Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I will speak in strong support of this motion, and I think this motion supports two values that we ought to hold, and the first is the value of respect, respect for the law, and the second value is respect for this House and our interests in protecting the public interests, not the special interests; but first, respect for the law. We have got to understand that all this motion does is simply say that we are going to respect, we are going to follow, we are going to honor the pre-existing and existent law of the United States of America today. And I would like to refer my colleagues to 30 U.S.C., Section 42, in the language specifically previously adopted by Congress, not by some bureaucrat, not by some middle-level agency official. By the United States Congress the law specifically says that such patents and mining claims on nonadjacent land shall not exceed 5 acres, shall not exceed 5 acres. It is the law today, and we are not amending the law, we are preventing an amendment of law in the appropriations process. Now it is beyond my imagination when the U.S. Congress says, If you're going to have a place to put your cyanide-laced rock on the public's land, you can only do it, but it won't exceed 5 acres, how folks can turn around and say, Well, sure, you can only do it 5 acres, but you can do it as many times as you want on 5 acres. That does not wash. We should have respect for the law and pass this amendment. But secondly, I think there is maybe a more important issue here, and that is respect for this House and this Houses's obligation to protect the general public interest. As my colleagues know, it has been a sad fact that this other chamber, which we dearly respect, has sent us over anti-environmental riders after anti-environmental riders, and those riders protect the special interests, not the general public interest; and if we ask why there has been such an interest in some of our States in independent politics and reform-minded politics, it is because the other chamber has sent us sometimes fleas on the backs of some of these laws, and we have got to delouse some of these appropriation bills. We ought to start right here with this motion. We should stand up for our vote and the 273 Members that stood up for the general interest and pass this motion.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members in the Chamber to join me for just a moment in honoring a very important American who is in the gallery to my left today, Lillie Drayton, who for the last 39 years has served the American public and us running the elevators in our office buildings. I want to recognize her on her day of retirement. I do not know anyone who has epitomized public service as much as Lillie. When Americans have come to their Capitol, she has been the one to let them know that people care about them and they are doing a fine job of them. I would like to recognize and respect her for all her fine work, Lillie Drayton.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Home Energy Generation Act, which will benefit individuals and small business owners who are currently producing their own energy, or wish to do so in the future. This legislation is a necessary incentive to help increase the use of environmentally sustainable technologies, and give Americans the independence and self-sufficiency they deserve. The Home Energy Generation Act is a comprehensive ``net metering'' bill, which enables individuals who generate electricity using fuel cells or renewables such as wind, solar, or biomass, to receive credit for the surplus electricity they put back into the electricity grid. Credit for their excess energy generation is realized by allowing their electricity meter to literally run backwards when their energy unit is generating more energy than their household, farm, or small business is consuming. In addition to net metering, the Home Energy Generation Act addresses many other barriers which can prevent Americans from generating their own electricity. This bill sets uniform national reliability and safety standards for interconnection of electricity generation units into the electricity grid, by utilizing private professional organizations. National standards are absolutely imperative to the development of reliable and affordable technology to interconnect. (It was national standards that allowed multiple companies, and consequently multiple technologies to interconnect into the once monopolized AT&T telephone system.) The Home Energy Generation Act also allows retail electricity suppliers and utilities to count home energy generation capacity amongst their customers towards any renewable portfolio requirements. This bill will function in the current electricity industry legislative structure, or in a deregulated electricity industry. It gives families, farms, and small businesses the same right as industrial generators by allowing home generators to sell their end of the year energy credit on the open market. Under a restructured industry, this will likely create a market for home generated power. Although net metering is now allowed in 30 states, federal legislation is needed to create the national interconnectivity standards necessary to allow for safe and reliable interconnection, as well as to allow home generation industries to cost-effectively produce these technologies. In addition, this legislation is needed to resolve any uncertainty regarding state and local authority to implement net metering, since a state court has recently ruled that net metering requires explicit federal authority. This bill will provide that authority. This bill is truly a bipartisan effort. It has been an honor for me to work with Both Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, and Vernon Ehlers of Michigan. In addition to these distinguished members, I would also like to thank the following original cosponsors to this important legislation: Mr. Brian Baird of Washington, Mr. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Mr. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Mr. Merrill Cook of Utah, Mr. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Mr. Norman Dicks of Washington, Mr. Lane Evans of Illinois, Mr. Sam Farr of California, Mr. Bob Filner of California, Mr. Martin Frost of Texas, Mr. Benjamin Gilman of New York, Mr. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Mr. Maurice Hinchey of New York, Mr. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. James Leach of Iowa, Mr. John Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Jim McDermott of Washington, Mr. Jack Metcalf of Washington, Ms. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi of California, Mr. Ted Strickland of Ohio, Mr. Mark Udall of Colorado, Mr. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Robert Underwood of Guam, and Mr. Bruce Vento of Minnesota. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following groups who have been so helpful in crafting this legislation. They include the Solar Energy Industry Association, American Wind Energy Industry Association, public utilities, private investor owned utilities, fuel cell advocates, and various consumer groups. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the Home Energy Generation Act.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2579.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of Shays-Meehan and against the substitute. In doing so, I would like to make a freshman observation. The observation I would like to make is that those of us in this Chamber have a unique opportunity in the world tonight. I say in the world tonight, because while there are other legislators elected by their constituents in other places in the world, some even older than our democracy, like Iceland, none of them represent the Taj Mahal of democracy which is the American democratic system. And so when we act tonight to try to refine our system, let me suggest that we must act with assertion, we must act in a stalwart manner, and we have got to act aggressively. Right now, the substitute acts with benign neglect of the biggest virus on the body politic in our country right now, which are bogus issue ads, bogus issue ads, which both parties and all special interests are taking out a political hammer and trying to beat their opponent over the head with it and seeking immunity in doing so by saying, ``It wasn't a hammer, it was only a blunt instrument.'' The damage to the health of democracy is the same whether we call them hammers or blunt instruments. We have got to make sure we address issue advocacy. The substitute has an abject failure to do so. Shays- Meehan recognizes that the special interests have found a giant loophole. They are taking those hammers and they are walking through. We have got to shut that down. We have got the Taj Mahal of democracy. We have got real democracy. Let us have real reform and end issue ads.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will say two things. We will withdraw the amendment at this time, but I do think it very important for us in this Chamber to find out how we can get the developing nations to join us to go forward on solving this problem so that our institution is not seen as the institution that puts our head in the sand on this issue. I will have a dialogue with the Chair and other Members.

Mr. INSLEE. As a new Member, hope still springs eternal. We will consider that a crack in the door, to some degree.

Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, let me take one more stab at this to see if we could reach some meeting of the minds in some regard. What I am searching for is some way for the gentleman to express or this Congress to express the belief that it is appropriate for us to be able to negotiate with some of these developing nations to urge them to agree to some of the limitations we need them to agree to so we can get to a global treaty in this regard. I am searching for some indication from the Chair that he believes that is appropriate, and if so, some manifestation of that.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this discussion. Let me just ask the chairman, does he believe it would be appropriate in this language for our State Department or other agencies of the government to continue a dialogue with the developing nations to try to get them to come into the umbrella of the Kyoto Protocol, to try to get them to agree to join us in some of the standards which many of us want to be implemented; what the gentleman believes is an appropriate expenditure under this language? Because that is our concern.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, it is a question as much as a statement. What many of us are concerned about is the language that says none of the funds can be used in preparation for implementation. Let me tell you what the concern is, and perhaps we can work together in conference to resolve this. The concern is that that language would prevent the State Department from going to developed nations and trying to get them to prepare for the Kyoto Protocol, to try to get them to agree to improve their participation in this protocol, to try to get them to agree to some of the measures. We are very concerned this language will prevent us from moving ahead at all on international consideration. I guess I would ask the Chair if you would consider in conference looking at this language.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we are proposing an amendment which many of us believe will address an issue which we have too long ignored, and that is the issue of global climate change. Unfortunately, the language of the bill at this moment contains language which would prevent us from addressing this important issue on an international basis. The language specifically we are addressing is in section 620 of the bill, and, unfortunately, the existing language of the bill would prevent any expenditure of funds in preparation for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol regarding global climate change. The problem with this language is that it would prevent our diplomatic efforts to bring forth the developing world into our efforts to get a handle on global climate change. Many of us know that in the Kyoto Protocol, despite its adoption, we have a desire, and the administration has expressed a desire, to work with developing nations to get the developing nations to agree to limitations, to agree to research in new technology, to try to reduce our emissions globally, the developed world and the developing world, to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent the kind of summers we have had recently. We need to remove this language, because, unfortunately, the Nation is coming to feel like Time Magazine. If you see this week's Time magazine, there is an article that is entitled ``Capitol Hill Meltdown.'' The subtitle is, ``While the Nation sizzles, Congress fiddles over measures to slow down future climate change.'' Now, there is lots of work to be done between here and now on the solution to this problem, but the one thing we should not do, the one thing we cannot do, is shoot ourselves in the foot in an effort to go forth and try to bring the developing nations into this international agreement, to try to get them to join us in the efforts to reduce climate change emissions. Many of us believe and all of us should believe that there should be no cardinal sin in going forth and trying to get others to talk with you internationally on how to deal with this problem. I would encourage any Member who has questions about this issue when we finish our mysteries at the beach this August to take a look at the literature on this issue because there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that this phenomena is occurring, number one, and, number two, it is going to continue to occur unless we, on an international basis, do something about it. So we are offering this amendment, which would allow us, internationally, to go to the developed nations and urge them to join us in efforts to reduce these emissions and to enter into international agreements. I want to make clear, this amendment does not, repeat, does not attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate has not ratified that, obviously. But it will allow us to continue diplomatic efforts to get the developed nations to help us and join us in this international effort to prevent the kind of summers we have had in the past year, in the past month, becoming unfortunately our predestined future.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this motion, and I do it because I have been listening to my constituents a lot lately about financial privacy in banking. What they have been asking me to do is simple. They have been asking me to try to win for them the right to tell their banks not to give their bank account numbers and their identities to telemarketers so that they can be called at night. They have been asking me simply to win for them the right to tell their banks not to give their credit card numbers to telemarketers so that they can be called at night. Those constituents deserve that right. What possible reason is there to be not to accept this motion to give consumers the simple right to financial privacy that we supported 427 votes to 1? Well, the reason is that there are certain folks who want to defend their privacy. I want to tell my colleagues about something I learned in hearings in the last 2 weeks. I asked five lobbyists of the banking industry a simple question. Let us say Emma Smith writes her bank and says, Mr. or Mrs. Banker, do not share my financial information with anyone. Two days later, Mrs. Smith inherits $10,000. Should the bank be able to call a telemarketer and tell them to call Emma Smith and try to sell her a hot stock in hotstock.com? Should they be able to ignore her request not to violate her privacy? Do my colleagues know what those five lobbyists said for the banking industry? To a person, they said no, that would be wrong. Those five lobbyists for the banking industry were right. Consumers ought to have the right to protect their privacy. Those five lobbyists were right. Four hundred twenty-seven Members of this House were right when they stood up for consumer privacy. Americans ought to be right, too, in insisting that we pass this motion.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment for two reasons. First, we as a Nation, will need to come to terms with the rise in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at some point, and we might as well start right now. Carbon dioxide is an insidious pollutant because, one while it is odorless and tasteless, it has a nasty habit of trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. First off, this is the law. This is the statute from the United States Annotated Code. This is the law. What the executive branch says in some manual or letter or memorandum or written on the back of an envelope, or they can say it every day until doom's day, but it does not make a difference. This is the law passed by the United States Congress, signed by the President in 1872. Anything else is quite meaningless, frankly. What it says, very clearly: ``Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notices as are applicable to the veins or loads; but no location made on and after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres.'' Now, I understand that the argument is, well, they could have 5 acres here, and they can have 5 acres right next to it, and they could have another 5 acres right next to that; they could have 5 acres until they go all the way from Canada to Oregon and the State of Washington. Let me suggest to my colleagues, if the Congress in 1872, and we have some very articulate members, Daniel Webster, I cannot remember when he was around in 1872, these are intelligent people. But if they were intending to give the mine everything they wanted, they did not need any limitation.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter amendment to strengthen our commitment to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities (NEA/NEH). It is extremely important that we do what we can to support the artists, educators and students in our communities. Mr. Chairman, the people of the First Congressional District have directly benefited from NEA and the NEH. Without the support of these groups, many of our children would not have access to the arts and humanities that are a vital component of their education. The NEA and the NEH reach out to underserved communities--communities that traditionally do not have access to our cultural treasures. The Slaughter amendment would allow the NEA and the NEH to provide more grants to our underserved communities so that all of our children receive important exposure to the arts. The Slaughter amendment will go a long way to provide the NEA and the NEH with the means to offer greater participation in our cultural heritage. The NEA and the NEH were created with the intention to help preserve and foster the culture of America. Our communities deserve to continue to be exposed to the rich cultural legacy of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I point out to make sure people understand, the problem my friend from Washington has alluded to, the Crown Jewel Mine, has been solved, if we look at it that way, by the previous rider. That is a red herring. That problem has been solved. We are talking about the future, the year 2000 on. Just one closing point: if the interpretation placed on this by the industry is correct, there is no reason on this green Earth that the Congress in 1872 would have imposed any language as to any limitation as to any acreage. Because if the Congress wanted to give the industry all it wanted for free, it could have just said so, they can have all they want for free. There is no reason for this 5-acre limitation if we mean they can have 5 acres here, 5 acres there, 5 acres everywhere. This ought to be enforced.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment is not a giant leap forward for mankind, it is simply a step to make sure that we do not take a giant leap backward for the American taxpayers. Taxpayers actually have one and only one protection in the 1872 mining law, and that protection says if someone is going to open a mine and pay nothing for it on public land, they cannot dump their mine waste on more than 5 acres of the public's land. This is common sense, existing, on the books, black and white law in the country. Now, to make sure, I have this blowup; and if my colleagues can see the blowup, what it says is simple. I think we as Members of Congress ought to take a look at it. It says miners can use offsite land for millsites, but no location made on and after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed 5 acres. Five acres. So why are we here? We are here because in the other Chamber's bill they order agencies to ignore the clear protection of this law. They argue that miners can have 5 acres here, 5 acres there, 5 acres over there, until maybe they get a thousand acres. That is no limitation. That is a nothing law. That is not a law. That would be a bad joke on the American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, their argument reminds me of my son. One of my sons likes ice cream, so we imposed a two big-scoop limit on him for dessert. And after he finished he came back and said, ``I am done with those two scoops. Now I want my second dessert for the second two scoops.'' He thinks just like the mining industry, and he was wrong and that argument did not wash. He gets two scoops of ice cream and they get 5 acres to pile up their tailings on American taxpayers' land without paying a dime for it. Why is this important? It is important because there is no justice to the America taxpayers if we take their lands, give it to privately held corporations and give them nothing but 20, 50, 100, 1,000 acres of crumbled stone and cyanide. That is why the Taxpayers for Common Sense support this amendment. In 1872, Congress said 5 acres was the limit. In 1960, Congress passed a bill that would have given unlimited acreage but recognized the need for the 5-acre limitation and struck that language. And now in 1999 we ought to put our foot down and say the same thing. In this case, the Solicitor General has rendered a opinion that agrees with our amendment, happens to agree with our position. But I really do not give a fig what the Solicitor General thinks about this. What matters is what the law of the country says and what Congress thinks and what Congress says and what the American public deserves. The worst thing Congress could do is take one provision of the 1872 mining law protecting the public and then gut it, which will happen if we do not pass this amendment. Some say everything is hunky-dory in our mining industry, all the problems taken care of, miners can put their 5 acres or hundred acres anywhere they want. But that did not help the gold mine in Montana that closed in 1997 and now has ended up with cyanide in residents' drinking water. This law is a clear antiquity. It is broken. We need mining reform, not mining deform. We need to go forward on mining law, not backward. Pass this law and follow the law of 1872 to the extent that it gives Americans at least one protection.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to announce that one of my constituents, Ms. Dee Arntz, recently won the 1999 National Wetlands Award. In 1990, Ms. Arntz co-founded the Washington Wetlands Network (Wetnet). The Wetnet organization connects citizens, local government officials, federal representatives, and others into a centralized network of people concerned about wetland protection and preservation. As a result, this important network approach gives small organizations information and links to larger state and national efforts. Through Ms. Arntz's efforts, citizens have joined together to protect thousands of wetland acres throughout Washington State. In the process of building Wetnet, Ms. Arntz worked as a community development program administrator for King County and other Puget Sound local governments. Her experience also includes serving on the boards of the Seattle Audubon Society, the Nisqually Delta Association, and the Washington Environmental Council. In addition, Ms. Arntz earned a Certificate in Wetlands Science and Management from the University of Washington in 1995. I would like to congratulate Ms. Arntz for winning the 1999 National Wetlands Award. Her dedication to wetland protection has led to major environmental accomplishments at both the state and national level. Ms. Arntz is an example of the enormous impact one citizen can have on the environment. This award is very well-deserved.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this rule is defective. This rule does not protect Americans' privacy. It protects piracy. It protects the continued piracy of banks who are selling our credit card numbers, selling our checking account information, selling even the account numbers in our savings accounts to telemarketers who call us at night and try to sell us products we do not want and we did not ask for. Americans deserve the right to say no, to tell banks do not sell my credit card number. Do not sell my account information. Do not sell my checking account information. If we kill this rule, we are going to give Americans that right. This rule is a cruel hoax. It has a loophole big enough to drive an armored car through. Because while it says they cannot give our information to third party telemarketers, it allows banks to simply buy the telemarketers and continue to commit the same crime, the same sin. All they have got to do is change the name on the door, and they will continue to violate our privacy rights. Listen to the American people. Do not have industry dictate this rule. This is the people's House. Kill this rule.