Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in Washington State, 67 schools compete in the 4A high school sports division--67 schools, nine spring sports teams and one dream.

For three spring teams representing the Puyallup purple and gold, that dream came true.

This spring, Puyallup High School, located in the 10th Congressional District, captured State titles in baseball, fastpitch softball, and boys golf.

The Vikings baseball team finished their season undefeated, and for the first time in the history of our State, both the baseball and the fastpitch softball teams won their State championships. Boys golf joined them, and three of the top five players were from Puyallup High School.

When I was in high school, it was a thrill beyond measure just to get to the State playoffs. It is inconceivable to win not one, not two, but three State championships. The 10th District is proud of the Vikes, and we congratulate all of the student athletes who made these dreams come true.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in order to keep a new, healthy housing market, we must be committed to affordable housing. All citizens should have access to it.

For 16 years, NAHASDA has provided funding for tribes to implement their own strategies to address housing needs that are, quite frankly, unique to their own communities.

Under the program, they can use funds to address their housing needs through a variety of activities, including construction, rehabilitation, modernization, rental assistance, lending programs, crime prevention, and a host of other strategies.

The Puyallup Tribe in my own home State and district recently used NAHASDA funds to construct housing that reflects their culture with a traditional longhouse design and structure.

It is a 10-unit building that is environmentally friendly and features energy-efficient systems that keep costs out. It is beautiful. It is cost effective. It is economical. Most importantly, it meets a basic need.

In fiscal year 2012 alone, the 369 tribal recipients of grants used that funding to build or acquire more than 1,450 affordable homes and rehabilitate another 4,700. Since the inception of the program, recipients have built, acquired, or rehabilitated more than 110,000 homes; but as has been suggested, the funding has failed to keep up with inflation, and it has not met the demonstrated need for the program. In fact, a lot of the funds end up being used for maintenance and operation because it has been flatlined. Meanwhile, the need for the program grows as the money, in relative terms, shrinks. In the 10 years between 2002 to 2012, the number of overcrowded households increased by 14 percent, and 10 percent of all homes in Indian Country are overcrowded. It is notably higher than the national average.

The Federal Government has a trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native Americans. It is a trust obligation. It is a legal obligation. Frankly, it is a sacred obligation. Ensuring the proper funding of NAHASDA is a critical component towards meeting those obligations.

As you consider the 2015 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, I ask all of you to please support the robust funding for NAHASDA.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress for the

brandnew 10th Congressional District in Washington State, I have the privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, which is the largest joint operating base in America.

In the vicinity of Joint Base Lewis-McChord is Interstate 5, which is the most heavily traveled north-south freight corridor in our State. Nearly 80 percent of the traffic to and from JBLM relies on that interstate freeway.

Local travelers in neighboring cities have absolutely no other option except to use I-5 as an arterial, and when incidents occur, trust me, it can take hours to recover.

Around the country, military installations like JBLM are still adapting to base realignment and short-term growth caused by troops passing through before being deployed. Installation growth has had a significant effect on regional transportation, particularly when an installation is located in or near an urban area.

Even acknowledging the potential for drawdowns on military bases, those reductions would not nearly come close to alleviating the problem--not nearly.

Surrounding roads play an important role in preserving military readiness. Our Armed Forces need to instantly deploy, and we need functional roads in order to do that. If military personnel are caught in a jam and if nobody moves, efficiency goes out the window.

The domino effect of delays due to congestion, therefore, literally impairs our national security. This leaves not only military activities on base stranded, but also commerce in the congested area, and when we don't have a reliable roadway, economic activity halts. Goods don't move, and companies can't make money.

It is a cascading inaction, which affects our productivity and balance sheets, and it puts a strain on businessowners.

To be clear, the military is not to blame for this. Bases have come up with innovative approaches to ease the pain, but the problem remains severe and unavoidable without more investment. It is a Band-Aid over a wound that needs stitches.

The only existing DOD program that provides funding for public highway improvements is the Defense Access Roads Program. However, the DAR Program is limited by outdated and restrictive eligibility criteria and was designed when bases were only expected to be located in relatively undeveloped areas, which is clearly no longer the case.

DAR needs to be replaced with a separate DOD program to fund the transit services necessary to meet military needs.

I know being stuck in traffic is not something unknown to most Americans. We are all too familiar with the horrible feeling of approaching an unexpected slow crawl on the road, but when this affects our military's ability to get to base, to do the job, and to be ready for anything, that is when we can't just sit and wait for it to get better. We can and should do more.

Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but I will soon introduce a bill that embodies its concept, entitled the ``COMMUTE Act,'' and it will address these issues.

I hope, beyond hope, that I can look forward to working with the members and my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee on this plan to meet this very important need.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you, sir.

As is characteristic to both of you, thank you for your graciousness and for your positive remarks.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that there are some estimates that the Interstate 5 corridor around Joint Base Lewis- McChord--remember, I-5 extends from Canada to Tijuana--is the most congested chokepoint.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the 28th Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Cuellar), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Many Congressional Gold Medal bills passing today are special, but with all due respect, this is particularly special.

I rise in support of H.R. 685, the American Fighter Aces Congressional Gold Medal Act. As suggested, this bill establishes a Congressional Gold Medal honoring American fighter aces for their heroic military service and defense of our country's freedom.

Most Americans are familiar with the aerial feats of Tom Cruise's ``Maverick'' in the award-winning and popular movie, ``Top Gun,'' but not enough people really understand what it was that the real fighter aces went through. To become an American fighter ace, a fighter pilot must destroy five or more enemy aircraft in aerial combat during a war or conflict in which U.S. Armed Forces have participated.

I am unbelievably proud and humbled today to represent one of the remaining fighter aces in Washington's 10th Congressional District, retired Commander Clarence Alvin Borley, or, as he is known by his friends, ``Spike.''

Like many aces, his story is simply incredible. Commander Borley is a Navy F6F Hellcat ace. He had a total of five aerial victories flying off the U.S. carrier the USS Essex between May and October of 1945.

In fact, on October 12, Commander Borley was shot down after his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire. He flew out 2 miles off the coast of what was then known as Formosa, crash-landing in the ocean. He exited his plane in full gear and inflated his yellow Mae West life preserver and floated as his Hellcat sank.

Shortly thereafter, a boat approached him with Japanese soldiers on it. He reached down and pulled his handgun, which had been soaking in the ocean water, fired, killed two enemy combatants, and the boat fled. Thereafter, Commander Borley swam further away from Formosa.

Because it was a tremendous aerial combat day, later that day several rafts were dropped into the ocean for the pilots. Commander Borley dragged himself into one. He spent four nights in that raft. Mind you, he had no water, no food, and no shade. He kept getting further and further from Formosa.

It took 100 hours for him to be rescued. In fact, the USS Sawfish was the ship that finally pulled him out of the water. Again, he had no water, no food, and no shade--and there were rough seas. I believe he had a canteen when he went down, but he capsized several times and lost it.

Commander Borley of Olympia, Washington, is a true American hero, and I know I speak for many when I say we are deeply appreciative of all he has done for us.

American fighter aces like Commander Borley are the best of the best in air-to-air combat. They engaged the enemy time and time again in East Asia, the South Pacific, and Europe--and they won. Yet their accomplishments have never been collectively recognized. Their aerial supremacy has never been honored by Congress--until today.

The Museum of Flight in Seattle, which is a spectacular institution, and its chairman, Bill Ayer, deserve special recognition and thanks for their constant support and dedication to this effort. It is the home of the greatest World War I and World War II fighters in America. It has committed countless time and hours and energy to honoring the American fighter ace.

I am honored beyond words to be the cosponsor of this bill with the gentleman from Texas. And I cannot exaggerate this. I suspect this is the first time in my 17 months in Congress we will vote on the same side of an issue. I cannot tell you the depth of my gratitude for his 29 years of military service and all that he sacrificed and endured on behalf of us. What a fitting acknowledgment of his service here--and to all of America. I am humbled to join him in this effort.

I encourage all of our colleagues to support H.R. 685 in recognition of the American fighter aces. Out of 60,000 aerial aviators, about 95 aces are left. There hasn't been a fighter ace ``created'' since the Vietnam war. And for those who are, it is difficult for them to talk about this because, frankly, they are very, very modest. I know this from personal conversations.

When I went to the national convention of fighter aces last year and spoke with so many of them, they are very modest about this. That is, frankly, all the more reason why it is incumbent upon us to lift up their contribution and their sacrifice. And I am humbled to join Mr. Johnson in this.

Please support H.R. 685.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning quite suddenly Billy Frank, Jr., passed away.

Billy was chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. He was our region's foremost advocate for restoration of Indian fishing treaty rights, a dream he lived to realize. He was our region's foremost advocate for clean water for salmon.

So powerful was his advocacy, his charisma, his personality, his moral authority, that no fewer than two books have been written about him, and he was the recipient of the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award.

They say a person dies twice: the first time, and the second time when they stop telling stories about him. Billy Frank is going to live forever. There are no words I can share, however, more powerful than his own. So, thanks to my friend Martha Kongsgaard who provided me with Billy's words recently, I share those now with you:

I don't believe in magic, Billy once said. I believe in the

Sun and the stars, the water, the tides, the floods, the

owls, the hawks flying, the river running, and the wind

talking. Their measurements, they tell us how healthy things

are, how healthy we are, because we and they are the same.

That is what I believe in.

Those who learn to listen to the world that sustains them

can hear the message brought forth by the salmon.

Thank you, dear friend, Billy. You shall forever be missed and forever remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank that begins this discussion.

I yield to the gentleman and my friend and a passionate advocate on behalf of the Export-Import Bank, Congressman Caardenas from the 29th District of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 18th Congressional District of Florida, Congressman Patrick Murphy, another passionate advocate on behalf of reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank.

When someone in America builds a better mousetrap or improves upon the design of an existing product, the world takes notice. Companies, governments, and industries in countries from South Africa to Turkey and in between are potential customers for well- crafted, American-made products.

But in the modern-day globalized economy, credit is necessary for complex transactions. Buyers and sellers need assurance that the deals are legitimate. Without that, they are forced to imitate products, violate intellectual property rights and standards, and American companies lose out on market share.

For 80 years, our economy has expanded and grown beyond our borders and into the developed and developing world, in part because of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Today, with U.S. trade deficits growing as exports fall, we need now more than ever to be able to support increases in exports.

Exports accelerate our economic growth, and the Export-Import Bank is a key part in encouraging just that activity. Increased exports translate into more jobs in America. Studies have shown that export- related jobs pay, on average, 15 to 18 percent more than the overall average. They are better-paying jobs.

Finally, with 95 percent of the potential customers of U.S. goods and services living outside our borders, exporting provides vast potential for American businesses, large and small.

Ninety-five percent of the world lives outside our borders, and the rest of the world is growing a middle class. So think of it this way. If we want to keep and grow our middle class, we better be selling into the rest of the world's growing middle class.

This is not, and has never been, about picking winners and losers. The Export-Import Bank simply serves to bridge the gap between those who want American goods and services and Americans that have goods and services to sell. It is about leveling the playing field so that small operators have access to a global market of customers equal to that of large corporations.

For example, the Bank's export credit insurance policy provides payment coverage for commercial risks such as buyer default and political risk from war or unrest. The insurance also ensures that businesses no longer have to forego sales because they cannot match the credit terms offered by global competitors. This is what we are talking about when we say it levels the playing field.

There is no other private lender currently offering what the Export- Import Bank provides American businesses. For example, 89 percent of the bank's transactions directly benefit U.S. small businesses. That doesn't even include the small businesses that make up the supply chain of the larger companies whose goods are purchased from foreign entities.

If you want more information on this, the very best place to get it is at the Export-Import Bank's own Web site, www.exim.gov. Look up the businesses in your area that have benefited from the Export-Import Bank.

As was mentioned earlier, lo and behold, we actually even make money off the Export-Import Bank. Last year alone, over a billion dollars transferred to the U.S. Treasury off the profits of the Export-Import Bank. As a matter of fact, in the 80 years of its existence, quite literally not one red penny of American taxpayer dollars has ever been used in support of the Ex-Im. Not one red penny. It lowers the deficit and does not use taxpayer dollars.

As I mentioned, it is small companies. Take a company like Pexco, which is located in the 10th Congressional District in Fife, Washington. They produce traffic control products you see on the road when repairs are being made, like traffic cones, raised curbs, reflective signs, and barricades indicating where the road is blocked off. They are used all over the world.

In fact, just recently, a distributor from Denmark purchased $125,000 worth of Pexco products, which was financed by the Export-Import Bank. No commercial bank would have touched that transaction. But it guaranteed the products would reach Denmark. They were done reliably because of the Export-Import Bank.

In fact, in this individual company's instance, which is not atypical of their sales--and they are a small company of 200 employees--over half is sold internationally. Ten percent of total sales are financed by the Export-Import Bank.

So what is the result? The residents of Fife, Washington, are put to work producing their popular products in traffic safety all over the world.

I mentioned it was FDR that actually created the Export-Import Bank 80 years ago, and although it was actually initiated and created by a Democratic administration, the support of it has always been strongly bipartisan.

Republican Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush supported the mission of the Ex-Im Bank, as did Bill Clinton. All these Presidents were staunch supporters of capitalism and the Ex-Im Bank.

Listen to what President Reagan said when he signed the reauthorization, which was a bill that was reauthorized almost unanimously, in 1986:

This sends an important signal to both our exporting

community and foreign suppliers that American exporters will

continue to able to compete vigorously for business

throughout the world.

Perhaps an even more conservative voice, former Vice President Cheney, said in 1997:

Some of my fellow conservatives on the Hill may have a

philosophical problem with the fact that the bank is a

government agency, but if they consider the success of its

lending programs, it would be difficult for them to object on

budgetary grounds.

For every dollar put into Ex-Im, Cheney said, ``there's been a $20 return to the U.S. economy.''

And again, the same speech, Vice President Cheney said:

Ex-Im Bank is remarkably effective at helping create jobs,

opportunities for trade, stable democracies, and vibrant

economies throughout the world. The Bank has made a

tremendous contribution as a rapid response, service-oriented

agency designed to meet the export financing needs of

American businesses.

Indeed, the Bank has been reauthorized a number of times throughout its history--almost always unanimously, until of late--each time making it more effective for the economic climate of the time.

So let's have a conversation about how to make it better. Let's have a conversation on how to get the word out to businesses that they have yet to tap into their potential global markets. Let's talk about how to get our economy running and get ahead of our global competitors.

Let's remember, as Congressman Caardenas alluded to, every single developed entity in the world has an Ex-Im Bank-like entity, and if we do not reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, it is the equivalent of and tantamount to unilateral disarmament in a global economy--one in which global trade has increased fivefold just since 1980.

What is the Export-Import Bank about? It is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Yes, 200,000 last year, but over a million in the last 4 years.

Every month we spend debating the merits of the Export-Import Bank instead of encouraging companies to explore the world market, the economy loses billions of dollars in potential export opportunities. The jobs, especially in manufacturing, stagnate. People remain unemployed when they want to work.

As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, I am encouraging, I am urging, I am beseeching, I am pleading with the chair to hold hearings as soon as possible on reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank. We have been waiting 15 months for something to happen. And it is time to move forward.

Let us be clear-eyed and cold-blooded about what the cost is of not doing anything. At a recent roundtable of businesses who had been involved with the Export-Import Bank there was a gentleman present from a company in California. I believe his name was Steve Wilburn and the company was named FirmGreen.

Literally, in the course of the conversation he raise his hand and he said, I just lost a multimillion-dollar order of sales, and I am told the reason I lost it is that our competitor manufacturer, which was in another country, persuaded the purchaser that the cloud hanging over reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank may mean it will not be there when you need it. We lost millions in sales because Congress dithered.

Ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, this is the most straightforward imaginable proposition. This is about shoring up, strengthening, supporting the manufacturing sector of the American economy and creating good-paying jobs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in steadfast support of small business and H.R. 4383, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Small Business Advisory Board Act.

Within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumers have a voice. Credit unions have a voice. Community banks have a voice. And appropriately, men and women in uniform have a voice through the Office of Servicemember Affairs. These are all important contributors to include.

Yet, one group was left out, and that group was America's small businesses. While identified as ``small,'' they are mighty when it comes to our local economy and job creation. As a small business owner, I know they have insight to offer during the development of new rules and regulations.

Under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), I have cosponsored this critical improvement to the CFPB. I ask that our colleagues now join us in this bipartisan effort to allow small businesses in the financial sector to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to welcome to the Nation's Capital Pastor John Rosenberg of the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd in Olympia, Washington, where he is the lead pastor. He is my pastor; today it is personal with me.

Pastor Rosenberg is a graduate of Concordia Senior College of Luther Seminary and even has a graduate degree from one of my alma maters, Portland State University.

It is personal with me today because, in part, Pastor Rosenberg has announced his retirement on June 30. We will miss him greatly.

I have no fear for how he will spend his retirement time because he is an obsessive, compulsive fisherman, which is a good thing to be in the Pacific Northwest, as a matter of fact.

I deeply appreciate him for his presence here today. More importantly, for living the example of the Scripture which he quoted today, by far my favorite, that which I believe is the most holy and that which I believe is the wisest, and that is Micah 6:8: Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your Lord.

All these things Pastor John Rosenberg does. Thank you so much for being here today, my good friend.

I thank the ranking member very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am from Washington State, and I am about to commit a sacrilege. We could have saved a lot of trees and a lot of time if we had had a one-sentence bill that simply said: ``End the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.''

We could have had an honest debate then about whether we should have any government agency with the mandate to protect consumers from deceptive financial marketing and abusive financial practices. We could have had a discussion about what the CFPB has accomplished thus far and whether it is accessible to Americans, whether its proposed streamlined forms are more effective at educating Americans, whether its rules are thoroughly researched and revised after comments from all sides. Instead, we are having a debate over reorganizing and defunding and subordinating and other matters of process and organization that are all, frankly, designed to kill CFPB by a thousand cuts.

I think the proposition here is fairly straightforward and remains a mystery to me. If one desires to do away with the CFPB, why not have the courage to introduce that bill straightforwardly?

Ordinarily, I don't assign motives or characterize intent on the part of people who advance legislation. The fact of the matter is many of those who are advocating for this bill's passage opposed the creation of the agency flat out. The fact of the matter is that a companion bill--granted, one not in this--even re-titled the agency and took the words ``consumer protection'' out. The fact of the matter is, if there were more credible arguments in support of this legislation, I think we would be a little more careful with the facts.

Here is a fact: there isn't a penny of taxpayer dollars that supports CFPB. It is fee-based. Here is a fact omitted: more than 60 percent of the costs associated with the alleged remodel budget, which is an estimate--a fact omitted--is associated with upgrading to code. Now, I know for another fact that the people who are making that argument do not want civil servants to occupy unsafe and unhealthy buildings.

But most importantly--this is the part that really gets me--we are going to spend a lot of time on this today and in committee, and we are going to pass it to the Senate, and we all know what its fate is going to be, right down into the ground. Well, that is fine. People have the right to make their point, but what is the opportunity cost of making that point in committee and on the floor? At least one of the opportunity costs is getting to work on actual regulatory relief.

We have several bipartisan bills for regulatory relief. Some form of the CLEAR Act, not all the Members on my side support it, but some do. We could actually get to work on regulatory relief if we would set aside our efforts for this messaging and exercise.

As for me, no matter what the form, I am going to vote ``no'' on any bill that kills the CFPB, any bill. I will vote ``no'' because of the work the CFPB does on behalf of my constituents.

I will vote to preserve the Office of Servicemember Affairs and the great work that Holly Petraeus is doing. They have a special mandate to protect the men and women in uniform. I have the privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, tens of thousands of uniformed personnel. If you ever talk to anybody--I don't see how anybody who has a military base even near their district can support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I don't see how anybody who has a military base anywhere near their district can support this legislation.

I will vote to protect the experts who are laying the groundwork for the first national consumer protection rules on payday loans and other short-term, high-interest loans. I will vote to defend the Bureau's work protecting students from high-interest-rate loans and creating a uniform set of borrower rights and protections for all student loans, public or private. If we really want a stable, predictable business environment, we wouldn't be going down this path.

At the end of the day, again, the proposition is very straightforward. If you support consumer protection, you will vote ``no'' on this legislation. If you oppose consumer protection, you will vote ``yes.'' But I entreat you, I plead with you, to please vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this week, in this very Chamber, President Lyndon Johnson declared an ``unconditional war on poverty.'' The mission the President outlined was grand, but his goal for each and every American was modest:

Help them fulfill their basic hopes--their hopes for a fair

chance to make good; their hopes for fair play under the law;

their hopes for a full-time job on full-time pay; their hopes

for a decent home for their family in a descent community;

their hopes for a good school for their children with good

teachers; and their hopes for security when faced with

sickness or unemployment or old age.

Fifty years later, the results speak for themselves:

The number of children living in poverty has dropped by 10 percent; the number of seniors living in poverty has plummeted by 32 percent; tens of millions of Americans have health insurance because of Medicare and Medicaid; the percentage of adults completing high school has skyrocketed from 56 percent to 88 percent; the share of women in the workforce has increased from 42 percent to 64 percent; and each and every single day, millions of school children go to school with full stomachs because of nutrition assistance.

We have much as a Nation we can be proud of; and the best way, the very best way we can celebrate and honor that progress is to rededicate ourselves to the challenges remaining. Because the truth of the matter is there are still too many Americans out of work, and there are still too many Americans working in jobs that don't pay enough to raise a family, and there are still too many Americans working harder for less.

I don't pretend that there are easy solutions to these problems. There is no cure-all, there is no silver bullet Congress can fire, but we simply cannot stand down; and we cannot, as President Johnson warned, ``fritter and fumble away our opportunity in needless, senseless quarrels between Democrats and Republicans.''

Sound familiar?

So, Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of the start of the war on poverty, it comes down to one simple question we should have the courage to ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we reasonably can to strengthen the middle class and help those working to get into it? Let me repeat that. Are we doing everything we reasonably can to strengthen the middle class and help those working to get into it? And I think we should also have the courage to answer that question honestly, and I think we all know the answer. It is ``no.'' But we also all know that we can. That is the question of our time.

The question of the day is whether or not we are going to help in this way by extending unemployment compensation benefits. The business case for this is exceedingly strong. The fact of the matter is that there are three people looking for work for every job available. The fact of the matter is that long-term unemployment is nearly twice as high as it was at each of the times that we ended emergency unemployment compensation over the last couple of decades. The business case for this is very strong, for those 1.3 million people already affected and the 2.6 million or so or more that will be affected in this calendar year. The business case is very strong.

There are those, of course, who will suggest that there are those who abuse unemployment compensation. I am not going to quibble about that, but I am going to reject the principle that Americans don't want to work, don't need to work, and that we are not hardwired to work, and I can prove it to you. I can absolutely prove it to you. Stop right now and ask yourself, what is the first thing you ask someone when you meet them?

``What do you do?''

We define ourselves by our work. It gives us pride. It helps us support our family. It makes our communities and neighborhoods stronger. Americans want to work. And when they cannot, we ought to be there to help them. We can, and we should.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Export-Import Bank transferred to the United States Treasury more than $1 billion. The Export-Import Bank does not draw on the U.S. Treasury; it contributes to it. The Export-Import Bank has never drawn on the U.S. Treasury.

Instead, the Export-Import Bank does the following: it creates jobs. By independent assessment, more than 255,000 jobs are created by the bank, jobs that otherwise would not exist. The Export-Import Bank helps small businesses. Indeed, 87 percent of all transactions of the bank directly benefit small businesses.

But I ask you not to take my word for it. I would invite each and every Member of the House to go to the Web site and check the data about the number of transactions in their State and in their congressional district, and how that has helped to grow the economy.

The fact of the matter is that every single developed or developing nation in the world has some form of export assistance, be it direct loan guarantee or direct loans. And theirs, by the way, are proportionally larger as a percent of GDP on average than ours. If we were to discontinue it, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in an increasingly competitive global economy.

So, one more time: last week, the Export-Import Bank reduced our Nation's deficit by more than $1 billion. The Export-Import Bank creates jobs. It helps small businesses. The Export-Import Bank makes America stronger.

Thank you, Export-Import Bank.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for the privilege to be able to add my voice to this also.

As a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, I stand here today as well to recognize the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and remember all those whose lives were lost and all those left behind who are in the process of continuing to rebuild their lives from that destruction--not just in the months ahead but, undoubtedly, in the years ahead. Our Nation must--it can, it will, and it should--stand with those families and businesses as they undertake that task all along the Atlantic coast as they seek to recover.

I actually come from about as far away from that in the continental United States as possible. I am from Washington State, and so the district that I have the honor to represent was not directly affected by Superstorm Sandy. However, my district has begun to feel the very real effects of climate change.

Science has shown that climate change is driving an ongoing decrease in seawater pH. Scientists refer to that as ``ocean acidification.''

You might ask, How does that happen? Truthfully, with all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, you don't have to be a ``Jeopardy!'' champion to get this. In fact, you only need be exposed to a junior high- or senior high-level biology or chemistry course.

It only stands to reason that as more and more carbon is emitted into the atmosphere, not all of it goes into the atmosphere, but, in fact, a goodly portion of it is absorbed by what covers approximately three- fourths of our little globe's surface, namely the ocean. And that carbon being absorbed into the ocean does, in fact, affect the pH level.

So ocean acidification, in turn, affects marine life in a lot of different ways; but the effect that I am the most familiar with is the damage that it causes to shellfish, including the shellfish grown at farms in my districts, specifically in Mason County. Indeed, I am proud to tell that you the largest shellfish farm in America, Taylor Shellfish Farms, is located, along with many others, in the 10th Congressional District of Washington State.

The acidity in the water--the direct result of carbon emitted into atmosphere absorbed by the ocean--makes it difficult for the shellfish to grow and harden their shells. Frankly, it decreases survival rates. It makes it harder to raise shellfish.

More than 3,200 people in our State--a lot of them in my district-- are employed directly or indirectly in the shellfish industry and by growers. The estimated total economic contribution is well over a quarter-billion dollars. But that entire industry is threatened by ocean acidification resulting from climate change. It is totally threatened by this.

I have said here on this floor and elsewhere many times that a healthy economy is completely dependent and requires a healthy environment. The effect of climate change on Washington State's shellfish industry is but one of the clearest examples of that fact.

Washington State has a climate change adaptation strategy that we are working on with our regional neighbors--and, I might add, with some degree of progress. But without the involvement at the Federal level and with the Federal Government, our plan isn't going to be successful. The reason: this is a global problem that will require global action; and global action

is only going to occur if the United States leads, which it has so often in the past.

And so, sir, on this occasion, the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, I also commit to better protecting the district I represent, our Nation, and the planet from the devastating effects of climate change. We have been waiting long enough. The science is in, and it is time to act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, and I rise in support for a very good reason. This bill helps create jobs, good jobs, family-wage jobs. And it is not just jobs in construction from the infrastructure projects. It is jobs throughout the shipping and transportation sectors.

I happen to represent a district that contains a number of ports, including the Port of Olympia and parts of the Port of Tacoma. And activities at the Port of Tacoma alone are related to 113,000 jobs in Washington State; but there are more jobs to be found there, and around the country, if we act now.

Mr. Speaker, I believe a healthy economy requires a healthy environment, and I hope that the final bill that is reported out of the conference committee does not get caught in the false premise of having to choose just one.

However, I think this bill is a good, bipartisan start, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, in the run-up to the government shutdown, and now into day three, I have sensed a gamut of emotions coursing through the veins of this institution, including emotional fatigue, and frustration, and outrage.

You can tell there is outrage because of the elevated decibel level. And for some of us as well is the emotion of sadness. I don't know how you can help but feel otherwise if you keep in mind what the consequences of our inaction are having beyond the doors of this Chamber. They are affecting real people, and they are having real consequences.

I have the unbelievable privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis- McChord in Washington State, and the tens of thousands of servicemembers and civilian employees who support them there. The civilian employees already experienced furlough days. Just a few weeks ago I spoke to one of those individuals. As a consequence of the furlough, she lost her car. I am not sure what the consequence of government shutdown will be on her life.

You know, we tend to think of those people, I suspect here, often as what we would call GS-10s or -12s or -14s, but that's not the case. The preponderance of them are GS-2s and -3s and -4s. And a protracted shutdown will materially alter their lives. Real people, real consequences.

Yesterday, we received an email from a woman who is the WIC, Women, Infant, Children, provider in our area. She has already had 16 phone calls from moms who are scared they are not going to be able to feed their children. Women, infants, children. Real people, real consequences.

And as well, the wheels of commerce are grinding. We have been in contact with a commercial real estate person who is helping another person start up a propane distribution business in one of the communities in my district. He has one step left to go, that's a successful SBA application, which appears likely, except for he needs one more data point to submit. One more, from the Internal Revenue Service, which is not available to him now. He cannot submit. He cannot start his business. He cannot grow the economy. Real people, real consequences.

So I am sad. I am sad because I know this does not have to be. I know, Mr. Speaker, that sitting up on that desk is a bill passed by the Senate last Friday, a clean, comprehensive bill which would reopen the Federal Government. And you know what else I know, and every single Member of this Chamber knows as well? It has the votes to pass if we would but bring it up for a vote.

And then, Mr. Speaker, we could reopen the Federal Government and we could take into account the real people and the real consequences of our inaction. We could put out the ``Open for Business'' sign on the Federal Government and help those that we were sent here to help.