Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I am pleased that the House will deal with the repeal this week. I was honored to be the principal cosponsor with my good friend, Wally Herger, of the Ways and Means Committee and to have a bipartisan effort to move this legislation forward.

I didn't vote for this bill in 2005, in the first place. And I have been working to fix it ever since the impact was revealed to us. Tax compliance is an important goal. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 billion to $300 billion a year that is owed to the Federal Government to meet our obligations and reduce burdens on others that is not paid. But this bill is decidedly not the approach to take.

My good friend, Congressman Hanna, a freshman Republican from upstate New York, has an excellent op-ed in today's Roll Call that outlines how onerous it is from his perspective of having been a small contractor.

There are three points that I think ought to be made as we go forward. First of all, we got this bill because we didn't follow regular order in 2005. I don't think there was ever a hearing before our Ways and Means Committee that talked about this bill that allowed contractors and small businesses to be able to explain the impact. I am very pleased that I think Chairman Camp is committed to trying to follow regular order in this Congress, unlike what happened in 2005.

The second point is that this reveals a flaw in the CBO calculation. I'm not faulting CBO. They're following their rules. But they assume that the Federal Government has the capacity to implement it. And they only count the revenues. Well, you don't have to go very far to understand that this wouldn't just be a burden on small business and it wouldn't just be a burden on State and local government. The cost of compliance for the Federal Government itself will, I guarantee you, be more than the amount of money that would be collected.

Finally, I felt that we could do better in paying for it; but, frankly, I think the situation that we are in in the months ahead is that we're going to need to do both. We will be making the adjustment that is advanced by my friends from the Ways and Means Committee, and we will be approving the elements that are in the motion that the Democrats would do in terms of fixing an egregious tax loophole for oil companies that only serves to improve their bottom line and does nothing to increase oil supply, does nothing to lower prices. But I will try and move both of those forward.

I very much appreciate it. I get a little wound up on this. But we've been working on it for a long time.

I want to conclude by saying that I hope we don't allow some strategic differences on the floor of the House between the two parties in terms of priorities. As I say, we will end up approving both these approaches because the scale of our deficit is such that we need to do it. The administration will support it, and both parties will ultimately get there. And I think the American public will support it.

But we need to come together to make sure that this legislation that

we're working on this week does not fall victim to crossed signals on the other side of the Capitol. We need to work with the other body. We need to send a strong signal here to make sure that this mistake from 2005 is corrected now and spares unnecessary hardship for our business community and also for State and local government and, indeed, for the Federal Government itself.

Mr. Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1904, legislation to give public lands away to a mining company without an environmental review, without an independent appraisal of the value of the land and the copper beneath it, and which waived all the safeguards applied to other mining projects.

To the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other Tribes that live nearby, these lands are sacred. In addition to the environmental devastation, mining will devastate their relationship to this land. The Apache Treaty of 1852 requires the U.S. to act to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of the Apache people. Instead, this bill facilitates the destruction of their sacred land. This bill requires consultation with tribes only after the exchange, which makes that consultation a mere formality.

This bill will not create American jobs to help us out of this recession. Any jobs will not begin for years--and most of the mining will be done by machines deep underground. Rio Tinto has stated the mine will be operated through its ``Mine of the Future'' program, which is heavily automated, saving the company money by avoiding job creation.

This legislation undermines basic protections of our public lands, and arguments to the contrary are incorrect and misleading.

For instance, the legislation does not require any independent evaluation of the value of the exchange at any time, taking the Rio Tinto's word for the value of the land, the copper beneath it, and the impacts mining will cause to the land, water resources, ecosystems, and stability of the landscape. The Act exempts Rio Tinto from requirements for bonding and clean-up of the mining project, leaving taxpayers with the bill for the inevitable clean-up.

Even more misleading, the legislation does require the appearance of compliance with NEPA, but only after the exchange has taken place, which is too late to be any more than a formality. The Secretary will have to prepare a single Environmental Impact Statement, which will be the basis for all future decisions under applicable Federal laws and regulations, but only after the exchange, with no discretion after completion of the EIS. The Act prohibits the Secretary from considering alternatives to specific mining activities, including alternatives that would preserve cultural sites, and requires the Secretary to issue permits for mineral exploration within 30 days of enactment of the act. The Act requires Rio Tinto to submit a plan of operations, but does not allow the Secretary to reject the plan, even if it is insufficient to conduct even a limited review.

Lastly, there are no provisions to protect the water supplies in the region from large-scale depletions from mining operations or contamination. There are no protections for groundwater resources under the San Carlos Apache Reservation, which is protected by the Apache Treaty of 1872 and the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992.

The Act bypasses all normal administrative processes that other mining companies are required to follow. This bill amounts to a land giveaway to a company without a promise of American jobs anytime soon.

Today's Washington Post has an interesting article about the possibility that Congress will jettison the Transportation Enhancement funding. Best known for providing resources for bike and pedestrian activities, it also opens the door to a wide range of important benefits. Sadly, the language in the article betrays a lack of understanding on the part of those who would eliminate these important programs.

For instance, they single out somehow that this was forcing the creation of wildlife corridors--turtle tunnels, passages that don't just comply with our environmental responsibilities. These aren't something to trivialize. More Americans die in collisions with moose, with deer--or, for that matter, from swerving to avoid a turtle in the roadway--than die on our airplanes and buses in a given year. These are not trivial issues. These are areas that give choices to be able to deal with meaningful transportation problems.

Right now, as I speak, there are millions of Americans stuck in traffic--burning fuel, wasting time, raising their blood pressure. The investment in complete transportation systems, which includes bike and pedestrian activities, means that there are hundreds of thousands of cars that aren't in front of these people in the roadway because they're able to walk or bike to work, and they're not fighting these commuters for a parking space.

These programs are about safety. In the communities that enhance bike and pedestrian activity, everyone is safer. Look at the numbers in New York City or in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. It isn't just the pedestrian and the cyclist who are safer, but it's also the individual motorist. Traffic accident rates for everybody have declined.

It gives people transportation choices. More people can let their children walk or bike to school safely on their own because of the Safe Routes to School program rather than producing another bulge in the early morning commute. Choice also means healthier communities and the people who live in them. It's easier to get gentle exercise, cleaner air, less energy wasted.

The costs associated with pollution and obesity are astronomical. This gives values to families. Communities that have balanced transportation programs actually spend less on transportation. The figures for my hometown of Portland, Oregon, show that the average family saves $2,500 a year not being stuck in traffic, in a commuting mess--money that they can spend on health care or books, restaurants or housing.

It's not just pedestrians and cyclists who would be shortchanged if we jettison these programs. The same adjustments that make it safer to walk or bike also have a profound impact on people who rely on walkers, baby strollers, motorized scooters. These enhancements have enhanced the community for the elderly, the disabled, and the young.

We also, frankly, have a current debate that shows exactly why we need a national policy. It's easy for people to get confused or misled. Nobody is forced to build a specific project. It forces State transportation officials to work harder and think differently, but it gives people more choices, more value, better health, stronger communities. It means that all our communities are more livable and that our families are safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

The 20-year legacy of the Transportation Enhancement program is strong. That's why they are the most requested transportation projects that Congress has entertained for the last 20 years. I do hope that we debate it fully and fairly. In the end, if we do, I am confident we will retain these important programs, and if anything, we will strengthen them.

Madam Speaker, today I voted against the badly flawed H.R. 358, a Republican bill brought to the floor today that will have a profoundly negative impact on a woman's ability to make personal healthcare decisions. I am deeply troubled by any congressional action that restricts a woman's right to choose. I oppose this legislation and reiterate my support for a women's right to make her own decision about her healthcare decisions and obtain access to emergency care.

Instead of advancing policies to put Americans back to work, Republicans instead have decided to debate legislation restricting the health care choices available to women and their families. If enacted, H.R. 358 would limit the choices individuals and families have regarding their health insurance coverage, even forcing individuals to drop coverage they have already selected. It gives hospital workers the right to refuse treatment to women in need, even in the case of rape, incest or life-threatening complications. To force insurance companies and healthcare providers to deny a woman access to a legal procedure would be a very disturbing step backwards.

Already federal law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. This legislation further restricts the ability of individuals and families to make personal decisions about their health care.

At a time when my colleagues are saying that they want to make government smaller, it is hypocritical and dangerous to pretend that a small government gets to make personal health care decisions for women and families. There is no room for government involvement in the personal and difficult decisions around women's reproductive choices. I strongly oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from North Carolina that it is time for us to not just reassess but readjust our policies in Afghanistan, scale it down and bring the troops home.

There's another area of consensus that I hope we can focus on: Most people agree that employment, that jobs, ought to be a priority for this Congress, for the government, for American business. Much of what you hear on Capitol Hill about creating jobs and employment is very, very contentious. Yet what is complex and controversial in Congress is not so hard when you move off the Hill, when you look at what the experts suggest, when you look at what the American people will support, for the shape of a future recovery is emerging in terms of a consensus about what we should do. I think we probably will; the question is when.

First and foremost, it is important that we rebalance our long-term programs and priorities. But in the short term, it is not only important to keep the spending levels where they are, it would be disastrous to cut it further. Chairman Bernanke said just last week that short-term increases can strengthen economic demand with a long- term adjustment to strengthen our balance sheet by reducing the deficit.

One of the first places to start is rebuilding and renewing America. Experts agree we have vast unmet needs; the Society of Civil Engineers suggests $2.3 trillion that should be spent in the next 5 years on repairing our roads and our bridges, extending and enhancing our transit system. There are two dozen cities across America that are looking at reintroducing a modern streetcar which can be done quickly and will spark investment in those communities that have that opportunity.

We have aging and inadequate water systems that leak 6 billion gallons of water a day, enough to fill 9,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools that would stretch from Washington, DC, to Pittsburgh. We have an aging and ineffective electrical grid. We have pipelines that need to be upgraded for safety. There is environmental cleanup, especially expensive Superfund sites that otherwise will continue to put a cloud over the adjacent businesses and governments.

This will create millions of family-wage jobs in the course of the next year. It is important to deal with our health care system, which is creating jobs. But, unfortunately, it's creating jobs now very inefficiently. We pay more for healthcare than anybody else in the world, by far. Compared to what other developed countries produce, we have mediocre results as a whole. Spectacular for some Americans, but overall, Americans die sooner, get sick more often, stay sick longer. By accelerating the health care reforms to provide value instead of volume of health care, we can squeeze more value and the right type of employment that will be sustainable over time and help make Americans healthier.

There is, Mr. Speaker, no question that we need in fact to pay for this over the long term. But the path here is something that most of the American public will in fact agree on, and the experts have a consensus that this is where we start, with tax equity, making sure everybody is paying their fair share adjusting user fees for infrastructure to account for inflation--not anything immediate, but over the course of the next year or two--to be able to have the cash flow to meet our obligations for transportation, for water; reinstituting the Superfund tax that expired in 1995, leaving communities with the toxic legacy.

It's important to consider a financial transaction fee, something that other European countries have--that England has had for over a century--that would in fact give stability to our stock market. This is something that's within our capacity, Mr. Speaker. I hope we do it sooner rather than later.

On balance, the package of measures moving forward is a constructive development for America's economy, and particularly for my State of Oregon. The people I represent will see increased sales abroad of machinery, technology, and agricultural products. This, in turn, will lead to increased activity at our ports. Beef exports from Oregon will increase to help our State's farmers and ranchers. Services ranging from engineering, design, to the legal sector, all will increase. The Korean free trade agreement means jobs for Oregonians.

Some people have complained this process took too long, but I commend this administration and, particularly, my colleague, Mr. Levin, who didn't rush to approve trade deals that weren't good enough. Dramatic improvements have been made to the Korean free trade agreement where blatant unfairness towards American automobile sales in Korea have been addressed. Indeed, this agreement is now supported by the American workers who make cars. And I commend Mr. Levin for his untiring efforts.

In total, these agreements represent improvements that we can build upon, but do not signal that we can relax our efforts. There's more that can be done. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure the benefits of trade are more widely distributed, and in the spirit with which we discussed today, that they, in fact, are enforced.

I've been encouraged by the renewed commitment to use the tools as they're supposed to be. I was pleased the Senate has acted on Chinese currency manipulation, and that the administration's decision to impose tariffs on illegal Chinese activity in the tire market was sustained by the WTO. I look forward to helping ensure a continued focus on appropriate trade enforcement.

Our economy has grown increasingly interdependent around the world, especially in Oregon. Our best efforts are needed to make sure we realize the promise of international trade. It is not a one-way street. The years spent to improve these agreements were an important step in that direction.

I rise in support of H.R. 2832, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011.

This legislation continues vital coverage of the TAA program while it expands the Generalized System of Preferences, a key trade and development program.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our workers, communities, and economy can adjust to a rapidly globalizing economy. As Congress advances international trade opportunities for our firms, it has an opportunity to ensure that American workers can also compete.

Since 1962, the TAA has expanded to respond to the continual changes to the economy and the global system. Among the most significant changes were those that we made when the Democrats were in charge just in 2009, which expanded the program to include service workers as well as to improve the coverage of reemployment benefits, job search benefits, relocation and health care benefits. It produced tangible results. The coverage in 2008 certified 125,000 workers. As a result of the changes we made in 2009, 280,000 workers were certified.

The expansion of the program appropriately reflects the challenges trade poses to our service economy, and continues our commitment to the manufacturing sector. In my State alone, in 2010, the coverage reached over 10,000 workers and directed $30 million in Federal funds to carry out those efforts and to support our economy as it adjusted to competition from international trade.

It's interesting to see the broad range of supporters. The Communications Workers of America say that TAA is a critical lifeline in providing retraining and education, helping service workers to pull themselves back up and find good new jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will score the vote on TAA, writing that this legislation is a thoughtful compromise that preserves the more effective elements of the five-decade-old TAA program.

I am also pleased that we are dealing with the Generalized System of Preferences. I think my good friend from the State of Kansas may have been confused. I was, frankly, frustrated that it had been held up. We passed it in the last Congress. There was nothing to have prevented my Republican friends from bringing it forward at the beginning of this Congress. In fact, I wished that they would have, but they didn't get around to it until September. I don't know why, but I think the criticism is misplaced.

Regardless, each day without action on GSP costs American companies $1.8 million in extra, unnecessary import tariffs. I've watched as the expiration of GSP has cost Evergreen Container in Portland, Oregon, $50,000 already this year--$10,000 for this company, $70,000 over here, another $5,000 here. It adds up. $1.8 million a day.

But it's more than just a trade agreement and helping American companies. Under the GSP program, we will judge our trading partners on the protection of American commercial interests, such as the protection of intellectual property and preventing the seizure of property belonging to U.S. citizens or businesses. We judge them on the protection of individual rights, the protection of commonly accepted labor rights, and the elimination of child labor.

We ought to add the protection of the environment to this criteria. I raised it in our Ways and Means hearing. The thought was we were going to go ahead and not adjust the status quo, but the protection of the environment exerts tremendous influence on international trade. The trade in illegally logged timber, for instance, costs the U.S.-based legal timber industry billions of dollars a year. If we truly expect trade to be a tool of development, trade must support environmental protections in our partner nations as our free trade agreements do.

Concern for the environment is a core element of development. It reflects the appreciation for civil law, for the protection of the rights of individuals, and of a concern for the long-term sustainability of state and society and of the planet. It should have a place in our GSP program. I hope when it comes next before us that we've added environmental protections to the criteria.

Mr. Speaker, in 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to complete and issue regulations on hazardous air pollutants by 2000. This week, we considered two bills that would delay two regulations for at least another six years--with no deadline for EPA to complete these regulations and giving industry no deadline to comply. Enacting these bills combines continued air pollution with true regulatory uncertainty.

H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 targeted regulations that would reduce emissions from two of the dirtiest industries in the country--cement kilns and industrial boilers--when most other industries already adhere to similar Clean Air Act regulations. Together, the two regulations eliminated by these bills would save 9,100 American lives every year and yield $17 to $43 in health care savings for every dollar spent reducing emissions under the new standards. Both bills require EPA to throw out work it has already completed and start over. Both bills add to the deficit and fail to comply with the Republican cut-go policy. Both bills gut EPA's authority to require the most protective standard (MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology) and replace it with a requirement to select the least burdensome standard, specifically including ``work practice'' standards, which are merely a requirement to keep equipment in working order. Both bills sacrifice public health to private industry profit.

I strongly oppose both H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in Washington on October 6, 2011 to vote against them. Had I been able, I would have voted against both H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.

Mr. Speaker, in 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to complete and issue regulations on hazardous air pollutants by 2000. This week, we are considering two bills that would delay two regulations for at least another six years--with no deadline for EPA to complete regulations, and giving industry no deadline to comply. My amendment will add a finding to H.R. 2681 that the Clean Air Act required these regulations before 2000, and required the mandated emissions reductions to occur by 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I note with sorrow the passing of Roger Kennedy last Friday. Roger had a long and storied career that exemplified notions of public service. He was, indeed, a renaissance man.

It's hard to think of anything that Roger had not done in his lifetime, with the possible exception of hold elective office. He was Director of the National Park Service, Director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, vice president of finance for the Ford Foundation. He was special assistant to three Cabinet Secretaries, a lawyer, a journalist, and somehow found time to write 10 books. Actually, he had run unsuccessfully for Congress against fellow Minnesotan Gene McCarthy over 60 years ago. How might history have been different if he had won.

You found out about Roger's exploits in bits and pieces. When you were engaged in conversation, he would reach back into the past to illustrate points with very tangible, concrete, easy-to-understand examples, often with himself having been in the middle of it.

My legislative director, Janine Benner, and I became acquainted with Roger as we were dealing with policies to prevent, cope, and recover from natural disasters. One of Roger's books was titled ``Wildfire and Americans: How to Save Lives, Property, and Your Tax Dollars.'' His kind words mentioning us by name in the acknowledgement was a high point of both of our careers. He was a valued participant in sessions we would have before and after Hurricane Katrina. He was a keen student of the built environment, dealing with unintended consequences of policy, whether putting Los Alamos nuclear laboratory facilities in the middle of an area that had been repeatedly burned by wildfires or digging into the history of the early South, slavery and land use, the Jeffersonian model. He provided information and insights that were unique, profound, and provocative. Even after his retirement, he continued to be a scholar, an advocate, a friend, and a mentor-- especially a mentor.

I have read the articles that were about Roger in The New York Times, The Washington Post, but none captured better than a note from our legislative director, Janine Benner, who wrote, ``Roger was a big thinker, understanding the way things in the world fit together. I loved just listening to him talk. It made me feel like at least there were a few people who understand how the world really should be. I always kept my notes from the conversations in hopes that they would make me smarter. He was devoted to public service, even in `retirement.' He was always thinking about ways to make the world a better place. While he was very focused on the past, writing books about history, he was a master at using that knowledge to inform himself and others about the future. Preventing devastating damage from wildfires and his exploration of the flame zone was a great example.''

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about someone's passing as an opportunity to celebrate their life. It's hard to imagine a better life to be celebrated, more productive, with greater joy and insight, than the life Roger Kennedy lived.

Today people in government seem incapable of dealing with big issues, matters of consequence in a thoughtful and cooperative fashion. Well, there's no better role model for any of us to meet the challenge in all our opportunities and responsibilities than Roger Kennedy. On behalf of our legislative director, Janine Benner, and the people in our office who were privileged to know and work with Roger, we extend our sympathies to his wife, Frances, and Roger's circle of family and friends. We are all going forward strengthened by Roger's friendship, scholarship, and example.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. And I must say, I could not agree more with the gentleman from Florida. If we were really concerned about creating job opportunities and strengthening the cement industry, we would be moving forward with legislation to rebuild and renew America, to deal with crumbling roads, inadequate transit systems, unsafe bridges, water and sewage systems, and treatment plants that need investment.

Sadly, what we have seen since the new majority assumed office is that, in fact, they have been involved with a series of initiatives that are actually cutting back on that initiative, that are reducing resources for infrastructure at exactly the time when America needs them the most.

Now, I'm sorry, but this bill continues an agenda that we heard articulated a great deal last week, that is, not willing to take the 21-year delay from the amendments to the Clean Air Act and move forward to have something in effect by 2013. They want to delay, to start over in many of these cases.

Now remember, in 1990 we amended the Clean Air Act to require these regulations to be completed by the year 2000. But a combination of the Republican takeover of Congress and foot dragging by the Bush administration meant that we weren't ready. When they came up with something out of the Bush EPA, it was inadequate and the courts threw it out. Well, we're back trying to deal with this responsibility.

Now, concern was raised about who cares about people in their districts. Well, I would be prepared to argue that anybody ought to look at the research that's available. Look at the tens of thousands of lives that will be impacted: 6,600 lives every year will be saved by the boiler rule; 2,500 lives a year by the cement rule. Per year. This affects people in every district; massive health care savings across America from people who won't be subjected to those conditions. If you care about people that you represent, you ought to factor in these health considerations.

Now, this legislation requires EPA to toss out work that it has already done and replace it with the least burdensome standard, including the work practice standard which is only a requirement to keep the equipment in working order and regularly tuned up. If we had adopted that initiative, that philosophy 20 years ago, tens of thousands of people would have died.

But we didn't. We moved forward. And, in fact, the record shows, despite arguments like we've heard today, there were tens of thousands of jobs created complying with the Clean Air Act requirements.

But what would they do here? You know, as my good friend from Florida pointed out, there are many in the industry who are already complying. They've seen the handwriting on the wall. They want to be good citizens, or there is pressure locally to clean up their act. This bill would reward the people who are dragging their feet and have the dirtiest plants and equipment, and penalize the people who are being responsible environmental stewards.

You know, my friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes adopt rhetoric that the 17,000 men and women who work in EPA are the enemy of the American people, are the enemy of the economy. Well, I suggest they ought to get acquainted with some of their constituents who work for the EPA.

And work to make sure that they have the resources to do their jobs right, and to stop making them political footballs.

I've had my disagreements over the years with EPA, but I respect the men and women who work there. I understand the pressures they're under, and Congress is not helping them do their job any better. And this would be a dramatic step backward. Mercifully, it won't go any place in the Senate, and the President would veto it anyway. But, we should understand what is going on.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 5: After section 1, insert the following

section (and redesignate the subsequent sections

accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 6: After section 1, insert the following

section (and redesignate the subsequent sections

accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, for two decades documentary filmmaker Ken Burns has been helping America understand who we are. Tonight, in the Visitors Center, there is a 5 o'clock reception and a 5:30 special screening of his new documentary on prohibition. He's had amazing productions dealing with the Civil War, baseball, jazz, the national parks, but this, I think, is going to be perhaps his best.

Based on what I saw last night, nothing is more timely, more profound for the challenges that we face today. And I can't wait for the next two episodes that will be aired tonight at 8 p.m. and again tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Burns. Thank you, PBS. Thanks to previous Congresses for support and the ``pre-funding'' that allows long-term projects like this. Here is another example of the unique and critical role played by public broadcasting, and Congress should make sure that it continues.

Mr. Speaker, this year one of the nation's top liberal arts colleges in the heart of my Congressional District in Portland, Oregon is celebrating its centennial. Reed College began its first classes in 1911 with 50 students--26 men and 24 women--and five faculty members and has grown to 1,400 students and 135 faculty. Committed to intellectual rigours and academic freedom, Reed has served as a groundbreaking model for liberal arts colleges over the past 100 years.

Reed's commitment to academic excellence is reflected in the student body and faculty. All students are expected to complete an original work in a major subject area--a senior thesis. A higher percentage of Reed graduates go on to earn Ph.Ds across fields than do graduates of all but three other U.S. colleges and universities. Students regularly win Fulbright, Watson, National Science Foundation, and other fellowships, and the faculty has received national recognition for its commitment to teaching.

While ``Reedies''--as students call themselves--are widely known for studying--sleeping--and studying some more, they engage in a broad range of campus and civic activities. One such tradition dates back to 1913 and is

known as Canyon Day, in which students and community members come together to clean up and restore the ecosystem of the natural canyon and creek that meanders through campus.

It is said the true mark of a Reed education is not conventional success, but a certain ``quality of thought, curiosity, and willingness to challenge received wisdom.'' For a hundred years Reed has remained a hallmark of rigorous scholarship and intellectual pursuit. I am honored to represent this distinguished institution and look forward to celebrating future landmark occasions.