Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS. 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.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. 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. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I want to say here is a situation where this does not cost extra money. All we are talking about is raising the limit. The Office of Management and Budget is for this. The Secretary of Defense is for this. The service Secretaries are for this. The Chiefs of Staff of each of the services are for this. I mean, the President is for this. And it would seem to me with all of that support and with the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has been a tremendous leader on this, why is it that we cannot get this done? Why is it that we cannot take care of these people? To me this is unexplainable.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. DICKS. I went out with General Soriano, the Commanding Officer at I CORPS. We went out and walked through these brand new houses being built under the Residential Construction Initiative. The wives of the sergeants were telling us this is the greatest thing that has ever happened in the Army. I have been out there when these deployments occur, and one of the things the spouses say and one of the things the members of the services say when they are deployed is they worry about their family, they worry about the housing, they worry about health care, they worry about what is going to happen to their families while they are gone. I know from my years of experience, 26 years on the Subcommittee on Defense, 18 years on this subcommittee, that quality of life and having this new housing and getting it done in a timely way is crucial. That is why the objection to this by the majority party to me is so unexplainable, because one thing we have always been good about in this House is on a bipartisan basis rising above limitations, things of that nature, to get the job done for the men and women who are serving, and especially now when we are in a time of war, especially now when the services are stressed in a most difficult way, and with all these deployments. We are over-deployed. We saw what the GAO said today. There is not enough money out there to properly deal with the problems we have got. So to pile this last thing on, this poke in the eye of the military families by not raising this limit, to me is one of the worst things that has happened in my 28 years in the House.

Mr. DICKS. All we are saying is we are going to raise a limit by $500 million so that these transactions can occur in a public-private partnership. This is what we have always heard from the majority party is the right way to go, these public-private partnerships. Down in Fort Hood this is a great success.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his statements and for his effort this year. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has gone all out working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) to craft a solution here. I have supported his efforts and I have Fort Lewis, Washington, McChord Air Force Base, in fact, in Fort Lewis we have one of the RCI, the Residential Construction Initiatives. It has worked better than any project for housing in the history of the country. And that is why this is so destructive. And we are not talking about spending additional military construction dollars.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the distinguished chairman that it was because the chairman of our subcommittee, who has worked so hard on this, asked us to do this in full committee. We did not raise it in subcommittee. We had a long discussion about it. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) asked us to hold up and do it in full committee. So the committee on a bipartisan basis agreed to that strategy. This was not because it was not a big priority. It has been a big priority all year. So the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is misinformed on this subject.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good program, too. That is the point we want to make. This is working, and it is not costing the taxpayers money. We are using the payments to work with the private sector. This meets all the tests of a great program. The other thing is, this is not mandatory. I mean, in other words, we can get out of this program. If the military does not need the housing, then the private sector will take the project over and operate it. That is why I am wondering why this big scoring rule when, in fact, we are not putting real money into this, we are just giving a guarantee, and that way we get the housing done and it is much more effective than military construction.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?