Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has made a very generous contribution to Oregon's coastal health and to the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead.

Mrs. Ernestine Neitzel has spent almost all her life living in the Necanicum River valley within the first congressional district of Oregon. She moved to Oregon from Colorado in 1925 at the age of four. Her father had purchase some farmland on the edge of the Necanicum River where they grew vegetables to be sold at local stores in Seaside, Oregon.

In 1945, Ernestine married Mr. Herbert Neitzel, who had recently returned from serving in World War II. Together, they purchased an additional 25 acres of farmland adjacent to the existing farm and expanded it to include dairy cows. During this time, Ernestine also delivered bread to the soldiers stationed at Fort Lewis, Oregon and worked in several stores in Seaside.

In the fall of 2008, Ernestine made the decision to give her family farmland back to the Necanicum River. Before being cultivated, this land was prime estuarine and rearing habitat for Pacific salmon and steelhead. Now, she is working with individuals and organizations within the state of Oregon to restore the land to its pre-developed state. Upon completion, this new wetland and estuarine habitat will help strengthen runs of migratory Pacific salmon and steelhead as well as resident rainbow trout.

Ernestine and the Neitzel family have a long history in the Necanicum River Valley and have dedicated their lives to enriching the surrounding communities. With this contribution, she leaves a legacy of environmental conservation and dedication to the restoration of a natural resource that is an essential component to our way of life in the Pacific Northwest.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has dedicated 27 years to serving the labor community in Oregon.

Judy O'Connor joined the Northwest Oregon Labor Council as an office worker in 1982, and her skills and dedication to the union

movement quickly led to her promotion to office manager. She joined the Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 11 and was an energetic advocate for office secretaries as part of OPEIU's executive committee.

Though she had no experience with the labor movement prior to joining the Northwest Oregon Labor Council, Judy became a tireless activist for union causes. She volunteered for political campaigns, coordinated the council's Speakers in the Schools program, and appeared before the Oregon legislature to testify for improved job safety. She also graduated from Union Counselor course at Labor's Community Service Agency and served as chair of the IBEW and United Worker's Federal Credit Union.

In 1998, Judy was the first woman elected to the position of the Northwest Oregon Labor Council's executive secretary-treasurer, heading the largest central labor council in Oregon. During her tenure as executive secretary-treasurer, she has led over 100 constituent unions in promoting workers' rights through times of economic growth and decline.

Judy will be retiring in September and plans to return to Montana, where she was raised. Oregon will be losing an important voice for workers, but I hope that Judy is able to have some well-earned relaxation. I want to thank her for her service to the labor community here in Oregon and wish her and her family all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Arjun Kandaswamy for his accomplishments in the Oregon State Geography Bee and in the National Geographic 21st Annual Geography Bee.

Arjun is an exceptional middle school student who participates in Oregon's Summa Program for gifted students. After winning the State of Oregon Geography Bee, Arjun represented Oregon in the National Geographic Bee, one of the most difficult in the nation. At the age of fourteen, Arjun topped 53 students from across the nation and earned second place and an accompanying college scholarship.

I, therefore, again gladly extend my congratulations to Arjun and wish him a bright academic future and continued success in all his endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago on a Mother's Day Sunday, my daughter got a cut on her face and was bleeding. So I took her to the emergency room. She got a Band-Aid and some antiseptic cream. It was a $350 bill.

A couple years later, I took my son to Central Oregon with me on a conference. He jumped from the bed to the fireplace in the hotel, missed his landing, split his lip. I took him to the emergency room. He got three stitches. He got good treatment. The bill was for $850.

Why do three stitches cost $850 or a Band-Aid $350?

Those 49 million uninsured people in America, we are already paying for their health care; but it's through the dumbest way that we can, through expensive products for some of us, even though I have insurance. And what we do need now is change in our health care system so that we cover those uninsured because it's not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do so that we don't have $350 bandages and $850 stitches.

I thank the gentleman. I want to correct the impression that my friend and colleague from Arizona left. I respect him for his consistency in pursuing certain topics, but I believe that on this particular topic he has completely missed the mark.

Federal research dollars in this program are allocated on a merit, peer-reviewed process. That applies to the 97.5 percent of the moneys that are allocated for research. The products, the fruits of that research are sometimes commercializable, and that's why there's a 2.5 percent set-aside for the SBIR program.

Now, that 2.5 percent, which is what we're talking about here today, that 2.5 percent is given out by each of the agencies that sponsor that research on a merit-based process that is not subject to congressional influence of any kind whatsoever. It is done by the agencies by peers who are professionals in the field.

And any impression that my friend and colleague from Arizona has left that there is congressional influence in earmarking is completely wrong. He should take his battles about earmarks to an appropriate field, and not this one, where both the 97.5 percent of the research dollars that are granted as a peer-review process is awarded on merit, and the 2.5 percent of those research dollars that are awarded under this SBIR program is also awarded by peers in the field based on merit.

This has nothing to do with any congressional earmarking process, and any allegation to the contrary just completely misses the mark.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to address the points raised by Mr. Manzullo, which I also believe to be erroneous. First, the history of this program has been that from 1982 until 2003, venture capital investment in SBIR companies was not restricted in any way whatsoever. The National Academy of Sciences studied this issue and said that during that period, there is absolutely no evidence that VC funding helped crowd out any small businesses. The legislation then and the legislation today limits the businesses that receive SBIR grants to those with 500 employees or less, the quintessential definition of what a small business is.

Now what happened in 2003 is that a single administrative law judge in Boston, Massachusetts, interpreted a domestic ownership provision in the law to say that it has to be owned by real American people as opposed to American VCs. That was permitted before. The 2003 ruling has been expanded, in effect, to bar majority VC ownership. That is wrong. It prevents the public sector from giving money under this program to very good technologies. It prevents companies from raising money from both the public sector and the private sector, and this argument is completely erroneous about big VCs. We are talking about small companies. We are talking about small companies getting SBIR grant funds, and those small companies may have board members from VCs, but they are independent of VCs.

Quite frankly, I do not know of a single VC that wants to spend the time or energy controlling an investment company. What they want to do is to get their money out with a big return. What the gentleman is concerned about is a scenario that just doesn't occur in the real world.

Paradoxically, what the gentleman is pressing is a position that actually penalizes the smaller companies because it is precisely the smaller company that has to give away more of its equity to VCs to raise the same amount of money. So if you are a three-employee company, you might have to give away 60 percent of your company to raise $1 million; whereas, if you have 30 employees or 300 employees, you might only give away 10 percent of your money to raise the same amount of money. Paradoxically, what the gentleman is asking for actually penalizes small startup companies.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, to address the points raised by the gentleman from Illinois, this is a program that permitted unlimited venture capital participation from 1982 until 2003. The National Academy of Sciences studied the program then and now. There is absolutely no evidence that VC investment crowds out any small business whatsoever. That was the finding of the National Academy of Sciences. They also found that by permitting venture capital majority participation companies to apply for SBIR, it improved the quality pool of the applicants for SBIR funds.

Now I think one needs to understand that there are two very different segments of this industry. One is the industries that Mr. Polis and I are more familiar with, in biotech and high tech where companies typically pick up one of these grants or maybe just a couple, and they rocket up or grow and become a public company to get some VC investment. But it's a hockey puck growth curve. It's the classic high- tech startup. There is another group of companies that basically is concentrated around the Defense Department; and they are, in effect, the research arm of the Defense Department. They are steady-state small businesses that are going to have a stream of SBIR and STTR grants, and this is how they fund themselves. Both are valid business models. This has been a very acrimonious battle between these two very different groups of folks who haven't taken enough time to understand each other.

Quite frankly, I came from the high-tech, high-growth model; but I've tried to come to understand this other defense-oriented, steady-state, many SBIR grants model.

What we have in the bill is a careful set of protections so that this is approved by many of the parties around the table, but evidently not all. We are going to permit majority venture capital ownership again to improve the quality of applicants so that we choose the proper technologies and the best technologies for both the public and the private sectors. There would be certain restrictions on VCs that are owned by large corporations, and no VC could control the board of any of these applicants.

The provisions in the bill are carefully crafted. They are emphatically in the interests of the smallest investees, that is, those small companies that have to give away more of their equity to get a certain amount of money from a venture capitalist. Those are the companies that have been disqualified under the ALJ ruling, under the judge's ruling, and the historic norm from 1983 to 2002 will be partially restored by this bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. In today's economy, small business is where innovation happens. The Science and Technology Committee intends to promote science and technology research that drives an innovation economy. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act.

At more than $2.3 billion per year, the Small Business Innovation and Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs comprise the largest source of Federal support for technological innovation in the private sector. Given the current economic climate, we need robust SBIR and STTR programs to create the next generation of companies that will provide high-paying jobs and grow our economy.

However, these programs originated more than 25 years ago. Given the economic changes we have seen during the past two decades, we need to update these programs to reflect the current economic realities of our increasingly competitive innovation economy.

The Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science and Technology have held numerous hearings on SBIR and STTR over the past several years. Witnesses shared many recommendations about how SBIR and STTR can be strengthened.

Recently, both committees overwhelmingly supported H.R. 2965, with each committee voting favorably to reauthorize SBIR and STTR through 2011 with some much needed modernization and changes.

The legislation has been endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the American Association of Universities, BIO, the National Venture Capital Association, the Energy Sciences Coalition, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The bill increases the award sizes for phase 1 and phase II to reflect the actual cost of doing high-tech research today. It also increases the flexibility of the SBIR by allowing cross-agency awards and allowing applicants to apply directly for phase II funding.

H.R. 2965 allows venture capital-backed small businesses to once again apply for awards and specifically defines their eligibility requirements. This temporary ban on venture capital majority ownership was the result of a ruling in 2003 by an administrative law judge in Boston.

For 20 years--from the inception of the program in 1983--to 2003, venture capital-funded companies could freely participate in these programs. There is no evidence, there is no evidence anywhere, that during that time there was any crowd-out of other businesses by VC- backed businesses.

There has been a lot of debate over the role of venture capital participation, but the National Academies recently released a report that states that venture-backed companies are important. They contribute greatly to technologic development and they do not-- emphatically, do not--crowd out other small businesses.

The goal of SBIR is to encourage innovation. It is time that we fix the administrative ruling of a single judge and support more innovative small businesses and the best technology that we can help bring to market.

Today, we recognize our leadership by reauthorizing SBIR and STTR. I want to commend Chairwoman Velazquez in particular for her commitment to small business innovation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a leader in energy innovation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the staff who put many hard years of work into this legislation. On the Science Committee staff, I always say that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to serve on the Science Committee, but you do have to be a rocket scientist to staff the Science Committee. I would like to recognize the good work of Mike Quear of my staff and Dennis Worden.

The bill that they have crafted is fundamentally about jobs. It is about turning research into new products and new services, but most importantly, good, high-wage jobs that tend not to go away. This is a 25-year-old-plus program that has worked, and we are here today making improvements. We are making the program more flexible by permitting cross-agency awards. We are permitting awardees to skip phase one and go straight to a phase two award if they have done that development work with private money. We are collecting data, because there is a dearth of data currently, data that will help us target this program even better in future reauthorizations.

For the first time in 5 years, we are going back to the prior rule, the preexisting rule that was there for 20 years of permitting venture capitalists to participate more broadly in the program but with carefully crafted restrictions. This program remains the exclusive domain of small businesses, those businesses with 500 or fewer employees. It is the kind of bill that has brought together a bipartisan consensus, because we need it now more than ever under our economic circumstances. This is the kind of legislation that we should be working on all the time that turns research into new products, new services and new jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

And the reason why the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes no sense at all is because the free market underinvests in public goods, public goods like education, like roads and research. The market will not put enough money into research, and the potato research program that Mr. Flake's amendment intends to cut has been highly successful in a multi-State effort in order to develop new commercial potato varieties.

The potatoes released from this program account for about 16 percent of current production. And the program not only creates new potato varieties for consumers; it also improves the nutritional value of potatoes and increases crop yields. In addition, this project provides significant environmental benefits, including reduction in the need for pesticides, water and fertilizer; and it fits into our overall goal of reducing energy consumption and increasing our production of the goods and services that we need.

Will the gentleman yield?

The reason why the free market will underinvest, even though given that rate of return, it's whoever pays for the research doesn't reap the benefits. It's a public good. It's a basic of capitalist economic theory which the gentleman should understand.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition to the Nunes amendment. This amendment puts the salmon runs of the Sacramento River, which is the major run of Pacific salmon, in jeopardy of extinction and risks shutting down the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, affecting water supplies for farms and millions of Californians.

This amendment could halt all activity in California's major water infrastructure and would only serve to delay development of a long-term management plan for water resources. Mr. Nunes' proposal would send government agencies and partners back to the drawing board, inviting further litigation and greater intervention by federal courts. Moreover, the amendment would prevent us from finding consensus solutions for another year or more.

California water disputes have worsened over the last eight years as politically motivated water policies killed tens of thousands of salmon. Some of the water decisions made during that time were not based in science and have since been ruled illegal by federal courts and illegitimate by the Commerce Department's inspector general.

As a result of these short-sighted policies, California and Oregon have gone without commercial and recreational salmon fishing seasons for three of the past four years. These closures and limitations on fishing are completely unprecedented and have devastated both states' hunting and fishing industries, which together employ over 250,000 workers and contribute more than $13.6 billion to state economies.

Our fisheries and coastal communities cannot afford to be subjected to politics. I reject the Nunes amendment wholeheartedly and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Field Office Director William D. McNamee. Director McNamee will be retiring in July 2009 after thirty years of service to our country.

Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, `This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' Bill McNamee truly is an American hero, for he has devoted much of his life to making his country and community better.

Bill McNamee began his career with legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as an inspector in Calais, Maine, in July 1978. During the next thirty years, Bill worked not only in the United States, but also in Canada and Germany. As the INS officer in charge in Frankfurt, Germany, from June 1998 to July 2001, one of Bill's many successes was helping approximately 60,000 Bosnian refugees obtain permanent resettlement in the United States. His commitment and empathy for this vulnerable population was extraordinary and deserves to be recognized.

In my home state of Oregon, we were fortunate to have Bill McNamee assigned to our INS Office in 2001. He became district director in 2004 and has led this office with compassion, integrity, and a sense of dedication to the immigrants he serves. His colleagues, his employees, and the public all respect Bill for his efforts to provide excellent service: a rare distinction.

Bill McNamee's commitment to public service is also evident in his work with the Federal Executive Board. The Board coordinates all federal, state, and local government organizations to ensure that every agency is better prepared for emergencies. Due to Bill's dedication to this mission, he was instrumental in obtaining permanent congressional funding for the Board.

It is an honor for me to recognize Director McNamee for his service and for providing a heroic example to us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and ask my colleagues to agree to the Senate amendments.

The statistics being heard on this floor are handed out on this floor like candy. Because numbers are often passed off as nothing more than empty words, we fail to recognize what they mean--in this Speaker, I rise today in support case we are talking about people's lives. It was Irving Selikoff, a medical researcher who co-discovered a cure for tuberculosis who said, ``Statistics are real people with the tears wiped away.''

For instance, smoking-related diseases cause an estimated 440,000 American deaths each year. And a 2004 study by the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion found that cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer.

Ninety percent of adult smokers are addicted to tobacco before they reach the age of 18; 50 percent before the age of 14. Currently the average age of initiation to tobacco is 11.

Forty-eight million adults smoke in the U.S., which is 22.9 percent of the population overall, and 33 percent of youth currently smoke.

Those real people are our parents and children, our family and friends, who suffer the consequences of addiction to tobacco. I want my children to grow up healthy and to make healthy decisions. To help that happen, H.R. 1256 will put in place the proper authority for the Food and Drug Administration to establish regulations over tobacco products. We need the FDA to protect our population from the harmful effects of cigarettes and tobacco products by being able to provide sound, scientific regulations governing these products.

Even with all the warnings, and the money spent on education campaigns, kids are still picking up smoking at the alarming rate of 3,000 a day in the United States.

The health concerns that will face these children are costly, painful, and deadly.

But they are also ultimately preventable.

I am acutely concerned that tobacco companies have used Portland, Oregon, as a test market for new smokeless tobacco products. Products like snus, or other tobacco-based nicotine delivery products have been repeatedly tested in markets like Portland.

Many of these products look like candy and taste sweet. They are an addictive tobacco trap for children and should be either banned or heavily regulated away from kids.

I ask my colleagues to agree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and send this bill to the President's desk for him to sign.

Madam Speaker, one of the primary reasons that I ran for public office was to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law at home and abroad--particularly in China. There is perhaps no greater singular event that compels me to do so than the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 3 and 4, 1989.

On this, the twentieth anniversary of the violent suppression of protesters in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, I express my deepest condolences to the families of those killed and imprisoned in connection with the demonstrations. I urge the Chinese government to immediately review the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests and to release those individuals who were imprisoned solely for exercising their internationally recognized rights to free expression and peaceful assembly.

In many ways the China of 1989 and the China of 2009 are worlds apart. Twenty years ago, no one would have imagined that China would become the world's largest Internet user a mere twenty years later. And yet, even with the power of the Internet to fuel greater transparency, the people of China still face the

same censorship and restrictions of expression.

The U.S. and China must continue to work together to appeal to the better angels of our collective nature and strive not just for prosperity but for freedom.

Madam Speaker, as the 62nd World Health Assembly convenes in Geneva this week, I rise to congratulate Taiwan's participation as an observer. This occasion is a significant milestone for Taiwan because it marks the first time since withdrawing from the United Nations 38 years ago that Taiwan is rejoining a United Nations-related body as an observer.

I have been a longtime supporter of Taiwan's meaningful participation in the World Health Organization. The outbreaks of SARS, avian influenza, and most recently, the H1N1 flu, have made it clear that public health problems know no borders. With the great potential for the spread of infectious diseases across countries and continents, it is critical that all parts of the world, including Taiwan, be given the opportunity to participate in international health cooperation forums and programs.

In 2004, Congress demonstrated unequivocal support for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization by enacting Public Law 108-235, which authorized the secretary of state to initiate and implement a plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the annual World Health Assembly. I applaud this year's decision to finally grant Taiwan a seat at the table of this critical global health forum. May this occasion mark the beginning of Taiwan's growing involvement in other international organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2187 and the underlying legislation. I thank Representatives Chandler and Loebsack for introducing this bill. I especially appreciate Chairman Miller working with me to add seismic retrofitting, more efficient storm water runoff systems and additional clean energy sources to the allowable uses of funds in this bill.

So many of our Nation's schools are in urgent need of upgrading. The funds in this bill will do more than help create safe schools. It will help our schools actually return money to our communities by saving energy and creating jobs.

I have firsthand knowledge of how creating safe and green schools can improve learning environments and student outcomes while saving money for taxpayers. In McMinnville, Oregon, the newly built Sue Buel Elementary School, which I had the pleasure of visiting in February, a building built in 1929, was replaced by a new school which was the first school in the State of Oregon to earn a gold LEED certification. The school was built with low-chemical-emitting materials, an energy- efficient heating and ventilating system, and 96 rooftop solar panels that return over 19,000 watts of power back to the local electricity grid.

Perhaps the most exciting thing about visiting Buel Elementary was seeing how engaged the students, many of whom are on free and reduced lunch, how engaged those students are in their school and in learning about their environment. The school itself creates a sense of pride in the students and keeps them excited about learning.

This bill will help ensure that our children have a safe and healthy learning environment, with the added benefit of creating jobs during these difficult economic times.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, a time when we reflect on the contributions that Asian Pacific Americans have made to our country.

I would specifically like to take this opportunity today to speak briefly about the Asian

Pacific American community and a topic close to my heart: organ donation. April was ``Donate Life Month,'' and my colleague, Mr. Costa, one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Organ and Tissue Caucus, spoke eloquently about the need for everyone, particularly those in ethnic minority communities, to become organ donors and to inform their families of this important decision.

Organ and tissue donation is a topic that requires specific, culturally sensitive information to be provided to the Asian Pacific American community in order to get past the fear and cultural stigma associated with donation.

According to the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Minority Health, the need for transplants is unusually high among some ethnic minorities. Some diseases of the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas, and liver that can lead to organ failure are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population. For example, Asian and Pacific Islanders, along with African Americans and Hispanics, are three times more likely than Caucasians to suffer from kidney disease. Some of these diseases are best treated through transplantation; others can only be treated through transplantation.

Successful transplantation is often enhanced by using organs from members of the same racial and ethnic group. Generally, people are genetically more similar to people of their own ethnicity or race than to people of other races. Therefore, matches are more likely and timelier when donors and potential recipients are members of the same ethnic background.

Minority patients may have to wait longer for matched kidneys and therefore maybe be sicker at the time of transplant or may die waiting. Currently there are 7,108 Asian Pacific Americans on organ donor waiting lists. While Asians represent 6.4 percent of the current wait list, only 3.1 percent of organs donated in 2008 came from Asians. With more donated organs from minorities, matches will be found more quickly and the waiting time will be reduced.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to recognize the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans around the country who are addressing this problem. I am deeply grateful for people like Cammy Lee, who started the Cammy Lee Leukemia Foundation to help find matches for bone marrow transplants, and Dr. Samuel So of the Stanford Asian Liver Center and the Jade Ribbon Campaign, whose work addresses the high incidence of hepatitis B and liver cancer in Asians and Asian Americans through education and treatment.

Together as a country we recognize Asian Pacific American Heritage month, and together we can help increase the rate of organ and tissue donation within the Asian Pacific American community, as well as other ethnic minority communities.