Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Today marks an historic day for the health of all Americans. Today, this Congress joins with the American people to say that health care is not only a policy issue, but an issue of morality; and no longer will the conscience of this country allow Americans to go without access to affordable, comprehensive health care coverage. I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and the House leadership for their steadfast determination; and Chairmen Rangel, Miller, and particularly Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce committee on which I am proud to sit, for their thoughtful leadership on this issue.

Access to affordable health care has the power to break the shackles imposed on Americans today who are fearful of leaving their job, starting a new business, or going to the doctor due to their lack of coverage. In my district alone, this bill has the power to provide coverage for 30,000 uninsured residents; improve employer-coverage for 524,000 residents; provide credits to help pay for coverage for up to 120,000 households; improve Medicare for 84,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 7,400 seniors; allow 20,000 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 18,600 small businesses. Additionally, this legislation will protect up to 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs; and reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $28 million.

As a member of the Energy and Commerce committee I was able to fight to include several provisions that will improve access to affordable health care in Washington state, the most important of which is President Obama's public health insurance option. Like our President, I believe that it is important to protect the interest of the consumer by providing choices so that people may decide which health insurance solution works best for them and their family. That is one reason I am a strong advocate of a public health insurance option. The President's public health insurance option will be offered in a health insurance exchange, created in this bill, alongside coverage sold by private insurers; thereby using natural market competition to control the rising cost of health coverage while protecting consumer choice. The implementation of this exchange will make insurance affordable for an additional 36 million Americans, raising the share of legal, nonelderly residents with health insurance coverage from 83 percent to 96 percent. The public insurance option will bring competition to the marketplace and consumer interests will be protected by addressing affordability and access issues that plague our current system.

Washington state is a leader in high-quality, efficient health care. Our doctors and hospitals produce some of the country's best health care outcomes. We have a culture of medicine that places emphasis on patient safety, outcomes, and care. And yet for decades we have been penalized for our efficiency by receiving lower reimbursement rates per service under the Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement model. On average our providers are reimbursed fifteen to fifty percent less per service than their counterparts in other parts of the country. The reason for this discrepancy is that our statewide efficiency gives the appearance that it merely costs less to deliver care in the state because our overall patient costs are lower.

Opponents have argued that practice expenses vary by geography. But, on November 5, 2009, the American Medical Association (AMA) released the results of its 2007-2008 study that included physician practice expense information from over seventy medical specialty societies and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Practice Information (PPI) survey. The results of the study showed that expenses did not differ significantly by either metro location or census region and reconfirmed what providers in Washington state have know for decades--that the Medicare physician payment formula is flawed.

To this end, I was honored to be one of eight Members chosen by Speaker Pelosi to negotiate a resolution to this geographic disparity issue that has plagued our country for decades. The result, after four months of negotiations, is an agreement that will move the nation to a system that rewards high quality, cost-effective care; reimbursing for the value rather than the volume of services. It will fix existing Medicare geographic payment inequities and will cover both physician and hospital payments. This will provide an historic transformation of the Medicare payment system to ensure better care for patients and reduce health care costs over the long term.

The first part of the agreement addresses the geographic variation in the rates doctors are paid per service. The bill instructs the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study to evaluate and make recommendations to improve the geographic adjustment factors in the Medicare reimbursement formulas which will be completed one year after enactment. The Secretary of HHS will then implement a new Medicare payment rate that takes into account the IOM recommendations. An initial investment of $4 billion per year in 2012 and 2013 is allocated to make payment rate adjustments. After 2013 reimbursement adjustments will become budget neutral.

Geographic variation in the utilization of services is addressed in the second IOM study on high value care. The IOM will make recommendations on how to transform the Medicare payment system to reward value and quality of care. Value is defined as the efficient delivery of high quality, evidence-based, patient-centered care. The study will be completed by April 15, 2011. No later than ninety days after the report is completed, the Secretary of HHS will submit to Congress a preliminary implementation plan based on the IOM study, which MedPac and GAO will evaluate within forty-five days. The IOM's quality and value-based payment recommendations will automatically go into effect unless the House and Senate pass joint resolutions of disapproval by May 31, 2012. The goal was to finish all studies and changes before the public option goes into effect in 2013 so the recommendations would be incorporated.

This deal is a real victory for Washington state. Correcting the fundamental inequalities in Medicare reimbursement rates that underpay Washington state physicians will ensure access to Medicare physicians for Washington state seniors and Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, this provision sets in motion a fundamental shift in the way we will reimburse for medical care going forward; moving away from a fee-for- service model and towards an outcome-based model. This shift will provide real cost containment by incentivizing and reimbursing for the quality, not the quantity, of medical care across the United States; saving the country billions of dollars.

A compounded issue resulting from Medicare reimbursement disparity is the reliance on Medicare Advantage plans by Medicare beneficiaries in low cost areas. Medicare Advantage plans in Washington state have played a critical role in providing seniors with access to care because they have been able to reimburse providers at a higher rate than traditional Medicare, thereby attracting providers into the network who would otherwise be unable to treat Medicare beneficiaries due to cost. It is for this reason that I fought tirelessly to ensure a quality bonus for high-quality, efficient Medicare Advantage plans. Under the language I negotiated in the House bill, four-star rated plans and above, in the bottom thirty percent of costs to the system, would be eligible for a 1.5 percent bonus in 2011; a 3.0 percent bonus in 2012; and a 5.0 percent bonus for each subsequent year. These bonus payments will ensure the continuation of high quality health care for Medicare Advantage recipients in Washington state.

Washington state is not only a leader in patient care, but also in medical innovation. The biotech industry is an important health care partner in Washington state. Across the state roughly 1,060 biotech companies employ 23,047 Washingtonians. The state ranks eighth in National Institute of Health grants and in the past two years academic bioscience research expenditures totaled $685 million. The innovation occurring in the state has lead to some of the leading biologic therapies for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and many serious rare diseases.

Biologics are living organisms, different and more complex than small molecule drugs. Biotech medicines can be determined to be the ``same'' as the original drug, but science is not yet at a point where they can be determined to be ``identical.'' And even small differences between a copy and an original biologic can cause differences in effectiveness, and, in some cases, serious side effects. Therefore it is necessary that policy reflect the uniqueness of these therapies, and ensure drug efficacy and patient safety. I believe a pathway for the approval of biosimilar biologics is the critical next step to providing patients with increased access to lifesaving therapies. I also believe that we can create a pathway that provides patients with lower-cost medicine without sacrificing safety or eliminating incentives to create breakthrough medicines.

This is why I, joined by my fellow committee members Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, introduced H.R. 1548, the Pathway for Biosimilars Act. The legislation protects patients by ensuring patient safety, recognizing the scientific differences between small-molecule drugs and biologics, maintaining the physician-patient relationship, and preserving incentives for innovation. I was proud to co-sponsor an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of H.R. 3200 that incorporated key pieces of our legislation. The amendment includes twelve years of data exclusivity for innovator biologics, ensuring not only that these life-changing and life-saving biologic treatments are more accessible and affordable, but that we also foster continued research and development investment needed to search for new cures and treatments. The strong bipartisan votes in both the House and Senate on this issue demonstrate that Congress is committed to a fair and safe pathway for biosimilars. I commend the House for adopting my legislation as part of HR 3962, and it is my sincere hope that it will be included in the final conference agreement.

A few other provisions that I want to highlight are great examples of how Washington state's health care leadership has helped shape federal health care legislation. Earlier this year the state passed a common sense law that will save billions of dollars in administrative health care costs by standardizing insurance claims and forms processes, and I was proud to fight for the inclusion of similar language in the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Washington state has also been innovative in health care plan structures allowing for the emergence of direct primary care medical home plans that provide low cost coverage of primary care services. This model has granted access to care for a population that has been shut out from traditional health care coverage due to high costs. I was grateful to see the inclusion of this coverage model in the health care reform legislation. I am proud to represent a district and state that is leading the way on health care policy.

Once again I would like thank Speaker Pelosi and the House leadership for their continued determination that brought all facets of the Democratic Caucus to the table and ensured that each member had a voice in the debate. As a result the House of Representatives has produced a health care reform bill that will provide access to affordable health care and bend the cost curve; and I am once again proud to offer my support.

Mr. Speaker, today in the days of 10 percent unemployment, it is particularly important to be fair to the American worker. And right now, there is a gross inequity to the American worker pending in the contract to acquire a new aerial fuel tanker by the U.S. Air Force.

Right now, we know that one of the bidders, the Airbus company, has received grossly unfair multibillion dollar subsidies from the European Union countries. It is absolutely necessary for the United States Air Force to factor into this bid the illegal subsidies that Airbus consortium has received.

It is inconceivable that one agency of the U.S. Government has found illegal subsidies by this bidder, and another agency may award a bid without taking into consideration the illegal subsidies found by the

Well, with 10 percent unemployment, we know this country needs to act and we need to act quickly, and we need to act quickly in the job front of jobs that just won't be temporary and just won't be make-work jobs but will be part of the transition of our Nation to a Nation that can lead the world in the clean energy economy of the future. And we know that we have to get in that race for those jobs right now. We have bills pending, as we have already passed in the House the energy bill, which is now pending in the other Chamber; the stimulus bill, which is still in the process of being implemented; and we may have another bill on the floor of this House within the next month. All three of those bills are ways that we can jump-start the job growth in this economy by putting people to work on the jobs that are going to be the long-term jobs.

I want to note something. Our President was in China yesterday. I believe he's still there today. I was there about 4 months ago meeting with Speaker Pelosi, the President, and the Premier of China, and I will tell you the risk our country really has is that there is a country across the Pacific who fully understands where the jobs of the future are going to be. And when we talked to the President and Premier of China, they made very clear that they were going to try to dominate these industries and dominate job creation in building electric cars, electric motors for electric cars, wind turbines, solar voltaic plants, solar thermal plants. The Chinese are spending about $12 million an hour on renewable energy job creation. They spent three times as much on their stimulus bill as we did on ours in job creation in clean energy. They want to dominate the job creation of the future. And we are determined in this Chamber to get in that race both in the energy bill we passed in August and in this job creation bill we hope to be considering in the next month on the floor to continue this job creation.

I just want to mention two things that I think we ought to do very quickly. Number one, we should be putting thousands of Americans to work in retrofitting our homes and our businesses and our public buildings and our schools to make them energy efficient.

We started down that road in the stimulus bill, but there's more we can do to put people to work putting insulation in our homes, putting new windows on our homes, putting more energy efficient heating and cooling systems in our homes, in our schools and our buildings; and we will be proposing to leadership in the House, actually, this afternoon of this Sustainable Energy and Environment Caucus four or five ways to promote that type of job creation.

Second, we hope to use the Tax Code to continue incentive for Americans to make these kind of investments. We have a tax credit for homeowners right now, but it's just a credit you could take at the end of the year. We want to make that an advance so homeowners

possibly can get the cash to work with this right now to hire people to put people to work in retrofitting their homes. We want to use the Tax Code to extend a couple of the tax credits that we're now using to develop job creation, for instance, the bio-fuel industry, that is expiring this December if we don't extend it. So there's just two ideas. I know we'll have some time tonight, but I would suggest that we could at least start at those two ideas.

And I may note, if I can, efficiency, some people think that means just turning off your lights when you're not in the room. Efficiency needs to be seen as a job creation engine because when you become efficient you do two things: one, you make investments in your infrastructure to make it more efficient. And when you make those investments, you hire sheet metal workers to do the duct work, you hire people in the construction trades to do the retrofitting, you hire people who are manufacturing energy efficient refrigerators and energy efficient air conditioners, and a whole slew of these new businesses. So efficiency is a job creator first.

Secondly, after the efficiency is installed, you free up money for other investments. A business that can save 20 percent on its energy costs, and many businesses can, there's a company called McKinstry in Seattle which is leading the world and putting thousands of people to work. They're freeing up that money for businesses to make other investments. This is a job creator. We've just got to use the Tax Code on something like the PACE bonds, another idea that we will be proposing to leadership, to allow municipalities to float bonds, use that money to give to homeowners, let the homeowners retrofit their home and pay back the municipality on their property taxes. It's a surefire winner for everyone to get money to homeowners fast so that they can hire people to fix up their homes and have security for municipalities of getting paid back.

You made me think of something. You mentioned smart people and smart ideas.

I had a very smart person in my office today. His name is Mike Town. He's an environmental science teacher at Redmond High School, the Redmond High School Mustangs in Redmond, Washington. Mike is leading a national effort called Cool Schools. It's something he started at Redmond High School to try to see if his high school could figure out how to not waste so much energy and save the school district money. They now have saved something like, it's about $25,000 a year just for their high school by doing some commonsense efficiency things that they have done and in investments they've made at Redmond High School.

They now have a group called Cool Schools which are trying to get schools across the country to engage in this kind of a challenge to see how much energy you can save; and the brilliant ideas a lot of the kids are coming up with--kids meaning 15-, 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds--the ideas on how to green their schools that are making their schools a lot more cost effective so the taxpayer can save money, and a lot more green for the environment. And the kids learn a lot about science as well. I just mention it because the schools can be a factory of ideas, but it's a place to put some investment to save taxpayers money. When we make the public buildings more efficient, we save taxpayers money.

But here's the challenge, and here's where I think our last energy bill, and perhaps our next jobs bill which might be on this floor in December sometime can really do a service. The challenge has been for homeowners, how to get the up-front financing to pay the contractor to fix your house up. Everybody knows that you might spend a few thousand dollars fixing your home up, and you're going to save a lot more over the long run because it's going to reduce your energy bill. But the question is, how do you come up with the scratch to do the first contract?

Well, where we can help, and we're going to be proposing several ideas in this jobs bill that will essentially help the homeowner finance that, and there are several ways to do that: one, to give them an advance credit on the credit that now exists on your income taxes, to actually give an advance so you can pay the contractor to get it going.

Second, we want to make it easier for cities to do what some cities like Boulder, Colorado are doing. They have a program where basically the city gives the money to the homeowner, the homeowner hires the contractor, then the homeowner pays the city back on their property tax. And it's a lien on the house, so the city knows they're going to get their money back. The city then issues a bond to generate the capital to pay for this program. We want to help some cities by guaranteeing that bond, they can sell it on the bond market for less money then and generate more bang for their buck.

This is the kind of program that is just difficult really to see how it will fail, because almost any investment that people make to their homes seem to pay off in the long run in reduced energy bills. It's just getting that original capital to get going. So, as part of our jobs bill, we're going to be proposing a way to accelerate the ability of homeowners, small businesses, school districts, public utilities, can generate that capital to get the money investment done and then save money over the long run. And when we do that, everybody wins.

I mean, I know this seems likes a no-brainer. Why isn't it happening naturally? It's not happening naturally because people can't get the capital to make these worthwhile investments. And when we do this we're putting carpenters to work, we're putting plumbers to work, we're putting sheet metal workers to work, we're putting truck drivers to work, we're putting architects to work, we're putting designers to work. This is really a sweet spot for us, and I hope that we can accelerate this.

I just want to make one comment before I leave. There is some really good news out here for America on the job front in clean energy. Two weeks ago on the Microsoft campus out in Washington State, I drove a Ford Focus, which will probably be the first American, mass- produced all-electric vehicle. And this car is the bomb. When Americans get in an all-electric car and understand how much torque an all- electric car can generate, this is the fastest car I've been in since I was in my buddy's Chevy 404 in 1968. When you hit the pedal, it's not a gas pedal, I guess we will call it the accelerator, they will still call it the gas pedal anyway, even though it's all-electric, unbelievable power is generated because an electric engine gives you immediate torque. In an internal combustion engine, you have the pistons and you have to get the momentum up. Electricity is immediate torque.

Now everybody has been talking about electric cars because they are so efficient. They can wean us off of our Middle Eastern oil addiction, which is so dangerous to us. They can reduce global warming. But what Americans will really love is how fast they are and the acceleration you get from them. That will be the fun thing about them.

The good news is we now have an opportunity to get thousands of Americans to work building electric cars, building plug-in hybrid cars. And General Motors has the Volt, which will be coming out. You plug it in, and it goes 40 miles on all electric, and then it has an internal combustion motor so you can go another 200, 250 miles without having to get another charge.

They have taken a little different approach. Americans will have a choice of how to move forward in electric cars. The Tesla is already on the street, which is all-electric, which is the sportiest, fastest and most amazing-looking car you've ever seen. They're a little expensive right now, but they're working very well.

The point I want to make, though, is we have got to jump-start this progress because the Chinese want to dominate this industry. And once they get a foot in the door internationally, you don't want to be the second place coming out of the chute in the provision for the electric car. And what we did in our energy bill and our stimulus bill has given very significant investment capability in the industry to produce these cars.

We also did it for the batteries. We had $2 billion in the stimulus bill to try to jump-start a domestic lithium ion battery system to run these cars. Now there are some other things we can do perhaps even to move further to get jobs in these industries.

The point I want to make is we can't sit around for 10 years and maybe do this 10 years from now. We have to do it right now for two reasons: one, we've got a 10 percent unemployment rate, and people are desperate out there. We know how trying and the anxiety that unemployment creates. It is one of the most difficult things for people who want to be productive, who want to take care of their families. This is very difficult for thousands of our fellow Americans right now.

But, two, this is the opportunity of the lifetime or maybe several generations that we can't lose to these other countries. And so that is why it's important that the other Chamber pass this energy bill. That's why it is important in our upcoming jobs bill to investigate other ways.

Here is one idea I hope will be considered in the jobs bill: we need to provide charging stations for people. If we are going to have electric cars, we need charging stations. And helping municipalities build these charging station networks is something we might be able to do to get electrical workers, IBEW members, machinists, electrical engineers employed, working with the infrastructure to create charging stations around the Nation. Now we don't need as many as you might think because 60 percent of all our trips are under 40 miles anyway, and these cars are going to have at least a 100-mile range. So most of our trips don't require a car that has 300 mileage. But we still need some in case you want to go a long distance.

So I hope in our jobs bill we will consider ways to jump-start the building out of these electrical systems to get that job done. I want to thank you for letting me participate tonight. I look forward to our next discussion.

Mr. Speaker, health care is not a frivolity or a recreation; it is life itself. To a woman with early-onset breast cancer, health care is life itself. To a child with juvenile-onset diabetes, health care is life itself.

It is well that we reflect how we founded this Union. We believe that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and among those are the right to life--life--liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We pass health care to honor life not just on parchment, but in practice. We pass health care because we cherish the lives of all Americans, not just our own. This is an American step in progress. It is an American right to life.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to relate one call from a small businessman who told me we needed health care reform so that his wife can finally start a small business of her own and be freed from the insurance industry that stopped her from getting insurance.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify section 1188, the generic fill provision in the bill. This section allows Medicare part D plans to waive patient's copays for generic, bioequivalent and biosimilar drugs. I believe that absent explicit approval from the patient's doctor, this inducement should only apply to those biosimilars that have been rated ``interchangeable'' by the FDA, meaning that they can be expected to produce the same clinical result in any given patient and switching medicines poses no greater risk than not switching. With respect to biosimilars that have not been rated as interchangeable, is it your intent that under this provision patients could not be switched to a non-interchangeable biosimilar drug without an explicit request by a patient and approval by their doctor?

Today we should pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and Mr. Upton for their leadership on this bill. I want to thank Mr. Markey for working with me to include language in the bill that recognizes the 17 research reactors in this country that have converted from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium fuel. One of these reactors is in my home State at Washington State University. This reactor can be used for medical isotope production with the use of highly enriched uranium.

I would like to clarify with Mr. Markey that the purpose of section 3(a)(3) which allows reactors that are in the process of converting from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium fuel to qualify for funds under this bill. It is my understanding that this provision should not be interpreted as giving any preferences to these reactors and that all applicants for these funds will be given full and equal consideration.

I yield to Mr. Markey.

I would like to thank the Chair for that clarification and for working with me on one of those conditions which would make sure that we have updated status report for reactors using this exemption.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Before I close, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I may pose it.

Mr. Speaker, do the rules of the House prevent Members, including those in the Chair, from wearing Yankee hats on the floor of the House of Representatives?

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that rule is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Thank you for your Speakership.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the attached letters in support of H.R. 3276 be entered into the Record. They are from Covidien, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and the Health Physics Society.

Covidien,

Hazelwood, MO, July 21, 2009.

Hon. Edward J. Markey,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Markey: Your timely introduction of the

American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009 (AMIPA)

represents an impressive effort to achieve conversion to low

enriched uranium (LEU) without disruption to patients who

depend on critical medical radioisotopes.

Currently, the world is experiencing a molybdenum-99 (Mo-

99) shortage due to the unexpected shutdown of a reactor in

Canada for urgent repair. This reactor and the four others

which produce the vast majority of the world's Mo-99 supply

are all aging, nearing the end of their useful lives. At

stake are millions of diagnostic procedures that utilize

radioisotopes produced using Mo-99, especially technetium 99m

(Tc-99m).

As one of the world's principal Tc 99m suppliers and given

our commitment to secure a global, interdependent Mo-99

supply chain for patients worldwide, Covidien is pleased to

support AMIPA and looks forward to working with you further

on this legislation as it progresses through Congress.

While Covidien supports AMIPA, we do believe aspects of the

bill merit additional attention during the legislative

process. For example, we appreciate your acknowledgement that

the 7 to 10 year timetable may not provide adequate time to

fully transition to commercial-scale LEU utilization. We are

encouraged that the legislative language provides annual

reports to Congress on the status of domestic development and

a National Academy of Sciences report reviewing international

production of Mo-99. We hope these reports will provide ample

time for Congress, if necessary, to intervene if the 7-10

year deadline cannot be met. Also, while the bill is focused

on Mo-99, it does not preclude the development and

manufacturing of other important radioisotopes currently

produced using highly enriched uranium (HEU), such as

radioiodine (I-131), which are also critically important to

patients.

Please accept our thanks for your work on this important

challenge and the opportunity to collaborate with you.

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Wright,

President.

Madam Speaker, today I honor the memory of Svend Auken, a dear friend of mine, a great statesman, and an international leader on environment and energy issues. He passed away this past August after a magnificently robust life of leadership. He served in the Danish Parliament from 1971 until his death, and was Minister for the Environment from 1993 to 1994, and Minister of Environment and Energy from 1994 to 2001. Earlier in his life, he spent time in my home State of Washington, studying for a year at Washington State University in 1961.

Whatever his position, he was always a determined advocate for clean energy and the environment. His leadership has been an inspiration for the world. Svend did not believe in the idea that preserving the environment required sacrificing economic growth. He believed that his Nation could prosper by protecting the environment, or as he put it, ``doing well by doing good.''

Due to his inspired leadership over more than three decades, Denmark introduced new policies and embarked on a national effort to produce more domestic energy and do it cleanly by focusing on energy efficiency, wind power and combined heat and power systems. Since then, Denmark has kept its energy use flat, while its economy has grown nearly 75 percent. Denmark was once entirely dependent on foreign energy, but is now a net exporter of energy. Denmark has aggressive energy efficiency standards for new buildings, and currently produces over 20 percent of its power from wind, and over half of its electricity and around 60 percent of its heat from combined heat and power. Denmark is now a world leader in both of these technologies. As our Nation embarks on its own quest to produce clean, domestic energy, grow our economy, and preserve the environment for our children and grandchildren, we would do well to follow Svend's lead and learn from his life. When we in America adopt a vision of clean energy, it will be in part because we have been inspired by Svend's leadership.

This Friday, the Danish community in Seattle will honor Svend's life at a memorial

service. As I remember my friend, I will remember his vitality, his sense of humor, his devotion to service, and most of all, his leadership and inspiration. We should all remember Svend Auken as a great citizen of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we're having today is between two groups--those who believe we can improve America and those who believe we can't improve America. We believe we can improve American energy; they believe we can't. We believe we can improve health care; they believe we can't. We believe we can stop insurers from preventing us from having coverage because we have a preexisting condition; they believe we can't. We need some more Republicans and fewer Republican'ts because saying we can't improve America is not up to the standards that America was built on. We can stop insurance companies. Let's get some more of these Republican'ts to become Republicans and help us reform health care in this country.

I am not the author of the bill, but I have worked with Mr. Hastings. Thank you for that compliment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of this bill, and I thank Mr. Hastings for his working with us to perfect this bill in a couple of ways.

We have made the bill clear that we have constrained the Park Service's definition of where a potential road could be built. Mr. Hastings and I both felt that it was important for Congress to retain some authority over where the wilderness boundaries are so that we would not give unfettered control to the Executive branch. We also make clear in the bill that the passage of this bill is not intended, in any way shape or form, to instruct the Park Service to change their prioritization on what roads to build or not to build in the Park Service.

There are many needs in the Park Service. We know there is a constrained budget situation. We know there are many roads that have been washed out and that there are trails that have been washed out, and we do not intend in this bill to change any priority array as to what could be done to the Park Service.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this bill simply provides for a study of feasibility of adding the Cascadia Marine Trail to the National Trails System.

This trail is entirely a water-based trail, extending from the Canadian border through the San Juan Islands, Puget Sound and south to our State capital of Olympia. Significant portions of this trail run through the waters of my district. It includes 2,300 miles of shoreline and 55 safe pullouts right now for camping areas of non-motorized, beachable watercraft.

Thousands of people have the potential of enjoying this trail. It was added as a national recreation trail in '94, and the Canoe Association designated the trail as an ACA-recommended water trail in 2005.

We know it's a beautiful spot. I've been there. I encourage everyone to give it a go. It gives users unique opportunities to see eagles, orca, otters, porpoises, and whales. It's quite a place to be, but we do think it's an appropriate study to consider its inclusion in our National Trails System given the national notoriety and publicity that this will entail, and it will allow people to really know about the trail.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva for their work to move this forward. I would like to also acknowledge the National Park Service office in Seattle for their technical assistance. I want to thank my constituents who have been working on this now for at least two decades, particularly the Washington Water Trails Association, especially Don Crook, Reed Waite and Julie Anderson for their efforts, and John Kuntz, with the Olympic Outdoor Centers, and the Kitsap Paddle Club for their leadership.

It is supported by the Washington Water Trails Association, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, and the Washington State Parks.

I want to thank the Speaker, Mr. Larsen, for cosponsoring this bill, and I can guarantee anyone who will enjoy this national water trail that it never rains in Puget Sound.

Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Giffords, the House Leadership and the Chairman for working to pass H.R. 3585 today, which a legislative priority for the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act will strengthen the American solar technology industry through a coordinated research and development program and public-private partnerships.

The Solar Technology Roadmap Act will give even cloudy states like Washington a roadmap to solar technology deployment. The bill will help to ensure that federal funding for solar energy research is prioritized to commercialize new solar technologies to make this clean, renewable energy source more affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Harnessing the power of the sun is an economic opportunity for America, with the potential to help create tens of thousands of clean energy jobs in neighborhoods across the country.

The U.S. has some of the best solar resources of any industrialized nation in the world. Yet while America is currently a leader in solar technology development, other countries like Spain, Germany and China are devoting much more effort and attention to this field, putting U.S. competitiveness in this industry in jeopardy. This bill will strengthen America's solar industry and I urge its passage.

Unfortunately, due to a matter in Washington, I will be absent for the vote on final passage of this important bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Madam Chair, every year, 15 billion gallons of oil are transported through the Puget Sound and the Pacific Northwest waterways. Even a minor tanker spill could release enough oil to devastate our fragile and unique marine ecosystems of Puget Sound. In Washington State, we have been able to successfully keep our shores free from major oil spills by using tug boat escorts for laden tanker transit. The escorts reduce the risk of potentially disastrous oil spills by being ready and able to assist a tanker in a crisis or to begin the cleanup if the worst should happen. Puget Sound is also vulnerable to spills that happen in waters north of the border. Currently, Canada does not mandate tug escorts and the U.S. Coast Guard does not enforce escort requirements for ships entering U.S. waters from Canada. We share these waterways with our Canadian neighbors and I encourage working cooperatively to develop comprehensive rules to require tug escorts for laden tanker ships to protect both sides of our national borders from oil spills.

Puget Sound is a delicate and vast coastal ecosystem that is home to iconic species such as salmon, orca whales, western grebe, and rockfish. For centuries, coastal and regional communities have been dependent on the health of the Puget Sound for cultural, economic, and recreational uses. A major oil spill could disrupt Washington's environment, economy and coastal communities' way of life by severely damaging our ecosystem, shellfish and fishing industry, tribal communities, tourism and recreation.

I have seen the impacts on oil spills in Puget Sound first hand. During a recent incident in 2003, nearly 4,800 gallons of oil spilled into the Puget Sound near Point Wells, just north of Seattle and spread across the Sound to the shores of Kitsap County. The oil contaminated clams and crabs and polluted the sand and marsh grass.

Washington State has worked hard to protect our pristine marine waters and shorelines from oil spills and it is my hope that the U.S. Coast Guard, Canada and Washington State will work together to further protect these vital and important international waterways.

Therefore, I authored an amendment, which was accepted in the Manager's amendment, to encourage these negotiations. I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support and hope that we can continue to work together to protect Puget Sound.

Unfortunately, due to a matter in Washington state, I will be absent during the vote on both the rule and final passage of this bill. Had I been present, I would have supported the rule and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, while we consider what we can really do to reduce unemployment, I think we ought to consider something Secretary Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said yesterday. He told us that China will surpass or possibly has surpassed the United States, not in the ability to do low-wage manufacturing but to do high-technology manufacturing, unless we adopt an energy policy which will jump-start a clean energy economy for the United States and start bringing those high-tech manufacturing jobs home to the United States.

First Solar, a United States company using United States technology, will be building the largest solar plant but building it in China with manufacturing there. Applied Materials, a high-tech manufacturing company, an American company, is developing plants in China.

What Mr. Chu told us, Secretary Chu, is that we need to adopt the clean energy bill now pending in the Senate. This is the ticket out of this recession. This is how we're going to decrease unemployment. We urge the Senate to get moving on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I come to the floor to talk about a very important issue both to our efforts to restore job creation in America and to our national security, and that is the ongoing efforts to replace our air tankers in the U.S. Air Force fleet, which are so vital to our national security, that form the backbone of our Air Force fleet, and everyone knows that our military security depends on our dominant Air Force, air cover for operations. And the ability to have that depends on having a very robust air tanker fleet to provide fuel for our jets in the air.

We now obviously need a new tanker because we relied upon the KC-135 now for decades, and they are now reaching the end of their work life, and we need to replace them for air tankers. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem right now in that the proposal on how to do that is seriously unfair to American workers and seriously jeopardizes our national security interest in maintaining a very strong industrial base to be able to manufacture these aircraft.

What has happened to date is that the U.S. Air Force in its third effort to replace these air tankers with a contract has issued a request asking for proposals to provide air tankers to the

Air Force. And two bidders have expressed an interest. The Boeing consortium domestic company and the Airbus consortium, a largely European content product, are proposed bidders on this contract. There will be rigorous bidding, and there is a very extensive set of rules that the Air Force has set forth on how to run that bidding process so that we can select the most efficient, most effective, and most cost- effective aircraft for the Air Force.

But we are very concerned for two reasons about the current status of that proposal: one, this existing proposal, as the Air Force has proposed to handle the bidding, is extremely unfair to the United States worker and extremely unfair to the United States taxpayer and extremely prejudicial to the United States economy because at the moment, the Air Force has proposed to ignore clearly illegal subsidies that one of the bidders, the Airbus, largely European bidder, has received from the European Union because it is a clear fact that against clear treaties that we have and laws that we have to regulate fair trade, Airbus bidder has received billions of dollars in illegal launch aids. These are subsidies given to the company by the European Union. It is not available to Boeing; it is not available to domestic manufacturers.

Now, this is uncontested. There is no question but that the Airbus Company has received the subsidies. It is called launch aid, and launch aid is, as it would suggest, it is a clear, unbridled, clear on its face subsidy of cash essentially guaranteed by the European government to the Airbus Company.

Now, the problem with that is those subsidies are illegal under our trade agreements. They're illegal because we need trade agreements to allow our economies to act efficiently, which don't happen when their illegal subsidies and these illegal subsidies are against our mutual trade rules.

Nonetheless, the Airbus Company took them. They launched an airframe, the Airbus 330, which is the airframe that is now being suggested for this proposal by the Airbus Company.

And in the bidding process by the Air Force, the Air Force intends at the moment, unless something changes, to ignore these illegal subsidies, to not pay any attention to it whatsoever, to blind their eyes and just act as if these illegal subsidies had never happened.

Now, this is very surprising because the extent and existence of these subsidies are so well known. In fact, there is a preliminary ruling by the World Trade Organization--this is the arbitrary, the referee, if you will, of trade issues--a preliminary ruling that there has been a violation in the billions of dollars--and some have suggested an excess of $5 billion of illegal launch aid--to the Airbus consortium, or the Airbus Company, to launch this particular air tanker. And that ruling could be subject to appeal, but the facts are quite obvious. It's not like there's any mystery that we need fingerprints. The fingerprints are clear.

The European Union governments essentially guaranteed billions of dollars to Airbus, and this contravenes our treaties, and there's been a preliminary finding in that regard.

Nonetheless, the Air Force has proposed to go forward and to ignore this clear fact. This simply will not stand and cannot stand, to ignore this clear violation, for a variety of reasons.

Number one, it clearly violates our international treaties and rights that we have and the law that has now been incorporated into our American domestic law.

Number two, it is hugely damaging to our ability to try to start growing jobs again in this country. All of us know the pain that our fellow Americans are suffering tonight in unemployment. We know how desperate people are in unemployment lines tonight. While we have millions of people unemployed, we can't have one agency of the Federal Government, which is our United States Trade Representative, conclude that Airbus has received illegal subsidies and sued to enforce sanctions against these illegal subsidies, and another agency of the Federal Government, the U.S. Air Force, turn around and give a contract worth billions of dollars for tankers for the next several decades to ship jobs to Europe by the thousands. And it would be in the thousands that would be lost if, in fact, this contract is lost.

So we find it, frankly, incredible that the Federal Government at this moment could contemplate running a procurement process that would ignore the obvious, which is there have been subsidies that have skewed the playing field. We have suggested that this is not only bad for our economy and not only takes jobs away from hardworking Americans, a couple of thousand of whom work in Washington and probably 6,000 of whom work across the country, but it hurts our national security because we have a national security interest in having a strong military infrastructure and ability to produce airplanes.

When we send our ability to produce airplanes over to Europe, our intellectual capital, our engineering ability, our machinists, our tooling, our transportation infrastructure, that is weakened. So for several reasons it is simply wrong for the U.S. Government to contemplate buying a significantly foreign airplane when these illegal subsidies have taken place.

Now we have the ability to make this right in a way that is consistent with our international treaty obligations. We want to follow the laws. We want to have a good relationship with our trading partners. We want to sell some of our products to Europe and around the world, and that is why we don't just allow American bidders, exclusively American bidders, in this contract.

But what we expect is that the rules will be followed and fairness will prevail in this multibillion dollar issue, and right now it is not. So we have the ability and, I believe, the obligation to change this procurement formula so that we take into consideration this massive illegality.

And the way we have suggested of doing it is, rather than to ignore these clearly illegal subsidies, is to take account of these clearly illegal subsidies and adjust the bids of one of the bidders to reflect that illegal subsidy. Frankly, what we should do is use the most astute, the fairest, the most well-respected manner of determining the amount of these illegal subsidies and add it on, adjust it on to the bid of the Airbus consortium, and then consider the bids and let the chips fall where they may.

We have a way actually to do this. We have a process in this country called the countervailing tariff system that operates through the Department of Commerce, and we have a group whose job it is to go out when there is an illegal subsidy and figure out how much that illegal subsidy was.

So we need to get the Department of Commerce to crank up that system, run the process through, adjudicate what that illegal subsidy was, and add that amount to the bid of the Airbus consortium, broken down per plane of the amount those illegal subsidies held.

Now if we do this, we will be fair to the American worker. We will be fair to our need to maintain a national infrastructure. We will be fair to our trading partners, because it is in our treaty rights to act because this is a national security matter. And we will be fair because, frankly, it is consistent with at least a preliminary ruling out of the World Trade Organization.

So given all of these facts, that we have the ability to act because it is in our national security interest under the exemption of the World Trade Organization, given that it is in our ability to act because fixed wing aircraft are actually exempt from the procurement agreements we have with the European Union and other countries, given those facts, we are calling upon a fair bidding process which will take into consideration both bidders, but adjusting the price of one of them to take into account the clear, obviously inarguable fact that subsidies have been received by the Airbus consortium and we will not and should not yield on this point. Too much is at stake. Too many jobs are at stake and too obvious a violation of trade laws have occurred.

We have expressed this to the good people at the Air Force. We hope that they are considering it. We will be calling on the President to act in this regard. It is the right thing to do and we are fully capable of doing it, and we should make sure that it is part of this process.

So I would close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we will be working--and by

the way, we want to compliment the Air Force personnel who have been working diligently. We have tried to run a bidding process twice. They now have worked and made very significant improvements in the bidding process to make sure both bidders can understand what the rules are. But we think this issue of a subsidy needs an improvement in the process.

There are some other things that we need improvement in the process to take into consideration the true value and price of gasoline because we need to figure that in when we make that procurement, and right now the Air Force, frankly, hasn't, I don't think, looked at the real price of gasoline going forward.

But with these improvements, we look forward to an honest, fair, and robust bidding process. Let the best bidder win. We believe it will be a Boeing product. It is good for America and it is good for the world to follow these rules.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 8, 2009, at 10 a.m.