Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today in Seattle, a memorial service is taking place for the University of Washington's legendary football coach, Jim Owens, who passed away on June 6, leaving a legacy that extends far beyond Husky Stadium where he coached for 18 years. In fact, that legacy extends here to the Nation's Capital because I was one of the many individuals he recruited, coached and counseled on and off the field, and we remained friends for nearly 50 years.

He was a remarkable leader, assuming the job of head coach at the university at the age of 29. It was said that he brought a work ethic and a coaching style that would have intimidated a Marine Corps drill instructor. That was accurate. I can say that from personal experience. He had high expectations, and he could be tough. He once told me I was fine on defense as a linebacker, but I was the weakest weak guard on the team.

Most of all, he was a real leader, and he was successful. Three years after arriving at the University of Washington, he produced a Rose Bowl championship team, defeating Wisconsin, 44-8, in the 1960 Rose Bowl. I was proud to play for him the next year when we repeated a Rose Bowl victory over Minnesota, 17-7.

He was a great coach. Though he will be missed, his lessons will endure long beyond his death. Our prayers go out to the entire Owens family. They have lost a wonderful husband and father. His players will never forget him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment, which was adopted in the other body. It will make our parks less safe. According to the FBI, our national parks currently are among the safest place in the country. The current regulations were put in place by Ronald Reagan and James Watt, and what they want to do here is change that. I think it's a big mistake.

There were only 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 visitors in 2006. Compare that to nearly 470 violent crimes per 100,000 for the nationwide average. Clearly, the argument that these guns are needed for visitors to be safe is simply not true.

The Coburn amendment would allow many everyday disturbances, especially if alcohol is involved, to spin out of control towards a possibly lethal end. The dedicated park rangers and wildlife refuge staff would be put at risk and their jobs would become even more difficult. Also, wildlife will be at risk with increased poaching if visitors are able to carry loaded weapons into the parks. In addition to more poaching, vandalism would increase, putting fragile natural resources at risk.

The former rangers, the former retirees from the Park Service have all stated unanimously that this thing is not needed. I think that it would be upsetting for many visitors to the parks to know that they run a risk of an encounter with someone who's carrying a loaded gun.

With the number of school groups who visit these places, it would be a real shame that their attendance drops due to the fear of loaded weapons.

So I strongly, as chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, oppose this amendment and urge it to be struck from this legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today to express my support and appreciation for the Navy League of the United States and congratulate the members of the Navy League Bremerton- Olympic Peninsula Council upon the dedication of the Lone Sailor Statue Memorial at Bremerton, Washington.

The Lone Sailor Statue is symbolic of the many sacrifices made by our mariners, their families and the communities that support them. On May 23, 2009, the Navy League Bremerton--Olympic Peninsula Council will dedicate a Lone Sailor Statue Memorial at Bremerton Harborside in Bremerton, Washington. This statue honors and embodies the longstanding bond the city and region share with our Navy and maritime past.

Since its founding, the United States has relied upon access to and unhindered use of the world's oceans in order to enhance its security and maintain its interests. The sea services of the United States; the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and U.S. Merchant Marine, were essential to our young Nation's security, growth and prosperity then, and they remain so today.

The Navy League of the United States was formed in 1902 to ensure continued support for the men and women of the sea services in their duties. It continues this vital mission today through the education of our citizenry and the Nation's political leaders on the important role of the sea services and the sacrifices made by our Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and Merchant Mariners around the world.

The dedication of the Lone Sailor Statue Memorial in Bremerton is a testament to the sustained effort of the entire Navy League Bremerton-- Olympic Peninsula Council and many, many community contributors and volunteers. I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to all who contributed their time and effort to make this event possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2346 the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2009, which addresses the President's request for additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, overseas diplomatic efforts and wildland fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation of burned areas. I also want to express my support for funds that were approved in this bill to respond to the recent swine flu outbreak, which still presents a very real threat of a worldwide pandemic.

We are all encouraged by the robust actions of our various public health agencies in the United States, including the Centers for Disease Control, in response to this threat. It is clear that the health and security of the American public remain a top priority, and we support the substantial and serious efforts that are being made to protect our population against the H1N1 swine flu virus and to prepare for the possible consequences. Because we do not know at this point the path that this particular strain will take within our population and around the world, it is entirely prudent to implement widespread precautionary steps in case the outbreak is more virulent than it now appears, or in case it re-appears in the fall. Knowing that the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak killed an estimated 100 million people around the world, and that modern transportation has greatly increased the speed at which such a pandemic could be spread, we have a serious obligation to prepare for any potential outcome.

At the same time, I believe that Congress, in its oversight role, must assure that the nation is adequately prepared to detect--with some advance capability--this and other types of pandemic disease threats to our population. The earlier we can determine the content and the severity of a biological threat, for example, the more lives can potentially be saved. In this case we have some concern about the nation's ability to analyze and interpret warning signals that suggest the emergence of a biological threat.

What we know is this: By April 22, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, had identified two cases of a previously unknown strain of Swine flu present in Texas, and that the virus was identical to two previously analyzed cases that occurred earlier in the month in San Diego. By that evening, CDC was able to complete the analysis of samples of the virus that had been raging through parts of Mexico, finally allowing it to ``connect the dots'' and begin the notification of all 50 State public health laboratories.

But it is now also known that CDC received other information earlier that at least suggested the possibility of pandemic threat. CDC received information from a Washington State firm that tracks global disease outbreaks as early as April 6th that suggested the possibility of a pandemic. The company, Veratect, has developed a software platform called Foreshadow that conducts 24-hour, 7-days-a-week tracking and actionable alert generation to detect emerging threats worldwide. Through its analyses, Veratect reported on April 6th that health officials in Veracruz, Mexico, had declared a health alert due to a ``strange'' outbreak of respiratory disease outbreak, possibly caused by contamination from pig-breeding farms located in the area. Ten days later, the company reported that the Oaxaca Health Department had detected an unusual number of atypical pneumonia cases. On April 20, a Veratect official contacted a CDC physician at the agency's emergency operations center to apprise him of the situation in Mexico and to urge CDC to take a look at the growing problem there.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. As with any intelligence product, it is always difficult to know at the time what is merely ``noise'' and what is truly significant information that requires action. But because of my personal knowledge of the circumstances related to these early warning signals that were sent to CDC and other governmental bodies, I think it is prudent for Congress at this point to assure that we have the appropriate mechanisms in place to guarantee that bona fide information relating to these types of very real threats to public health and safety can be received and interpreted in a timely manner, and that it triggers the necessary and appropriate preventative actions.

In this regard, I am encouraged that the bill includes report language that will require CDC to review its disease detection policies and the

speed with which case samples are analyzed to determine if improvements should or can be made. Part of this review should include a survey of the early detection capability that exists, and whether CDC and other agencies of the federal government have sufficient resources to properly analyze this type of advance warning information.

I thank Chairman Obey, in particular, for his interest in the issue, and for including this important language in the Committee's report.

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and someone who is very concerned about the need to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems from the threat of global warming and ocean acidification, I wish to express my strong support for the ``Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation Act,'' legislation introduced today by Representative Raul Grijalva. I believe that the policy provisions in this legislation, coupled with a dedicated funding stream for wildlife and natural resources derived from a portion of the Federal revenues from expected cap-and-trade legislation, will provide the policy response necessary to tackle this significant challenge.

I am very much aware of the need to take action to address global warming, and I have held hearings in the Interior Subcommittee to examine the impact of climate change on many of the agencies and resources under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. I have consistently stated my belief that climate change is the emerging issue of our time. Climate change may alter the face of our planet in ways we cannot yet fully comprehend, and I believe it is our responsibility not only to do as much as possible to halt or slow it, but also to do everything in our power to protect the earth's resources from its impacts so that future generations will be able to benefit from them as we and past generations have done.

Our Nation's wildlife is one critically important resource that is particularly vulnerable to climate change and is also a resource that is a fundamental part of America's history and character. Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat is a core value shared by all Americans.

America's wildlife is vital to our Nation for many reasons. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional, and spiritual benefits. The economic value of the outdoor recreation industry alone is estimated to contribute $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Wildlife habitat, including forests, grasslands, riparian lands, wetlands, rivers and other water bodies, is an essential component of the American landscape, and is protected and valued by Federal, State, and local governments, tribes, private landowners, and conservation organizations.

Ocean acidification is a subject not often discussed but which poses a grave threat to our waterways and ultimately to our food chain. The oceans absorb approximately 30 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere and they have played an important role in reducing the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and mitigating some of the impacts of climate change. However, recent discoveries clearly indicate that marine fish and wildlife are highly susceptible to increases in CO2 and the impact it has on water quality. Higher acidity affects the ability of marine life such as shellfish, lobsters and corals to build their skeletons and shells. Many of the affected organisms are important sources in the food chain for fish and other higher marine organisms. Fishing and related industries play a tremendous role in Washington State's economy, as well as other coastal communities.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect of climate change on wildlife will be profound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have made clear that global warming is occurring, that it is exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have devastating impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Global warming is already impacting all of us: threatening the water we drink, the air we breathe, the medicines we use, the food we eat, the forests and fisheries we depend on, the special places we take our children. Wildlife is already suffering from massive changes in habitat, particularly in the arctic, and shifts in ranges and timing of migration and breeding cycles. Continued global warming could lead to large-scale species extinctions. These impacts add to and compound the adverse effects wildlife and its habitat already suffer from land development, energy development, road construction, and other human activities, and from other threats such as invasive species and disease.

According to the IPCC, global warming and associated sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or in the very near future. I believe that, as a nation, we must craft responses and mechanisms now to help navigate the threats global warming poses to the natural resources that we all depend upon for survival.

To conserve natural resources and wildlife in the face of the far- reaching effects of global warming, there is a need for a coordinated, national strategy based on sound scientific information to ensure that impacts on wildlife that span government jurisdictions are effectively addressed and to ensure that Federal funds are prudently committed. Ensuring strategic and efficient allocation of funding is something of particular interest to me as an appropriator.

Because of these needs, I have co-sponsored the ``Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation Act.'' This legislation has been developed by the Natural Resources Committee and lays out the strong policy framework necessary to ensure our Nation is using all possible means to help safeguard America's natural resources and wildlife from the harmful impacts of global warming.

I have also acted in my capacity on the House Appropriations Committee to support actions address the climate change impacts in the near term. In 2007, I worked to establish the Global Warming and Wildlife Science center at the U.S. Geological Survey to enhance the science capacity of Federal land management and wildlife agencies. In addition, the recent FY09 omnibus appropriations provided direction from my Subcommittee to the Department of the Interior to develop a national strategy to address global warming's impacts on fish, wildlife, and natural resources. Last Congress, I also introduced ``The Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' whose central principles are represented in the Natural Resources Committee bill that I am proud to cosponsor today.

This bill will help ensure that the pressing needs that are faced by the agencies and programs under the Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee to help wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed strategically, based on a foundation of sound scientific information, and that funding is driven through proven programs at the Federal, State and tribal levels in the most efficient way possible.

I also have one additional but very significant point to make about funding to address impacts to natural resources and wildlife from global warming. It is essential that actions to safeguard wildlife and the natural resources will all depend upon dedicated funding. Adequately addressing the greatest conservation challenge of our time will require long-term investments of the magnitude that only the revenue stream created by comprehensive climate and energy legislation can provide. I am working to ensure that 5 percent of the allowance value created by this legislation is dedicated to protect natural resources from global

warming. As I have indicated, the impacts are occurring today and the need is urgent. Paying for these investments through climate revenues takes the burden of protecting these resources off taxpaying citizens and onto the polluting entities responsible for causing global warming pollution.

The Interior and Environment Apppropriations Subcommittee allocation is woefully stressed just dealing with the current needs of the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction. Our Federal land management agencies have tremendous backlogs for operations and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and other public lands. This situation was greatly exacerbated under the Bush Administration budgets and prior Congresses. Hundreds of important biologist positions have been cut, and the agencies' budgets are far below what they have needed just to keep up with inflation. These programs have been starved to the point where they are on life support. It became apparent in hearings the subcommittee has held on global warming that the land management agencies are already seeing the results of climate change on the ground, but that they have few, if any, resources to deal with these changes. With the effects of global warming only expected to increase in severity in the coming years, I believe it is crucial to infuse dedicated new funding into our efforts to address this crisis, and I will work to make this happen.

This is a great Nation with a unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. We must take steps now to protect our wonderful wildlife from the ravages of climate change. In this regard, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the ``Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations Act and the rule currently being debated in the House.

Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Forest System. These land management agencies manage more than 600 million acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million visitors every year.

The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which provide education, law enforcement, and health services for 4

million Native Americans. It includes the money to support the staff of the Department of the Interior, which develops the offshore and land- based energy resources of this country. These energy-related programs generate over $20 billion of revenue for the Federal Treasury every year. It includes money for the EPA to support environmental protection activities in every congressional district affecting every single American family.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised earlier as to why we need this omnibus money when we have just provided $11 billion for the agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week. The basic answer is the stimulus legislation provides funding for infrastructure projects at these agencies, in particular funding to address the longstanding and well-documented maintenance backlogs. The omnibus bill we are considering today supports the operational costs of these agencies.

The recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for the teachers.

The recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian hospitals and clinics and allows purchases of critically needed medical equipment. The omnibus bill pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.

The recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.

The recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate, and build new water and sewer systems in over 500 communities. The omnibus bill includes funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that our families are not exposed to dangerous toxins.

I want to commend Chairman Obey for bringing this bill badly needed by the American people. These are important programs, and I appreciate his leadership on this bill and the staff of the committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations Act currently being debated in the House.

Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Forest system. These land management agencies manage more than 600 million acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million visitors every year. The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs which provide education, law enforcement, and health services for 4 million Native Americans. It includes the money to support the staff of the Department of the Interior which develops the off-shore and land-based energy resources of this country. These energy related programs generate over $20 billion of revenue for the Federal treasury every year. It includes money for the EPA to support environmental protection activities in every congressional district affecting every single American family.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised earlier as to why we need this Omnibus bill when we have just provided $11 billion for these agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week. The basic answer is that the stimulus legislation provides funding for infrastructure projects at these agencies, in particular funding to address the long-standing and well documented maintenance backlogs. The Omnibus bill we are considering today supports the operational costs of these agencies.

The Recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for the teachers.

The Recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian hospitals and clinics and allow purchase of critically needed medical equipment. The Omnibus pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.

The Recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The Omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.

The Recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate and build new water and sewer systems in over 500 communities. The Omnibus bill includes funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that our families are not exposed to dangerous toxic wastes.

The Recovery bill will pay to improve border security by installing surveillance equipment and allowing purchase of better equipment for law enforcement personnel. But it is the Omnibus bill which pays for the refuge and park personnel who patrol the border areas which are overwhelmed by drug dealers and undocumented aliens. I toured this area last weekend on a Committee field visit and I can tell you these brave rangers and other law enforcement personnel face danger every day and desperately need the funding in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a full-year Continuing Resolution will not adequately fund the operational costs of these agencies. Fixed costs average a little over 5 percent this year. If Congress simply extends the Continuing Resolution, agencies already suffering serious staffing shortfalls will have to further reduce staff. The Park Service will lose $161 million. The wildlife refuges will lose $29 million. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service will lose $320 million. These cuts will have very serious consequences.

Let me give one very straightforward example of the impact of a full year Continuing Resolution. The Indian Health Service estimates that if they are forced to operate for the rest of the year under the Continuing Resolution that they will provide 2,800 fewer hospital admissions and 400,000 fewer outpatient visits. Screening for diabetes, cancer and other life threatening diseases will also be significantly reduced. These are very serious consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this bill we are considering today includes a very modest increase of 4.8 percent over the 2008 level for Interior and Environment programs. The recommendations have been developed through a fully bipartisan process. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Chair, the arts community in America not only represents a tremendous cultural resource, it also serves to create jobs in local communities all across our nation, an important factor as we consider federal efforts to revive our economy. While some of my colleagues may still not realize the significant number of people who are employed directly and indirectly by the arts community in their congressional districts, I have been encouraged by the vibrant debates we have had in the House in recent years that have helped to broaden the recognition of the arts sector as a major contributor to the economic health of our nation. I have participated in all of those debates regarding the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, and I am proud that the margin of support for the NEA has been steadily increasing. One of the key factors in increasing that margin has been the activism of the arts community in stressing the economic impact of local arts programming and the jobs created through the growth and development of museums, musical productions, dance, theater and public art projects. In these debates it has been emphasized that each dollar the federal government provides to NEA leverages another seven dollars in private contributions, which in turn generate substantial investment in local communities.

The NEA portion of this economic stimulus legislation will fund small grants to non-profit arts agencies that have been especially hard hit by the economic crisis. The bill specifies that $50 million is ``to be distributed to projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non- profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support.'' These funds are distributed either through formula grants to the states or through the established competitive review system at the

Well, I accept the gentleman's apology, but he was inaccurate on what he said. That is something I cannot forgive him for.

Out of the $200 million for The Mall, $150 million is to save the Jefferson Monument from sinking, sinking, into the Tidal Basin. Only part of the money is used to resod the grass, and, there is money also to protect and restore the Sylvan Theater as well.

There is a national group that has organized to restore The National Mall. We just saw $1.8 million Americans come and stand on that Mall. It is a national treasure. It is part of the Park Service. It deserves to be fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. More than 40 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act and Title VI, women continue to be paid less for performing many of the same jobs as their male counterparts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, on average, women only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. That could mean a difference of $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime of work. The pay disparity is even larger among African Americans and Latinos; it affects women at all income levels and throughout the range of occupations in American. This gap even widens as women age.

The legislation we are considering today, The Paycheck Fairness Act, is a terribly important initiative, in my judgment, designed to close that pay gap between men and women. The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by increasing the remedies available to put sex-based pay discrimination on par with race-based pay discrimination. How would we achieve these objectives? Specifically, this legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would:

Require that employers seeking to justify unequal should bear the burden of proving that its actions are job-related and consistent with a business necessity;

Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers;

Put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination such as discrimination based on race, disability or age. We would achieve this by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages;

Require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;

Require the Department of Labor to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender; and, finally,

Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the 111th Session of Congress, I believe passage of this legislation sends a necessary and most appropriate message to employers across this nation that the work done by women is every bit as important and valuable as the labor of working men in America, and that we are resolving through this bill to end the overt as well as the subtle discrimination that still exists against women in the American workplace.

I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor or its passage.

Madam Speaker, on September 24th I was pleased to attend a ceremony sponsored by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society at which the 2008 Freedom Award was presented to former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, who served in the United States Senate for 18 years. Each year the Society presents this prestigious award to recognize the work that is done under the Capitol dome to defend freedom and preserve the institution of Congress as a representative body. At the start of each Congress, all of us as Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution in our role, as the Founders intended, as defenders of the peoples' freedom. As a means of reminding the Congress of this solemn responsibility, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society bestows the Freedom Award annually upon a Member who personifies this spirit and who has demonstrated throughout his or her career a dedication to the institution of Congress and to the cause of freedom. Senator Baker's remarks at the ceremony were particularly relevant and moving, and I would like to take this opportunity to share his speech with my colleagues by entering his remarks into the Record:

Remarks of Howard H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Capitol Historical Society

Freedom Award, Wednesday, September 24, 2008

It is a great honor to be with you this evening, and it is

an especially great honor to have been introduced by my dear

friend and former colleague Bob Byrd.

In an unusual--perhaps even unprecedented--set of

circumstances, Senator Byrd and I served as each other's

majority and minority leaders for 8 very eventful years in

the late 1970s and early 80s.

And while there are some things Senator Byrd and I disagree

on, one thing on which we're in absolute agreement is that

being majority leader is better.

My service in the Senate leadership was the culmination of

three terms in the United States Senate. For much of my adult

career I have served in Congress, or my family has, so some

would describe me as a congressional brat--if so I am proud

of it.

Having walked the halls of Congress with so many of its

legendary figures--most definitely including Robert C. Byrd--

and having worked on so many momentous issues with them, I

have a special appreciation for the history of the Capitol

that this Society does so much to preserve and protect and

disseminate to an interested public.

And so it is particularly meaningful to me to be honored by

the Capitol Historical Society this evening.

President Lincoln--who also served in Congress, though not,

as you may suspect, with me--once wrote in a Message to

Congress in the depths of the Civil War, ``We cannot escape

history. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us

down in honor or dishonor to the last generation.''

The genius of our system of government is not that it

requires a race of supermen to run it but that ordinary

people can do extraordinary things for their fellow citizens

when they have to. This very week, the Congress, in

particular must face a new challenge on policy and

legislation to stabilize and rescue our country's economic

system.

To succeed it must be in the finest traditions of our

legislative process, worthy of Webster and Clay, Johnson and

Dirksen, Kennedy and Kassebaum, maybe even Baker and Byrd.

In earlier times, we dealt with Vietnam, Watergate, civil

rights, the first environmental protection laws, Social

Security reform, the cold war and much else on similar terms

and with ultimate success.

I am sure that the men and women of the 110th Congress--

Democrats, Republicans,

and Independents--will rise to the challenge of the moment

and validate our powerful claim to the value of

bipartisanship when it must serve the public interest.

Senator Byrd and I engaged in partisan warfare more than

either of us would like to acknowledge today, but even in the

midst of such warfare, we knew we were serving an important

political purpose: giving voice to the full range of public

opinion on matters of national importance.

That is the basis for the Senate's claim to being the

``world's greatest deliberative body.'' America's Founders

did not design the Senate as a model of efficiency but as a

vessel of democracy, into which the Nation's passions could

be poured to cool, and from which the Nation's collective

wisdom could be discerned.

The two-party system, which the Founders did not design and

from which many of them would have recoiled, has had a

similarly steadying influence on our national life.

Two broad-based political parties have over the centuries

become very effective means of communicating the public's

views to their government, particularly through the

legislative branch.

Partisanship has its place--and it is an honorable and

useful place--in public life, and those who disdain it often

do not understand its value in venting the full expression of

our citizens' demands and dissents.

But the greatest of America's Founders--George Washington--

feared ``factions'' above all, and I share his fear that

political hostility can overcome the better angels of our

nature in some future hour of national peril.

Too often in today's Washington, I see a refusal to hear,

much less respect, a differing point of view. I see a refusal

to even try to understand the other person's argument. This

is new, in my experience, and it is not healthy.

Robert Kennedy was a young lawyer who served as minority

council in the Army-McCarthy hearings. I was chosen by Ray

Jenkins, a great Tennessee trial lawyer, to assist him in the

hearings. By the way, my principal responsibility was reading

the daily transcripts! Robert Kennedy and I became quick

friends because we had much in common--we were within days of

each other in age, had World War II experience, and we shared

an enthusiasm for convertibles, although his Cadillac put my

Ford to shame.

When we returned to Washington years later as Senators

ourselves, just after the assassination of President Kennedy

and in the early years of the Vietnam war, we and our

colleagues--including Bob Byrd--knew that some things were

more important than partisanship.

Having served in the waning days of World War II, we knew

that the capacity for calamity in human affairs was almost

limitless--and we knew how much the rest of the world looked

to the United States for leadership and example.

The men and women of today's Congress know about war, and

terror, and now you know how quickly a strong economy can

spiral out of control without constant vigilance.

These are sobering events in momentous times, and it is

useful for the ordinary men and women serving in this Capitol

today to know that others before them rose to similar

extraordinary challenges and rescued their country from harm.

``What is past is prologue,'' the National Archives reminds

us. ``Study the past.'' That is what the United States

Capitol Historical Society has been encouraging us and

enabling us to do for many years.

I thank you for that valuable service. I am humbled by your

tribute. And I am honored to be in your company tonight.

Madam Speaker, amid the sharp debate over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Bill being considered this week in Congress we have heard dire predictions from both extremes warning of a financial Armageddon if we don't approve the bill or of squandering billions of taxpayer dollars if we do. Beyond the intense rhetoric though, there is a growing body of evidence of serious impacts in every American community this month as the shrinking credit market has already affected consumers' ability to buy cars, purchase inventory for their businesses, afford college loans, and obtain home mortgages.

And it's only going to get worse until Congress takes some action that will have a direct effect on the credit markets and on our confidence in the integrity of the U.S. banking system.

Unfortunately in the search for an appropriate remedy, I fear that ``perfect'' may have become the enemy of ``good.'' Warren Buffet put it bluntly in an interview when he was asked his opinion of the legislation we're considering this week. He said ``I don't think it's perfect, but I don't know that I could draw one that's perfect. I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong. And it would be precisely wrong to turn it down.''

The Gallup poll conducted this week for USA TODAY indicated that more than half of all Americans--56 percent--say their financial situation has already been harmed by the financial meltdown of the 2 weeks, with 20 percent of our population saying they have been seriously harmed. The longer term outlook is even more gloomy.

In Washington State, the failure of one of our biggest banks-- Washington Mutual--last week has been a local reminder of the gravity of this crisis, as was the Wachovia failure a few days later. Thousands of financial industry employees, including Washington Mutual employees in the Puget Sound area, will likely lose their jobs in this collapse, which has largely resulted from bad decisions made by executives that most Americans consider to be grossly overpaid. It's understandable for Americans to be angry and to oppose any direct bailout of Wall Street.

But a lot of the people who are being hurt by this crisis today are not overpaid bankers or stock market executives. They are working class families in our towns whose small businesses can't get credit for inventory or payroll and people down the street who are not able to obtain a car loan to replace a broken down automobile.

Economists remind us that auto sales are typically one of the first indicators of economic trouble. Last month, car sales dropped by 27 percent from September 2007, the slowest pace of auto purchases since 1991. The chief economist at J.D. Power and Associates, Bob Schnorbus, estimates that the credit crunch alone is responsible for more than 40,000 people being denied loans every month. And as the crisis has deepened in recent weeks, even people with good jobs and credit are having difficulty arranging auto financing.

The financial disruption is also affecting student loans--the primary way through which we as a nation open the doors of higher education to middle and lower class Americans. The buyout of Wachovia has limited the access of nearly 1,000 colleges to $9.3 billion the bank has held for them in a short-term investment fund. Many of these schools are struggling to meet their payrolls and other commitments, including scholarships, as we start another school year.

Over the longer term, if credit contracts further, so will the availability and affordability of student loans. If it closes the doors of higher education to American kids, this short-term financial crisis has the potential to result in a long-term loss of competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Small businesses are also feeling the burden. As my colleagues know, small businesses account for roughly half of the nation's total economic output and employ about 40 percent of the total U.S. workforce. The chief economist for the Small Business Administration noted in an interview this week that these businesses are either being denied capital to grow and add jobs or they are simply afraid to seek capital because they are scared of the direction of the economy. More than anything else, cutting off capital to small businesses will be an enormous drag on the economy and job creation over the long term.

The credit squeeze is already having a downstream impact on our economy. Consumer spending this quarter appears to be declining for the first time in 17 years. Last month, unemployment reached a 5-year high--6.1 percent--and new filings for unemployment hit the highest level since just after the September 11th attacks. Factory orders are down, and manufacturing activity has fallen to the lowest level in seven years.

Two major employers in the rural areas in my district--Port Townsend Paper and Grays Harbor Paper--are victims of this loss of confidence. These firms, both critical to employment in their respective cities, have stated that they are already taking steps to protect themselves from a recession, holding off on investments and new hires as they prepare for a decline in sales.

So with mounting evidence that the impact of this crisis is being felt well beyond Wall Street, I am supporting this bill. I am not doing so in order to boost the salaries of Wall Street executives, but so that janitors and nurses and secretaries and teachers and car dealers in my district can keep their jobs. I am supporting this bill so that kids and their parents will still have the access to affordable loans to go to college--an advantage I had as a young man.

I am not suggesting this is a perfect solution. But like Warren Buffet, I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong. And I am absolutely convinced that we must take action very soon before the credit crisis deepens and before it affects the lives and livelihoods of even more of our friends and neighbors. The time to act is now. This is the only option before us. We must pass it.

Madam Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke issued a solemn warning to the President and Congress about the increasingly fragile state of the Nation's economic and banking system. They expressed their belief that, without prompt congressional action, widespread failure of financial institutions on Wall Street and across America threatened to send the Nation into an economic crisis not experienced since the Great Depression.

In the past few months, as my colleagues know, several financial institutions in the United States have failed, have been acquired by other companies through government intervention, or have been sustained only with Federal assistance. In the last 2 weeks, the number of failures has accelerated at an alarming rate, including the failure of Washington Mutual in my State, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. The Washington Mutual situation has underscored for me and my constituents the depth and seriousness of the crisis and has emphasized how our action is needed not simply for Wall Street, but also for Main Street.

Even without the collapse of Washington Mutual, it is clear to me that the growing crisis of liquidity could have devastating effect on my constituents and on the middle class throughout America. Companies failing because of an inability to manage their debt would not just be isolated to lower Manhattan; indeed, all of our congressional districts have businesses large and small that rely on the ability to access credit to survive. These businesses may well fail, too, if this crisis is allowed to continue without intervention. Retirees and workers alike are facing the loss of their retirement funds and pensions if they are invested in the markets on a scale not seen in 80 years.

It is that backdrop and with the advice of some of the wisest and most financially astute members of the House a well as financial experts from my state, that I am now convinced Congress must act quickly to avoid these disastrous consequences.

It was obvious to me that the legislative proposal initially drafted by the Bush administration was overly broad and lacking of any substantive or independent oversight by Congress or any clear safeguards for American taxpayers. After 10 days of intense, often around-the-clock negotiations, the original proposal drafted by Treasury Secretary Paulson has been dramatically improved in the legislation that is under consideration by the House of Representatives today. In addition to helping stabilize the U.S. economy by authorizing the Treasury to acquire mortgage-backed securities, enabling the release of credit for American consumer and businesses, this bill provides strict, independent oversight to assure that the program is carried out properly. The provisions of this legislation will help existing homeowners to stay in their homes and continue to make payments and the bill includes specific provisions to ensure that taxpayers are insulated from any losses sustained in this program. And I am encouraged that, for the first time, the bill places clear restrictions on so-called ``golden parachutes'' and executive compensation for companies participating in the new program.

I believe the revised version of this legislation represents a substantially more responsible and prudent means of addressing this crisis, and it is my intention to support it. I recognize that many of my own constituents have deep reservations about this package. So do I. I recognize that it may not be perfect. But I believe it is a responsible action and that it is in the best interests of our Nation at this critical time. And I also believe that the consequences of not acting today could be devastating. It is therefore my intention to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as a co-sponsor of this resolution, I appreciate the opportunity to offer a statement in support of House Resolution 1202, supporting the goals and ideals of National Guard Youth Challenge Day. I thank my colleague, Mr. Davis from Virginia, for having introduced this resolution so that today we are able to vote on it.

Throughout my career I have had a deep interest in programs that help our youth to develop into good citizens; citizens who will carry our Nation into the future, and citizens who are able to enjoy the satisfaction that comes from realizing their individual potential throughout their lives. It was a little over two years ago that I had my first direct contact with the National Guard Youth Challenge Program. I learned much about the program from meetings here in Washington, DC, where I heard about its 80 percent success rate in participating youth getting a high school diploma or GED. I heard about the success in graduating over 77,000 youth from programs in 30 states and territories. And I learned about the impressive numbers of graduates going on to jobs in the economy, joining the military, or continuing their education.

The statistics are impressive, but the experience that had the greatest impact on me was my visit to the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program in Bend, Oregon. I was truly astounded by the stories that I heard from the young men and women there who found in themselves a desire to change, and made the commitment to the Youth Challenge experience to fundamentally change the direction of their lives. Many of these were youth who might otherwise have resigned themselves to a future of low expectations that could include drug and alcohol abuse, gang membership, and dead-end job prospects. But they took a chance on the Youth Challenge program, and through their own commitment and hard work found value, discipline and direction for themselves.

Today, I am pleased to be able to tell my colleagues that the State of Washington is well on its way to establishing a Youth Challenge program of its own. The support from the State government and the community have been absolutely fantastic. Governor Chris Gregoire, our State Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, the Adjutant General Tim Lowenberg, and the legislature in Olympia, Washington have been enthusiastically behind this program all the way.

In my home town of Bremerton, Washington, the Superintendent of Schools and the school board have embraced the program and look forward to our program at the Washington Youth Academy making a difference for youth from across the entire state. At the Federal level, the National Guard Bureau has been unwavering in its support of all of the programs across the country, and for starting this new program in the State of Washington.

The great thing about this program is that it sells itself. It just takes coming in contact with the positive energy young men and women in the program and their families to become a believer. By this time next year, I look forward to being able to report to my colleagues that the Washington Youth Academy will have graduated its first class of 150 youth who will be on a fundamentally different and more positive path for the rest of their lives.

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in supporting this resolution, and commend the National Guard Youth Challenge Program to the attention of all of my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2008.

With 2,500 miles of shoreline and 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters, Puget Sound is the Nation's second largest estuary. The Sound is a cornerstone of the Pacific Northwest's identity and at the heart of the region's prosperity, supporting a thriving marine and natural resource industry. And it is truly one of America's most spectacular bodies of water, home to more than 200 species of fish, 25 kinds of marine mammals, 100 species of sea birds as well as clams, oysters and shrimp.

But beneath the water's surface and despite its breathtaking natural beauty, Puget Sound is sick. Scientists have detected low levels of oxygen and increasing concentrations of toxic substances in aquatic animals that live in the Sound. Some of its most iconic resident species--including salmon and orcas--are on the brink of extinction. Up to 70 percent of all its original estuaries and wetlands have disappeared and about 8,700 acres at the bottom of the Sound are dangerously contaminated.

The declining health of Puget Sound threatens the economic and environmental vitality of the Pacific Northwest. Washington State's Governor Chris Gregoire has taken steps at the State Government level to combat this decline by setting up a Puget Sound Partnership. Now it is time for the U.S. Government to match these efforts, with the Environmental Protection Agency taking the lead to create, with the State of Washington, a comprehensive recovery package for Puget Sound.

Already, we have launched a cooperative effort involving all of the local government entities, as well as the State and Federal Governments, to curtail any harmful substances from being introduced into its waters, to change unwise industrial and agricultural practices and to continue our aggressive research into the causes of pollution in the Sound. The Fiscal Year 2008 Interior Appropriations bill included $20 million for the EPA geographic program to ramp up the Puget Sound work, and earlier this month the Interior Subcommittee which I chair passed a spending bill for fiscal year 2009 that includes an additional $20 million to implement the program.

The Puget Sound Recovery Act that I am joined by all of my colleagues from around the Puget Sound area in introducing today furthers these efforts by establishing an EPA Puget Sound Office in Washington State that will coordinate action among the many Federal agencies involved in the cleanup, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture, the United States Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation. In addition, this bill authorizes grants to study the causes of the Sound's declining water quality and ways to counter these threats, as well as grants for sewer and stormwater discharge projects.

Madam Speaker, the Federal Government must continue to play a leading role in restoring the health of Puget Sound, and I believe the Puget Sound Recovery Act is fundamental to this effort.

Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2008

Section-by-Section

Sec. 1. Short Title.

Sec. 2. Findings. Congress finds that Puget Sound is

important to the Pacific Northwest's regional identity and

industry. Puget Sound's water quality is in decline, which

threatens the region's economy. Washington State has taken

steps to address the problem. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) should create a comprehensive recovery package

for Puget Sound and should establish a ``Puget Sound Office''

in Washington State. Other federal agencies should be

involved, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park

Service, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture,

the United States Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers,

the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, and

Transportation. The Puget Sound recovery efforts should be

included in the President's annual budget. Canada should join

in this enhanced effort.

Sec. 3. Puget Sound. This section amends Title I of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

by adding at the end a new section (``Sec. 123. Puget

Sound.''). The Puget Sound Recovery Act creates the following

provisions within the new Sec. 123 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act:

(a) Program Office.

(1) Establishes an EPA Puget Sound Program Office

(``Office'').

(2) States that the Office is to be headed by a Director

and located in the State of Washington.

(3) Provides the Office with additional staff as needed.

(b) Duties of Director.

(1) Directs the Director to assist the Puget Sound

Partnership in carrying out its goals.

(2) Specifically, the Director should:

(A) Assist and support the implementation of the

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

(``Comprehensive Plan'');

(B) Coordinate the major functions of the Federal

government related to the implementation of the Comprehensive

Plan;

(C) Conduct or commission studies and research necessary

for implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality

Management Plan;

(D) Coordinate and manage environmental data;

(E) Coordinate Puget Sound grant, research, and planning

programs;

(F) Coordinate efforts in Puget Sound and the Georgia

Straits with Canada;

(G) Coordinate efforts, including activities under species

recovery plans, with other Federal agencies with jurisdiction

in the Puget Sound watershed;

(H) Collect and make available to the public information

relating to the environmental quality of Puget Sound; and

(I) Biennially issue a report to Congress that--

(i) Summarizes the progress made;

(ii) Summarizes any modifications to the Puget Sound Water

Quality Management Plan; and

(iii) Incorporates specific recommendations concerning the

implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management

Plan.

(3) Specifies that the studies and research mandated under

(2) (C) should include:

(A) Population growth and the adequacy of wastewater

treatment facilities and on-site septic systems;

(B) The use of physical, chemical and biological methods

for nutrient removal in sewage treatment plants;

(C) Contaminated sediments and dredging activities;

(D) Nonpoint source pollutant abatement;

(E) Wetland, riparian, and near shore protection and

restoration;

(F) Flood abatement and floodplain restoration techniques;

(G) Impacts of forest and agricultural practices;

(H) Atmospheric deposition of pollutants;

(I) Water quality requirements to sustain fish, shellfish,

and wildlife populations;

(J) State water quality programs;

(K) Options for long-term financing of wastewater treatment

projects and water pollutant control programs;

(L) Water usage and efficiency;

(M) Toxic pollutants; and

(N) Such other areas as the Director considers appropriate.

(4) Grants the Director authority to enter into interagency

agreements, make intergovernmental personnel appointments

(IPAs), and utilize other methods to carry out the Director's

duties.

(c) Grants to Implement Management Plan.

(1) Authorizes the EPA Administrator to award grants to

eligible recipients for projects and studies to implement the

Comprehensive Plan.

(2) Specifies that projects and studies eligible for grants

include planning, research, modeling, construction,

monitoring, implementation, citizen involvement and

education.

(3) Specifies that the Federal share of the cost of the

grant projects or studies should not exceed 50 percent.

(4) Defines ``eligible recipient'' for grants as a State,

interstate, Tribal, regional, or local water pollution

control agency or other public or nonprofit private agency,

institution, or organization.

(d) Grants for Projects to Address Sewage and Stormwater

Discharges.

(1) Authorizes the EPA Administrator to award grants to

eligible recipients for projects to address sewage and storm

water discharges.

(2) Specifies that projects eligible for grants include

demonstration and research projects that provide treatment

for, or that minimize, sewage or stormwater discharges.

(3) Regarding the awarding of sewage and storm water

grants--

(A) Grants should be awarded on a competitive basis; and

(B) The EPA Administrator may give priority to a project

located in a distressed community.

(4) Regarding the Federal share of the cost of a project

receiving assistance--

(A) Specifies that the Federal share of the cost of the

grant projects should not exceed 75 percent; and

(B) Specifies that, in distressed communities, the Federal

share should not exceed 100 percent.

(5) Defines the following terms--

(A) Eligible Recipient: a State, interstate, Tribal,

regional, or local water pollution control agency.

(B) Distressed Community: a community that meets

affordability criteria established by the community's State.

(e) Annual Budget Plan.

(1) The President should include the Puget Sound Program in

the annual budget of the U.S. Government, and related

information, including:

(A) An interagency crosscut budget that displays for each

Federal agency involved in Puget Sound activities--

(i) Amounts obligated in the preceding fiscal year;

(ii) The estimated budget for the current fiscal year;

(iii) The proposed budget; and

(B) A description of the Federal role in the Puget Sound

Program and the specific role of each agency.

(2) The President should coordinate reporting, data

collection, and planning activities with the Puget Sound

Partnership.

(f) Authorizations.

Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for each of the

fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to carry out the Puget Sound

Program.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to announce to my colleagues an important decision was reached today. Thank God for the GAO. An injustice was corrected.

The GAO came out today and held on seven different grounds that the Boeing Company's protest should be sustained. This now gives us a chance to win this competition and to keep these jobs in the United States.

I'm from the great State of Washington where the Boeing Company resides and has many workers. I think this was one of the most important decisions by the GAO. I congratulate them for the comprehensiveness, for the professionalism, and I hope that the Air Force will read this decision and also look at the other factors, industrial base, the use of subsidies against the United States by the WTO. All of these issues that were not considered should be considered in this decision.

These are the crown jewels of American technology, these tankers, and they should be built in the United States by an American company.