Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and all the Members who deeply care about our veterans in this body.

I am always surprised that this issue takes on a partisan tone, because I really believe each Member cares about veterans. It is just that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of this administration to face up to the reality of how much money is needed to take care of the veterans. And with the war raging in Iraq, and with the seriousness of the injuries, any of us who have been out to Walter Reed or to Bethesda to see these heroic young men and women who have come back with these very severe wounds, I think all of us want to see the best care given to our veterans.

We have been reading about post-traumatic stress syndrome and the consequences and the effect on the lives of these soldiers and sailors and marines when they come home after having been involved in the kind of violent combat that is being seen in Iraq. I had a chance to visit the VA Hospital in Seattle recently, and I was told by the people there that they still have a backlog, a waiting list of 2,500 people waiting to get their appointments at the Seattle VA. Now, that is just unacceptable. I hope that that has been reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I believe the other body was correct in adding this money, but this is not something that normally would be part of the Interior appropriations bill. This is not within our jurisdiction. This is just something that happened--we were the first bill moving through, and it became a convenient vehicle in the other body to put this $1.5 billion onto.

There was an effort here to put some money, I think it was, what, $975 million--or thereabouts, which the House adopted, I believe, overwhelmingly, maybe unanimously, but it is simply not enough. I think Mr. Nicholson has not been as forthright as he should have been in telling the various committees on the Hill what was needed. But in my mind there is absolutely no excuse for not approving this $1.5 billion.

I hope that it will be unanimous that every Member of the House will vote for this because I think we should do as much as we can to take care of the legitimate needs of these people. As I said, this should not be a partisan issue. I just regret that the administration continues to underfund this important priority.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts and he is sincere in everything he says.

Has the committee held any hearings on why they are having all of these financial difficulties? What is driving this increase?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, are you able to get OMB to cooperate, because sometimes the agencies try their best to do the right thing, but then they are told by OMB they cannot do that because we are trying to fight the deficit. Is OMB being helpful here or not?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 308, a bill supporting the goals of National Marina Day and urging marinas to continue providing environmentally friendly gateways to boating.

On August 13, we will celebrate National Marina Day. This annual celebration promotes the United States' 12,000 marinas and offers local marina operators the opportunity to host educational events to bring tens of thousands of people to our country's marinas. These marinas are gateways to boating and help maintain the natural environments that we enjoy. In fact, as we debate this resolution today, Americans throughout the country are using their summer vacations to enjoy their own recreational boats or to charter time on professionally operated vessels.

By serving as stewards of the environment, marina owners help protect our Nation's natural resources for generations to come. Marina operators and owners realize that the success of their industry relies in part on the health and beauty of their surroundings.

In addition, marina owners are working closely with the United States Coast Guard to step up vigilance at their facilities to improve security on U.S. waterways. These efforts include looking out for aggressive activities, attempts to gain access to vessels without proper identification, fixtures attached to structures, unusual diving operations, and vehicles and vessels in unusual locations. Marina owners are on the water every day and when something appears unusual they are able to alert the Coast Guard.

Boating is an important pastime as well as a major business activity in my congressional district. From inside Puget Sound to the Pacific coast of Washington State and the Straits of Juan de Fuca, marinas provide access for recreational sailors and motor-powered cruising boats in addition to home ports for charter boats and commercial fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting for the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the ongoing contribution of marina operators to our economy, our security, our environment, and most of all, for providing us with a way of enjoying a day on the water. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a provision in the report accompanying this bill regarding employees of DOE contractors who are on detail in the Washington, D.C., area.

The provision applies to those who are on detail from their home laboratory location. Is that not the intent of this section?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should agree that provisions should not apply to scientists who are located here in the Washington, D.C., area and who have never been on detail from their home laboratory; that is, they have lived here for the duration of their employment without ever having been located at the home lab. In addition, they have not incurred additional transportation and housing costs associated with detailees for temporary assignments in the Washington, D.C., area.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman agree that staff affiliated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, located at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, who were never detailed to Washington, D.C., should be excluded from the list of contractor detailees referenced in this report?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, is the chairman saying that this report language has the force of law? It is advisory only; is that not correct?

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for his commendable work for putting together this Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill for next year.

This bill is basically good, considering the budget allocation that our subcommittee received. As always, the chairman and his staff have included me in the process of putting together the bill, and for that I am very appreciative. Such cooperation is a hallmark of the Interior Subcommittee, and it is the chairman who sets the tone.

While the bill we are considering today represents hard work all around, I must note that it falls short of properly funding many programs. The reason for this failure is the inadequate budget allocation we have. The shortfall compared to the 2005 Interior bill adds up to more than $800 million.

As you know, this is the first year that the Interior Subcommittee has funded the EPA, and what a challenge it is proving to be with the President's budget proposing a cut of more than $500 million from last year. These are very deep holes to fill.

Let me switch to a positive note by praising the decision by the administration and the chairman to fully fund uncontrollable costs such as pay COLAs and rent.

Now, this may sound like just a matter of fact, but it makes all of the difference in the world in our national parks on whether they can operate properly. Over the last few years the administration has been proposing unrealistically low funding levels to pay for these uncontrollable costs. This year the budget did include the funding to meet these costs, and I applaud the chairman for including them in the bill, and I hope that the administration will continue to propose full coverage of uncontrollable costs in future budget submittals.

I also want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for the continued effort to increase funding for the operation of our national parks. I think we have a great team to make sure that the national parks, certainly the most beloved of our Federal public lands, receive enough money to provide our constituents the visit they expect and deserve.

The $30 million the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has added to the $22 million increase contained in the budget will mean a second consecutive year of very healthy increases in the Park Service operations budget, and I want to pledge to continue to help my chairman to make sure that the Park Service Partnership Program stays on track towards better management.

The biggest concern that I have in this bill is the reduction in spending for clean water activities. First, I must commend the chairman for his decision 2 weeks ago to agree to add an extra $100 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund from unobligated EPA funds from previous years. But even with this additional funding, the Clean Water Revolving Fund will be $240 million lower than this year.

If you compare the proposed funding in 2006 to the level in 2004, there is a decrease of nearly $500 million in just 2 years. I know that many of you are hearing from your State and local officials about the effect this cut will have on plans to construct and improve water treatment facilities.

The Federal Government should not be retreating in this fashion from such an important responsibility. For that reason I am going to support an amendment to increase funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

I must also register my disagreement with the decision to continue to retreat from the commitment made in 2000 to increase funding for the Conservation Trust Fund. If the Lands Legacy conservation agreement was being followed, this bill would have $1.8 billion for the various conservation activities under our jurisdiction. Instead the bill contains only $750 million. I wish this bill did not contain the President's proposal to eliminate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside grants program.

I also disagree with the decision to provide no money for land acquisition within the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but I do sympathize that those decisions were tough due to the situation our allocation has caused. Core programs, such as agency operations, must come before grant programs such as these.

Even though the awful fiscal situation we are faced with is the direct cause of these decisions, I do hope that we can better meet the obligations of the Lands Legacy agreement when we ultimately finish the 2006 Interior and Environment bill.

It is gratifying to note that we seem to have come to a consensus on funding on the NEA and the NEH, in that this bill provides level funding compared to this year. I again will be joining with what I predict will be a majority of my colleagues in support of an amendment to increase both of these endowments.

Last year the Interior Subcommittee made a wise decision to be better prepared for the cost of firefighting. We provided $500 million for both fiscal year 2004 and 2005 in emergency funding to prevent the painful borrowing from other Interior and Forest Service programs that has occurred in past years when more fires than were expected depleted the annual firefighting budget.

Although neither the President's budget nor this bill contains such contingency funding for 2006, there is an increase of $120 million over the nonemergency spending level in fiscal year 2005. I hope this is sufficient to meet the challenge of what could be a busy fire season with estimates of higher than average threats in several areas of the country, including Washington State and the Northwest.

I also agree with the decision to restore some of the cuts in the budget to the Indian school and construction account. Even with this added money, this bill contains a cut of $75 million to those important programs, and it is important that we are freezing the funding level for the Indian trust accounting program. I believe we should not spend money at the expense of other Indian programs on a historical accounting exercise that cannot produce the desired results.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his great staff, led by Debbie Weatherly for their hard work on the 2006 Interior and Environment appropriations bill.

I also want to commend Mike Stephens on Mr. Obey's staff and Pete Modaff of my staff for their part in helping to put together this bill. I hoped we could do better, but this is a difficult situation that we are in, and I appreciate the cooperation, the bipartisan spirit in which this bill was created.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the full Appropriations Committee, who has played a very constructive role, along with the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), in trying to help us move this bill forward today.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a good supporter of this bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to urge support for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and myself to increase the funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. The amendment would provide an additional $15 million for the endowments--$10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The increase would be offset by reductions in various accounts.

My colleagues may recall that a similar amendment passed the House last year during consideration of the 2005 Department of the Interior bill by a vote of 241 to 185. The amendment provided an additional $10 million for the NEA and $3.5 million for the NEH.

Once again the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I are asking for support for this amendment, and perhaps we can obtain a greater margin than last year.

I have sensed over the last few years that the battle over this amendment has cooled and we can move on knowing that a healthy majority in the

House agrees that these two important programs deserve our strong financial support.

This debate presents a good opportunity to make sure our new colleagues understand the importance of this modest Federal support and how it has such a tremendous impact on every one of our congressional districts. Each of the NEA and NEH grants is modest in size, but it is vitally important to the communities they reach. The Federal money serves as a catalyst to draw in private contributions. In fact, we now know that higher levels of Federal money will leverage even greater private support.

Unfortunately, since 1996, the endowments have been underfunded. The endowments are still being funded below their level of 10 years ago. In 1996, Congress reduced the NEA by 39 percent and NEH by 36 percent. Our amendment does not restore those funding levels of a decade ago, but it does provide an opportunity for the Members of the House to show their strong support for the endowments by approving this modest amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I agree that our counties would wisely use increased PILT payments, I think that this bill provides the proper funding for PILT, considering the very tight allocation the subcommittee was given. Like many of my colleagues who represent districts with large amounts of Federal lands not part of the tax base, I understand the difficulties our communities face. That is why I have always strongly supported PILT. But I believe that the $3 million increase that PILT receives in this bill compared to 2005 should be defended, considering the many other programs facing cuts.

In a healthier budget climate, I would gladly support funding PILT at an amount higher than the $230 million

contained in this bill. Unfortunately, we are facing a much bleaker budget reality.

Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some time on this side, if we could have 5 minutes of the 10 minutes, if we could work that out.

Yes, I am in opposition.

Four minutes would be fine.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who also cares deeply about this issue.

Mr. Chairman, could the Chair give us a breakdown of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who is deeply concerned about this issue, as well as his colleagues from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

First of all, we had no hearings in the committee about this. I believe that on a subject of this importance, if we are going to take back this protection that we have had on the books almost for the last 25 years, we have to have hearings. We have to bring in the parties and give people good information about what this is all about. That was not done. This amendment came up for the first time in the full committee.

So I believe just on process this amendment should be defeated, and I would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that we should take a look at this. The committee should have some oversight hearings. But to come here now without having those hearings, the benefit of those hearings, and to present this and reverse 25 years of Presidential and Congressional cooperation would be a serious mistake. So I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. In general, I do think we should fund the Superfund cleanup program at levels higher than what is contained in this bill. However, the budget allocation that we are dealing with today prohibits us from agreeing to the gentleman's proposal to increase Superfund by a whopping $130 million at the expense of the EPA's science and technology programs, which he uses as an offset.

This bill provides Superfund with $1.26 billion for 2006, which is an $11 million increase over this year's funding level. I understand that there are transfers contained in this bill from the Superfund program to EPA science and technology research and to the EPA Inspector General's Office, but these transfers are for Superfund-related activities.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the tougher issues in our bill. I feel that we are inadequately funding the State revolving grants, and this program goes out to each of the States and they are able to make loans to the local communities at low interest rates

in order to fund projects that are crucially important.

I know in my own district I have got cities like Shelton and Hoodsport, Belfair, Tacoma, all of which depend on this source of funding. STAG grants are important, and I support the program.

I wish we could do more in both areas. It is just unfortunate that, unlike when EPA was first created, we had 3 or $4 billion of funding for grants at a 90-10 Federal match; and yet we moved away from those programs. I do not believe we are funding this adequately. This means less money to the States and then less money goes out to the communities. I hope that as we go further in the process we can find a way to help correct this problem.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has his approach, which I am supporting; and I think this is one of the jobs that appropriators have to do. We have to make difficult choices, and this is a very difficult choice; but I think it is the correct one.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. I think it is a good amendment and concur with our chairman that we should accept it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise that we do agree with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Make no mistake, the principle purpose of this amendment is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts. I absolutely share the gentleman's concern that the forest system and BLM have sufficient funding to meet the challenge of fighting fires.

In fact, last year I worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) to provide 2 years of emergency funding to fight wildfires which totaled $1 billion. This bill does not contain that emergency money, but non-emergency firefighting is increased by $116 million when compared to the non-emergency funding in 2005. Of course, I do worry that an extremely bad fire season could exhaust this increased funding. However, I do not think the NEA is the place to augment firefighting funding. But again, I think the purpose of this amendment is more to raise issues about the NEA.

I appreciate the gentleman saying he is a supporter of the arts. I wish we had the emergency money that we have had the last 2 years, but we do not. I think I would say to the gentleman as we look and see how the season unfolds, we may have to do something further in conference; but I think this amendment is the wrong approach. I strongly support our chairman and urge that the committee defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have fought over the last few years to reinsert funding for the Park Service to take care of their uncontrollable costs, and we had a hard time doing that. We find out that 1 percent, when it is added up, is $261 million. That is a very significant hit on these accounts in this important agency.

I would urge that Members support the chairman and we vote this amendment down.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. I do it with great respect for the chairman, but I just worry about what the consequences of his amendment would be to this bill.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation and the Democratic Substitute being offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security for bringing this bill to the floor--the first authorizing bill for the Department of Homeland Security since the Department was created.

This bill does many good things. It authorizes additional funding to cover the full cost of hiring an additional two thousand border patrol agents in order to meet the first year target established in the Intelligence Reform bill last year. Regrettably, the appropriations bill that passed the House yesterday fell short of actually finding these critically needed personnel by 500. But that does not diminish this accomplishment in the bill. This bill contains several important provisions that will help to fix the Directorate for Intelligence Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, which, in my judgment, has struggled the most to find its direction in the new department. And the bill raises the level of our government's top cybersecurity official to an Assistant Secretary within IAIP, something that should have been done when the Department was created.

This bill makes progress in some key areas, and I intend to support it, but I regret that it falls short in a number of critical areas, leaving us terribly vulnerable on many fronts.

Cargo security, both in the air and on the sea, have not been adequately addressed in this legislation. Our Nation's plan to secure cargo containers, I believe, makes sense; but it relies entirely on knowing--and trusting--the people that are packing the containers overseas. Customs and Border Protection is way behind in certifying participants in the C-T PAT program, and this bill does not authorize adequate funding to accelerate the process of validating the applications of those who are already gaining the benefits. My friend from California, Ms. Sanchez, sought to propose an amendment to address this problem, but the rule did not allow for its consideration, a serious oversight.

And there is absolutely no excuse for permitting unscreened cargo onto passenger aircraft. This is a problem we have known about since Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland killing over 270 people. My good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, wanted to offer an amendment to the bill that would require this cargo to be screened, and it is long overdue. A similar amendment had been approved previously by the House, but the leadership has refused to allow its consideration today.

This bill also fails to take sufficient steps to meet other critical needs that we have been talking about here in the House since 9/11. The installation of in-line explosive detection systems at all of our Nation's passenger airports is one of the top technological solutions to improving the performance of our TSA screener force. Given what terrorist were able to perpetrate in Madrid, providing funding for real rail and transit security must become a higher priority. And we must work harder to improve security at our Nation's chemical plants-- especially those that are located in heavily populated areas. Some of my Democratic colleagues offered amendments to accomplish these goals, but each has been blocked from consideration by the Majority.

But we now have an opportunity to vote on these items en bloc. The Democratic substitute, proposed by Mr. Thompson, addresses all of these issues, and is a much more complete blueprint for combating terrorism than the underlying document. The House must move aggressively to fill the gaps that we see everyday in the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We do our constituents a grave disservice if we do not.

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, in the Cannon Caucus Room, I was privileged to present the National Endowment for the Arts' National Heritage Fellowship to my constituent, Gerald ``Subiyay'' Miller, from Shelton, Washington. The Heritage Fellowship is the highest honor our country gives to folk and traditional artists.

I could not be prouder of Subiyay. I am also proud of the National Endowment for the Arts for starting this program 25 years ago. And I am proud to live in perhaps the only country where such awards could be given--honoring traditions from our First Americans to cultures from every region of the world.

Mr. Speaker, in the night before the ceremony, Subiyay, gave a noble and moving closing to the banquet for the 2004 Heritage Fellows and their families. Just as he weaves his ``story baskets'', he wove some of the creation story of his people into his observations about the role of art in civilization. I would like to share his story with my colleagues.

At the National Endowment for the Arts' National Heritage Fellowship

Banquet in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress--September 29,

2004

Barry Bergey (NEA Director of Folk and Traditional Arts):

I've asked Gerald Miller to go last. I think it's appropriate

that we're in this Library, this great repository of

learning, surrounded by so much knowledge. So many of the

Native Americans Elders have retained that knowledge. You

know the African proverb that ``When an elder dies, it's like

a library burning down.''

We actually have two elders here. We have a previous

National Heritage Fellowship recipient, Vi (Violet) Hilbert,

sitting next to Gerald. [Applause] She received the award

about 10 years ago for retaining her language and her

stories.

Gerald, Subiyay as he is known in his language, Skokomish

(Twana), was the last living speaker of that language. Now he

has taught many young people. He hasn't taught them just the

language. He has taught them the crafts, the music, the

ceremonials, the use of regalia, the making of regalia.

I have asked him to come up and say a few words and, if he

would, to sing a song--a blessing song--for us to end the

evening.

Please make welcome Subiyay. [Applause]

Gerald (Subiyay) Miller [Strong, measured, gravely voice]:

In the beginning of time the humans were given the first

gift. It was gifted to us before language. It was a gift

before all other things. It was the gift of the drum. And its

sound was the heartbeat of our mother. As unborn infants, we

heard it as we grew in her body; giving us all the rhythm of

life, the rhythm of the teachings and the beliefs that we

would follow. The drum is an important part of most cultures

of the world. We have many phrases that have to do with the

rhythm of the drum. We for instance might walk to the beat of

a different drum. The drum excites us. The drum soothes us.

The drum puts us in step with one another with its beat.

The second gift to the human beings was the gift of song.

And the song came before the spoken languages that we have as

people on this earth. It was given to us by the bird people.

It was given to us to express ourselves in the truest form of

expression that we as human beings would ever have, the

expression of song. Song allowed us to express every emotion

that we as human beings would feel. Song is so important that

many of our early cultures used it as a tool in teaching,

because is causes something called subliminal implanting. If

we sing a teaching, it will stay with for our entire life.

Long ago we sang the teachings of our ancestors. We are all

born with a song--Our Spirit Song. From the moment we leave

the womb of our Mothers our song is within us. We have songs

that we call mood music. How many nations are there without a

song or anthem? How many religions use song to express their

hopes and convictions? We have songs to honor another year of

life. We have songs for weddings. We express ourselves

through song. And all of us, although we might acknowledge or

not acknowledge ourselves as singers, when something

wonderful happens, we feel like singing. It's the spirit of

the songs that lives within all of us.

My elders say we are all born with a spirit song. Our

children will prove it to us. As they learn to speak, they

all sing little singsongs about their world; regardless of

what culture we come from. If a song expresses our true

emotions, we sing it.

The next gift that came was dance. We were also given dance

before language. We were given dance to ``tell the story''--

to tell the story of our people. Song and dance are probably

the oldest forms of art that we as human beings have to this

day. In my language the word dance means more than ``get up

and boogie.'' Dance is non-verbal. It is communication by

gesticulation.

There's one dance that we can do with one finger and we all

know what that gesture/dance means. We don't have to express

it with words. We dance with the expressions of our faces. We

dance with the gestures of our hands. We dance with the

posture of our bodies. We dance with the tilt of our head.

Children, even before they learn to speak, understand these

dances. They see it in us as parents and as teachers. The

power of dance will forever be with us.

Then came the spoken language. With language came the story

of our People. With language came the gift of long memory. We

were given language to carry the knowledge of our ancestors

from the beginning of time to this very moment, in this room,

and on into the future. The power of language contains the

power of the story. We see in this room all the races of

mankind represented. All of us started from a different trail

at the beginning of time, we have conjoined here at a common

spot, sharing this moment in time together. We sit here, our

hearts beat together. We breathe the same air and we are

enjoying each other's company. We eat together.

History would not exist if it were not for the artists.

There are cultures all over the world that no longer exist.

The important thing that they left behind was their art--

writings on the rocks, artifacts, beautiful songs from the

beginning of time. Some dances are thousands of years old.

They are still alive, giving testimony to those who

created these forms of art. All of us who are artists have

had our mentors. We have our ancestors to thank for the

gifts that we as humans were given--given to express our

soul, and our hearts to the people. Art is a powerful form

of expression. Our art tells our stories. And we, the

artists, who are here can appreciate one another from that

mutual understanding.

I want to extend my gratitude on receiving this award to

all of our ancestors who left with us the gifts that we

exhibit today; the gift of the song, the gift of the dance,

the gift of the story and the gift of creativity. As long as

we keep these traditional arts alive, we speak for our

people.

I look at our sister artist Koko (blues musician Koko

Taylor from Chicago) and know how her blues music moves me. I

look at the family of puppeteers (Yuqin Wang and Zhengli Xu

from Aloha, Oregon) who carry on an art form over two

thousand years old. I look at our sister here from India

(Kathak dance Anjani Abegokar from Diamond Bar, California),

carrying on an art form known to be at least four thousand

years old. And because of her it lives and flourishes.

Because there was someone who cared. There was someone who

listened. There was someone who had a teacher.

For all of us who live, for all of us who are being

recognized in this room, we honor those who had an influence

on our life. Because now through our art form we speak for

them.

Einstein said there are two kinds of knowledge, stored

knowledge and living knowledge. Stored knowledge can be put

in a book and set aside, and looked at later. But living

knowledge has to be expressed, felt, spoken and demonstrated.

There is no replacement for living knowledge. My grandfather

told me that I could be anything that I wanted; and I

believed him. He said our people became lazy when they

learned how to write because they no longer relied on their

memory and their personal discipline. They think that they

can look it up in a book or listen to a tape recording. But

the written word is

only a shadow of the spoken word. The written word can't

facilitate the same feeling as the spoken word can.

To my first teacher I owe my beginning. My first teacher

was my great grandmother who was born in 1861 and began my

instruction in 1948. My most recent mentor is still living

and that is taqsH3blu (pron. tak say blue, Violet Hilbert)

who I carry high in my heart. I know that the generations yet

to come will be able to hear the knowledge that she has

passed on to me.

We have a term in our language called gW3dZadad (pron. ha

ku sadad). To us it is a form of wealth. It has nothing to do

with monetary currency or material things. It's the wealth of

the knowledge of our culture. It's something that cannot be

bought. Something that many governments have tried to destroy

within the various nations of the world. They burned

libraries. Tortured and killed artists. But still we survive

and speak for those original ancestors of our cultures. I

want to thank the people who nominated me for this award. I

never expected any acknowledgment for what I do in life. I

merely look upon the things that I do as a personal

responsibility to keep what I have alive for future

generations.

Thank You.

At this time I would like a couple of my singers to come

up. We are going to sing a song from our people called P3t ti

scHalal (pron. put tee sha lal)

Way La Hey La

Wo oh ho oh hey

Way La Hey La

Wo oh ho oh hey

Way La Hey La

Wo oh ho oh hey

Way La Hey La

Wo oh ho oh hey

P3t ti scHalal tulasab3d d3xW (pron. put tee sha lal tu la

saba du) (From the time of the first people down to

this moment)

P3t ti scHalal tulasab3d d3xW (pron. put tee sha lal tu la

saba du) (From the time of the first people down to

this moment)

P3t ti scHalal tulasab3d d3xW (pron. put tee sha lal tu la

saba du) (From the time of the first people down to

this moment)

P3t ti scHalal tid shabu (pron. put tee sha lal tich shabu)

(From the time of our ancestors comes our story)

We all live our own story. We all come from a different

walk of life. But right here, tonight and right here in these

next few days we will share the same story. For this moment

in time we are brothers and sisters.

Thank you. [Applause]

Mr. Speaker, Tom Owens was my friend; he came to Washington, DC, almost weekly until he retired in 1996. Tom always wanted to play tennis and go to the best restaurants for dinner. Tom was a very effective lobbyist. He worked both sides of the aisle very skillfully.

His friends and family were all shocked when he suddenly died on September 16th.

I wanted to include in the Record a recent article about Tom and his family. Tom Owens was a tremendous human being who will be missed by all who knew him.

Thomas James Owens

Thomas James Owens--Born June 2, 1928, in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania. Tom died suddenly and unexpectedly in his north

Capitol Hill home early in the morning, September 16th. He

was preceded in death by his parents, Helen Reese and Edward

Addison Owens, and brother J. David Owens. A graduate of

Amherst College and Michigan Law School, he moved to Seattle

in 1955 where he began a law practice and eventually met and

married his wife of 44 years, Angela (Pellegrini). A

lobbyist, he worked on both the state and federal levels,

retiring from a successful practice in 1996. A masterful

communicator and intermediary, he was liked and respected by

Democrats and Republicans alike. Impeccably dressed, with his

unmistakable trench coat, he was a fixture in political

circles in both Olympia & Washington D.C. Tom was also an

accomplished racquets man. After a successful tennis and

squash career in the Ivy League, he went on to become one of

the more dominant amateur players in the area, winning

numerous titles in the Pacific Northwest and British

Columbia, including the Pacific Coast Championship in 1964,

ranking him among the best amateur players in the country.

His true passions, first and foremost, were his loving family

and dear friends. A particular joy in his life was the time

he spent together with his children and their friends. A

gracious host, he loved to surround himself with friends,

family, wonderful meals prepared by Angela, and fine wine,

most often a robust cabernet made by his late father-in-law,

Angelo Pellegrini. Loud, boisterous and laughter filled

evenings, roast pork, roast potatoes, hot peppers and greens

from the garden were the norm in the Owens home, with Tom at

the head of the table, wine glass in hand, belaboring the

occasional anecdote or joke. To hear him tell a story was an

experience in and of itself. In Tom's case, punch line were

an irrelevant detail, as the delivery, often scrambled and

confused were what made his diatribes so unforgettable. He

also loved travel, particularly to Italy, working out,

playing the piano, cigars, spending time with his children

and grandchildren, bullmastiffs, trees, and golf. He is

survived by his loving wife, Angela, two children Tom (Dena)

and Sarah (Scott Lindblad), five grandchildren, Olivia, Evan,

Reese, Cameron, Lauren and surrogate granddaughter Gabriella

Pellegrini. He is also survived by a brother, Dr. E. Reese

Owens (Betsy), of Pittsburgh, PA. We will miss your

thoughtful generosity, your wit, love of family and friends,

and your frank and honest emotional support. For now we say

to the man clad in the trademark blue blazer, see you again

someday, somewhere, as we lift a glass in fond farewell to

our beloved patriarch: Salute! e Addio, caroTommaso. Sarai

sempre nel nostro cuore e nei nostri pensieri. There will be

a celebration of Tom's life at 4 p.m., Friday, October 1st at

the Seattle Golf Club.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking Democrat member on the Subcommittee on Military Construction for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for working together in a very spirited effort here to protect and take the cap off the residential construction initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the gentleman from Texas a few years ago when we both were working to help our areas at Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Lewis at Tacoma, Washington, start these projects, these residential construction initiatives. I think both of us saw in our own areas just how important these projects could be, how much faster we could get new housing and restore old housing.

To me, this is one of the finest programs that we have ever worked on. It has been worked on in a very bipartisan basis. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) was the chairman of the subcommittee, he had great experience and looked into these projects in great detail. So I want to commend everyone here.

I also would like to say regarding my friend, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Young), our chairman, what a great job he has done for the people of Florida in this bill. He has worked effectively with everyone. I know how difficult it is to put these things together.

I can remember back in 1980, when we lost 57 people in Washington State when Mt. St. Helens blew up and my former mentor, Senator Magnuson, was chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, we had to get help for our constituents in our State; and I am glad we all came together in support of this effort.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been a great chairman of our Committee on Appropriations. I have enjoyed working with him over the years he has been the chairman. I know he is proud of being able to put this bill together in the final days of this Congress and the final days of his chairmanship. So congratulation to him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding the time, and I would like to talk about tankers, a subject that has been very important to me, and I want to compliment the conferees for the agreement that was reached on this important issue.

I would like to engage the chairman, if I could, just in a discussion. It is my understanding that we have in this bill an authorization for the procurement, no leasing, but the procurement of 100 tankers; is that not correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Right, and it is my understanding that on the question of support work that that will be recompeted; is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of studies that the Secretary of Defense has ordered. Those studies have to be completed, and then the Secretary will make a decision based on the information, especially the analysis of alternative study; is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with everything that the chairman said. The most important point is that we do not have to go back and have another procurement, because if we did that, it would take years and years before we would start getting the tankers; and I believe it is the position of this Congress that this is going to be built by an American company. So I want to commend the gentleman.

I also want to say that every plane that bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be refueled multiple times, and what I worry about is a shutdown, if we had a failure.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important systems we have for projecting U.S. power around the world, and tankers and EA6Bs, we just cannot go to war without those two things, and that is why this is so important.

I rise today in support of this conference report. I would like to commend Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton on reaching a final agreement with the Senate on

this complex and vital legislation. I would also like to express my personal thanks to both of you, and to the rest of the conferees, for working out a fair compromise on the issue of aerial refueling tanker aircraft.

The conferees on the Defense Authorization bill have given the green light to a 100 aircraft tanker program using multi-year procurement authority. The agreement would not allow the leasing of these aircraft, but it would get the tanker procurement program started in FY05 and ensures the costs savings to the taxpayer of entering into a newly negotiated multi-year contract for 100 aircraft. The agreement also requires that maintenance of these aircraft be competed, with government workers being given a chance to perform the work. I strongly support this compromise.

The provisions in this bill, when combined with the $100 million Tanker Replacement Fund established in the FY05 Defense Appropriations bill, ensure that the Secretary of Defense will have the money and the authority to begin a tanker program next year. Although this is later than the Air Force, and this Member, preferred, it is still important progress, because the Air Force desperately needs to begin replacing these aircraft.

All of the KC-135 refueling aircraft that the Air Force flies today were produced between 1957 and 1963. The youngest of these planes are now over 40 years old. They are riddled with corrosion and 29 of them were recently grounded due to problems with their engine struts. At the same time, our aerial refueling capability is an increasingly important part of our military capability. These aircraft are what make this country a superpower, capable of projecting power around the world. Every aircraft that flew into both Iraq and Afghanistan for air strikes had to be refueled multiple times. The danger if we don't begin to replace these planes is that we could have a block failure, which could ground over 900 of our refueling aircraft. That would cripple the military of this country, and ground our Armed Forces at a time when they are deployed around the world, That outcome is simply unacceptable.

I also want to take note of the excellent work the Armed Services Committee has done in this bill by raising the cap on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. This program is essential to the quality of life of the Armed Forces. By raising the cap on this program, we will ensure that it can continue through fiscal year 2005 and beyond. As we meet here today, this program is building hundreds of new homes for soldiers at Ft. Lewis in Washington. I've visited these new homes. They are very attractive well-built homes, and the soldiers and their spouses are very excited about this program.

I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for authorizing a military construction project in my district to relocate the Fox Island Naval Laboratory. The conference report authorizes an $18 million project to relocate this facility, a move which will substantially improve the security and capability of this facility. The first phase of the project, nearly $7 million, was approved by the House earlier this year.

I urge every Member to vote for this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the United States filed a World Trade Organization dispute settlement case against the European Union regarding billions of dollars in unfair subsidies provided to Airbus by European governments. The U.S. has also exercised its rights to immediately terminate the 1992 U.S.-EU agreement on large civil aircraft. That agreement placed limits on certain government support, including limiting it to one-third of the costs of developing a new character aircraft.

The time has come for the American Government to recognize the damage that has occurred to our economy and to take firm action to curtail what I believe is both unfair and illegal foreign competition. These subsidies from four European governments, which include aircraft launch assistance, capital injections, debt forgiveness, have enabled Airbus to develop and range market airliners well below cost. Unless this practice is checked, I am afraid it will threaten to drive the Boeing Company, Airbus' only remaining worldwide competitor and our largest net exporter, out of the commercial airline manufacturing business altogether.

Over the last few years Airbus has grown to dominate the large commercial aircraft industry, out-delivering Boeing for the first time in history in 2003. I want to support Ambassador Zellig's action. He has courageously filed this case on behalf of our government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4569, a bill to provide for the development of a national plan for the control and management of Sudden Oak Death, a tree disease caused by the fungus- like pathogen Phytophthora ramorum.

In 1993, a fungus-like organism was found in Germany and the Netherlands on nursery-grown rhododendrons and viburnums. The disease was found to cause leaf blight, stem canker, and tip dieback. About the same time, oak trees in the San Francisco Bay Area were dying from similar symptoms and the disease began to be known as ``sudden oak death.''

Since that time, P. Ramorum has been found along the southeastern coast of the United States, California, Oregon and my home state of Washington. As of September 29, 2004, the total number of confirmed positive sites is 160 in 21 States. This disease invades susceptible trees and shrubs, including Douglas fir, through the bark, killing portions of the tree. This creates an ideal environment for insects and other fungi to invade.

Federal regulations were published February 14, 2002, to control the movement of sudden oak death from twelve infested counties in California and an area under eradication in Oregon. Research on Sudden Oak Death is currently being conducted by the Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Forest Service, Universities and others to better identify hosts, methods of detection, and effective treatments. Currently, 64 plants are regulated. There are no chemical treatments currently available to eliminate the disease in nursery stock.

H.R. 4569 is critical to the eradication of P. Ramorum. This bill allows the United States Department of Agriculture to develop the plan in consultation with other Federal agencies that have appropriate expertise regarding the control and management of Sudden Oak Death. I urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday night in Pasco, Washington several members of the Washington State Congressional Delegation attended an unusual event: the celebration of the 100th Birthday of a man who may be the world's oldest active lobbyist and one of the most successful and accomplished economic development leaders in the United States. Sam Volpentest, who was born on September 24, 1904 has been a real leader of the business community in the Tri-Cities community of central Washington state since the early 1960s. The cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland grew and developed around the Hanford Nuclear site following World War II, and Sam moved to the area in the late 1940s. His business interests led to his involvement in local economic development efforts, and in 1960 he began to lead the area's efforts to expand its energy-related work for the federal government and to diversify the regional economy. My earliest recollections of Sam were when I served on Senator Warren Magnuson's staff. Sam and the publisher of the local paper, Glenn Lee, would meet with the Senator, setting him in motion on another project, another building, another highway--always something that meant bringing more jobs to the area and always helping to make the Tri-Cities community economically stronger. There was the work on the N-Reactor, the FFTF--The Fast Flux Test Facility--and the FMEF--the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility. When I was elected to Congress from the 6th District, I was obviously enlisted in the cause, and since then have worked with all of the Congressmen from the 4th Congressional District--including Doc Hastings today--on important national security and energy research activities. We have worked on the cleanup of nuclear waste and on new missions for DOE-Hanford, on EMSL and, of course, the Volpentest Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response Training Center, named in honor of Sam. Along the way, Sam and I had countless discussions about dozens and dozens of other ideas he had over the years to diversity the region's economy and to keep the standard of living in the Tri-Cities as remarkably high as it is today.

Sam is truly a remarkable man who continues today--beyond his 100th birthday--to work on behalf of TRIDEC, the economic development authority in the Tri-Cities community. I would like my colleagues to read the tribute that was published on his birthday in the local newspaper. Following is an article that was published in the Tri-City Herald.

[From the Tri-City Herald]

Celebrating a Century of Sam

(By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer)

The Tri-Cities' most celebrated birthday boy is having a

party tonight at the Pasco Red Lion. The event includes just

his family and a few friends, about 700 of them at last

count.

Volpentest is pleased.

``I'd like to see everybody happy and have a good time,''

he said earlier this week from his office at the Tri-Cities

Industrial Development Council in Kennewick.

Volpentest is looking forward to seeing some of his old

friends, such as former Gov. Albert D. Rosellini, 94.

Volpentest and Rosellini go back more than three-quarters

of a century when they were both members of an athletic club

called the Italian Club in Seattle.

``I joined in 1933 at the age of 29. He was 23,'' recalled

Volpentest.

A quarter of a century later, Rosellini was elected

governor of Washington, and Volpentest was cutting political

deals in the Tri-Cities for national lawmakers representing

the Evergreen State. In Volpentest's world, friendships count

a lot.

These days, Volpentest, who insists he is not retired

despite doctor's orders to take it easier, comes into his

office Monday through Friday. He continues to keep his hand

in the game at TRIDEC on behalf of the Tri-Cities, calling in

favors and calling on politicians in Washington, D.C., just

like he has for nearly half a century.

Volpentest's track record for bringing home the bacon is

legendary, and perhaps the main reason his birthday parties

attract so many grateful well-wishers.

Just this week he received the 2004 Edward DeLuca lifetime

achievement award from the International Economic Development

Council in Washington, D.C., recognizing ``his unfailing

commitment and endless accomplishments,'' said Steven Budd,

council chairman.

Volpentest accepted the accolade with well-rehearsed ado.

Dozens of awards, plaques and commendations have come his way

in the past four decades. Those not displayed on his office

walls are in his home or stored in his garage, he said.

Reaching the century mark is remarkable, but for

Volpentest, it is a good deal more.

``The doctor gave me a month to live in 1957,'' he says,

recalling those frightening days when cancer of the jaw

nearly took his life.

A lot has happened since then. Volpentest helped found what

is now TRIDEC, got deep into state and national politics, and

along the way helped bring millions of dollars of development

and infrastructure to the Tri-Cities.

Buildings, freeways, research laboratories, bridges, a

hotel and a training center for emergency response teams all

have the touch of Volpentest on them to some degree.

And he says he's not done yet.

``We need more money for the HAMMER training facility. It's

proven itself as a world class facility. We need more

classrooms out there,'' he said.

Volpentest also is fully aware that Hanford's budget hasn't

been approved by Congress, and that Battelle needs to have

support for the new campus in north Richland.

``They (Battelle) are the foundation for the growth of this

area,'' Volpentest said.

The centenarian says he's seen so much growth in the Tri-

Cities that he's concerned the region might grow too fast.

``We can have steady growth, but not too many people too

fast,'' he said.

His birthday wish for the Tri-Cities is that the

communities would start working together. ``Teamwork is the

most important word to me,'' he said, adding that politics

today seems to be more unfriendly than it used to be.

Volpentest's birthday wish for himself is ``to have a few

more years.''

He has no secrets to share about how to reach the century

milestone.

``How would I know? Got good genes, I guess. Just work hard

and stay active,'' Volpentest said.

Tonight's party isn't all there is for the birthday boy.

The Seattle Seahawks have invited him to bring out the game

ball for Sunday's home game with the San Francisco 49ers.

``I just hope they don't expect me to run with it,'' he

said with a gleam in his eye.

Mr. Speaker, among the many economic challenges our Nation faces at this time is the impact of unfair foreign trading practices, and I would like to speak today about the direct and substantial subsidies that continue to be provided to the European consortium, Airbus Industrie, costing more and more American manufacturing jobs every year.

The time has come for the American government to recognize the damage that has occurred to our economy, and to take firm action to curtail what I believe is both unfair and illegal foreign competition.

These subsidies from four European governments, which include aircraft launch assistance, capital injections, and debt forgiveness, have enabled Airbus to develop and market a range of commercial airliners at well below cost. Unless this practice is checked, I am afraid that it will drive the Boeing Company, Airbus' only remaining worldwide competitor and our largest net-exporter, out of the commercial airline manufacturing business altogether.

Most Americans are familiar with the Boeing Company, but I would like to remind my colleagues that Boeing employs more than 150,000 American workers, including about 54,000 in the civil aircraft industry. Last year it purchased about $24 billion in supplies and services from more than 26,000 U.S. companies located in all 50 States. It is one of the largest employers in the country and our Nation's largest single exporter of manufactured goods by value.

But you may not be as familiar with the background of Airbus. Over 30 years ago, Airbus was founded by a European consortium of French, German, and later Spanish and British companies to compete in the large commercial aircraft industry with U.S. companies. Unable to secure commercial funding for the venture, European governments stepped up to provide about $1 billion in loans and aid to establish the company.

More than 20 years later, in 1992, Airbus had grown to take about one-fifth of the commercial airplane market. But despite its significant growth and share of the market, European governments continued to provide enormous subsidies to the company to ensure it had an edge against the remaining U.S. competitors, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

In an attempt to address these subsidies, an agreement was signed in 1992 between the United States and the European Union on trade in large civil aircraft. This agreement limits direct government support of new aircraft to no more than one-third of the total development costs, with the further agreement that these subsidies would be reduced over time.

Yet over the last 12 years, the European Union has used this one- third limit as its base figure for determining how much of a subsidy to provide rather than to reduce the amount of the subsidy they provide.

As a result, Airbus has grown to dominate the large commercial aircraft industry, outdelivering Boeing for the first time in history in 2003. As recently as 1999, Boeing delivered 67 percent of new planes; in 2003, that figure dropped to 47.5 percent. And the comparative value of the planes ordered has dwindled even more significantly. In 2003, the value of Airbus's orders was more than twice as much as Boeing's.

The effect has been disastrous on U.S. workers and the American economy. More than 60,000 jobs have been lost in the commercial aviation industry in the United States since 1999. Many thousands of these jobs were lost in the Pacific Northwest, but the effects have been felt by suppliers and facilities throughout the country.

What has been responsible for the meteoric rise of Airbus? Their ability to provide a good product at below-market prices because of the generous subsidies they continue to receive from European governments.

These subsidies take several forms. One is through direct capital injections from European governments. Between 1987 and 1994, for example, the French government provided $4.5 billion in fresh capital to Aerospatiale, a member of EADS which owns 80 percent of Airbus, to offset continuing losses. As recently as 1998, the French government transferred its 46 percent share of Dassault Aviation, worth approximately 880 million euros, to Aerospatiale.

My colleagues, can you imagine the U.S. Congress giving the Boeing Company $4.5 billion outright to offset commercial failures? Boeing has never received this kind of cash payout from our government.

Another form of subsidy commonly used by European governments is to forgive the debt on loans provided by member governments. Between 1987 and 1989, the German government settled more than two-thirds of Deutsche Airbus's state-guaranteed loans, worth approximately 3 billion deutschmarks at the time. Between 1997 and 1998, the German government completely forgave 7.4 billion deutschmarks in outstanding launch aid and other debt granted to Airbus. That is more than 4 billion U.S. dollars in debt the German government forgave.

What venture could possibly fail when so much debt is just written off? Boeing has never received such outrageously generous treatment by its creditors, nor do I expect that it ever will.

Although these two kinds of subsidies I have described are very serious, they pale in comparison to the launch aid that Airbus received to design and produce new aircraft products. During the past 30 years, European governments have provided more than $15 billion in the form of low- and no-cost loans to Airbus for the specific purpose of developing new aircraft lines. If you applied a commercial rate of interest over time to these ``loans'', the commercial value would be some $40 billion. Airbus' parent companies do carry $5 billion in debt on their books. The ``missing'' $35 billion is the value of the government subsidy.

Public documents from the French Senate provide the best explanation that I have seen of what is particularly nefarious about launch aid:

Launch aid is only repaid if development and production

lead to commercial success. If the project fails, agreement

provides that no reimbursement is owed. Indeed the government

lender assumes the opportunity costs of launch aid for a

period of time that varies, but depends mainly on the

project's commercial success and timetable.

The bottom line is that Airbus only has to pay back these multi- billion dollar loans if their product turns a profit. Should an airplane design fail to gain support in the marketplace, which has happened often in the past, Airbus doesn't have to pay back one euro that it has borrowed.

Had Airbus been forced to seek these funds from commercial lenders, as Boeing does when it seeks to design and produce a new model, it would have cost them $35 billion more.

The Europeans do not even try to hide just how critical this launch aid subsidy is to Airbus. In 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons, ``As a result of launch aid, Airbus is today in a position where it can take over the leadership of the large aircraft market from Boeing in the United States.''

In 1999, the European Commission noted just how heavily Airbus relies on launch aid, stating:

Aerospatiale could not finance the costs connected with the

development of the Airbus A340-500/600 by itself or with the

help of bank loans . . . Accordingly, if it were to finance

the development costs of the A340-500/600 solely from its own

capital (or through bank loans), it would seriously weaken

the financial structure of the company.

The 1992 agreement limits the amount of launch aid to 33 percent of the total costs of design and production. But although the agreement was intended to lead to a reduction in launch aid, the Europeans have used it as a justification to provide exactly 33 percent of the funding to all new aircraft designs over the past 12 years.

Contrarily, Boeing has not received even one dollar in aid from the U.S. government to design and produce a new model of aircraft. When Boeing wants to launch a new plane, it must either come up with its own cash or borrow the money from a commercial lender.

Airbus's newest project, the A380, is an excellent example of how their system works. The A380 is one of the riskiest ventures in the history of civil aviation. Scheduled for completion in 2006, the A380 will carry up to 555 people and have a range of 8,000 nautical miles. But significant questions surround how well this super-jumbo aircraft will be accepted by the airlines. Some analysts have questioned whether the A380 will fit into a marketplace that is trending away from the traditional hub-and-spoke model, which relies on large aircraft, to more point-to-point flights, which utilize smaller, longer-ranged planes.

Regardless of the risk, European governments have committed $3.7 billion in launch aid to the A380. So, should Airbus's assumptions about the market prove to be off the mark, it will not be required to pay back the money.

Further, Airbus will also receive more than $1.7 billion in A380- infrastructure-related production support. France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom are funding major upgrades of existing facilities or new construction projects at almost all of these sites. For example, the City of Hamburg drained part of the river Elbe so that Airbus could expand its existing facilities to accommodate A380 assembly and production. In Toulouse, the government financed the construction of a huge, new assembly site. There are several other examples, but I think it is enough to say that the federal and local governments in Europe are offering significant benefits to the A380 project.

My colleagues may be aware of Airbus's ongoing media blitz, which is spreading considerable disinformation about the level of their subsidization and calling into question whether Boeing profits from the same sort of program.

The first red herring I would like to address is Airbus's faulty claim that Boeing's commercial aviation division benefits unfairly from research and development contracts it receives from the Department of Defense. I have served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 26 years, and I can tell you that the amount of R&D benefits transferred from defense research to the commercial side is minimal. Indeed, in my experience the benefits travel in the other direction.

And even if there were benefits accrued, Airbus and its parent companies--EADS and BAE Systems--get just as much as Boeing. Last year, Boeing received defense R&D contracts worth about $4.6 billion. Comparatively, Airbus, EADS, and BAE systems received $4.3 billion from U.S. and European governments for defense R&D, a negligible difference.

Airbus also likes to claim that my home State of Washington is providing ``launch aid'' in the form of a $3.2 billion tax program for the Boeing Company's newest project, the 7E7. This claim couldn't be further from the truth. The tax break is in the form of a reduction in the State's business and occupation tax, which is charged against the sale of a product. As we know, launch aid provided to Airbus is an upfront loan the company receives before the pencil is even put to paper; conversely, this tax benefit only comes when a plane is actually sold and payment received. In no way can this tax benefit be considered the equivalent of launch aid.

Further, this tax benefit is not specific to any company or product, unlike the loans and infrastructure improvements funded by the Europeans. Suppliers to both Boeing and Airbus will qualify for some for the tax cuts provided by the Washington State Legislature. Airbus, itself, could qualify for the tax cut should it place a facility in Washington State. I do not think Boeing would receive the same subsidized loans, debt forgiveness, or capital infusions should it put a plant in France, Spain, or Germany.

The final myth I wish to dispel is Airbus' claim that it has a major industrial presence in the United States. Last year, Airbus produced a brochure that claimed that more than 40 percent of the content of its planes was from the U.S. and that it had more than 800 U.S. suppliers and sustained 100,000 jobs.

This brochure was nothing more than a piece of marketing fiction. The U.S. Department of Commerce analyzed this brochure and other data and found that the number of U.S. suppliers is likely closer to 250, and further found that the number of jobs claimed was impossible to justify. In fact, Commerce found that the only concrete number that it could verify was the number of Airbus employees in the U.S.: less than 500.

Conversely, Boeing really is an American company. No one argues that it employs 150,000 American workers and has thousands of suppliers and vendors from every State in the Union. And Boeing assembles most of its components and all of its aircraft here in the United States. The same cannot be said for Airbus.

European Commissioners have already expressed their intent to continue to provide enormous subsidies to Airbus for the foreseeable future, driving down prices and taking more and more market share from Boeing. We cannot let this continue. The future of the commercial aircraft industry is at stake, as are the jobs of 54,000 Boeing commercial aircraft employees and 26,000 suppliers.

This week, United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick is meeting here in Washington with European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy. A key issue on the table will be launch aid and the other subsidies that Airbus receives from European governments.

Should the EU not agree to proceed with discussions to end these subsidies, I believe that the United States should file a trade case with the World Trade Organization to end them. Airbus and the Europeans claim that the U.S. and the State of Washington provide similar subsidies--let them file their case. In my judgment, the law is clear, and we will win in the WTO.

Regardless of the outcome of this meeting between Ambassador Zoellick and Commissioner Lamy, I believe the United States should immediately withdraw from the 1992 Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft. This agreement was designed to allow Airbus to compete with larger and more establish U.S. companies; now that Airbus is the top dog, this agreement has run its course. It

should no longer be allowed to serve as a legal justification for European launch aid.

I urge my colleagues to help me defend one of the largest employers in the United States and the largest exporter in the Nation from what I believe to be Airbus' true agenda--the elimination of commercial aircraft production in the United States. We must not allow this to happen.