Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, I regretfully say that I must oppose this bill. This bill is an abject total failure to deal with the issue of telemarketing by affiliated telemarketing firms. Imagine this: Aunt Emma inherits $10,000. She puts her $10,000 into her trusted bank. Should that banker be able to call their affiliated telemarketing company, tell them that Aunt Emma is a ripe target to sell some hot stock or annuity, and allow them to call her at 6 o'clock at night and interrupt her watching Jeopardy to sell her that? And the answer is, ``no,'' they should not be allowed to do that if Aunt Emma does not want it. Now, why is this important now? Some people have said we have moved ahead a little on third parties, but we are creating an entirely new species of telemarketer here. We are creating an entirely new species with H.R. 10 of affiliated firms. And if we are going to create the Tyrannosaurus rex of telemarketing, we ought to tame that before we create the species. Today is the time to tame that. Today is the time to reject this, go back, and protect the rights of privacy of our constituents.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), is entirely correct. Americans are sick and tired of having their personal financial information, their credit cards, their savings account information given away to telemarketers and getting those obnoxious calls during dinner time. She is right. But they are just as tired of getting those calls from the affiliates of banks as they are from third parties of banks. That is why it is imperative to augment the Oxley amendment by the motion to recommit to make sure that Americans have the right to stop not only third parties but affiliates from making those calls and violating their privacy. Now, if I can share with Members something I learned yesterday and I think it is important in this debate. The members of the industry have objected to affiliate coverage of this vital protection, and they have said that if we do this, the financial system would collapse, there is simply no way that the banking system could accommodate this reasonable consumer protection. Well, guess what? In Minnesota yesterday, a major U.S. bank got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. They were, in fact, giving away consumer private financial information. It was being used to telemarket to consumers. And when they were caught by the Minnesota attorney general, they said, mea culpa, you got us. We give up. But do my colleagues know what they agreed to? They agreed to a Minnesota consent decree, to a judicial order prohibiting sharing with their affiliate and their third parties because they knew that this could be done. I am here to say, if it is good enough for the good folks in Minnesota, it is good enough for everybody across America and the U.S. Congress ought to be just as progressive and just as effective as the Minnesota attorney general and we ought to make sure that affiliates are covered just as well. That is why we have got to pass this motion to recommit. Before I sit, we have talked a lot about privacy. I want to commend the work of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) on this program. We have made some advancement. But we will be sorely, sorely feeling bad when our consumers look back to tonight and say to me and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the rest of us, why did we not take care of the affiliates at the same time we took care of the third parties? It is our chance to do it tonight. Pass the motion to recommit and finish the job.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Critical Care Spectrum Act, which will benefit victims of heart failure and strokes by ensuring appropriate broadcast spectrum for medical telemetry devices. I have been working closely with hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, health care providers, broadcasters, patients and other users of the broadcast spectrum to achieve the legislation introduced today. I am especially grateful for the guidance and assistance I have received. Medical telemetry devices have allowed greater care for victims of heart failure and strokes. These devices send a signal, using part of the allocated broadcast spectrum, from a monitoring device attached to a patient to a central receiving point where the data can be viewed by medical personnel. Doctors and health care workers tell me that these devices are essential to the delivery of quality health care because they provide instant information about a patient and can warn doctors before medical problems become too severe to treat. In recent years, the broadcast spectrum has become crowded with wireless communications, satellite broadcast transmissions, and the growing number of radio and television stations. As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the spectrum has become even more cluttered, due to the requirement for television stations to change to digital broadcasts. While stations make plans to move to the new digital spectrum, they retain their analog broadcasts, and take up more of the spectrum than they require. The increasing number of broadcast channels has given consumers a variety of programming choices to choose from, but has also posed an indirect threat to medical telemetry devices, some of which use the same broadcast spectrum. Last year in Dallas, when a television station switched on to a digital broadcast, it knocked out the telemetry devices in Baylor University Medical Center. We were lucky that no significant injuries occurred, and the television station in Dallas should be commended for taking the station off the air as soon as they were made aware of the problem. This event served as a wake up call to medical telemetry device manufacturers and broadcasters alike. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued advisories to stations that were planning to switch over to a digital broadcast. The advisories have been very helpful, and broadcasters have been working with local health care facilities to make sure the Dallas situation does not happen again. In my home state, I recently learned about the precautions that were taken when KOMO-TV, Channel 4, switched over to a digital broadcast. KOMO was in constant communication with all health care facilities in the broadcast area, and had technical representatives on hand in each of the facilities to make sure that no medical telemetry devices were impacted. KOMO, KING-TV and KCTS in Seattle have all switched to digital broadcasts. They have shown exceptional leadership and community concern with regard to this issue, and I am grateful not only for their concern, but for their assistance through the Washington State Broadcasters Association with the introduction of this legislation. We can't expect this success to continue without defining which areas of the spectrum should be reserved for medical telemetry devices. As more and more stations flip the switch and go digital, the spectrum gets more and more crowded. Medical telemetry manufacturers have been aggressive in solving this problem too. Spacelabs Medical, located in my Congressional District in Redmond, Washington, has been working closely with the American Hospital Association, the FCC and the Joint Working Group on Telemedicine to reach a solution to this problem. I look forward to working with all parties on a resolution to this issue. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following groups who have been so helpful in crafting this legislation. They include Spacelabs Medical, the American Hospital Association, the Washington Hospital Association, Evergreen Hospital, Harborview Medical Center, the Joint Working Group on Telemedicine, Hewlett-Packard, the Washington Association of Broadcasters, Western Wireless, AT&T Wireless, PhRMA, American Home Products and countless others. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the Critical Care Spectrum Act of 1999.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional college president in my district, Mr. Don Fowler. Mr. Fowler will retire as President of Lake Washington Technical College on June 30, after 19 years on its campus. Lake Washington Technical College has blossomed under Mr. Fowler's leadership. The college, which enrolls 20,000 students, is the largest hi-tech college on the East Side. Moreover, 92 percent of its graduates secure employment upon graduation. Lake Washington Technical College's strong commitment to life-long learning is exemplified by its extensive curriculum. Vocational education is just one of the many paths students may choose. This college also offers advanced skill training for the employees of local industries, hi-tech training, ESL classes for recent immigrants, and courses geared toward high-school students. While I am confident that Lake Washington Technical College will continue to be a first- rate educational institution without Mr. Fowler, the college will indeed loose a remarkable educator. Mr. Speaker, even though Mr. Fowler is set to retire, I know that he will be an active participant in the community for years to come. Again, thank you, Mr. Fowler, for your many years of service.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Nicole Sieminski for earning the honor of 1999 Class Valedictorian at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Marysville, WA. Ms. Sieminski is the first member of the Tulalip Tribes to achieve this distinguished position at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. I want to commend her for her dedication and commitment to education. Clearly, great achievements such as this do not occur by chance. Ms. Sieminski worked very hard throughout her high school years. I know that the knowledge and skills she gained at Marysville-Pilchuck High School will help her reach even higher goals in the future.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, tonight we choose between common sense and unreasoned fear. It would be common sense to close loopholes with the McCarthy amendment on gun safety laws. It would be unreasoned fear to think that keeping felons from firearms will somehow keep dads from deer rifles. On this night, we should choose common sense. I am a Member with a somewhat unique perspective because in 1994 I voted to ban assault weapons and I was defeated. It was bitter and it was painful, but I have not regretted that vote for one second, for a simple reason: Any child's life is more important than any Congressman's seat. No Congressman's seat is more important than any child's life. The reason I am back here now is that the world has changed since 1994. America is tired of burying its children, and we need to put aside this notion that common sense will do anything else but to restore order. In January of 2001, I will come to this floor and celebrate with my colleagues. I will celebrate the children who are alive because of the actions we take tonight. I lost my seat in 1994 on gun issues, but I am going to win my seat in 2000 by voting for common sense for families. This is the right thing to do and, Mr. Chairman, America knows it.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, Alexander Graham Bell Elementary is an outstanding elementary school in the First Congressional District of the State of Washington. The students and staff of Alexander Graham Bell Elementary recently received the Blue Ribbon School designation awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon School designation is a very prestigious award. It is given to schools who are especially effective in meeting local, state and national education goals. Blue Ribbon Schools, such as Alexander Graham Bell Elementary, serve as models for other schools seeking to improve the quality of education for their students. The staff, students and parents at Alexander Graham Bell Elementary are committed to achieving high academic standards. Over 75% of their fourth graders met the state standard on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning in reading this year. Their math scores also doubled from last year's results. Clearly these remarkable achievements do not occur by chance. More than 100 parents volunteer at Alexander Graham Bell Elementary. These dedicated parents mentor students, serve as ``lunch buddies'' and assist teachers. Education at Alexander Graham Bell Elementary is a community priority, and its teachers, parents and staff should be commended for the commitment they have made to our children.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with many of my colleagues, to introduce the Banking Privacy Act. We recognize the threat to consumer privacy and want to return control over an individual's personal financial information back to the consumer. My constituents are shocked when I tell them that their banking transaction experiences are not private. With certain exceptions, financial institutions may legally share all of the information about you and your bank account activity with affiliated businesses--or anyone else, for that matter. This shared information includes the amount of each check that you write, to whom each check is written, the date of each check, the amount and date of any deposits into your account, and any ``outside information'' available, such as information submitted on your initial application for an account. Under existing law, financial institutions are not obligated to honor your request to restrict the dissemination of this personal information. I became interested in banking privacy laws after reading a letter from a constituent who was upset about his bank's plans to share his private financial records. I was shocked to learn of the stunning absence of statuary protections of consumer privacy. Suppose banks, insurance companies, and securities firms become affiliated, something that will occur more frequently in the future. Will a bank tip off affiliated stock brokers every time their consumers have a sudden increase in their bank account balance, causing the consumer to be subjected to even more telemarketing calls? Will banks ``profile'' their customers after reviewing their financial information, then have affiliates telemarket products to those customers? Will life insurance companies affiliated with banks review personal checking records for indications of risky behavior, then increase rates based on that information? Under current law, there is nothing to prevent these types of situations. As Congress moves to modernize the financial services industry and allow the lines between banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to blur, financial institutions gain a new profit incentive by sharing customers' personal financial information. Customers who prefer to keep their financial information private have no recourse. The Banking Privacy Act is a first step to return control over an individual's personal financial information back to that consumers. The Act applies to federally insured depository institutions, their affiliates and financial institutions covered under the Bank Holding Company Act. Currently, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, banks must disclose to their customers their privacy policies to customers and make allowances to opt-out of certain types of information sharing practices. Specifically excluded from this law is customer ``transaction and experience'' information. Transaction and experience information is information about a checking or savings account, information contained on an account application, or even purchasing patterns deduced through a customer's checking account--``account profiling.'' Transaction and experience information may be shared with affiliated companies or even sold to third parties for marketing purposes. There is no law to prevent such activity from taking place. The information is currently used to market financial services to customers based on their financial patterns. Banks routinely perform this type of information sharing. However, as we move to modernize the financial industry, there will be greater demand for this type of personal account information to market products and services to a targeted group of consumers. For example, it is not impossible to imagine that a bank holding company learned that a customer received a life insurance settlement and then made that information available to a securities firm or data broker to market services to that customer. While many consumers will appreciate the benefit of this information sharing, the decision to share the information belongs in the hands of the consumer and not the financial institution. Customers should be able to opt-out of information sharing policies in their banks and financial institutions. The Banking Privacy Act will require banks and financial institutions to disclose their privacy policies and allow consumers to opt-out of information sharing plans-- including transaction and experience information. The Banking Privacy Act will not affect the routine operations of a bank. There are specific exemptions in the bill relating to the day to day practices that banks have in place which do not impact consumer privacy. The bill will protect consumers from unwanted marketing based on their intimate financial details and give consumers control over the use and sharing of their financial information. Federally insured depository institutions have an obligation to help take a stand for consumer privacy. The government provides a safety net for the banks in the form of insurance and safety provisions. These same banks have to provide a safety net for taxpayer privacy. Financial privacy should not be sacrificed at the altar of financial industry modernization. Americans have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we ought to have the right to freedom from prying eyes into our personal financial business. Financial institutions should not be allowed to share private financial information without customer consent. The Banking Privacy Act is a necessary and practical response to the erosion of financial privacy and the potential explosion in cross-marketing among affiliated financial institutions. I want to also thank and commend my colleagues for joining me as cosponsors of the Banking Privacy Act. Representatives Michael Capuano, Bob Filner, Maurice Hinchey, Joseph Hoeffel, Paul Kanjorski, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Lynn Rivers, Bernie Sanders, Jan Schakowsky and Pete Stark have all cosponsored this bill and I appreciate their assistance. I urge my colleagues to support and pass the Banking Privacy Act.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vigorous opposition to H.R. 883, which really ought to be titled the American Land Paranoia Act, because the principal purpose of this act is to sow paranoia among Americans who ought to take pride in our interest in protecting some of our national treasures. I will tell my colleagues that this is not a small matter. Some may think this is a small matter, we should not worry about it. I want to tell my colleagues a little story. I was up on the border of the State of Washington and Canada about three years ago, four years ago now; in fact it was in what used to be the district of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I was talking to a fellow who was a businessperson, a nice fellow, a pillar of the community. He lives about 10 miles from the Canadian border. We got in a nice little discussion at a county fair. He said, ``Jay, what are you going to do about those tanks the U.N. has up on those railroad cars just over the Canadian border?'' And I kind of chuckled. I said, ``Henry, what are you talking about?'' He said, ``Well, you know, those tanks that the U.N. has across the border that they are going to use to come in to establish this United Nations park in the North Cascades.'' I laughed. Then I saw he was serious. He was serious. And the reason he was serious is that the advocates of things like this bill have convinced this gentleman and a lot of people in America that somehow the tanks with the blue helmets and the black helicopters are coming to take away their livelihood, and that is flat wrong. Flat wrong. This is no unconstitutional loss. Mr. Chairman, we sat in the hearings and I was engaged with the committee on hearings on this. People came forward and they sent to us this law professor or lawyer, I do not know if he is a professor, and he argued for 10 minutes passionately about how this violated the Constitution of America. Then I asked him a simple question. I said, ``How long has this been on the books?'' He said, ``Well, since the late 1960s.'' Then I asked him, ``Well, have you ever gone to court to ask for this to be ruled unconstitutional, the loss of sovereignty?'' He said, ``Well, no.'' The reason he has never done it is he knows darn well it is not unconstitutional. This is a bunch of flimflam where people are trying to foist these fears on the American people. The last point I want to make, the World Heritage Convention that is under attack here as some kind of socialist plot was introduced under the administration of Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon came up with this socialist plot, and it is something that has been effective to try to get international attention to help us in this country preserve what we believe are our national treasures. This is another sad step of my friends across the aisle, frankly, leaving that tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. We ought to keep this thing on the books as it is and reject this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there are some things wrong with this bill, but there are other things that are rotten about this bill. What are rotten about this bill is, under the cover of darkness, conferees, folks from the other chamber, are attempting to shove down our throats measures that would never pass the laugh test, the straight-face test, on the floor of this House. Individuals have a thing called the gag reflex: When they put something down our throats, we can gag on it. And the House of Representatives ought to stand up and gag on these last-minute subterfuges to try to go backwards on the environment. And we will have our chance to do that. I just wanted to alert other Members, this afternoon we will have a motion to recommit, to strip this bill of the environmental degradation that would go on with it, to make sure we can pass a clean bill. And we are going to do that 24 hours later after we pass this motion to recommit. I want to say, if my colleagues go out and talk to their constituents about mining, and when they ask them do they think we should go forward on mining reform or backward, they will certainly say we should not go backward, we should go forward. And on hard rock mining? On the Mining Act of 1872, these provisions do not take a small step backward, they take a giant leap backward. That is why we ought to recommit and pass a clean bill. I want to reiterate, this chamber and the other chamber can do that very quickly. It would be a travesty for people, in their zeal to hand out special- interest favors against the environment, to take camouflage behind our troops in the field to try to pass this. That would indeed be a sad day in the House of Representatives. Let us go forward on the environment, not backward. Let us go forward on mining reform, not backward. Let us stand up for people and the troops. Pass our motion to recommit, and then pass the clean bill 24 hours later.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we really have a good opportunity here in a few moments jointly on a bipartisan basis, and that is to pass a motion to recommit which will take a scalpel out and remove some of the warts from this bill, and I speak of one wart or three in the anti- environmental riders; my colleagues may have others. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and I will not be allowed to offer our motion to recommit, and that is just fine. We have no pride of authorship here. But we do have outrage, and I have outrage as a new Member of this Chamber, to say that we are going to allow this type of chicanery to go on in this House, Mr. Speaker. As my colleagues know, for folks to argue on these environmental riders that they are really not environmental, they think Americans sort of fell out of the back of the rutabaga truck. Do we think that our pilots in the F-18s want to come home and have us reduce their environmental protections? I do not think that is what we are asking us to do. Do we want the sailors on those ships, are they sending us E- mail asking us to reduce environmental protection? I do not think they want that. If my colleagues believe that environmental riders are wrong, they should vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous support for this motion. Perhaps I will give my colleagues a new Member's perspective. I have only been here for about 3 months now, and I have learned that, in all human perceptions and endeavors, sometimes one can get worn down. One can get worn down by some of the worst habits in American democracy. But I want to tell my colleagues I am not worn down. As a new Member, I stand here freshly outraged at the most grievous abuse of the democratic process I have seen since I got here 3 months ago. For the other Chamber, noble as it is, to try to land a sucker punch on the environment in the middle of the night, to hold hostage our fighting men and women, is an outrage. All of us ought to come forward, whether we have been here 3 months or 30 years and say that. It is an outrage because the American people have got to know, and they have heard about this bill. This bill is starting to have a certain odoriferous character about it, because the American people have learned that it has been larded up with various pork projects. I want the American people to know it is not just lard, it is going backwards on the environment. Not just in one little district here or there, where a particular Senator had an interest. On the mining law, under the cover of darkness, under the cover of this war, folks who want to besmirch the environment have tried to rewrite the entire 1872 Mining Act, not to go forward in time but back to the previous millennium in time and have more giveaways to the mining industry. This is broad based. I want to say one more thing. I am happy we are standing here on a bipartisan basis. Because I think no matter what we think of issues like the environment or the war or whatever, as House Members we have something at stake here, and that is our ability to stand up and be counted, which is going to be stripped away from us by the other Chamber if we yield on this. Congratulations to the makers of this amendment. Let us pass it.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I came to the podium today to talk about technology, but hearing the eloquent statement by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), I want to associate myself with his comments, particularly since I lost my cousin, Mark Brown, of the Kent County Sheriff Department, who died in the line of duty several weeks ago. I just want to tell my colleagues there are many things we can do for our law enforcement officers, but I want to say that it has made me a person who stops when I can and thank our uniformed police officers for their duty of getting up every day and wondering if they are coming home, and I know other Members feel as I do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some good news in our economy, and that is the incredible success of our software industry. None of us can turn around without reading of a new brilliantly creative and dynamic invention by the software industry. There is plentiful good news in this segment of our economy. But there are two things that this Congress needs to help this industry with that I would like to address tonight. The first thing is that the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Executive needs to be more aggressive to make sure that our trading partners across the seas stop stealing software from American software workers. We have a lot more software workers than we used to. In 1990, we had 290,000 employees in software. We now have over 60,000 Americans involved in developing software, and they put their hard-earned efforts and their creative genius in it. And then all too frequently, people across the waters, our good trading partners, steal that software that they have designed with their hard- earned labor. And we are making an effort, the administration, and I laud the administration for their efforts to try to get some of our trading partners to agree to stop those practices, to have more vigorous enforcement of copyright protections and intellectual property rights. But now that we have just started to get some of those agreements on paper, it is time to get them in reality. And during the upcoming WTO talks in Seattle this fall, we are encouraging the administration and all of our trading partners to join us in making sure that we shine a spotlight on some of those agreements to find out if those agreements indeed are being honored, to help our trading partners recognize that, while we go forward on trade, we are going to go forward on protecting intellectual property; that, while we have got agreements in writing, now we have to have them in reality. Obviously, we hope, with our growing relationship with China, we will have this discussion. Recently, I spoke with the ambassador from China, was in the audience, and reminded the ambassador that we are happy about the progress that we have made in our agreements with China in the hopes that they would help stop some of this piracy of intellectual property rights but that we wanted to use our future discussions to make sure that we help China move forward in reality to prevent the piracy that has gone on. And I do not mean to single out China. This has been a difficult situation in many parts of the world. I simply think that we have got to be more aggressive in asserting our rights. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about what I think is one of the saddest failures of American public policy recently, and that is we have been abject failures at training people to fill high-tech and software jobs. We have had tens of thousands of jobs go begging every year, go begging, because we have not educated our youth to take these jobs in a very high-paying industry, a very dynamic industry. And we ought to, in this Congress, look for every single way we can to develop the opportunities for our children so that they can take the jobs in the high-tech industry and, in fact, we do not have to go offshore, where we have been forced to go. It is time for us to recognize our responsibility to our children and to our economic futures to make every child have access to training so that they can go into the software industry and the high-tech industry. One little project we are working on in my district in the north Seattle area is with Edmunds and Shoreline Community College to try to build a tech center, the Puget Sound Technology Center, to try to get thousands of kids who now want access to this training to give them that opportunity to help fill these spots. Mr. Speaker, these are the two things. This Congress can help truly the most dynamic industry perhaps in human history since the invention of the wheel, stop piracy of the hard-earned work of our software workers and let us make sure that our children can get into the industry.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the faith of the American people in their elected government is slowly slipping away. The cause of this malaise is our defective, broken campaign finance system. The astronomical costs of Federal campaigns are having extremely detrimental effects on our democracy; qualified candidates are discouraged from running, and special interest dollars continues to drown out the voice of the average citizen. This outrage is evident to everyone, except, members of the leadership. The shortest route between our campaign finance system and reform is the opportunity to vote on the bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, otherwise known as the Shays-Meehan bill. We have garnered over 188 signatures on our campaign finance discharge petition. We mean it when we say we want reform and we want it soon. If we can't get a scheduled vote from the Republican Leadership, we reform-minded Members will force a vote through this petition. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly modest proposal, but its impact could be nothing short of extraordinary. First, this legislation will finally ban ``soft money.'' With this past election cycle, we saw ``soft money'' contributions more than double since the last off-year election, totaling over $220 million. Second, this legislation also includes the Campaign Ad Fairness Provision, reigning in the unregulated ``issue campaigns'' to require them to play by the same finance laws as federal campaigns. Third, this legislation gives teeth to the FEC and provides greater, timelier public disclosure of individuals contributing to campaigns. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an infringement of free speech, but a restoration of the public trust. American people are tired of watching Congress sit back and do nothing as the amount spent in elections grows higher and higher, and trust in the system sinks lower and lower. We need to get big money out of the electoral process, and give power back to the people. I know that the people of the 1st congressional district of Washington want real, meaningful reform, and I urge you to support the Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today is National Teacher's Day. I do not believe educators are given nearly the amount of accolades they deserve, and I truly appreciate the chance to simply say: thank you for the important and meaningful work you do. Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud that my father, brother, and brother-in-law are all teachers. Teachers are on the front lines everyday, preparing our children for the future. Teachers also bestow upon students the intellectual tools they need to become successful and productive members of society. There is nothing that impacts America's social, economic and political future more than the quality of learning that happens in our schools. We should recognize the countless hours of selfless service that teachers devote to the most valuable resource in this country--our children. Let me, again, express my appreciation and thanks to the millions of educators who impart their wisdom and knowledge to future generations.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to announce that Karen Mikolasy has been chosen Washington State's Teacher of the Year. Ms. Mikolasy teaches English at Shorecrest High School, located in Washington's 1st congressional district. During her 28 years, she has become famous for being not only a remarkable teacher, but also a tireless champion of her students' talents. She never fails to help them strive for excellence. She has devoted countless hours of selfless service to the most valuable resource in this country--our children. Her gift of teaching gives her students the intellectual tools to become successful and productive members of society. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that impacts America's social, economic and political future more than the quality of learning that happens in our schools. I do not believe educators are given nearly the amount of accolades they deserve, so I appreciate the chance to simply say: thank you for the important and meaningful work you do. With teachers like Karen Mikolasy, I am confident that today's students will become tomorrow's leaders. Thank you, Karen Mikolasy, for your commitment to education and congratulations, again, on becoming Washington State's Teacher of the Year.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, Americans are generally concerned about their withering rights of privacy, and my fellow Members will be shocked to learn how at-risk those rights are in regard to our banking records. Serving on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I recently learned that we Americans do not even have the right to insist that our banks not disclose our personal financial information, our checking account, our savings account records to other companies, and other companies want these records so that they can market and sell us products. Madam Speaker, I believe that America ought to have the right to simply inform our banks that those records are private records of to whom we write checks, from whom we receive checks. What is in our savings account is a private matter, and we ought to have the right to advise our banks not to share it with anyone. To that end, Madam Speaker, I will shortly be introducing the Banking Privacy Act, which will give Americans the right to simply keep their records private, keep their private personal lives to themselves, to give Americans what they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. It is a great opportunity to address on Earth Day an interesting thing, and I think it is interesting that we are here today just before Earth Day. I am told that some of my colleagues across the aisle are going to have some occasion where they seek to attack Vice President Al Gore on the environment, which seems to me a bit like attacking Mohammed Ali for not having a quick left hook. But nonetheless, we are here to discuss an important issue. Maybe somebody has already said this, but sort of attacking the Vice President the day before Earth Day on the environment, it is sort of disappointing to me. This ought to be Earth Day, not Dirt Day, and trying to spread a little dirt is disappointing. Nonetheless, I want to add my voice to those who say that we have someone in leadership on environmental issues that are important to real people with real problems. I think when we test anyone's leadership, we ought to test it in five ways. I am going to give five tests that we ought to test the Vice President on. We ought to test whether his leadership has been real rather than abstract; we ought to test whether it has been practical rather than pie-in-the-sky; we ought to test on whether it is based on optimism rather than pessimism; and we ought to test whether he is out front and not behind; and whether or not he is a fighter or he has just given up. I want to test him on those five issues. I want to start with whether he is a realist instead of just in the abstract. I want to tell my colleagues that I think America, Mr. Speaker, is waking up to the fact that Vice President Al Gore has come to address real, tangible, everyday concerns of commuters and workers in my district in north Seattle who are sitting in traffic, wasting their time when they could be home with their children, sitting in traffic because we have not adopted the public transportation solutions we need and we have not fully come to grips with creating livable communities. There is no one, no one, myself included, who has been as vigorous an advocate, Mr. Speaker, to say that our communities should be armed with the tools to develop livable communities, to be able to do the land use planning to stop urban sprawl. I point this out because this is not an abstract issue of my constituents; it is whether they can get home at night to play catch with their kids. That is a real issue, and this Vice President has been a realist, not an abstract, thinker. Second, as he suggested, practical solutions. Well, I want to tell my colleagues, we have a real challenge up in the Northwest right now on salmon issues. We are losing our salmon runs and they are now on the endangered species list, and we have real challenges. This Vice President has not sat around in an ivory tower just sort of abstractly thinking about this problem. He has rolled up his sleeves, he has come to the Pacific Northwest more than any Vice President in American history, and he has gotten down literally in the trenches and the streams to talk about how we are going to solve those salmon problems, how we are going to improve habitat for salmon, how we are going to make sure salmon can spawn. He is not in Washington D.C.; he is in my district helping communities solve these salmon problems. I appreciate that, and so do the people of these communities. He is practical. The third issue, is he an optimist or is he one of those guys that sort of says, Chicken Little, the sky is falling. Well, if we listen to what this Vice President has been saying, for instance, about the greenhouse gas problem, and everybody knows we have a problem, CO2 emissions are going up huge amounts, this is creating a greenhouse effect, and people are fully familiar with that. But what I have heard this Vice President say, instead of wringing our hands and saying we are going to be destroyed by this problem, he has shown optimism which good leaders need to do. Because what he has said is, we are going to go out and we are going to develop the technologies, the alternate technology sources that do not create these greenhouse gases. That is optimism, and that is what leadership is. Without a vision, people will perish. The good book was right. And having a vision saying that our country is going to have the best technology in the world and we are going to make money off of this technology, and there is nothing wrong with making money, we are going to have the most competitive, energy-efficient technology in the world and it is going to be good for our economy. That is optimism and that is what we need when we talk about the environment. The fourth issue, is he out front. Is he up front or is he behind the parade? I want to tell my colleagues a little story about Al Gore, those who happen to be watching this on C-SPAN. We ask ourselves, who was the first member of this body to give a speech that the American people could actually see unless they were lucky enough to get one of these few seats up in the Chamber, and it was Al Gore who gave the very first speech on C-SPAN because he was the fellow who fought to open up this Chamber to the American people so that they could watch it at home on C-SPAN. He was way ahead of the curve, way ahead of the curve when a bunch of fuddy-duddies were around here saying we cannot let the American people know what we are doing. That is typical of his efforts to be out front, and he is out front on the environment too. The fifth issue, is he a fighter or does he give up? I want to tell my colleagues that when some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to try to weaken the Clean Air Act, came to try to weaken our safe food provisions which are really important. We had E. coli deaths, kids dying of E. coli poisoning in my hometown a few years ago, and incredibly, people in this body wanted to, and still want to reduce some of our food protections in our food inspection system, incredibly. Who stood up and said no to those efforts to reduce our food safety? Who stood up and fought them tooth and tongue and even said, even if you threaten to shut down the Government of the United States, I am not going to yield on that issue. It was Al Gore. He had a little help from President Bill Clinton as well. He was right, and the American people knew he was right, and even though the folks on the other side of the aisle shut down the U.S. Government, he did not yield, he stood as a stone wall and said, you are not going to weaken the environmental laws of this country, and America knew it and America said, in part; some people, including myself, to stand up for the environment. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that by any test of leadership we have a Vice President who has been real, who has been practical, who has been optimistic, who has been out front, and who is a fighter, and it does not get much better than that.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to announce that The Little Boston branch of the Kitsap Regional Library system is the best small library in America. Little Boston recently won the 1998 Service Award for Excellence from the National Public Library Association. This library is unique because it is located on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's reservation and is frequented by patrons who live both on and off the reservation. Public libraries are the great equalizer in our society as they ensure free and unlimited access to invaluable educational resources for anyone who simply has the desire to learn. Libraries enhance the knowledge of not only ourselves, but also the world around us. Great libraries, like Little Boston, deserve our utmost praise and recognition. Employees continually go above and beyond the call of duty with their exceptional service to its patrons and commitment to provide enriching and informative information to everyone in the community. Congratulations, again, to The Little Boston Library for your commitment to excellence.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that US News and World Report recently ranked the University of Washington's School of Medicine as number one in primary care. Many teaching programs at the University's School of Medicine were also ranked in the top five, including a number one rank in rural medicine, number one in family medicine, number four in women's health, and number five in AIDS instruction. Overall, the University of Washington's medical school was ranked ninth in the country. The most exciting and creative research is taking place at the University of Washington. In fact, only two other medical schools receive more funding from the National Institutes of Health. I can safely assert that the best primary care doctors of the 21st Century are the current students at the University of Washington. Congratulations to the outstanding students, teachers, researchers, and faculty of the University of Washington's School of Medicine. Your commitment to excellence is second to none.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to announce that one of my constituents, Mr. David Horsey, recently won the Berryman Cartoonist of the Year Award from the National Press Foundation. American newspapers have traditionally carried political cartoons, much to the delight of their readers. While it usually takes political pundits hundreds of words to express an idea or assert an opinion, political cartoonists have the difficult task of capturing timely political issues in just a few deft strokes of the pen. One of the masters of this art form is Mr. David Horsey. Mr. Horsey, a Seattle native, has worked at the Seattle Post- Intelligence's since 1979. Many readers turn to his drawings first thing in the morning, in order to enjoy his pungent and unique interpretation of the political scene. His cartoons never fail to show, literally, the affairs of the day with his own flair and style. I am so pleased that Mr. Horsey's work was honored by the National Press Foundation. I look forward to many more years of brilliant commentary in his cartoons. Since Mr. Horsey is dedicated to the truth, we can only hope that his caricatures of politicians become more forgiving.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this year the Northshore School districts celebrates its 40th Anniversary. I am honored to commemorate such a wonderful event. 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. It's current board members, Jean Fowler, Tim Barclay, Sue Paro, Kirby Larson, and B.Z. Davis, devote countless hours of selfless service to the most valuable resource in this country--our children. Through their involvement, board members ensure that Northshore students have the knowledge and skills to be successful and productive citizens in the 21st Century. Thank you, Northshore School District Board, for your commitment to education and congratulations, again, on your 40th Anniversary.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge adoption of House Resolution 31 in honor of fallen police officers and, more personally and specifically, in honor of a great Shoreline City police officer and King County sheriff's deputy, Mark Brown, who died in the line of duty Saturday, February 27, leaving his wife, Laurie, and Hannah and Alex, his children; and it is a personal matter because he was my cousin. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Members that I am proud that my cousin responded to an alarm last Thursday on his motorcycle and was pursuing his duties and was involved in a collision and died early Saturday morning, and I want to tell them that it brings home that we have many public servants who get up and risk their lives every day, and their families do not know whether they are coming home. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues that in 1993 I voted for a bill that established community police officers, and I want to tell them Mark Brown was the epitome of a community police officer. On the TV stations in Seattle I listened to tribute after tribute after tribute to a man in his grocery stores and in his restaurants who was a pillar of his community. Mark Brown, as a community police officer, I want his children, Hannah and Alex, to know they lost a father and we lost an American hero, Mark Brown.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. She told me to say this piece, and I have.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to address this topic today. The reason is, when I think about the topics we sometimes talk about in this Chamber sometimes they are a bit obtuse, a bit theological, a bit arcane, but this is one that cuts right to the heart of why we come here to serve, because this issue is one of justice for Americans in getting medical treatment. This is not a matter of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is not a matter of what is good or bad tax policy. It is a matter of whether you will live or whether you will die in the certain circumstances that people face in real life. For that reason, it is time for the U.S. Congress to get off the dime and act on this, to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. It has dithered, it has dallied, it has debated for years and not acted, and it is time for action. Mr. Speaker, what particularly motivated me on this subject, during this last campaign I met lots of folks but the one that perhaps sticks in my mind the most is a woman named Katy Slater. Katy is from Issaquah, Washington. I did not know her before the campaign. I happened to meet her on the campaign trail. She told me her story. It was a story that, unfortunately, has become to maybe not be typical but not atypical. She got breast cancer. She had the trauma that would be associated with breast cancer. She went to her physician. Her physician told her, this is a serious case; but her physician held out one branch and light of hope for her. That was to have a stem cell transport. They told Katy Slater that if she had a stem cell transport, there was a good chance that she would survive and that if she did not, she would die. So she did what we would do, Mr. Speaker, in this case. She went to her insurance company to whom she had been paying premiums on a regular, timely basis for 30 years. She told them that the doctors had suggested she have her stem cell transport, and they said no. And she said, this can't be right. I have the physicians who have said I need this. But they said no. When she asked them, why do you say no when my physicians have said this is medically necessary, there is a medical necessity for this, how can you tell me I can't have this procedure, her insurance company to whom she had been paying premiums for 30 years said, no, ma'am, you don't understand, we make the rules, we decide what is medically necessary. When Katy Slater needed her transplant, she did not have an appeals tribunal to whom she could go to get a third party to resolve this. She did not have that. She did not have a legal right of recourse against her insurance company. She did not have that. She did not have the Congress of the United States saying to that insurance company that the physicians, the medical community should decide what is medically necessary, not the insurance industry. She did not have that. And she should have had that. Katy Slater, I will give the happy ending, Mr. Speaker, to this story. She, unlike many Americans, had a retirement plan. She had to cash it in, every single penny she had. She got her stem cell transplant 4 years ago, and she is alive today because of the stem cell transplant that her insurance company refused to provide for her. But, to her credit, she told me to come to this body and try to fight for the next Katy Slaters, the people who are going to have this problem in the future because she cares about them as much as she cared about herself. We need to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, to prevent physicians from being gagged by insurance companies. An important provision of this, and the gentleman from Washington may have touched on this already, this antigag provision where insurance companies now can gag physicians to prevent them from telling their patients about life-saving treatment, that is an abominable practice, that is an absurdly unjust practice, and this body and Chamber ought to say so dramatically, and they ought to say so soon. And they ought to say it, too, Mr. Speaker, and I will make a particular entreaty. We are new Members. If I can, this ought to be a bipartisan effort, an effort where we work across the aisle together to make sure this gag rule is ended, to make sure that we have physicians decide medical necessity, not the insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say it should be bipartisan is we have just come through this political civil war, and this would be a really good place for us to start on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that is meaningful to real Americans in their real life. And I would suggest we new Members work across the aisle to do that; and I say that when I address the insurance industry, too. And I think it is a good point the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) raised: Not all insurance companies are guilty of the same sin here. Many, many insurance companies have provided fully adequate and comprehensive and quality care paid for by their insureds, but some have not, and it is for those good insurance companies, those who act in a fair and just way, that this bill will protect so they do not have to compete with the outliers who refuse to respect honesty and decency. This bill protects good insurance companies as well as the insureds. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will work together to pass this bill.