demands of their bosses that resulted in driving up electrical prices on the west coast. This House should do something about that. What I urge my colleagues to do is to come to the well of the House and sign a discharge petition for a bill that will create cost-based pricing for 2 years as a short-circuit to stop the meltdown of the energy market on the west coast. I do that on behalf of the small business people who are losing their businesses today, last week, next week, because of the thousand percent increases in wholesale electrical rates on the west coast, which are unprecedented, wrong, unconscionable, and should be illegal. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, finally, because we dragged them kicking and screaming for the last 4 months, finally did something a few days ago, but it is clear it is not enough. We need to keep their feet to the fire. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition in the well of the House today.