David Reichert

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, the United States is a leader in today's global economy. As countries around the world work and trade together at a rapidly growing pace, we must stay competitive to remain a contender. The Central American Free Trade Agreement will help us do just that. My home State of Washington is the most trade dependent State in the country. One in three jobs in Washington depends on trade. We must embrace CAFTA and see it as an opportunity to stimulate our economy and be actively involved in a world market. The United States cannot afford to shrink from international trade and establish itself as an isolationist. The absence of our participation will only be seen as an opportunity by competing nations like China. Whether we are prepared to acknowledge it or not, we are in a global economy. Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement builds America. In establishing an open exchange with the Central American countries, we build our foreign relations. By increasing circulation of goods, we build our economy. And in taking this step forward, we build on the future and the possibility that the entire Western hemisphere will one day be open to free trade. CAFTA looks to the future of our country. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania and commend him for sponsoring this hour tonight. We have heard about the Faster Smarter First Responder Act. We have talked about risk assessment. We have talked about the PATRIOT Act. We have talked about better cooperation and those things that we have done as members of the Committee on Homeland Security to support first responders. As a freshman Member and law enforcement officer of 33 years, as my friend has indicated, I am honored to be a member of the Committee on Homeland Security to represent the thoughts, ideas, needs and concerns of first responders across the Nation. The role of the first responder has changed since September 11, and it is important that we recognize that and equip them accordingly. In the first months of this session, we have given them priority risk-based funding and brought them into important homeland security decisions. What I want to do tonight is to really focus on where the rubber meets the road and to just take a moment to look back and then take a look forward. Where were first responders in 1972 when I started out as a cop, as a 21-year-old, naive police officer? The things that we did back in 1972 through the 1970s and into the 1980s was to respond to crime, to operate from our police cars and answer burglary calls and respond to other crime needs in our community and work with local police departments and local school districts. Then in the 1980s, we moved ahead and we actually ended up with some additional tools. We look back to 1972, and we think about what did we have for tools? We had a police car, a gun and a badge essentially, and a pair of handcuffs. As we moved forward into the 1980s and into the 1990s, we ended up with tools like DNA, an automated fingerprint identification system, and I know it sounds funny, but computers started to come onto the scene. So we added those tools to our arsenal of crime-fighting weapons. Then we find ourselves in the 1990s, also in the middle of community policing and our efforts to work with the community to solve not only crime in the communities but to improve the quality of life, to interact with leaders of the community, to sit down and listen to their needs and concerns and come to some solutions for their neighborhoods, even as far as painting over graffiti and towing away old cars. That was what police officers did in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Then came along September 11 and our role changed forever, and as my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) just said, we now live in a different world. After September 11, the role of the first responder has changed. It still includes those things that I just talked about, the stuff that cops do every day, helping people, arresting crooks, criminals on the streets of our cities across this country, but the added responsibility now of also being a part of the team and protecting our homeland, and they truly are on the front line of that effort. In our local community in Seattle we have a Joint Analytical Center where police officers from local police departments are assigned to the Federal intelligence task force. We have a regional intelligence task force gathering information within our specific region in the Northwest and sharing with the FBI Joint Analytical Center. That information is analyzed, prioritized, and then assigned to the joint terrorism task force where, again, local police detectives are a part of and member of and participate in investigating and following up those leads that are prioritized by the analytical center. Every day, cops on the streets today are following up leads to find terrorists, people who are in this country to do us harm, and we in the Committee on Homeland Security are here to support that effort. We would have never thought years ago that police officers on the street would have to respond to calls or train in HazMat uniforms. We would have never thought 5, 10, 15 years ago that we would have had to worry about our police officers and first responders responding to a dirty bomb, a biothreat, or some other weapon of mass destruction, but these are the things today that our local police officers are trying to deal with, and it is a tough, tough job. So let us not forget them. Let us support them and we will continue to do our work on the Committee on Homeland Security, and I am proud to be a member of that committee. I thank the gentleman so much for the time to speak tonight on the role of first responders.

Mr. REICHERT

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

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I too commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on his efforts to help local law enforcement. I commend the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership in supporting the Byrne-JAG program. It is an important issue, and I am pleased to see it addressed. I was the King County sheriff and worked for the sheriff's office for 33 years and spent my life in law enforcement. During my time in law enforcement, I have seen how Byrne and JAG grants have helped local law enforcement fight the war on drugs. Washington received $9.6 million under the Byrne grant formulas. Without this funding, our State would not have been able to effectively work to reduce violent drug-related crimes.

Mr. REICHERT. Does the gentleman think we can afford to cut local police and firefighters programs?

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and first of all would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his great work in helping local law enforcement, but I rise today to speak on an issue that is more than something I believe in; it is who I am. The COPS program is an essential program to our local law enforcement, and I am here today in support of it. I spent 33 years of my life as a cop. I worked my way up the ladder. I served as patrol officer, jail guard, detective, lieutenant, and finally the sheriff in King County in Seattle, Washington. I became a cop because deep in my heart I believed I could make a difference in the community and that I could protect it. The COPS program enforces that ideal. Since 9/11, we have found our local cops in an unusual dilemma. They are expected to carry out new homeland security duties as first responders, while at the same time maintaining their original responsibilities. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and I believe our country's security is a priority, but I do not think that we should be carrying out this function as an unfunded mandate at the expense of local law enforcement. We are seeing Federal law enforcement receive an unprecedented amount of funding, while at the same time the scope and the responsibility of first responders on the front lines is increasing without parallel funding. Even in this amendment, restoring COPS funding to its original level of last year still allows for very significant increases to the Federal law enforcement agencies. In my experience, local and Federal law enforcement are most effective when they are working together. Teamwork is the key. You would not play a football game by sending some of the players out onto the field with pads and helmets and others with no equipment at all. In a team, all players should be valued equally, especially in law enforcement, where our fights have to be balanced, our attacks have to be balanced both local and Federal. In the war on drugs, in the war on terror, in the national fight against gangs, local police officers and Federal agents are all working together towards the same goal of making our country safer. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft: ``Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with citizens through community policing, we have seen significant drops in crime rates.'' Now that crime has dropped, we are going to cut the funding that has kept our communities safe? That is absurd. Local cops are the ones on the front lines, they are the men and the women keeping our families safe daily, protecting our children in school, monitoring gang violence, the first responders who are there when you call 911. You do not pay a lesser price for your family's safety than you do for homeland security. We are in a new era of both family and national security. Both our first responders play a dual role, as the first ones on the scene in the case of a terrorist attack and the first ones on the scene in everyday emergencies as well. One is not worth less than the other. Cops must be well prepared and equipped for any emergency they are sent into. Mr. Chairman, this program is vital. Across the country it procures equipment, combats domestic violence, puts cops in schools, fights meth gangs, and much, much more. I urge my colleagues to support the COPS program and vote for this amendment today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I do not think the FBI counterterrorism program can afford to lose the local support that they already have.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) makes some excellent points. Actually, the gentleman makes some of the points I made in my initial statement. I was the sheriff up until January 3 of this year. I have been on the front lines, as I said, for 33 years. I have kicked in doors; I have arrested drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, murderers, robbers, and burglars. I have arrested gang members. I have been in meth houses and seen children sitting on the couches of homes where meth is cooked and made. If the battle for homeland security is taking place across the sea in Iraq, it is also taking place right here in this country. As I partnered in the last 7 or 8 years as sheriff, as I partnered with the FBI, the DEA, the people who lead the charge in the Seattle FBI offices and DEA offices and Federal offices, the word I heard loud and clear over and over: Local law enforcement is important. Local law enforcement is a partner. Local law enforcement is key. Sharing information, working with local law enforcement is our top priority. But in fact what happens today is we talk about a $588 million increase to the FBI. We are talking about taking away $50 million. They would still see an increase of over half a billion dollars in their budget this year. DEA would still see an increase of over $55 million in their budget this year, still bringing back $78 million to COPS. To build that partnership, and when I talk about building a football team and some having equipment and some not having equipment, when Congress gives $588 million to the FBI and gives $55-plus million to DEA and other Federal agencies, and yet is taking away $78 million from the rest of the team. It just does not make sense. This has to be a team effort, and if the Federal Government and Federal agencies mean what they say about team spirit and working together in partnerships, they need to show it by funding COPS fully. Bring back the $78 million that they are suggesting be removed from their budget.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just restate some of the obvious here. Again, this is a partnership. The FBI is gaining a great deal of money in this budget proposal, $500 million. I think they can work within that framework. Again, local law enforcement is getting cut $78 million. This truly has to be a partnership. Let us bring the COPS program back to its 2005 level, increasing it by the $78 million which is the proposed cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I know that local law enforcement is involved in those same programs as partners with the FBI. As sheriff in Seattle, one of the projects we were involved in is we had detectives assigned from the sheriff's office to the Washington Joint Analytical Center, which is a center that analyzes incoming intelligence data for homeland security and for other crimes in the county. We also were members as a local law enforcement agency of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and other task forces, Federal task forces, that existed in King County.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I too am proud to be a part of today's process and ensuring that our National Guardsmen and -women and Reservists are respected and we are showing them that we have listened to their concerns. I have served in the Air Force Reserves, and I will not tell you how long ago that exactly was. But let us just say that my pay at that time was as a police officer around $700 to $800 a month. So it was awhile ago. When I was on duty as a Reservist, I took a pay cut. And that was a cut from $700 a month. So you can imagine that it was a little bit hard to keep your family supported during that period of time. And I know what it is like to be a Reservist. I had a financial responsibility. I had employment issues. And it is not easy to juggle those weighty concerns while preparing to serve your country or as soon as you return. When I was sheriff of King County, we developed a standard to support our employees who were also Reserve soldiers. Their jobs were guaranteed no matter what length of time they served or how long their tour of duty was. The soldiers knew that when they came back they had a job, they had employment, and that they were supported 100 percent. Men and women serving our country should be praised, not punished for being guardians of our Flag. During the last recess, I had the honor of sitting down with 20 National Guard soldiers who had just returned from Iraq. In the 2 hours I spent with them, we discussed a number of concerns. But the issue reiterated by nearly every soldier in attendance was employment. That is why I am offering an amendment today to commission a study requiring the GAO to report on employment matters for the National Guard and Reserve, in particular the difficulties faced by soldiers in gaining reemployment once they return from duty. It is important that we know what types of jobs our servicemembers hold so we can address their employment issues. Our National Guard and Reserves are an incredibly important part of our military; and we need to protect their interests, protect their families, protect their jobs, and make sure that they are respected for their service.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary group of people, our Vietnamese Americans. This month, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) introduced, and the House passed, an important resolution honoring the contributions of the Vietnamese Americans over the past 3 decades, enriching our society with diversity, culture, and strength. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his work on this important issue. Madam Speaker, 27,000 Vietnamese Americans live in my district of Washington State. One of the most remarkable experiences I have had as sheriff of King County in Washington, which I am now lucky enough to continue to represent as Congressman, is attending an annual event where South Vietnamese Police officers are recognized. When the United States pulled out of Saigon, many were left behind. Some were executed, some sentenced to prison camps, some starved and beaten to death, all for being friends of the United States. And each year, these Vietnamese, who spent 15 to 20 years in prison camps, stand and salute our flag with tears in their eyes because they know what freedom is. They remind us of how great our country is, and I am privileged and proud to represent them.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of the Faster Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I spent 33 years on the front lines as a law enforcement officer, and I know that this legislation is vital. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, for their leadership on this important legislation. My home, Seattle region, is unique, sharing 150 nautical miles of maritime border with Canada and acting as hub for international trade and travel. It includes businesses such as Microsoft and Boeing. All these factors combine to create an area vulnerable to a terrorist attack. We must make sure that Homeland Security dollars are going where they are needed, as the 9/11 commission report specifically recommended, and that they are properly spent once they are allocated. This legislation addresses the most important aspect of Homeland Security, and that is evaluation of threat and risk. In this bill, we make sure the majority of first-responder funding is threat-based. The current model is outdated, distributing more money to areas with fairly benign risks than to areas that we know terrorists would like to attack, like New York City and the Capitol of our great Nation. I ask that the House take action today and move for more effective risk-based funding for first responders. Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as the Congressman said, I have 33 years of law enforcement experience. In fact, up until January 3 of this year, I was a cop. One of the things I know about cops is that they need all kinds of tools, and we do need police officers on the street; but one of the most important things that cops want is to know that their community supports them, local, State, and Federal. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about a very serious problem. Across the country we are seeing a resurgence of organized crime sprawling into our towns and our neighborhoods. Gangs are becoming a magnet for youth, as they long to belong to something. This is hardly the team we want our children to join. Gang violence in America is not a sudden problem. It has been a part of urban life for years, offering an aggressive definition and identity to those seeking a place to belong in the chaos of a large metropolitan area. However, as gangs gain momentum and invade smaller communities, it is time to take a more serious and focused approach. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) addresses this critical problem today in the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. Prior to being elected to sheriff, as I said, I served 33 years as a cop. I have worked with prostitutes, drug dealers, and gang bangers for that length of time. My colleagues in the sheriff's office and I actively fought to curb the growth and influence of gangs. I know not only in my home State of Washington but across the country, law enforcement officers recognize gangs for the serious threat they are to our community. I believe in taking problems head on, not running away. You evaluate the facts, you make a decision, and then you see the solution through. We have recognized the consequence of letting this situation go forward for far too long. It is dangerous to all Americans. Whether a gang currently has a presence in our hometowns or not, we need to take a careful look at where this issue is headed and stop the influence of gangs before it spirals out of control and out of our hands. The United States Department of Justice cites that there are currently 25,000 active gangs in 3,000 jurisdictions across this country; 25,000 gangs. That equals 750,000 gang members. If growth continues, we could be looking at 1 million gang members across the country in only a few years. These groups are a funnel to criminal activities, allowing a central point to encourage violence and a family that preaches drug trafficking, murder, theft, prostitution, and rape. In fact, street gangs are the primary distributor of illegal drugs in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am a man of faith who believes deeply in family and responsibility. Our obligation is to American families and communities. We need to look out for their futures. We need to direct our youth towards a path of success and progress as productive members of society looking towards a better country. We cannot afford to lose those talented youths in our community to a life on the street with drugs and a gang hierarchy whose form of discipline is violence. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia's efforts to deter gangs across the country and urge my colleagues to support the rule and vote for final passage later today.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a congressional pin, but I always will live and breathe and think like a cop. I have worked the streets for 33 years. Up until January 3 of this year I was a police officer. In the early 1990s, gangs were a huge problem in this country; and we worked hard and passed local tough laws to address the gang issue. And we had success. The crackdown by cops across the Nation in the early 1990s did break the backs of gang activity. And today we need tough laws to continue fighting gang violence and the resurgence of gang activity. These gangs today are more violent. They are committing murders, rapes, and robberies. Cops need tough laws to help them. They need to know that local governments, State governments, and the Federal Government is behind them with tough laws to help them break the backs of gangs. A few years ago I lost a good friend, an officer who worked in the Seattle area. He stopped his police car, opened his car door, stood by the front of his police car, and was approached by three gang members. The job that night, the assignment that night by these gang bangers, kill a cop. And they did. They fired the bullet into the cop's head, and he died. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and protect the lives of citizens of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a Congressional pin, but I will always think like a cop, live and breathe as a cop. I have chased these gangs, I have worked to shut down these groups and these were not innocent children. I absolutely believe in protecting our children and giving them a chance, teaching them right from wrong and allowing them to make mistakes. I believe in doing that while they are young. We should be educating our children, teaching them responsibility and raising them to be better men and women than we are. But I believe once that foundation has been laid, they are responsible for their actions. It is a harsh world and I have seen it first hand. I have watched young women turn to prostitution. I have picked them up from their beats and taken them to shelters and tried to help them find a way out of that life. I've had success too. But ultimately, they are responsible for themselves and their choices. I am a compassionate man, but I firmly believe that respect stems from responsibility. And no one--not you, me, not any of these youths in gangs are without responsibility. The members of these gangs consciously choose to act out against their communities. They dispense the violence; no one forces them to do so. That type of influence is like a cancer. These gangs seep into young men and women and corrupt them. They erode the good of our neighborhoods and destroy lives. Our communities need to be safe. In order to be safe, we need to stop this cycle before it begins. Mandatory minimums enforce that gang members and their theft, prostitution, weapons and drugs will not be tolerated. They will be dealt with to the fullest extend of the law. In May of 2001, Des Moines patrol officer Steve Underwood was shot to death and killed after approaching a car with four gang members on a late-night watch along Pacific Highway South. Shot to death simply in approaching the car, this is what we have progressed to. Last night I spoke with King County's Gang Detective, Sheila Hatch. In the course of our conversation, she raised mandatory minimums. She said that the only way for our prosecutors to effectively go after gang leaders when the cops manage to bring them down is with a strong penalty. Our laws need to be effective to stop and make them think of consequence before they commit a crime. The cost of their crime sprees should not be simply an afterthought. Mr. Chairman, we need mandatory minimums. I am telling you that first hand, as someone who worked on the streets to stop gangs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Waters-Scott amendment.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, in the first 100 days of Congress, my Republican colleagues and I have worked to make America safer. Since the tragic day of September 11 when our country suffered a painful blow to its heart, we have persevered to make sure every American feels secure and knows our freedom will always be protected. We continue to take strides in the war on terror, here at home and abroad. Our country will not yield to our enemies who lack humanity and principle. As our selfless soldiers move forward and yield freedom and choice overseas, it is critical that they have the most up-to-date protective gear available. In the supplemental appropriations, we designated funding to do just that. In the REAL ID Act, we implemented the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. By applying critical driver's license reforms and stringent border protection, we ensure that licenses cannot be used by terrorists as a gateway to travel documents, weapons or firearms. Mr. Speaker, we live in a Nation, a great Nation of liberty. I am privileged as a new Member to vote for these important pieces of legislation protecting our homeland, and I look forward to what our majority will accomplish in the coming days.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act with overwhelming majority support, ensuring a parent's right to involvement in important decisions concerning their children and strengthening American families' bonds. This bill makes it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to avoid required parental consent for an abortion in their home state. It also compels abortion providers in a state without safety laws to notify a parent before performing the surgery. Today states require written parental consent before a minor can get a tattoo or a body piercing, yet persons other than an adolescent's parents can facilitate aborting a life by simply driving them across state lines. Parents must play a primary role in the healthcare of their minor daughters. These are our children and we are responsible to them and our communities to be involved in these critical choices, teaching them responsibility and good decision making. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act upholds the safety laws of individual states and protects parents' rights to be involved in decisions regarding their children. I thank my colleagues who voted for this legislation and urge the Senate to quickly pass this legislation to ensure the safety of our children.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the soldiers of Washington State's 81st Brigade Combat Team. The men and women of the United States Armed Services are the finest in the world. Some of them have given the ultimate sacrifice, and those that are serving across the world today and serving in our country and other countries across the world today sacrifice time with their families, and we should recognize that and understand that they are giving up a lot to fight for us and protect our country and preserve our freedom. The 81st Brigade Combat Team made history as the largest deployment of a National Guard unit from Washington State since World War II; and last month, the first group of soldiers from the 81st Brigade have begun to return home. There are no words that we can really say to thank them; but today I just want to say thank you to the 81st Brigade from Washington State.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for allowing me a few minutes to speak tonight. I have had experience on the streets of this country and in protecting our communities and our families, and it has been an honor to serve for 33 years in the King County sheriff's office in Seattle, Washington. Since September 11, our job has changed a little bit. We have had to focus on possible terrorists in our community. This country is at war. It is a different war, a war like we have never fought before. We call it the War on Terror. Some may disagree with how we got into this war, why we are here and may want to even end this War on Terror. Some have even called it a war of choice. This was not a war of choice. Our country, our Nation was attacked. On September 11, we suffered human loss in a tragic attack on this Nation. Then what happened? Our armed services jumped into action, and the men and women of our military came to our aid, came to protect this country and went to war. Some might ask, well, why would people volunteer for the armed services, why would anyone, law enforcement officers or people who serve in the military, why would they volunteer to sacrifice their life? Why would they volunteer to sacrifice time away from their families or put them in need for their care and attention and put their lives in danger? Why would men and women do that? As I thought about that, it reminded me of a story that happened a few years ago. I have a 28-year-old son who now is or he was 10 when this happened, but it was a hot summer day in Seattle. It was one of the few hot summer days we had, and I was mowing the lawn and he was following behind me. As we were mowing the lawn and he was tugging on my shirt, he said, Dad, let me mow the lawn, I know I can do this. I was a little bit unsure about having my 10-year-old son run the lawn mower. My wife came out and said, Dave, the phone was ringing; it is for you. I went in to answer the phone. My son was still tugging at my shirttail, Dad, I can do this, let me mow the lawn. So I said, Dan, if you can start that lawn mower, you can mow the lawn. So I watched from the window as I was on the telephone, and Dan pulled and tugged and pulled and tugged and pulled and tugged on this rope to start this lawn mower, and the sweat was just pouring down his face, and I thought soon he would give up, but he kept on going. Finally, then he came to the point where he was so exhausted he had to stop and pause, and he put his head down and he wondered, where do I turn now, what do I do. This was a proud moment for me as a father because he stopped, he looked up, he put his hands together, and you could read his lips. He said, please, Lord, start this lawn mower. Then he bent over and pulled on the rope, and the lawn mower started. So I thought to myself, you know what, if God wants Dan to mow the lawn, I am not going to stop him. Here is the moral of the story. Here is a young boy who has faith and hope and trust that small children have. If you stop and think about the faith and the hope and the trust that our kids have, that our children and grandchildren have today in each and every one of us, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, Members of Congress, I do not care who you are, those children are looking to us for leadership. What has happened here is our military is fighting, sacrificing their lives because they know they cannot give in to terrorists because those little eyes that you look into, that hold that faith, that hope and that trust must never lose that hope, faith and trust. This country needs to be free. We must support our men and women in uniform to preserve the faith, hope and trust that every one of our children in this Nation have, and when we passed the supplemental yesterday and supporting our troops for the training, equipment and tools that they need to conduct this war and do their job, we sent them a clear message: We support you and we love you. We care for you and we thank you for keeping our country free and for making sure that our children never lose that faith, hope and trust that they have in all of us and in this great Nation.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a bill that quite frankly is common sense. Thousands of Americans reach out to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in times of disaster. Their homes have been battered and decimated by earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods and more. In these moments of despair, they look to the Federal Government for help and we provide that help. Through FEMA, Americans are able to get back on their feet in financial situations where they normally would have no other resource. Emergency grants are just that, emergency funding, money to be spent in extreme circumstances, to get a roof back on a family's home, to put a missing wall back on a community resource center, to coordinate local outreach for first responders. These funds were never intended to be taxed. The gentleman from Florida seeks to relieve an unfair tax provision today, to make sure that in times of crisis we are not looking to take these emergency funds and treat them as regular income. FEMA disaster grants are lifesaving funds, not added income. This bill is critical. I thank my colleague for introducing this important legislation and urge the House to pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. REICHERT

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

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of this body, and I am proud and humble to serve the 8th District of the State of Washington. I am also honored and privileged today to address this body. My first address is on a very serious note, but I think it is a necessary one for us to talk about because it affects and impacts the young women and children in our community. It is the future of our country. For 33 years I had the privilege of serving in law enforcement in King County which is the Seattle area of Washington State. And I served in a number of different capacities, but in one of those capacities I served as the lead investigator in the most notorious serial killer case in this Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, we had a monster who was stalking our young women and children in our community. These were young women and children who were lost; children who were afraid; who in some cases were driven from their homes by domestic violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, emotional and physical abuse. Some, though, were lured away from their homes by people who preyed on their weakness and their vulnerability. They were lured into an environment of street life where drugs and alcohol are rampant, where prostitution is rampant; and they were told they were going to live the life of luxury, fast money, fast cars, and freedom. Instead, their lives ended. They just ended. The promises for a better life by these predators were all lies. Our community was gripped by fear by this monster who literally grabbed our children by the throat and snuffed out their lives, their hopes, and their dreams. This monster struck at the very hearts of our communities: our children. And my purpose today is to stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to tell this story, to honor the victims so that we never forget the victims, to remind us of all the families who are still suffering the losses of their loved ones who have been sentenced to a life sentence without their loved ones. Lastly, it is to recognize, Mr. Speaker, and officially thank those who worked so hard and so long to solve this case. The nearly 90 detectives in the King County Sheriffs Office which is the lead agency that worked this case for nearly 20 years, the Seattle Police Department, the Kent Police Department, the Washington State Patrol and the State Patrol Lab; the medical examiner's office, the FBI, scientists, civilian staff, volunteers, explorers, search and rescue, prosecutor's office in King County led by Norm Maleng, and the defense team. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention that just last week, as most everyone is aware, the so-called BTK killer was arrested in Wichita, Kansas. I think this House should also recognize and congratulate the community and the law enforcement/criminal justice system in Wichita for bringing that case to a close and bringing some answers to questions that the families of these victims have been asking for over 25 years. These monsters are in our communities, and I want to tell the story briefly. Sometimes it takes me almost 3 hours to go through this, but I have only an hour, so you will get a brief overview of this case. Let me just tell you about the numbers. Now, I was 31 years old when I started this case back in 1982 with the first victim. But 48 guilty pleas, 44 recovered victims; four of the victims are unidentified, four are still missing. This case was open for 7,500 days. Over 90-plus King County detectives worked on this case. 15,500 photographs were taken. Over 1,500 cassette tapes, over 10,000 items of evidence were collected. Over half a million pieces of paper were put together. Twenty to 30 people worked full-time once the arrest was made in our office for about 6 months to complete the document imaging process that cost us nearly $1.2 million. There were 40,000 suspect tips, almost 13,000, actually 40,000 tip sheets on a variety of different leads, but almost 13,000 tips on different people as suspects. Imagine working one murder case, having 10 suspects and trying to figure out who out of that 10 is that one person who committed the murder. We have 50 murders and nearly 13,000 suspects. And they ranged from attorneys to police officers to people who worked for the post office and truck drivers and iron workers and every walk of life that you could think of. King County Sheriff's Office spent $2.8 million in 2002 on this case. The prosecutor's office spent a million and a half. The defense spent $2.5 million. There were 12 prosecutors that worked on this case, a combined team. There were almost 20 King County sheriffs deputies and detectives and civilians who worked on that case. After the arrest was made, the defense team had about 16 team members to their effort. And all of this for one monster, one defendant, one person who pled guilty to 48 lives. And it is, in my opinion, he has killed nearly 75, probably more than that. King County, if you do not know, is in the State of Washington right on Puget Sound. The city of Seattle is the county seat. Green River runs south of Seattle through the countryside and toward the foot hills of the Cascade Mountains. This case started on July 15, 1982, when the first body, Wendy Coffield, was found floating in the river south of Seattle with a ligature around her neck, a 15-year-old girl from our community. On August 12, 1982, I was called to the river for the second body, for the first body was in the sheriff's jurisdiction. Debra Bonner was found floating in the river, and she had been strangled. Three days later, I was called back to the river once again. A rafter had been floating down the river. He looked on the shore line and thought he had found two mannequins. And as he floated down the river, he got closer and discovered that these mannequins, these images, were not mannequins but human bodies. And as he looked up on the river bank there was a man standing there and there was a pickup truck parked at a turn-out. And the man on the river bank waved at the man on the raft. And they exchanged pleasantries. The man on the river bank walked up the bank, drove away in his truck as the man on the raft waved goodbye. The man on the raft then called the Police Department. I showed up, and as I was processing the scene, I found a third body on the river bank that we did not know about, that the rafter had not seen. That man on the river bank was the man that we eventually arrested. And I am not going to say his name today, because I do not want to honor him by having his name mentioned in this very historical place and place of honor. The evidence we collected off of Wendy Coffield and some of these early victims was very important. This evidence was collected in 1982. It came together in 1987. In 1987 we finally got enough evidence together where we were able to search the home of the person that we finally arrested. A lot of things, pieces of the puzzle started to come together. We collected hundreds of lists. We collected lists of people who were arrested for patronizing prostitutes. We arrested people, or we actually gathered lists of people who were arrested for assaulting women during that period of time. We collected lists of people who were known to fish in the Green River, who had fishing licenses. We collected lists of people who worked in the area, who lived in the area, who were stopped by the police in that area. So we collected list after list after list. And back in those days we had no computers. You think about 1982 when I started this case, we had no computers. There was no such thing as DNA. There was no automated fingerprint identification system, which is an automated system that compares fingerprints today. Most people are aware of that. In fact, in 1982 I was managing this case on 3 by 5 note cards on a Rolodex file. And a lot of times when I mention the Rolodex file, especially in junior high or high school classes, a hand usually goes up and the question is asked, Sheriff, what is a Rolodex file? That is how far technology has come. This case was one of hard work, dedication, commitment, and let me tell you, just pure frustration. The detectives, investigators, scientists, and the community involved in helping to solve this case never gave up. They were dedicated to solving this case, to finding the person responsible for this case. There were so many great suspects in this case. We followed one suspect for nearly 3 or 4 months. We discovered that as we looked at each one of these suspects that fit the profile that the FBI had provided to us to a certain degree were so interesting and were such good suspects that they would use and could use our resources for weeks or months at a time. In 1982, after we found the three bodies on Sunday, on that following Monday, August 16, we formed the first task force of 25 detectives within the sheriff's office. We thought we had six victims and we worked through 1982. And by the fall of 1982 the administration already started to talk about cutting back and reducing our effort because they felt we had identified the suspect. By the end of 1982, when we thought we had six victims, we actually had 16 young women killed. We did not even know about the other 10 yet. In 1983 we spent most of our time collecting bodies, sad to say. Reports of found skeletal remains were coming in continuously. And so we fell behind in following up our tips. And finally, by the end of 1983, a new sheriff was appointed and he decided, you know what, it is time to do something. It is time to investigate this case properly. He brought a task force together in January of 1984. It was called the enhanced task force. Because by the end of 1983 we thought we had 13 victims, when in reality we had 27 women killed. So we put together a task force made up of the FBI and some of the agencies that I had listed earlier, to nearly come to a number of 80 investigators and personnel who were working on this case together almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years. And as this case went on, we discovered more bodies. We discovered a body of a young woman who was 9 months pregnant who met this killer on the streets. And here, stop and think about this for a minute. Some people ask why in the world was this case so hard to solve? Let me just give you some of the reasons. Men who are preying on young women and young girls on the streets for prostitution have picked the most vulnerable victims in our community, in our society. The only thing they have to do is to drive up on a street corner, roll down the window, open the door and make a deal for sex, and it only lasts a matter of seconds. And the victim is in the car. There is no struggle. There is no screaming. There is nothing that calls attention to the exchange that just took place. And this young girl gets in that car and drives away into the night, never to be seen again. And in some cases, the victim's body was not found for months and, in one case, 6 years later, the body is finally found. And so when you find the victim, you identify the victim. And then now as an investigator, as the team continues to move forward and investigate this case, they have to go backwards in time to figure out where this victim was last seen. And if you are lucky enough to figure out that this was the street corner that this person disappeared from, then you have to determine who the witnesses were, who was there to watch this happen, to watch her drive off into the night; who might have a description of the suspect vehicle or the suspect. And when you get back to that street corner, you discover that your witnesses are street people, homeless people who are just trying to take care of themselves, who are paying attention to their own lives, who in some cases were drug addicts and alcoholics themselves. The victims that we needed to identify and learn a lot about in most cases had more than one name, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 different names. Sometimes we really did not know which was their true name until months later. They had different birth dates, different addresses, different vehicles and license plates associated with them. They changed their appearance. The witnesses, if we were lucky again to find those witnesses, all fell into that same category. It would take us months, sometimes years, to track down a person that we knew as a certain name and discover a year later or 2 years later they were actually another person, and they had ID belonging to someone else, and they had a totally different appearance. So again, I want to stress how patient and how diligent and how persistent the investigators were in this case. And as we moved forward through 1984, still in a mode, really, of collecting human remains, and we were working also on the leads, still falling behind with every discovery of a new body, but hoping that each time we found a new human being, a human remain, hoping that that would be the case that would supply us with the evidence that we needed to solve this case, to break this case open. Now, I want to mention too that we were quite organized during those days. And I think too, Mr. Speaker, like the BTK case, I heard the chief of police of Wichita say the other day that sometimes the news media was quite critical of the efforts and questioned the capability, ability, and talents of the law enforcement agencies in that region. We were no different. We were questioned and criticized and ridiculed, and in some cases to the detriment of the investigation. In fact, there is one political cartoon that calls the Green River task force the Green River task farce. And what happened when that kind of media attention and that criticism would be directed at us, it did not instill a lot of confidence in the community in our ability, when what we wanted was the people in the community to cooperate with us and have confidence that if they called us, their leads would be followed up and they would be followed up. But they almost got to the point where they were hearing that so much that they said, why call? They are never going to catch the guy. They do not know what they are doing. And they may have had that one little bit of information. Just to give you a little tip too on some information on how devious this killer was, in one case, he killed a young girl, another teenager, left her body near Sea-Tac Airport. He came back later. He removed her skull and transported her body part to Portland, Oregon. This is a man who had no respect for human life whatsoever. It also points out the complications of this case when you have a person with that kind of a mind trying to play tricks on the community and the police department, interrupting their abilities and throwing them off in their attempts to solve this case. Now, the case went on from 1982 through 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and, finally, the task force is down to one person and we are waiting for that one piece of evidence; the evidence we collected in 1982 from a ligature of one of the victims floating in the river, some paint spheres; the evidence we collected from the three bodies that I talked about near the river bank and the one on the river bank, the DNA. Actually, back then, it was bodily fluids. We had no concept of what DNA was. It was never talked about. It had not even been discovered yet as a possible tool in this sort of investigation until the late 1980s. In 1987, we searched the home of the man we finally killed. And during that search we collected everything we could in that home, in the yard, and we asked him to chew on a piece of gauze. We took that gauze and we put it in a test tube. And when DNA science finally evolved to the point where we felt it was safe enough to test the samples that we had collected over the years, we submitted the gauze, we submitted the DNA samples from the victims that I described, and we submitted other DNA samples of five top suspects. We submitted those samples and we came back with a match, a DNA hit from evidence that was taken in 1987 compared to evidence that was collected by the investigators and saved; frozen, preserved and stored. We had over 10,000 items of evidence, and all of that evidence has been accounted for over these many years. That evidence came together and identified a suspect and we arrested this man on November 30, 2001. We had him on four counts. When we arrested him, we drove up to his place of work, where he worked for 31 years. He was married for over 13 years to the same woman. He was a member of the community. People were shocked, surprised, and amazed that he was identified as the person responsible for around 50 deaths. We arrested him. We drove up to him and we said, you are under arrest for the murder of four women connected with the Green River cases, and he shrugged his shoulders and he said, okay. He got into the police car and we took him to jail. He was not upset. It was not a big deal. I share this with you to share a little of his personality. He is a psychopath, a pathological liar, and has no remorse whatsoever about the lives that he took. The women he killed, he killed because he could, and that is what his answer was to that question. When we arrested him, we spent 6 months interrogating him to try to pull out every piece of evidence and all information that we could. There were three other cases we were able to charge him with, and that evidence came from microscopic paint spheres. Those paint spheres were collected in 1982. Let me give one example. I mentioned first the body that took 6 years to find. In September of 1982, a young woman was missing. We found her body 6 years later. And as we were processing that scene, we found a piece of cloth at that site where she was buried. It was decomposing, and it decomposed to the point where if you were to try and lift it with your fingers, it would crumble between your fingertips and onto the ground. We collected that, put it together, and we saved it. In 2002, when the science again was to the point where they could find those microscopic spheres and compare them to the paint at a trucking company where this suspect worked as a truck painter for 31 years, we were able to take that paint from that decomposing piece of cloth and the paint spheres from a ligature that was on a victim who was floating in the river. One might assume that the evidence on the victim had been washed away, but it still had microscopic paint spheres. We were able to collect those, have them examined by the scientists. Those microscopic paint spheres in 1987 were also discovered in his locker. So we have a connection between three victims who had microscopic paint spheres attached to them, and we also had microscopic paint spheres that were found in his locker at work, which connected him back. Once we had seven cases on him, his attorneys quickly came to us and said we want to talk to you. We were hoping for that, and I will tell you why. Most people might say this man, if anyone, and I would agree with this, if anyone deserved the death penalty, this man deserved the death penalty. But one of the things that had happened over the years as we worked with the families is we had become friends with the family members. We were their link to their loved ones. They had questions: Where is my daughter? Is she alive? People were still hoping their daughter could be found. If my daughter is dead, who killed her and why? And, Mr. Speaker, I would say that every one of us in this room today would say I want to know. I would want to know. I would want someone to talk to the guy and find out; find out why and where my daughter is buried. So we did. We had choices of going forward with seven cases and following that through the court system. We had seven strong cases. But what if he was found not guilty? Stranger things have happened. What if he was found guilty and we went to the penalty phase and the jury decided to give him life in prison without parole. We only had seven cases solved. We decided to take a chance and interview this monster, and we spent 6 months, as I said before, 6 months interviewing him and pulling out every piece of information and fact that we could about every one of these cases. The last day that I talked to him was on December 31, 2003, before he was sent to prison. I spoke to him for about an hour, and I will never forget what he said to me, the last thing he said. He said, I have killed 71 and you are too stupid to find the others. And it is my belief, as I said earlier, he has probably killed near 80. So now you have an idea of the difficulty of this case. I have really only scratched the surface of how tough this case was. But the importance of bringing this case to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, is that we must never forget the victims. We must never forget the families whose pain still is being endured today, and we must always be able to say thank you to the men and women in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and those who are in the forensic science field coming up with new and innovative ways every day to help law enforcement solve these cases, cases like the BTK case. And then, as a reminder, we need to stop and think about why these young ladies are on the street? I mentioned earlier some of the reasons, but what can we do about it? Are we willing to do anything about it? Yes, there are people out there working with young people on the street, working with young people who are on drugs and alcohol, and we are trying to make a difference there, but it has to start earlier. One of the places that does that in Seattle, just south of Seattle in a small town called Kent, where I grew up, is a place called the Pediatric Intensive Care Center. This facility takes in babies who have been born to drug-addicted mothers, some of these mothers who have been on the street. These babies are placed into homes where they have a chance to live a life, a real life, the life that I talked about earlier: A life of hope, a life with dreams for those little girls who have dreams. And you know what, it is our duty, Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this Nation, to protect those dreams, to make sure that the hopes and dreams of our children are not stolen away by something we might do at home and not stolen away by someone who lures them out of our homes with the promise of a better life somewhere else. It is our responsibility to step up and act. People talk about human trafficking, and it is an international problem. Human trafficking is a problem right here in this country. It happens on our Nation's streets every day. I hope to join with my colleagues here in Congress to begin to make a difference in the lives of our children so that we can protect them and they can enjoy a life of freedom and safety. I want to end, Mr. Speaker, by reading a list of each of the victims whose lives were taken by this monster in the northwest: Marcia Fay Chapman; Cynthia Jean Hinds; and Opal Charmaine Mills. She's the one I found on the river bank. Carol Ann Christensen, Wendy Lee Coffield, Gisele Ann Lovvorn, Debra Lynn Bonner, Marcia Fay Chapman, Cynthia Jean Hinds, Opal Charmaine Mills, Terry Rene Milligan, and Mary Bridget Meehan. She was the one 9 months pregnant. Debra Lorraine Estes, Linda Jane Rule, Denise Darcel Bush, Shawnda Leea Summers, Shirley Marie Sherrill, Colleen Renee Brockman, Alma Ann Smith, Dolores Williams, Gail Lynn Mathews, Andrea Childers, Sandra Kay Gabbert, Kimi-Kai Pitsor, Marie Malvar, Carol Christensen, Martina Authorlee, Cheryl Wims, Yvonne Antosh, Carrie Rois, Constance Elizabeth Naon, Kelly Marie Ware, Tina Thompson, April Buttram, Debbie Abernathy, Tracy Winston, Maureen Sue Feeney, Mary Sue Bello, Pammy Avent, Delise Plager, Kimberly Nelson, Lisa Yates, Mary West, Cindy Smith, Patricia Barczak, Roberta Hayes, Marta Reeves, Patricia Yellow Robe. And then there are four others who have not been identified: Unidentified victim number ten, unidentified victim number sixteen, unidentified victim number seventeen, and unidentified victim number twenty.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on February 16, 2005 due to the funeral of a close friend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 35.