Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for that comment. Just so the Members will understand why this type of testing is so important, after this pipeline blew up, the City of Bellingham required this pipeline company to do this hydrostatic test, and when they did this test, the pipeline blew up again, but, fortunately, because the pipeline had water in it instead of gasoline, it leaked water rather than gasoline. I have a constituent who has a real common sense approach. If we do not trust these pipelines to hold water, we ought not to put gasoline in them, and that is why we have to have hydrostatic testing and will. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will join us in hoping to have hearings on this subject this year. The other Chamber has had a hearing on this. We are ready to have hearings on this and go. I really hope that the gentleman can accommodate us in this regard. I understand this will be subject to a point of order, but we do want to get this issue front of center. Point of Order

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I spent last Sunday with hundreds of thousands of American moms on the Mall who had come to ask Congress to help protect their families from gun violence. And it was hard. It was hard to listen to mom after mom tell their stories of the loss of their children. But the reason it was hard was not just the heartache. The really hard part for me was to realize that 300 feet away from these hundreds of thousands of moms was the U.S. Capitol building, the place where we are charged to help American families, where this year the U.S. Congress has done nothing, nothing, nothing to help these families be protected from gun violence. There is no protection with trigger locks, no closing of the gun show loophole. While this torrent of gun violence sweeps across us, the U.S. Congress does nothing. If this Congress refuses to act, may the heavens have mercy on us, because this November these mothers will not.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the crux of the problem is, who really in America ought to make that decision of whether that next 40 acres goes into a reserve or goes to something else. Let me suggest to my colleague that what I am saying tonight is that is not a decision for the gentleman from Idaho to make, it is not a decision for me to make. It is a decision for the property owner who should be given the right, on a willing and consensual basis, to sell it to whomever he wants, the YMCA, a church, Federal Government, the State. But that is a decision by the property owner. What I am trying to say is that the gentleman's amendment unfortunately strikes at that basic American principle for him to decide what happens to that 40 acres.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think those who are following this debate may find that it is curiouser and curiouser in the sense that those who historically have stood up for the rights of citizens to make decisions about their property have now brought an amendment that strikes right at the heart of what people in Idaho and Washington or anywhere else can do with their property. Let me give an example, and I am going to ask the gentleman from Idaho if that is correct when I am done. Mr. Jones is a rancher in the great State of Idaho. And it is a great State. I fly over it every week. It looks great from 30,000 feet. He has got 40 acres, he has not really ever ranched it, and there is really nothing too much to do with it. But it might make some good habitat for some species, some critter that might be in a difficult situation. So he goes to the Federal Government and says, Can you take this off my hands? Can you maybe give me a few dollars for it? I would like to sell it. He goes through the permutations with the Federal Government and he gets the Federal Government to offer to buy his land. He agrees. He makes a consensual decision as an American citizen to sell it to the Federal Government and the folks across the aisle tonight are telling him, You cannot do it. We realize it is your property, but we are not going to let you sell it to the Federal Government unless the State legislature has the veto power on your personal private decision what to do with your private land in a consensual arrangement with the Federal Government. Now, frankly, I want to ask my colleague, is that not the correct situation, and if it is, how can we do anything but accept this as a gross violation of the people's right to sell their land. I mean, what next? Let me ask one more question. What next? Will the gentleman tell us that a person cannot sell it to the church? Is the next thing we will say is we cannot sell it to a church because that is going to reduce the local tax rolls and we are going to require the State legislature to do it?

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this truly is a great day for the House where common sense and bipartisan thirst for progress is really going to trump ideology. I want to tell my colleagues why I think it is such a great day. I spent 4 days last summer eyeballing the need for this bill by kayak in my district. I spent 4 days in a kayak going all across the waterways in my district. I want to tell my colleagues, I came away impressed with one thing: it is about time that the U.S. Congress makes this commitment. Let me tell my colleagues about a couple of things I saw. I went up the Sammamish River, stopped at the soccer fields where I saw hundred of kids playing soccer with hundreds of kids literally on the sidelines who did not have fields to play on. We need to build new soccer fields. Not one of those kids playing soccer was stealing hubcaps. This is a juvenile crime issue as well. I kept going up the Sammamish River, got to where Little Bear Creek and Big Bear Creek flow in. I talked to some residents there who told me, we have to buy these conservation easements to protect the headlands so that we can prevent the extension of salmon runs in Bear Creek. I kept paddling down Lake Washington with a guy named Bill Nye. My colleagues may have heard of Bill Nye, the science guy, who told all of the people on our kayak tour about the importance of water quality and wetlands and preserving wetlands for salmon. I kept going to Karakeek Park and Puget Sound where I grew up, where I grew up with salmon, and these salmon are now, they were gone from Piper's Creek for 2 decades and they are coming back, partly because of the efforts we have made to preserve those habitat. I am just here to say, Mr. Chairman, this may be the best day in this Congress when we are going to put aside partisanship, we are going to do what the American people are demanding us to do and make a real investment in the future of our kids.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in vigorous opposition to the attempt of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) to cut one leg off a two-legged bill, because a 50 percent reduction in this acquisition, I think, cuts against three very important principles. One, I would allude to some basic American values that are inscribed in the bar of the House. And if my colleagues have never come down to take a look at them, they ought to sometime. Starting on the left, those basic American values are peace, liberty, tolerance, and justice. And the one we are talking about tonight is union. Because in a very rare display of bipartisanship, we have crafted a union of people across party lines and ideological lines that is embodied in this bill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will dismember that union that has been so carefully built and vigorously built under the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking minority member. We ought to stay with this bill as it is. It is a union and it ought to pass. The second rule that is being violated by this amendment is one of physics, the rule pavement does not wait. Concrete does not wait. It does not wait for Congress. It will not wait if we cut 50 percent out of the acquisition funds of this land. That land will be gone. Ask what would have happened in the days when Yellowstone was considered by this Chamber if this Chamber missed the opportunity to save Yellowstone National Park from the Coney Islands that would have been built up along the geysers if we decided not to make that acquisition because, in some way, the Committee on Appropriations had not previously appropriated enough for maintenance somewhere. Imagine if we missed that opportunity. Pavement and concrete do not wait. Third, I just want to say that we talk a lot about the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone Park, but I want to suggest those are the grand jewels of this country. But there are little jewels in every district in this country that need acquisition today. I went to the Grand Canyon last week. I took Friday off. Do not tell anybody. I went down to the Grand Canyon. The first time I have been there. Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt was right. He said every American should go to the Grand Canyon before they die. But there is a little place in my district on Bear Creek where the water pools underneath the cedar trees and the salmon used to spawn that if this amendment passes, the salmon will never spawn again because we will not preserve that little tiny piece of the Creator's handiwork, and that little jewel of this country, which will never be a Grand Canyon and may be known only to my neighbors will be gone. Let us act tonight for union, let us beat the pavement and let us protect all the little jewels that deserve protection in this country.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise my colleagues of a disturbing blow against our efforts to protect consumers' privacy in banking. Last November, this Chamber passed and the President signed into law a bill that would allow consumers for the first time to advise their banks not to violate their privacy, to tell their banks not to give away their credit card numbers to telemarketing agencies. In that bill, the regulations were to be adopted and they were to be enforced this November by a Federal law signed by the President, passed by this House and the other Chamber. Yet, we are now told that the regulatory officers whose constitutional duty it is to follow the law we passed are going to unilaterally delay implementation of those rules, not for a week, not for a month, not for 2 months, but for another 231 days before they are going to enforce the law of this country. This delay is inexcusable. It is unprecedented. It defies the constitutional obligation of the executive authority. We have to move forward in privacy, and do it on a timely basis.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to warn my colleagues and the Nation of a computer virus that as we speak is really sweeping the world. This is a computer virus that is going to be shortly called the ``I Love You'' virus, and believe me, there is nothing romantic about it, because this may be one of the most insidiously destructive viruses we have seen in several years. It has already destroyed 600 files in my office, and I am afraid that in many, many other of my colleagues' offices this afternoon we will have incurred substantial damage. I wanted to alert anyone who may be listening to this of a couple of things about this virus. First, anyone who receives an e-mail where the subject is ``I Love You'' should immediately delete the e-mail. That is the modus operandi of this e-mail, and no one should open up an e-mail with that subject matter now or perhaps forever, considering this virus. The reason is, there is a second aspect of this virus that is very damaging, and that is we have learned this afternoon that this particular virus will also damage common files that are on a shared server of anyone who opens up that e-mail. What has already happened this afternoon in my office is that we had someone open up that e-mail and it then destroyed other common files on our shared server system. In our system, it happened to destroy our graphic files under the JPEG type files and there may be others that are subject to damage. So I hope that everyone can spread the gospel with their friends not to open up any ``I Love You'' e-mail messages. I have another message that is important for those who are responsible for this destructive act. That is, you will be hunted down; you will not be able to hide. There will be nowhere you can hide to escape the impact of your actions. You will be hunted down like dogs, and you will be prosecuted. The reason is, that these juvenile vandal efforts are enormously destructive, and I can assure the perpetrators of this: that the U.S. Congress, beginning next Tuesday, is going to do what we can to make sure that the investigatory authorities have the technological tools at their disposal to find those who are responsible for this and make sure that they are prosecuted. Mr. Speaker, I think this points up an important point that we in Congress have to understand. In the West, when the technology of the stagecoach was invented, Congress responded by creating, if you will, a Marshals Service to respond to the stage coast heists. We now have to be additionally attentive to give our law enforcement officials the statutory authority and the resources and the technological resources that are necessary to track these folks down and make sure that they are prosecuted. Mr. Speaker, we are going to suffer significant damage nationally as a result of this. The person power hours that are going to be required to respond to this is going to be a major national problem. I think that we should commit ourselves when we return to our offices next Tuesday or Monday to be very diligent in making sure that we adopt the technology necessary to respond to this new threat.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the enactment of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The Act requires operators of World Wide Web sites to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disseminating information about children under 13 years of age. Representing a Congressional District which contains many of the world leaders in E-Commerce has given me a first hand opportunity to view the importance of privacy online. Consumers will not partake in business online without full assurance that their personal information will remain private. Though children are frequently more Web adept than their parents, they often lack the judgment and experience to deal with requests for their personal information, especially those request made from strangers. COPPA gives notice to both Web sites and parents of their responsibilities to protect children's privacy. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in connection with the collection and use of personal information from and about children on the Internet. It will serve to enhance parental involvement in a child's online activities, protect the privacy of children in the online environment, maintain the security of children's personal information collected online and limit the collection of this information without parental consent. Failure to follow the guidelines of the Act will result in fines in excess of $10,000 and the possible closure of the Web site. This act directly follows the five core principles of privacy protection, set forth by the FTC, which represent `fair information practices': (1) Notice/Awareness; (2) Choice/Consent; (3) Access/ Participation; (4) Integrity/Security; and (5) Enforcement/Redress. While the online industry has made great strides in protecting consumer privacy online, we need government intervention to assure the privacy of children. A March 1998 FTC survey of 212 commercial children's Web sites found that while 89 percent of the sites collected personal information from children, only 24 percent posted privacy policies and only one percent required parental consent for the collection or disclosure of children's information. No parent would allow their child to wander the streets giving out their personal information to strangers, yet the aforementioned survey illustrates that this occurred continually over the World Wide Web prior to COPPA. With COPPA we have taken one large step towards putting parents back in charge of their children's personal information online. We must continue to encourage parents to become involved in their children's online activities. Though the Web contains wonderful resources, there are also people online who prey on children and COPPA presents a useful tool to stop this from happening. COPPA provides one important part of the solution to ensuring children's privacy and safety online, parental involvement and filtering tools such as Net Nanny can provide others. Net Nanny, one of the many high-tech firms found inside of my district, offers software that allows parents to regulate their children's online activities. Software of this sort lets parents choose the sites their children can visit, further bolstering parental control over their children's privacy. COPPA may impose an increased cost on commercial children's Web sites, but these sites must realize that ensuring children's privacy is an essential part of their business. COPPA will provide an incentive to the industry to self-regulate, through self-regulatory watch dog groups such as BBBOnLine, TrustE and the Children's Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, so as to ward off future government intervention in the industry. As a strong advocate of personal privacy, whether in the realm of banking and financial transactions or the World Wide Web, we must assure consumers that they have full control over their personal information. With no Constitutional protections over the sharing of personal information to third parties, in both the financial world and online, Acts such as COPPA and the Banking Privacy Act (H.R. 1929), which I introduced, are necessary safeguards of our privacy. Americans have a right to privacy in regards to their personal information, and I recognize the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act as enhancing this right.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, at an event back home in Washington State, I had the opportunity to speak and listen to a group of students from Mountlake Terrace High School in my Congressional District. The group I spoke with represents some of the best and the brightest of our nation and their voices ought to be heard as we debate education reform. After I spoke to them many of the students e-mailed me with their thoughts and I rise today to share a few of the concerns that they have about the issues that we are debating in this chamber. Justine, a student at Mountlake Terrace, stated the importance of good, high quality teachers. She wrote: ``They are the ones who are teaching us how to take care of this beautiful place when people like you become too old to do so.'' We are on the verge of a teacher crisis in our country. Our children recognize the effects that teachers have on our future--I believe that it is time for us to recognize this as well. I ask you to support a bill that I plan to introduce as an incentive for young people to enter into the teaching profession. Many of our young adults graduate from college strapped by enormous loans. My bill forgives the loans for those who teach in public schools for five years. This is a step in the right direction. It will help schools in all of our districts and we have the chance this year to make an impact. Second, many students addressed what we call the digital divide. Angee, another student at Mountlake Terrace wrote to me: ``I thought it would be cool to take classes off the Internet. That would be very beneficial to people in our school who may need a certain class to graduate that is not offered at our school.'' We can address this issue. I have written to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee asking them to fund technology initiatives that make Advanced Placement courses widely available to students by teaching them via the Internet. This is a real opportunity for us to expand curricula and at the same time allow students to develop more sophisticated computer skills. I urge my colleagues to join me in finding ways to use technology to enhance and expand educational opportunities. Third and finally, a student wrote to me: ``I would like to know what you would do to keep drugs out of school and how you would keep guns out of the hands of people who might commit crimes or be a danger to themselves.'' This is a good question and unfortunately the answer is, ``Not enough.'' Both Houses of Congress have passed Juvenile Justice legislation. To Members serving on the Conference committee--I ask that you go out into your communities and talk to students like the ones in my district and be sure that you can respond to their concerns about safety. Students realize that they have a responsibility to look out for each other and they know that they need to continue to do this. Parents also have a responsibility to be sure that they listen to their children and be the architects of a moral code of conduct for their family. As lawmakers we too share this responsibility to make our schools and communities safe. We cannot lecture parents, children, teachers and families about what they should be doing if we have not stepped up ourselves to address this issue where we can. We stand now at a unique cross roads in American history. We enjoy a time of prosperous peace and economists predict that we will have a budget surplus in the federal budget. We are in a position to invest in the next generation of our nation. Unfortunately, our political system does not allow the students that I met with to vote. Imagine what would happen if they could. Think about what will happen in a few years when they can. They have asked me to help them and I challenge you--my colleagues--to join me and embrace the ideas represented by the next generation of Americans.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Edmonds Police Department in my congressional district in Washington State. This police agency is the first in Snohomish County to achieve national accreditation. Such an accreditation proves what many already know: the Edmonds Police Department is a skilled, efficient, and advanced law enforcement agency. Mr. Speaker, police officers are on the front lines every day, ensuring that our communities are safe. Police officers leave the comfort and security of their homes to fulfill their duty to serve and protect. Police officers grant communities an important service, to secure the lawfulness and safety that the public deserves. The Edmonds Police Department, in particular, has proven its commitment to the community by becoming nationally accredited. This national accreditation means that the public will have better communication with the police department including an annual internal affairs report, better performance and response times. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding Edmonds Police Department, not only for its numerous accomplishments such as this one, but also for the great service it provides the citizens of Edmonds.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I commend the fine folks at the University of Washington Medical School for doing an exemplary job of preparing doctors and medical personnel for our future. This year, The U.S. News and World Report rated the University of Washington Medical School as the TOP primary care medical school in our country. This Medical School has been their top choice for the past seven years. In choosing to recognize the University of Washington, The U.S. News and World Report looked at the school's excellent reputation, the quality of the research conducted by its students and faculty, and the low faculty to student ratio among other criteria. I would like to add to this that the University of Washington Medical School is also the leading teaching hospital in the five-state northwestern region of our country. I am particularly impressed by the specific programs within the Medical School that The U.S. News and World Report recognized for excellence. The University of Washington Medical School has the best family medicine program and the best rural medicine program in our country. Its programs for women's health, AIDS, Pediatrics and Geriatrics are rated in the top five in our country. It also boasts leading nursing, physician assistant and dental programs. To me, this means that the facility and administration at the University of Washington Medical School is producing the very best of the doctors who will care for our families, our parents and our children. I know that the students who attend the Medical School will spread out across our country bringing the wisdom and the skills that they learned at the University. Like all doctors, the graduates of the University of Washington Medical School maintain the gift of life. Unlike most, they have had the privilege of attending the best Medical School in the nation. I am proud that this institution graces the state that I represent and I commend all who have made the Medical School into what it is today.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I do so arm in arm with the people of the First District of the State of Washington, who, when presented with an initiative 2 years ago to do what this bill does, rejected it soundly 60 percent to 39 percent. Now, why did the people of the First District do that? They are uncomfortable with late-term abortions, as we all are. So why did they reject the exact bill so adamantly that the majority now proposes? Two reasons. They have common sense, and they got it. They understood and understand that this bill and that initiative could ban the woman's right of choice at any time during the pregnancy, at any time taking away that woman's right of choice which has been constitutionally recognized. They got it. Some do not get it here. Secondly, they had the common sense to understand that a woman's health rights ought to be recognized if we are going to pass statute. It is common sense that a woman's health ought to be taken into consideration, which this bill does not recognize one iota. They rejected that, and America rejects this bill because it is an exercise in politics rather than in policy. And let me just say one thing personal to my friends across the aisle. We would do much better for American, and we would prevent many more abortions if we spent more time preventing teenage pregnancy than making political statements.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am compelled to address the House tonight about the decision by the Federal District Court in the Microsoft case, and I rise today on behalf of two groups of people that I think deserve a voice in this debate. The first group is the American consumers and the second group are the people who work and dedicate their lives to the products they create for American consumers at Microsoft. I would like to address the beliefs of the American consumers first, because I will warrant that if we go out and we ask our constituents, Should the Federal Government break up Microsoft?, the answer will be a resounding no. From the State of Maine to the State of Washington, people do not believe that the Federal Government will help their lives, will advance the Internet, will advance software one inch by breaking up this engine of creative growth. And the Americans are right when it comes to this belief. American consumers are right in having the belief that this industry is healthy. This is not a sick industry that demands the physician of the Federal Government to come rescue it. And the evidence is clear: American consumers know that they are getting better products, faster products, less expensive products every day with Microsoft as it is currently configured. Look at the evidence. This industry has grown from 290,000 workers in 1990 to 860,000 productive workers today. It has grown from 24,000 companies in 1990 to 57,000 companies today. Where is the stranglehold on creativity when we have doubled the number of companies in the software business in the last decade? This industry today has contributed $20 billion, $20 billion, to our trade balance. The reason is creative people are doing creative work. And I will tell my colleagues one thing, Madam Speaker, when I talk to people across this country, they tell me they know they are getting better products, and they do not trust the American government to try to define through judicial fiat what products these software engineers, who are geniuses, should give to the American consumers. Products should be defined by what the American consumers want, not what the Federal Government wants. I want to touch now on a message from the folks who work at Microsoft, Madam Speaker. I represent thousands of people who get up in the morning and work commonly 12 to 14 hour days to try to bring their creative talents to bear to create new products for the American people. They have done a good job and they are doing a good job and they are going to continue to do a good job creating new products for America. The reason is that the people at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, are not going to be distracted, they are not going to be deterred, they are not going to stop their efforts to continue that creative growth by the fact that this case will go to the appellate court because they realize this is the first step in a long process. They trust the American appellate courts and trust that ultimately the will of the American consumers will prevail in this case. Microsoft should continue to be creative and should not be broken up.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this rule because it is a monument to inaction. It guarantees inaction on Alaska oil for Americans, it guarantees inaction for sanctions against countries that are using monopolistic policies against us, and, one you have not heard today, it guarantees inaction on improving oil tanker safety. Let me share with you some bad news about oil tanker safety that occurred about a week ago. About a week ago the U.S. Supreme Court knocked a big hole in our national and State ability to guarantee oil tanker safety, because in a ruling involving the State of Washington the Supreme Court said that States, including the State of Washington, could not include very common sense environmental provisions for their oil tankers. In Washington we had a provision that had a real common sense rule. It said you had to have somebody that could speak English on the bridge of a supertanker when you ply the waters of the State of Washington. Common sense? Legal? According to the Supreme Court, no. We attempted to fix that by an amendment that we will not be able to offer, blocked by this rule, which will guarantee inaction. I would urge my colleagues to join me in future efforts to plug that hole in our safety net, to allow safe environmental measures on oil tankers. Let me just close by a story from Winston Churchill, a good Tory conservative, who in World War II had a little 3 by 5 card on his desk. It was sort of his rule for World War II. It said ``action this day.'' This rule guarantees a continuation of the policies of this year, which is inaction this year. Let us defeat this rule and get some action on this issue.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it appears again that European governments may be ignoring their agreements to stop subsidizing Airbus. The British government's decision to make a loan of $868 million to Airbus for the development of another jumbo jet clearly flies in the face of the concept that the WTO rules are designed to end government subsidies to Airbus. Now, folks have argued that Airbus is an infant industry. It is not an infant, it is not even an adolescent, it is a full adult competitor in the aircraft industry; and it ought to be treated as such. We have tools to stop these subsidies. The WTO was designed to stop these subsidies. We are urging our government to be as aggressive as possible to demand answers as to how such a loan would be made, because we believe it will be shown that this is not a loan that was commercially available. Had it been commercially available, it would be available through commercial outlets. This is a government acting as a venture capitalist for Airbus. We need to end these subsidies today.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional police chief from Mountlake Terrace, Chief John Turner. Chief Turner recently retired from law enforcement after twenty-nine years of dedicated service to the State of Washington. He was also the longest serving Chief in Snohomish County. As a law enforcement officer, Chief Turner has spent most of his life providing a sense of security and ensuring public safety for the community. He is a dedicated public servant, and the community wholeheartedly embraces and appreciates his tireless service. Chief Turner, although leaving the Mountlake Terrace Police, will still be involved in the realm of law enforcement as the Executive Director for the Western Regional Institute for Community Policing (WRICOPS). WRICOPS, one of twenty-nine university/law enforcement collaborations funded by Congress, provides an integrated approach to community policing through training, technical assistance, and applied research. WRICOPS is based at Washington State University in Spokane, and serves the states of Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Chief Turner has always been a visionary leader and has taken a pro- active approach as an officer of the law. He has a long legacy of encouraging community involvement by working with many community groups, elected officials, and citizens in an effort to improve public safety. He helped to establish the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), created to stop the flow of drugs and drug- related crime into our counties. HIDTA, part of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, works to reduce drug trafficking in the most critical areas of the country by providing a coordination umbrella for local, state, and federal law enforcement efforts. He was also ahead of his time in notifying the public about registered sex offenders-- Mountlake Terrace was the first police agency in Washington State to broadcast such warnings. Finally, Chief Turner recognized the need to reach out to at-risk youth and give young people a safe place to spend their weekend nights. The Neutral Zone was created in 1992 as a collaborative effort between Chief Turner and the Edmonds School District. The Neutral Zone, a hugely successful program that has received nation-wide recognition, provides a supervised, drug-free place where young people can simply hang out and socialize on Friday and Saturday nights until 2 a.m. Teens learn to develop positive relationships with peers and adults, and parents are assured that their child is safe. Chief Turner is a shining example of a great police officer and a great community leader. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking him for his service, and wishing him well in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, on June 10th, last summer, a gasoline pipeline in Bellingham, Washington, ruptured, spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline and ignited, and a huge fireball took the lives of two young boys and one young man. We now have huge holes in our safety system of pipelines in this country, and we need to act to plug those holes. Accordingly, yesterday the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), and myself introduced the Safe Pipelines Act of 2000. This act will include a couple of common sense measures. It is common sense to require periodic regular inspection of these lines, it is common sense to require reporting of spills, and it is common sense to allow States to move forward to have more rigorous safety standards in our neighborhoods. I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. It is only asking these companies to act as a good neighbor when these pipelines run next to our back doors, to make sure they are safe. Let us require them to be good neighbors and pass this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of an exceptional environmental and social activist who recently passed, Ms. Hazel Wolf. Ms. Wolf, originally from Victoria, British Columbia, spent most of her life in Seattle, and her final years in Port Angeles. One daughter, five grandchildren, five great-grandchildren, and four great- great grandchildren survive her. Ms. Wolf's commitment to the environment was strong throughout her 101 years. As an active member of the Audubon Society for 38 years, she helped to establish Audubon chapters within Washington State, recruit new members, and fought tirelessly to protect our natural resources. The Hazel Wolf Wetlands on Sammamish Plateau was named in her behalf. She was also the recipient of a number of other conservation awards, including the Audubon Medal for Excellence in Environmental Achievement in 1977, the Washington State Department of Game's Award for services in protection of wildlife in 1978, and the State of Washington Environmental Excellence Award in 1978, and the Seattle's Spirit of America Award in 1999. Many in my community cheered heartily when, on her 98th birthday, Washington State Governor Mike Lowry declared March 10th as ``Hazel Wolf Day.'' She understood clearly that if we do not act now to safeguard our precious resources, we will be responsible for the destruction of irreplaceable wilderness areas and wildlife communities. She was also committed to the idea of women's suffrage, social justice, and civil rights, and never hesitated to practice what she preached. Many years ago, during the era in which many public places were segregated, Ms. Wolf asked to swim specifically when the YWCA pool was set aside for African-American women. Her swim spoke volumes about her beliefs. Mr. Speaker, the recent death of Hazel Wolf has made me realize, once again, what an awesome responsibility we have as Members of Congress. Ms. Wolf's fight to protect the rights of the working poor, religious and ethnic minorities, and our natural resources is a fight that I am proud to carry forth as a United States Congressman. I know the thoughts and prayers of many of us in the Seattle area go out to Ms. Wolf's entire family. Her life was a shining example of devotion, in so many ways, to a better world for all of us.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding educator in my district, Dr. Karen Forys. The Washington Association of School Administrators recently selected Dr. Forys, the Northshore School District Superintendent, as Washington State Superintendent, 2000. The Northshore School District is responsible for over 20,000 students in King and Snohomish Counties, and is the eighth largest school district in Washington State. Dr. Forys, in her sixth year at Northshore, has served as superintendent in the Clover Park and Riverview School Districts. She obtained her Ph.D. at the University of Arizona and conducted post- gratuate work at Columbia University. The support that Dr. Forys receives from the teachers, parents, and board members is indeed inspiring. They all recognize Dr. Forys as an educational leader in her unwavering commitment to the students of Northshore. The deep level of respect and admiration can be seen in the Northshore School District's nomination letter. They write: . . . Clearly, Karen exemplifies excellence in educational leadership . . . She is steadfast in providing varied learning opportunities, teaching styles and career choices for our students. Karen Forys personifies our District's mission statement. She truly seeks to strengthen our community through excellence in education. I am also proud that Dr. Forys was among the first to champion High Tech Learning Centers (HTLCs) for every high school. Thanks to Dr. Forys' vision, HTLCs currently prepare high school students for post- secondary education in information technology and for careers in these fields. She clearly recognizes that the students of today must receive a high tech education in order to make them competitive in the global economy of the 21st century. This is particularly important for the 1st Congressional District, home to many exciting and innovative software, electronic, and biotech companies. I am proud to have school administrators like Dr. Forys preparing our students for the future, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Forys as Washington State Superintendent, 2000.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Biotechnology Month. Biotechnology is revolutionizing the quality of life for millions of people around the world. The United States, and Washington State in particular, is home to some of the leading biotechnology companies in the world. Biotechnology is revolutionizing every facet of medicine, from diagnosis to treatment of all diseases, not just bacterial infections. It is detailing life at the molecular level and someday will take much of the guesswork out of disease management and treatment. The implications for health care are greater than any milestone in medical history. Take cancer, for example. The first biotechnology medicines have been used in conjunction with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to enhance their effectiveness, lessen adverse side effects and reduce the chances of cancer recurrence. Future biotech cancer drugs, however, such as vaccines that prevent abnormal cell growth, may make traditional treatments obsolete. In cardiovascular diseases, biotech drugs that either dissolve or prevent blood clots in the treatment of heart attacks are being applied to cases of ischemic stroke, reducing brain damage and hospital recovery time. Another biotech medicine is proving successful in late- stage clinical trials for angina and may represent the first new class of drugs to treat that condition since introduction of calcium channel blockers in the 1970's. Advancements in research on inflammatory diseases also have yielded first-of-a-kind drugs to treat multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Other medicines in late-stage clinical trials block the start of the molecular cascade that triggers inflammation's tissue damaging effects in numerous disease states. In treatment of infectious diseases, biotechnology is leading the attack on the alarming problem of drug-resistant bacteria, creating antibiotics to take the place of those no longer effective. It also has revealed the genetic composition of bacteria and viruses, making the search for new remedies more efficient. Most biotech drugs are designed to treat our most devastating and intractable illnesses. In many cases these medicines would be the first ever therapies for those diseases. In my home of Washington State, there are 116 biotechnology companies that employ over 7,000 people. Employment in Washington State biotechnology and medical technology industry is projected to increase to nearly 20,000 workers by 2005. Thousands of patient lives have been improved or saved by the relatively new products produced by Washington biotechnology companies. These products include Enbrel for rheumatoid arthritis, Leukine for cancer, and TOBI for cystic fibrosis. This number is expected to grow exponentially as more products are approved for market. It is vital that Congress and the administration take into account the developments and advancements in this industry and work to encourage the massive amount of private capital being invested in these medical breakthroughs. Congress can help by fully supporting federal investments in math and science education, research performed at public universities and the National Institutes of Health. Congress should work with the Administration to modernize the drug approval process and to make sure that the Medicare system takes advantage of the potential cost savings brought forth by developments in the biotechnology industry. Again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of National Biotechnology Month and look forward to the next great news in the newspapers of tomorrow.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize SonoSite, Inc., a company located in my home State of Washington. SonoSite, is a spin-off from ATL Ultrasound, has revolutionized the quality and portability of ultrasound equipment by using advanced technology to provide for ultrasound delivery through a hand-held device. Physicians and their patients around the country will benefit from this new high-tech, ultra-portable diagnostic tool that is expected to expand the use of ultrasound in medical care. Originally designed for the military under ATL Ultrasound, SonoSite's ultrasound system pioneers an advanced high performance, miniaturized all-digital broadband technology platform in a compact, lightweight system. This allows the simultaneous acquisition and interpretation of images, and provides the ability to diagnose conditions in any clinical or field setting. This advancement promises to alter current paradigms in routine patient care--at the patient's bedside, an imaging facility, or even a remote location. Initially available for use in obstetrics, gynecology, and emergency medicine, this ultrasound technology will enable trained physicians to significantly expand the routine use of ultrasound for faster, more accurate patient evaluations anytime, anywhere, resulting in better patient care. Patients may benefit by avoiding ``waiting trauma,'' the anxiety felt by both patients and physicians when a problem is indicated but diagnostic answers are not available at the point of care. I recognize the work being done by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) to complete outcome-based studies assessing routine use of ultrasound in the assessment of abnormal uterine bleeding. I urge the continued partnership between the Agency and SonoSite to best meet the needs of patients and physicians. The SonoSite ultrasound system is a highly accessible advance in medical technology--both in terms of portability and cost. The low cost of the new system can result in improved healthcare delivery at a time when health clinics and hospitals are facing additional cuts in their day to day financial operations. The portability of this new technology can allow physicians to expand the use of ultrasound in practice by adding an ultrasound machine to every exam room or otherwise supplementing current stationary ultrasound equipment. I recognize SonoSite, Inc. for its efforts to maximize the use of innovative technology to advance the heavily-utilized ultrasound system as we move into the 21st century. Their efforts in partnership with the AHCPR, will result in quality, portable, and affordable medical care that will have a positive effect on my constituents in the State of Washington, and to others across the country. In a State known for medical innovation and technological ingenuity, SonoSite deserves recognition for its pioneering technology.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I wish I was in my district in the State of Washington today to help celebrate Veterans Day with my fellow veterans, my veterans that I represent. I did not serve and I am not a veteran. I wish I were with them, but our schedule did not allow us to do that. But I have come to the floor of the House to express a personal sentiment, if I may, and it is inspired in some degree. This morning I attended the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery where the President spoke, laid the wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and something the President said inspired me to come to the well today to say something personal. What he said is that freedom is not free. That is very true. I got to thinking about some of the things I get to do as a Member of the U.S. House. I get the opportunity, and it is a splendid opportunity, to get to vote in this Chamber, to try to preserve some of our freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition your government for redress. And I get that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to vote to try to preserve those freedoms because of some of the work some people did before me. I have a very personal expression of gratitude I want to give them from the floor. And even though it is personal, I think it is appropriate to do it on the floor. I want to thank the late Phillip Tindall, who is my wife's great uncle who served in World War I and during an infantry charge was wounded and reported actually dead in the Seattle newspapers. It turned out he survived and he went on to be a great leader in the City of Seattle, helped build Ross Dam and helped a family that I was lucky enough to marry into. I want to thank him. I want to thank my father Frank Inslee, who served in the Navy in World War II. I want to thank my father. I want to thank my Uncle Bob Brown, who served in the Navy during the Korean conflict, and as boy I remember hearing tales of him knocking a bomb overboard on an aircraft carrier, something that I remember growing up. I want to thank my Uncle Evan Inslee, who served in the Air Force during the Cold War, a war that you sort of forget some of the sacrifices veterans made during the Cold War, maybe not so many movies were made about them, but they sacrificed indeed. And I want to give special tribute to a man none of you have probably heard of, whose name is Bob Grimm. Bob is the fellow who lives on Bainbridge Island, where I live. Bob now builds houses. My son works with him. But the reason I want to pay special tribute to him is that he served and saw intense combat in Vietnam, in the jungles of Vietnam, where he was wounded. I want to pay special tribute to Bob because when Bob and his fellow veterans came home from the Vietnam conflict, they did not come home to real loud parades. They did not come home to a grateful Nation showing its gratitude, frankly, that we should have. I want to pay special personal thanks to Bob and his fellow veterans of the Vietnam War for the service they provided and the continued help so that we could vote in this Chamber for the freedoms that we treasure. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Phillip, my father, Bob, Evan and especially Bob and all of their colleagues who made these freedoms dear.

Mr. INSLEE

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