Floor Statements

Who are the real experts on the question of whether the lack of a timeline actually fuels the insurgency, the lack of a timeline actually making the violence worse?

One of them is named Muhammad al-Dini. He is an elected member of the Iraqi parliament. He was here yesterday, and I met with him. He told me that a majority, 144 members, of the elected Iraqi parliament 2 days ago signed a petition that basically said that the lack of a timeline is fueling attacks against our troops. The lack of a timeline is fueling this insurgency. The lack of a timeline is playing into the hands of al Qaeda. And the reason he told us this is that it allows them to go out and recruit and say, Look, America is going to be here forever. And they recruit people that go out and attack us.

The other thing he told us is that the Maliki government is using our taxpayer dollars to run sectarian militias that go out and attack Americans. He urged us to adopt a timeline. An elected official in the parliament of the state of Iraq; now there is an expert.

It amazes me that people who have been wrong on Iraq for 4 years come down and lecture us, lecture us about whether a timeline is going to work or not. I think it might be handy in Congress to have a penalty box. If you have been wrong for 4 years on the right strategy in Iraq, maybe you should to go into the penalty box for a while and allow the people who were against this war from the beginning to have a say on what we do in Iraq.

What we are saying is, a lack of a timeline hurts. We need to bleed the insurgency of the fuel they use, and the fuel they use is the lack of a timeline.

One more thing, I read this headline: ``Bush Told War is Harming the GOP.'' I don't care about the GOP or the parties. The GOP members went and told the President this is hurting the GOP. It doesn't matter who is getting hurt politically here. I will tell you what matters: Our sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq.

I hope some of my GOP colleagues, the next time they go to the White House, I hope they say, we don't care about the GOP or the DEM; we care about the Army and the Navy and the soldiers who are being killed in Iraq, and let's get a timetable and get us out of there.

Madam Speaker, on March 2, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), a three member panel affiliated with the Library of Congress, issued a decision that changed royalty expenses for commercial and noncommercial webcasters and will likely end Internet radio as we know it today. According to the decision, which is retroactive beginning January 1, 2006 and commences through December 31, 2010, commercial and noncommercial webcasters would be subject to an increase in royalty rates from $.08 in 2006 per performance to $.19 per performance in 2010. The new royalty rates amount to a 300 percent increase for the biggest webcasters and up to 1200 percent for small webcasters. For most web casters the royalties will exceed their gross revenues and bankrupt them. The CRB has refused to reconsider its decision so the higher royalties--including retroactive royalties back to January 2006--are due May 15, 2007. My fear is that these new rates will decimate Internet radio and 70 million Americans that listen to Internet radio every month will no longer have access to this music service.

For these reasons, I have introduced the Internet Radio Equality Act which provides royalty parity for Internet radio providers. The bill vacates the CRB's March 2nd decision and changes the royalty rate- setting standard that applies to commercial Internet radio royalty arbitrations so that it is the same standard that applies to satellite radio, cable radio, jukeboxes, and record companies (when they are licensees of songwriters). The bill also sets a transition rate through 2010 that is the same royalty rate that satellite radio services pay (7.5 percent of revenue). Finally, the bill expands the Copyright Act's Section 118 musical work license for noncommercial broadcasters like National Public Radio to enable those broadcasters to also perform sound recordings over Internet radio at royalty rates designed for noncommercial entities.

I believe strongly that it is the responsibility of Congress to promote media diversity in all areas including web-based broadcasting and to ensure affordable consumer access to Internet media.

Madam Speaker, in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, as people try to make sense of this senseless act, we must remember to find strength in community. Last week, I spoke to Korean-American leaders in my district who expressed their deepest sympathies to all those affected by this tragedy--the same sense of sorrow shared by all Americans. I expressed my hope that the Korean- American community would not be targeted in any way, in the aftermath of this situation.

I am proud that so far this fear hasn't materialized, but I rise today to remind Americans not to place blame on this or any other group. Korean Americans should feel no communal sense of guilt or responsibility for this act. Their own pride in their achievements and contributions to American society should remain undiminished.

Rather, we all should keep the victims, their families and the Virginia Tech community in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time. We can do this by supporting efforts like that of Washington State Senator Paull Shin, who has been working with local Korean Americans to start a fund for the victims' families. We also should work together to make sure that college campuses across our Nation retain their openness and continue to be bastions of hope and opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairwoman and Ranking Member for their this issue. I rise today to support my amendment to the Small Business Lending Improvements Act (H.R. 1332) which would add an eligibility area to Section 504 loans. My amendment will ensure that American entrepreneurs

have the opportunity to start, build and, grow green small businesses by adding a sustainable design or low-impact design to the public policy goals of this lending program.

This common-sense amendment would decrease long-term operating costs for small business owners, stimulate green building technologies, create a better work environment for employees and reduce carbon emissions in the United States.

Buildings account for one-third of carbon emissions per year. It is important that we help small business owners make sustainable choices that they might not otherwise make due to cost, or simply due to the fact that some of these technologies are new. My amendment will help SBA expand their financing structure to help businesses use sustainable building standards, such as LEED certified, which have a minimal impact on our environment. Currently, SBA loans can help a company upgrade to required standards, but very few Small Business Loans have helped owners choose green building standards.

Furthermore, green buildings benefit workers. Case studies show examples of 2 to 16 percent increase in productivity in among employees who work in buildings that incorporate sustainable building design.

Sustainable design and green building practices are easy and available. An excellent example of how this can be done, and why green technologies help small businesses and the community, is the Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream factory in Maltby, Wash. I recently toured this factory, which is Snohomish County's first sustainable commercial project, owned by Barry Bettinger. Barry used Small Business Administration (SBA) loans for low impact development strategies. With assistance from the Sustainable Development Task Force, he used technologies to cut his lighting costs by 50 percent, reduce his water usage by 40 percent and reduce energy for cooling fans by 75 percent.

I hope that the SBA and experts in sustainable design such as the National Institute of Building Sciences will work together to develop meaningful standards in this eligibility area of sustainable design.

Congress has a huge opportunity here to further improve the small business lending program to meet goals of reducing energy consumption in this country. Thank you for supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

My fellow Members, we know that small businesses have been leaders in job creation and are the dynamic growth center for the American economy, and now they are poised to become the leaders in our green building revolution. We know that we have challenges on energy security, we know we have challenges to deal with on global warming, and we know that small businesses have challenges to receive capital to help in their programs to make their businesses more efficient, less costly for energy consumption, and less emitting of greenhouse gases.

Our amendment would create the ability of the SBA to provide capital to our small businesses across the country to do thousands of things that they want to start doing, items like putting additional energy- efficient equipment into their businesses, building green roofs that can prevent energy loss, installation of renewable energy sources like photovoltaic cells and energy equipment heating and cooling systems. The list is endless.

I would like to think of a little small business called the Snoqualmie Ice Cream Company, which is some of the best ice cream in the world, but they used an SBA loan essentially to put impervious concrete and build a green roof, which helped their business operations and helped the environment to boot.

So we would propose that we expand the SBA purposes to allow our small businessmen and women to be on the cutting edge of green building and green businesses across the country. This will help them move a step forward to use their dynamic leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Ms. Velazquez.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we here highly resolve that starting today we will no longer allow President Bush to make an infinite number of mistakes with an infinite number of our sons and daughters.

We know one thing, the President believes he has done a heck of a job in Iraq; the American people disagree. The people who are now doing our bidding in Iraq proudly are standing up for democracy, and we want some democracy here. We know that there is a difficult road to hoe in Iraq, but we know there should be an infinite wisdom in one source in America, and that is the American people.

There is no sovereignty, there is no king, there is no person who always does a heck of a job. When push comes to shove, we have got to listen to the American people, and the American people have spoken to us loudly. They have said it is time for the Iraqi leadership to quit fiddling around and form a government. And they know, as we do, as the retired generals who have come out full force and said that the American people are right, we cannot expect our service personnel to solve the political problem in Iraq. And now, 13 months have gone by since supposedly they formed this constitution and they were going to solve this problem of what to do with their oil, and they still haven't got an agreement. They are still fiddling around while our sons and daughters die.

Now, the troops and the generals understand that there is a message being sent by this resolution, and the message is to Maliki and the rest of the Iraqi leadership: You have got to stop fiddling around and form a government, and you have got to reach an agreement about oil. And until you do, there is going to be civil strife, civil war and Americans driving in the middle of that. This is a message to them: Solve this problem.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the Natural Resources Committee to take action on the bipartisan Bristol Bay Protection Act, which I introduced today with my colleagues, Congressman Wayne Gilchrest and Congressman Maurice Hinchey.

The Bristol Bay Protection Act will renew long-standing, bipartisan protection for this economically, culturally, and ecologically important marine ecosystem through a Congressional prohibition on oil and gas development in the waters of Alaska's North Aleutian Basin.

When Congress returns from the district work period we plan to introduce the Bristol Bay Protection Act. The Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, which fouled more than 1,200 miles of pristine Alaskan shoreline and caused billions of dollars in economic damage, moved the Congress and President George H. Bush to place the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area (which includes Bristol Bay) under moratoria from oil and gas development in 1990. In 1998, President Clinton later followed up with an extension of this moratorium on pre-leasing and leasing activities in the same waters until 2012.

This past January, President Bush removed the long-standing executive ban on offshore drilling in Bristol Bay, opening the way for leases the Federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) has proposed in 2010 and 2012.

Alaska's Bristol Bay and the southeastern Bering Sea encompass one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world. These sub-arctic waters support important commercial fisheries, representing more than 40 percent of the Nation's annual seafood catch. The area targeted for oil and gas leasing overlaps with important habitat and fishing grounds for pollock, cod, red king crab, halibut and salmon--fisheries which generate more than $2 billion dollars annually. These fisheries support fishermen and fishing families throughout Alaska and the Pacific northwest.

Bristol Bay sockeye salmon runs, the largest on earth, are the lifeblood of many remote, Native villages in southwestern Alaska. Subsistence and commercial harvest of salmon resources are the economic mainstay of these culturally-unique communities.

The region's coastal wetlands, lagoons and sheltered bays serve as migratory hubs, staging areas and wintering grounds for millions of waterfowl and shorebirds. The southeastern Bering Sea is also home to a number of marine mammal species--many of which are threatened or endangered--including sea otters, Steller sea lions, fur seals, humpback whales and the North Pacific right whale. As a testament to the region's ecological importance, five National Wildlife Refuges and eight Alaska state protected areas have been established here.

The U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security. The risks posed by offshore oil and gas development to the renewable resources of Bristol Bay and the thousands of people in Alaska and along the west coast whose livelihoods depend upon their continued health are simply too great.

The bipartisan Bristol Bay Protection Act restores protections to the people, wildlife and habitats in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area. It is my hope that the Committee acts swiftly to protect this pristine area.

Madam Speaker, today, in honor of Earth Day, I introduced a resolution that would support the only nationally-recognized day dedicated to recycling.

Every November since 1997, millions of Americans have become better informed about recycling and buying recycled products as a result of events held in honor of America Recycles Day. Last year, events were held in communities in every state. In my home state of Washington, 12 communities are planning events to commemorate this important day in 2007 in cooperation with counties, elementary schools, businesses and local troops.

Recycling creates 1.1 million U.S. jobs, $236 billion in gross annual sales and $37 billion in annual payrolls. Recycling also saves energy, prevents air and water pollution, reduces the need for new landfills and combustors, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, reduces the need for extraction of certain natural resources, and can stimulate the development of greener technologies.

Over the past 10 years, many new markets for recycled products have been created. For example, plastic containers can be remanufactured into other plastic containers, fleece, carpet, car parts, strapping, stuffing, bottles, pipe, lawn and garden products, injection molded products, and plastic lumber. Yet, as markets for recycled products have increased, recycling rates for certain recyclable household products, like plastic and aluminum containers, has decreased or stayed the same, and curbsid pickup programs have decreased in communities.

There remains a significant opportunity to increase recycling in the United States and I believe that the activities of America Recycles Day provide one way to achieve this end. It is time for Congress to support this important day and effort. I urge my colleagues to take up this important resolution and pass this bill before America Recycles Day on November 15th.

Madam Speaker, there will be under-utilized wireless spectrum in the gaps or ``white spaces'' between TV broadcast channels when the transition from analog to digital television is complete. These white spaces could provide broadband access to millions of Americans and enable a wide range of innovative wireless devices and services which cannot be utilized in other frequencies. White spaces spectrum must remain unlicensed because the availability of this ``Swiss cheese'' pattern of spectrum nationally makes licensing it impractical. An unlicensed regime would also lead to a more efficient use of the frequencies.

Unlicensed white spaces devices will avoid harmful interference with all incumbents. Cognitive radio uses spectrum sensing technology to identify and avoid occupied TV channels. This method has been approved by the Defense Department for unlicensed devices that share spectrum with military radar. This unlicensed spectrum can be used for wireless broadband, public safety communications, and numerous at-home and business devices.

For the reasons listed above I have introduced the Wireless Innovation Act, H.R. 1597, which mandates that white spaces be used nonexclusively for unlicensed fixed or portable devices while mandating that incumbent licensees be protected from harmful interference. This legislation would provide interference protection to full power television, low power television, wireless microphones, and all other incumbent users of this spectrum. The bill also requires that the FCC permit use of unlicensed devices not later than February 18, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, this is wilderness the way wilderness is supposed to be done. I want to compliment Congressman Larsen and Senator Patty Murray for their efforts to shepherd and to fine-tune this bill. If anyone wants to see how to do a wilderness bill, come see how this one is done to take into consideration all of the local comments to pare this down to where we have the muscle and bone in this wilderness right now.

Boy, is it the right place to do it. I have a picture here of Gunn and Merchant peaks looking north from Baring Peak. I climbed Baring Peak, that is really just a little scramble, a couple of summers ago. What is so amazing about the Wild Sky Wilderness, it is both wild, and it is in the sky. It is only about 55 minutes from downtown Seattle.

About 2 million people can drive to this incredible Wild Sky Wilderness in about an hour, and it is a hidden gem. What you can say is that we have a new hidden gem that has been protected in the State of Washington to join the other jewels in the crown of our wilderness and our National Park System in the State of Washington, and we invite people to come out and see it. And if you come, what you will see is a very virgin country very close to an urban area.

Millions of people drive by these mountains on Highway 2 and don't even realize how wild this country is right to their left as they are going east towards eastern Washington. There are hardly even any marked trails in there. So if you want wild close to an urban area, come to the Wild Sky Wilderness. It is a very, very wonderful place to go.

But there is a second reason I want to point out why this wilderness is so important. The day I went up to the Baring Peak, I just happened to meet a father and two of his sons he was taking for a hike. He told me this is one of the earliest hikes going into Baring Lake. And if you could see the smile on this dad and the sort of interesting looks on these two kids, you know what wilderness is about, because today when we establish the Wild Sky Wilderness, we are giving a gift to these kids and their kids and their grandkids. So these kids could be in the same position as dad has been, sometime, to have a wilderness to take their kids and their grandkids to, and they will have the same smile on their faces 100 years from now as this family did that summer day up on Baring Peak.

I want to thank the people who have been involved in this, Mike Towns specifically, a fellow who has been working on this for over 10 years. He is a teacher in Redmond, Washington. I know he will have a big smile on his face today, too. This is a great day for the continuation of wilderness in the State of Washington. It is just south of the Jackson Wilderness Area. It is a tradition that Congressman Larsen has followed and Senator Jackson, and a proud tradition of wilderness in the State of Washington. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 886, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007 to commend the House for taking long overdue action on legislation to designate the Wild Sky Wilderness. Today's approval of this well-drawn, meritorious environmental legislation is long overdue. I want to thank Congressman Rick Larsen and Senator Patty Murray for their tireless persistence on behalf of their constituents as well as Chairman Rahall for his long standing support for the Wild Sky and for bringing this bill to the floor.

As a Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have been supportive of Congressman Larsen's attempts to designate this area as wilderness and was continually frustrated at the failure of the previous Chairmen of that Committee to move this legislation and disappointed at the reasons given for inaction. Those arguments were without merit.

One of the benefits of working on this legislation was learning of the steadfast support from my constituents, the new Wild Sky Wilderness will be a popular and well-loved addition to my state's heritage of protected wild landscapes. It is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, who live nearby. Indeed, the new Wild Sky Wilderness is within easy access of the people in the entire Puget Sound region.

This wilderness area, which is located in Snohomish County, enjoys enthusiastic support from the county council as well as our elected county executive. It also has the support of an overwhelming number of local elected leaders throughout the county, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as a long list of local Snohomish County business owners. Over the years that the Wild Sky Wilderness has been before Congress it has earned enthusiastic editorial support from the local newspaper, the Everett Herald, as well as the major newspapers in Seattle and across the state.

I want to emphasize to my colleagues that in my State this is as popular and non-controversial a proposal as it could possibly be. I am pleased to mention the support this legislation enjoys from the Administration, including

the Agriculture Under Secretary, who in response to my questioning said that the President will sign this bill into law.

On top of its stunning wild character, the 106,577-acre Wild Sky Wilderness is particularly noteworthy because it embraces lower elevation lands than most of the existing Federal wilderness areas in our State. As a result, the new wilderness will afford statutory protection to headwaters streams and watersheds vital to the survival and restoration of healthy runs of salmon and steelhead in the Skykomish River, for which the area is named.

Passage of this legislation contributes to the important goal of protecting a greater diversity of biological communities in our National Wilderness Preservation System--including deep, forested valleys as well as towering, ice-clad mountain peaks. This lower elevation wilderness land will provide greater opportunities for year- round recreational adventures for Washington State residents.

During the congressional consideration of this wilderness proposal, our committee has dealt with a question that all too easily can mislead those who are not familiar with the 1964 Wilderness Act and of the consistent approach Congress has followed over four decades now in applying the protection of that historic conservation law to additional portions of our Federal lands.

As Congress acts on wilderness proposals such as this Wild Sky Wilderness legislation, it is important that we take care to follow the legislative history of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was a bipartisan product of our committee, and the precedents consistently laid down over the subsequent more than four decades as Congress has enacted more than 130 laws under both Democratic and Republican leadership that have designated new wilderness areas across our country.

It is clear that the Wilderness Act reserves to Congress alone the decision as to what Federal lands are ``suitable'' for designation as wilderness. Subsection 2(a) of the Wilderness Act specifies that ``. . . no Federal lands shall be designated as `wilderness areas' except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.'' Subsection 3(c) further specifies that the President may make recommendations, but that ``A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress.''

Despite this full history of Congressional action, some tried to question the inclusion of certain lands in the Wild Sky Wilderness because these lands showed fading evidence of past logging, old roads, and similar evidence of human use and impact. This objection, sometimes referred to as the ``purity theory'' of wilderness, is not based on an accurate understanding of the Wilderness Act and the intent of those who enacted it.

The new Wild Sky Wilderness includes some evidence of past human uses and impacts, including evidence of logging, old logging roads and logging railroad grades, and some culverts installed along those roads and railroad grades. In this way, it is no different than many wilderness areas Congress has previously designated as wilderness.

During a debate here on the House floor in 1969, Representative Morris K. Udall, the former chairman of our committee and himself one of the architects of the Wilderness Act, explained this practical approach intended by the authors of the Wilderness Act to the House:

It would be nice to have our national wilderness system

absolutely pure and completely free of any sign of the hand

of man. But the fact is that we are getting a late start in

this business of preserving America's wilderness. Logging has

occurred; wood roads have been opened and later abandoned;

cabins have been built which in time have decayed and fallen

down; in the interest of public health and safety and to

protect the natural resources there may sometimes be lookout

towers and patrol cabins. All of these are imperfections

within the wilderness. Yet how often is man able to create or

to establish anything which is truly perfect? Very, very

rarely--if ever. [Congressional Record, September 24, 1969]

Mr. Speaker, these remarks by Rep. Udall perfectly explicate the practical approach that Congress has always followed as we choose lands for protection in our National Wilderness Preservation System. He went on to further explain that:

Congress has declared it is our national policy to preserve

America's wilderness resource. Whether some prior existing

imperfection--something less than absolutely purity--is to be

accepted into the national wilderness system should be

determined by whether its inclusion will significantly

contribute to the implementation of this national policy of

wilderness preservation or whether its omission will

significantly obstruct this policy. [Congressional Record,

September 24, 1969]

In keeping with the practical approach he has so cogently summarized, I want to emphasize that some of the low elevation lands within the Wild Sky Wilderness show evidence of past human use and impacts. We have made a careful judgment that inclusion of these lands is important to serve the overall purpose of wilderness protection. As chairman Udall would have put it, every acre in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness exhibits ``substantially all the value of wilderness.'' We should preserve it.

I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to Ms. Karen Fant, who devoted her life to preserving wilderness and wildlife in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. She spent four decades organizing for conservation, working for groups including the Alaska Coalition, Sierra Club, Olympic Park Associates, Wild Sky Working Group, Washington Wilderness Coalition, and Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition. Her activism spanned many years, crossed state lines, and extended as far as Chongqing, China, where she dedicated herself to developing a strategy to address environmental degradation in Asia as a board member of the Seattle-Chongqing Sister City Association.

Karen was instrumental in passing the 1984 Washington State Wilderness Act, which sets aside over one million acres of new wilderness. She also initiated the efforts to preserve Wild Sky. I cannot imagine a better way to honor Karen's conservation legacy than for my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 886, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007. Passage of this legislation is the perfect tribute to Karen's legacy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill could not be more timely. As I was walking across the street in front of the Supreme Court, I saw the inscription chiseled in the marble of the Supreme Court. It says, ``Equal justice under law.'' But we have witnessed now in the last few weeks the unpeeling of a scandal where the executive branch fired eight well-performing U.S. Attorneys because they would not do the political dirty work of the White House. And it is apparent now, as much as it has ever been, that we have to have a check and balance on the executive branch with Senate confirmation.

I want to know why this is so viscerally important. In my district in western Washington, we had a gentleman named John McKay who was doing, by all rights, a good job as a U.S. Attorney for western Washington. But then there was this contentious election out there for Governor in 2004, and a bunch of Republicans were leaning on him to start a grand jury investigation alleging voter fraud because the vote came out in favor of the Democrat. He refused to do so because he said he didn't see any evidence of voter fraud.

A little later what happens is he goes to the White House for a meeting about a prospective judgeship, and what do they ask him about? They say: How come Republicans are mad at you, at the White House. And he knows what they are mad about, is because they wouldn't go after this case where there was no evidence of voter fraud. It was apparent they were leaning on him; and, when he did not collapse, he was fired.

Now, this is a situation where it is clear that we need Senate confirmation. And, by the way, I have written a letter to the President today saying the President should reinstate that U.S. Attorney while this matter is investigated. This thing smells like a mackerel in the moonlight, and it needs to be resolved. Until it is resolved, Congress is going to be investigating; and to prevent this from happening again, we need to be sure we have Senate confirmation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Karen Fant, who devoted

her life to preserving wilderness and wildlife in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. We mourn the loss of such a treasured conservationist and pioneer in the Washington state environmental movement. She spent four decades organizing for conservation, working for groups including the Alaska Coalition, Sierra Club, Olympic Park Associates, Wild Sky Working Group, Washington Wilderness Coalition, and Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition. Her activism spanned many years, crossed state lines, and extended as far as Chongqing, China, where she dedicated herself to developing a strategy to address environmental degradation in Asia as a board member of the Seattle- Chongquing Sister City Association.

Born in Altadena, California, Karen grew to cherish wilderness at an early age, spending her childhood hiking the Sierra Nevada Mountains with her family. She continued this passion, earning a degree in geology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Formally beginning her long legacy of protecting our wild forests, Karen first went to work for the Sierra Club in the 1970s, fighting for roadless forest preservation. In 1979, she cofounded the Washington Wilderness Coalition, an organization dedicated to empowering Washington state citizens to preserve and restore wilderness areas through grassroots advocacy and public education.

Karen once said, ``We will continue to work on these issues as long as there is wild land left in the country.'' Friends have described her as selfless, caring, inspirational, effective, dedicated, wise, humble and relentless in organizing and empowering people to speak up for the wild places in America and around the world. Karen was the epitome of the dedicated and effective activist. She touched the lives of countless individuals throughout the Northwest. She had a knack for recognizing everyone's ability to make a difference, and encouraged people to stand up and speak out for what they believe in. She was never the loudest person in the room, but often the most effective voice at bringing people and ideas together to advance the protection of wilderness and the wild creatures that depend on it. She delighted in walking in wild, unspoiled places and bringing others out to experience the serenity, joy, and splendor of wilderness. Because of her work, the conservation community in Washington has been left with an immense knowledge of what is at stake as we fight to protect the wilderness areas that remain in the United States.

Karen was instrumental in passing the 1984 Washington State Wilderness Act, which sets aside over one million acres of new wilderness. She also initiated the efforts to preserve Wild Sky. She organized to protect the Owyhees Canyonlands in Idaho and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Finally, she organized in support of a bill that is close to my heart, The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act. Passage of this bill is vital to protect areas in the national forest deemed as roadless and ensure that they remain free from development or devastation. As the original sponsor of this bill, I encourage you to support the protection of our national forests.

This spring, Karen's ashes will be spread among some of her favorite wilderness areas in the North Cascades and Sierras Nevadas, areas that continue to need protection to this day. Here in the U.S. Congress, I cannot imagine a better way to honor Karen's conservation legacy than for my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 866, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007, which will be marked up in the Natural Resources Committee this week. This bill would serve to protect and expand the federal wilderness of the Skykomish River Valley in Washington State and ensure that ecosystems and stunning vistas in this area are enjoyed by people and wild creatures for generations to come. Passage of this legislation would be the perfect tribute to Karen's legacy.

If Congress could merely echo the unwavering efforts of this woman, we would no doubt be doing a great service to our children and grandchildren in ensuring there are wild lands for them to enjoy far into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 710) to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney paired donation does not involve the transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 710, a bill originally introduced by Representative Norwood of Georgia, only for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to pass the Charlie W. Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. We do so both to honor Dr. Norwood, who provided such great service to his district and to the country for many years; of course, Dr. Norwood did so as the result of being a recipient of lung transplants himself; but also to honor the thousands of Americans who are today waiting for kidney transplants. This bill, we believe, will be a great step forward to hasten the day when those folks can potentially have kidney transplants.

It is a fitting tribute to Dr. Norwood for his tireless efforts to improve our Nation's health and his great work in fighting as a patient's advocate. I will submit for the record a statement from Dr. Norwood in support of this legislation.

Second, I would like to thank the staff of both of the committees, as well as Dr. Norwood's office and personal staff, for their work to make this bill a reality.

This legislation would allow a procedure commonly known as paired donation to be legal, to make that clear, and to provide hope to patients waiting for kidney transplants. Paired organ donation will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, a family member or a friend but find that they are medically incompatible to still become living kidney donors.

This is very important, because, as of February 23, we had over 70,000 patients who are now on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, and yet we performed only 16,500 kidney transplants in 2005, of which only 6,500 were living kidney donors. H.R. 710 will take a significant step towards reducing the number of patients on the waiting list and giving many more the hope that their wait will not be endless.

Further, this bill is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.

I have sort of a local person who gives me advise about this, Dr. Connie Davis, who is a transplant expert, a physician, and she says that this bill is a huge step forward for the transplant community as clinical efforts in the direction of paired donation have been severely hampered by concerns over the legal status of such activity.

I believe it is imperative that we make it clear that there is no intent by Congress to bar this procedure. It is my hope that the Senate will act quickly on this. Simply put, we want this legislation to save lives immediately.

So, for the 70,000 patients waiting for lifesaving kidney transplants, with time spent on costly and often arduous

dialysis treatment, their time on the waiting list can be significantly shortened with passage and implementation of this bill.

It is an honor to stand here working for the name of Dr. Charlie Norwood. I want to thank all those who have worked on this bill, and I hope very shortly we can have this on the President's desk and help those 70,000 people to a healthy future and great productive years, just like Dr. Norwood had in the U.S. Congress.

Statement of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 710, the Living

Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. This bill will

explicitly state that Americans in need of a kidney will have

a greater chance of receiving one through the process of

paired donation.

Over 70,000 Americans are currently in need of a kidney

transplant. As a result of significant demand and limited

supply, most transplantees wait for over four years before

receiving a kidney. Four years for their lives to be saved or

lost.

During this time, if their kidneys fail, End Stage Renal

Disease can set in. These patients must undergo dialysis.

While dialysis extends patients' lives, their condition often

prevents them from being fully engaged in their community and

career. Dialysis is life-extending, but not life-bettering.

Sadly, in many cases, this is where patients lose their

battle. In 2004 alone, 3,823 transplant candidates died

awaiting a kidney. As our population ages, that figure is

going to increase.

Mr. Speaker, medical science has enabled us to perform more

successful organ transplants than ever before. These

transplants give patients a new lease on life. Many Members

in this body or their loved ones have been touched by the

lifesaving gift of organ donation, myself included.

Kidney transplants from living donors tend to be highly

successful, but in many cases, those who want to give a

kidney to a loved one feel they cannot help because they are

not biologically compatible with the patient in need.

H.R. 710 is very simple. It clarifies that paired donation

is legal under the National Organ Transplant Act. As a

result, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate

and an incompatible living donor can be matched with another

such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that

otherwise would not occur.

Remember those 3,823 souls and ask yourself--could you

justify not allowing a process of simply cross-matching to

save their lives?

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this

legislation in memory of those who have died waiting for a

kidney as well as the thousands of Americans who are seeking

a transplant or trying to become a living donor to save a

loved ones' life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Barton for reading Dr. Norwood's eloquent statement into the Record.

I want to note that kidney donation is not just for the recipients. It is for their families and the places they work, and even the U.S. Congress. The reason we had the benefit of Dr. Norwood's wisdom for years in the U.S. Congress was because of a lung transplant. I want to note that what we are doing today is not only helping those 70,000 people, but also their families and workplaces and the whole U.S. economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the dean of the House whose leadership helped bring this bill to the floor today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for such time as he may consume.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make a point. I think this is a great bipartisan success, to try to improve organ donation prospects for these 70,000 Americans. But we have more work to do. This bill is not the end of our efforts. I worked for 2 years with Mike Bilirakis, a great Republican, to try to have people in hospitals work with families on transplant donation issues. We need to fund that bill, and I hope we can have a bipartisan effort to do that.

We have work to do to fund immunosuppressant drugs. Right now, we are not funding the drugs that donees need to suppress the immunological response to donation.

So I hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to help these 70,000 Americans. We will remember Charlie Norwood's efforts in this regard and on future successes

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

Mr. Speaker, America will hear 435 separate ideas about Iraq, but I want to note one great shining light about our country. The American people are absolutely unified, no matter what they think about the policy in Iraq, of holding American warriors and our sons and daughters close to our hearts. This is a unified position across this country, and it is a bright light for America.

Now, I have heard some people have suggested that soldiers who fall in Iraq will have fallen in vain. That is wrong. Any American who falls in the course of the conduct of American wars, they do not fall in vain. They fall into our arms, and they fall into our hearts, and there they will always remain. And we are unified on this principle. And when I go to a memorial service for a young man from Redmond, Washington next Monday, I will carry the unified American prayers and hearts of the 650,000 people I represent.

Now we are in a difficult situation in Iraq and none of us have a silver bullet, and none of us have a magic wand. And it seems to me that when we are in dark times, we should go back to fundamental American character to find a way forward.

There are three parts of the American character we should think about here: first, the character of the American mission in Iraq; second, the character of American common sense; and, third, the character of American democracy.

What is the character of our mission in Iraq? President Bush, when he started this war, said we have three missions:

Eliminate WMD. Mission accomplished. They were never there.

Second, eliminate any terrorist that attacked us on 9/11. Mission accomplished. They were never there.

Third, eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat. Mission accomplished. He is no longer a threat to anyone who walks the face of the Earth.

Our proud men and women have fulfilled the three mandates of missions set forth by George Bush. And now we have one moral mission to complete, and that is the moral responsibility to give the Iraqis a reasonable chance to form a government. We have done that after 4 years; and our investment of 3,000-plus lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of American money has fulfilled that moral obligation in spades.

Second, what is the American character of common sense? Why did General Abizaid, when he asked all the divisional commanders whether this escalation would help and every single one of them say no, why is that? It is because they have common sense.

I was on a walk a couple of months ago, and I met an old high school friend. His son was serving in Baghdad, and I asked him what he thought about Iraq. And he said, We have no common sense in our policy. He said, the fundamental problem in Iraq was that the Shiites were not agreeing with the Sunnis principally over oil revenues. And my son is serving in Baghdad today as a security blanket because the Iraqi politicians will not make the compromises necessary to form a government.

That has to end. It is American common sense to understand the real enemy in Baghdad is sectarian intransigence. The real enemy in Baghdad is their failure to compromise. And the best weapon we have is a dose of reality to the Iraqi people of all sectarian faiths. You have to get a grip on your country because you will very shortly have your own fate in your own hands. The best weapon we have in Iraq is to tell the rest of the immediate region that they must become responsible for their own neighborhoods. That is the weapon of reality we should use.

And, third, what is the character of American democracy? George Bush said that he was the decider. That is wrong. The decider is the American people. And the American people had a message to George Bush that there has to be a change in Iraq policy. And he is not listening to the generals, he is not listening to the bipartisan commission, and he is not listening to the American people.

Congress has a responsibility coequal with the President under Article I of the Constitution to declare war, to raise and support armies, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. It is time for Congress to stand up on our hind legs and take away the keys from the man who has driven our foreign policy into a ditch. It is time to restore the American mission to where it belongs, to American common sense where it belongs, and to American democracy where it belongs.

Support this resolution. Prevent this escalation in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and cellulosic ethanol is great from a global warming perspective because it simply recirculates carbon through the atmosphere. It doesn't add any additional carbon. It is simply that the plant takes it out of the atmosphere. They crush the plant, burn the fuel. It is a cycle. It doesn't add any net increase.

But I want to make sure Members understand this bill is just a beginning of what we need to do. Brazil is totally energy independent today because they have gone to an E-85 system. They burn fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. But I talked to the person in Brazil that made this happen, and he told me one clear lesson. If you don't do something to compel the oil and gas distribution system to put in E-85 pumps, they don't do it. Now, they in Brazil had to adopt some policies to compel the installation of these E-85 pumps because there is a competitive reason. The oil and gas industry doesn't want to put in these pumps to compete with their oil and gas. So this is a start to demonstrate why the use of cellulosic ethanol is very allowable in Brazil. They pump this stuff all over the country all the time. But we are going to need to take another step to get those E-85 pumps built to fuel our flex- fuel cars. This is a first step. There is more to come.

Mr. Speaker, today, when we pass the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act of 2007, we will be making a strong American statement. That statement will be that the power of fear will never again be allowed to overcome the promise of liberty. These are images we should never see again in America; and today, with the passage of this bill, we will make a strong American statement that they will not.

On March 30, 1942, the American Army, pursuant to an executive order by an American President, rounded up 227 Americans living on Bainbridge Island and marched them down the Eagledale Dock in Eagle Harbor of Bainbridge Island, Washington, surrounded by American soldiers, some having bayonets deployed. They were taken away to internment against their will, without trial and without recognition of their rights as citizens and their honor to serve America.

And now, today, when we are making the memorial on Bainbridge Island at the site of this dock, which is now being prepared and is under construction, we will be making an American statement that this cannot happen again.

The saying is ``Nidoto Nai Yoni, never let it happen again,'' and by making this part of our National Parks System, we will be making a statement that these images will never happen to any generation of any creed in America.

I want to note some of the people. This is a picture of a young fellow at that time named Frank Kinamoto. In this picture, Frank had his little tag. Everyone was given a little tag they had to wear with a number on it. Frank grew up to be a respected dentist on Bainbridge Island, and Frank has done personally what this legislation will do nationally. He has spent many years going around showing a collection of photographs telling young students why the protection of our civil liberties is critical and why we should never be overcome by fear again, and I pay respects to Frank and his efforts.

Another young woman at the time, who testified several months ago, who has been pivotal in this effort, Fumiko Hayashida, shown with her daughter here just before she was marched down that pier. Fumiko came to town, who is 95 years young, who is the oldest internee that we are aware of, to send Congress a message to make a national statement to memorialize this.

Now, there are three reasons I think it is important that we pass this bill.

First, although this was a tragic episode in American history, it was an episode involving patriotism because, and this is incredible to me, of the 227 people marched down that pier, 62 of them turned around and volunteered to serve their nation in World War II, and 62 of these people served with distinction. These people were the ultimate patriots. Having been sent to camps by Uncle Sam, to turn around and fight for the freedoms to which they were not entitled was the ultimate act of patriotism, and we honor them as an act of patriotism in this memorial.

Second, it is a memorialization of their neighbors. Many of their neighbors rallied around them. Many of their neighbors guarded some of their equipment to wait for them to come home. And Walt Widward, the publisher of the Bainbridge Island Review, was the only publisher on the western coast of the United States to editorialize against this violation of American values. That is something to memorialize.

But, most importantly, Nidoto Nai Yoni, never let it happen again. And this will be a statement to ourselves,

to our children, to our grandchildren, that, when we are in fear in this country, we should never lose that anchor of American civil rights and civil liberties in respect to what we are as Americans.

We have gone through these days in the last several years. We have experienced fear that sometimes has infected the discussion here in the Chamber; and when we go through and deal with our fears today, I think it is well that we take a lesson from history of 1942 to hew to the power of liberty, rather than the power of fear.

So I am happy today that we will pass this bill that will make this part of our National Parks System. I will invite all Americans to come visit us in Bainbridge Island. We will invite the world to come see that America is a country that makes mistakes but learns and improves. And this is a continuation of that American tradition of improving the American value system. So I am happy today this House will take this step.

I want to thank the Bainbridge Island community and all of those who worked on this project. Clarence Moriwaki, who has led the effort on Bainbridge Island, congratulations. And congratulations to America for always being an improving country.