Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

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

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

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

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I request that the attached letters in support of H.R. 3276 be entered into the Record. They are from Covidien, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and the Health Physics Society. Covidien, Hazelwood, MO, July 21, 2009. Hon. Edward J. Markey, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Markey: Your timely introduction of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009 (AMIPA) represents an impressive effort to achieve conversion to low enriched uranium (LEU) without disruption to patients who depend on critical medical radioisotopes. Currently, the world is experiencing a molybdenum-99 (Mo- 99) shortage due to the unexpected shutdown of a reactor in Canada for urgent repair. This reactor and the four others which produce the vast majority of the world's Mo-99 supply are all aging, nearing the end of their useful lives. At stake are millions of diagnostic procedures that utilize radioisotopes produced using Mo-99, especially technetium 99m (Tc-99m). As one of the world's principal Tc 99m suppliers and given our commitment to secure a global, interdependent Mo-99 supply chain for patients worldwide, Covidien is pleased to support AMIPA and looks forward to working with you further on this legislation as it progresses through Congress. While Covidien supports AMIPA, we do believe aspects of the bill merit additional attention during the legislative process. For example, we appreciate your acknowledgement that the 7 to 10 year timetable may not provide adequate time to fully transition to commercial-scale LEU utilization. We are encouraged that the legislative language provides annual reports to Congress on the status of domestic development and a National Academy of Sciences report reviewing international production of Mo-99. We hope these reports will provide ample time for Congress, if necessary, to intervene if the 7-10 year deadline cannot be met. Also, while the bill is focused on Mo-99, it does not preclude the development and manufacturing of other important radioisotopes currently produced using highly enriched uranium (HEU), such as radioiodine (I-131), which are also critically important to patients. Please accept our thanks for your work on this important challenge and the opportunity to collaborate with you. Sincerely, Timothy R. Wright, President.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, today I honor the memory of Svend Auken, a dear friend of mine, a great statesman, and an international leader on environment and energy issues. He passed away this past August after a magnificently robust life of leadership. He served in the Danish Parliament from 1971 until his death, and was Minister for the Environment from 1993 to 1994, and Minister of Environment and Energy from 1994 to 2001. Earlier in his life, he spent time in my home State of Washington, studying for a year at Washington State University in 1961. Whatever his position, he was always a determined advocate for clean energy and the environment. His leadership has been an inspiration for the world. Svend did not believe in the idea that preserving the environment required sacrificing economic growth. He believed that his Nation could prosper by protecting the environment, or as he put it, ``doing well by doing good.'' Due to his inspired leadership over more than three decades, Denmark introduced new policies and embarked on a national effort to produce more domestic energy and do it cleanly by focusing on energy efficiency, wind power and combined heat and power systems. Since then, Denmark has kept its energy use flat, while its economy has grown nearly 75 percent. Denmark was once entirely dependent on foreign energy, but is now a net exporter of energy. Denmark has aggressive energy efficiency standards for new buildings, and currently produces over 20 percent of its power from wind, and over half of its electricity and around 60 percent of its heat from combined heat and power. Denmark is now a world leader in both of these technologies. As our Nation embarks on its own quest to produce clean, domestic energy, grow our economy, and preserve the environment for our children and grandchildren, we would do well to follow Svend's lead and learn from his life. When we in America adopt a vision of clean energy, it will be in part because we have been inspired by Svend's leadership. This Friday, the Danish community in Seattle will honor Svend's life at a memorial service. As I remember my friend, I will remember his vitality, his sense of humor, his devotion to service, and most of all, his leadership and inspiration. We should all remember Svend Auken as a great citizen of the world.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I am not the author of the bill, but I have worked with Mr. Hastings. Thank you for that compliment. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of this bill, and I thank Mr. Hastings for his working with us to perfect this bill in a couple of ways. We have made the bill clear that we have constrained the Park Service's definition of where a potential road could be built. Mr. Hastings and I both felt that it was important for Congress to retain some authority over where the wilderness boundaries are so that we would not give unfettered control to the Executive branch. We also make clear in the bill that the passage of this bill is not intended, in any way shape or form, to instruct the Park Service to change their prioritization on what roads to build or not to build in the Park Service. There are many needs in the Park Service. We know there is a constrained budget situation. We know there are many roads that have been washed out and that there are trails that have been washed out, and we do not intend in this bill to change any priority array as to what could be done to the Park Service.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this bill simply provides for a study of feasibility of adding the Cascadia Marine Trail to the National Trails System. This trail is entirely a water-based trail, extending from the Canadian border through the San Juan Islands, Puget Sound and south to our State capital of Olympia. Significant portions of this trail run through the waters of my district. It includes 2,300 miles of shoreline and 55 safe pullouts right now for camping areas of non-motorized, beachable watercraft. Thousands of people have the potential of enjoying this trail. It was added as a national recreation trail in '94, and the Canoe Association designated the trail as an ACA-recommended water trail in 2005. We know it's a beautiful spot. I've been there. I encourage everyone to give it a go. It gives users unique opportunities to see eagles, orca, otters, porpoises, and whales. It's quite a place to be, but we do think it's an appropriate study to consider its inclusion in our National Trails System given the national notoriety and publicity that this will entail, and it will allow people to really know about the trail. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva for their work to move this forward. I would like to also acknowledge the National Park Service office in Seattle for their technical assistance. I want to thank my constituents who have been working on this now for at least two decades, particularly the Washington Water Trails Association, especially Don Crook, Reed Waite and Julie Anderson for their efforts, and John Kuntz, with the Olympic Outdoor Centers, and the Kitsap Paddle Club for their leadership. It is supported by the Washington Water Trails Association, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, and the Washington State Parks. I want to thank the Speaker, Mr. Larsen, for cosponsoring this bill, and I can guarantee anyone who will enjoy this national water trail that it never rains in Puget Sound.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Giffords, the House Leadership and the Chairman for working to pass H.R. 3585 today, which a legislative priority for the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act will strengthen the American solar technology industry through a coordinated research and development program and public-private partnerships. The Solar Technology Roadmap Act will give even cloudy states like Washington a roadmap to solar technology deployment. The bill will help to ensure that federal funding for solar energy research is prioritized to commercialize new solar technologies to make this clean, renewable energy source more affordable and accessible for all Americans. Harnessing the power of the sun is an economic opportunity for America, with the potential to help create tens of thousands of clean energy jobs in neighborhoods across the country. The U.S. has some of the best solar resources of any industrialized nation in the world. Yet while America is currently a leader in solar technology development, other countries like Spain, Germany and China are devoting much more effort and attention to this field, putting U.S. competitiveness in this industry in jeopardy. This bill will strengthen America's solar industry and I urge its passage. Unfortunately, due to a matter in Washington, I will be absent for the vote on final passage of this important bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chair, every year, 15 billion gallons of oil are transported through the Puget Sound and the Pacific Northwest waterways. Even a minor tanker spill could release enough oil to devastate our fragile and unique marine ecosystems of Puget Sound. In Washington State, we have been able to successfully keep our shores free from major oil spills by using tug boat escorts for laden tanker transit. The escorts reduce the risk of potentially disastrous oil spills by being ready and able to assist a tanker in a crisis or to begin the cleanup if the worst should happen. Puget Sound is also vulnerable to spills that happen in waters north of the border. Currently, Canada does not mandate tug escorts and the U.S. Coast Guard does not enforce escort requirements for ships entering U.S. waters from Canada. We share these waterways with our Canadian neighbors and I encourage working cooperatively to develop comprehensive rules to require tug escorts for laden tanker ships to protect both sides of our national borders from oil spills. Puget Sound is a delicate and vast coastal ecosystem that is home to iconic species such as salmon, orca whales, western grebe, and rockfish. For centuries, coastal and regional communities have been dependent on the health of the Puget Sound for cultural, economic, and recreational uses. A major oil spill could disrupt Washington's environment, economy and coastal communities' way of life by severely damaging our ecosystem, shellfish and fishing industry, tribal communities, tourism and recreation. I have seen the impacts on oil spills in Puget Sound first hand. During a recent incident in 2003, nearly 4,800 gallons of oil spilled into the Puget Sound near Point Wells, just north of Seattle and spread across the Sound to the shores of Kitsap County. The oil contaminated clams and crabs and polluted the sand and marsh grass. Washington State has worked hard to protect our pristine marine waters and shorelines from oil spills and it is my hope that the U.S. Coast Guard, Canada and Washington State will work together to further protect these vital and important international waterways. Therefore, I authored an amendment, which was accepted in the Manager's amendment, to encourage these negotiations. I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support and hope that we can continue to work together to protect Puget Sound. Unfortunately, due to a matter in Washington state, I will be absent during the vote on both the rule and final passage of this bill. Had I been present, I would have supported the rule and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, while we consider what we can really do to reduce unemployment, I think we ought to consider something Secretary Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said yesterday. He told us that China will surpass or possibly has surpassed the United States, not in the ability to do low-wage manufacturing but to do high-technology manufacturing, unless we adopt an energy policy which will jump-start a clean energy economy for the United States and start bringing those high-tech manufacturing jobs home to the United States. First Solar, a United States company using United States technology, will be building the largest solar plant but building it in China with manufacturing there. Applied Materials, a high-tech manufacturing company, an American company, is developing plants in China. What Mr. Chu told us, Secretary Chu, is that we need to adopt the clean energy bill now pending in the Senate. This is the ticket out of this recession. This is how we're going to decrease unemployment. We urge the Senate to get moving on this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I come to the floor to talk about a very important issue both to our efforts to restore job creation in America and to our national security, and that is the ongoing efforts to replace our air tankers in the U.S. Air Force fleet, which are so vital to our national security, that form the backbone of our Air Force fleet, and everyone knows that our military security depends on our dominant Air Force, air cover for operations. And the ability to have that depends on having a very robust air tanker fleet to provide fuel for our jets in the air. We now obviously need a new tanker because we relied upon the KC-135 now for decades, and they are now reaching the end of their work life, and we need to replace them for air tankers. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem right now in that the proposal on how to do that is seriously unfair to American workers and seriously jeopardizes our national security interest in maintaining a very strong industrial base to be able to manufacture these aircraft. What has happened to date is that the U.S. Air Force in its third effort to replace these air tankers with a contract has issued a request asking for proposals to provide air tankers to the Air Force. And two bidders have expressed an interest. The Boeing consortium domestic company and the Airbus consortium, a largely European content product, are proposed bidders on this contract. There will be rigorous bidding, and there is a very extensive set of rules that the Air Force has set forth on how to run that bidding process so that we can select the most efficient, most effective, and most cost- effective aircraft for the Air Force. But we are very concerned for two reasons about the current status of that proposal: one, this existing proposal, as the Air Force has proposed to handle the bidding, is extremely unfair to the United States worker and extremely unfair to the United States taxpayer and extremely prejudicial to the United States economy because at the moment, the Air Force has proposed to ignore clearly illegal subsidies that one of the bidders, the Airbus, largely European bidder, has received from the European Union because it is a clear fact that against clear treaties that we have and laws that we have to regulate fair trade, Airbus bidder has received billions of dollars in illegal launch aids. These are subsidies given to the company by the European Union. It is not available to Boeing; it is not available to domestic manufacturers. Now, this is uncontested. There is no question but that the Airbus Company has received the subsidies. It is called launch aid, and launch aid is, as it would suggest, it is a clear, unbridled, clear on its face subsidy of cash essentially guaranteed by the European government to the Airbus Company. Now, the problem with that is those subsidies are illegal under our trade agreements. They're illegal because we need trade agreements to allow our economies to act efficiently, which don't happen when their illegal subsidies and these illegal subsidies are against our mutual trade rules. Nonetheless, the Airbus Company took them. They launched an airframe, the Airbus 330, which is the airframe that is now being suggested for this proposal by the Airbus Company. And in the bidding process by the Air Force, the Air Force intends at the moment, unless something changes, to ignore these illegal subsidies, to not pay any attention to it whatsoever, to blind their eyes and just act as if these illegal subsidies had never happened. Now, this is very surprising because the extent and existence of these subsidies are so well known. In fact, there is a preliminary ruling by the World Trade Organization--this is the arbitrary, the referee, if you will, of trade issues--a preliminary ruling that there has been a violation in the billions of dollars--and some have suggested an excess of $5 billion of illegal launch aid--to the Airbus consortium, or the Airbus Company, to launch this particular air tanker. And that ruling could be subject to appeal, but the facts are quite obvious. It's not like there's any mystery that we need fingerprints. The fingerprints are clear. The European Union governments essentially guaranteed billions of dollars to Airbus, and this contravenes our treaties, and there's been a preliminary finding in that regard. Nonetheless, the Air Force has proposed to go forward and to ignore this clear fact. This simply will not stand and cannot stand, to ignore this clear violation, for a variety of reasons. Number one, it clearly violates our international treaties and rights that we have and the law that has now been incorporated into our American domestic law. Number two, it is hugely damaging to our ability to try to start growing jobs again in this country. All of us know the pain that our fellow Americans are suffering tonight in unemployment. We know how desperate people are in unemployment lines tonight. While we have millions of people unemployed, we can't have one agency of the Federal Government, which is our United States Trade Representative, conclude that Airbus has received illegal subsidies and sued to enforce sanctions against these illegal subsidies, and another agency of the Federal Government, the U.S. Air Force, turn around and give a contract worth billions of dollars for tankers for the next several decades to ship jobs to Europe by the thousands. And it would be in the thousands that would be lost if, in fact, this contract is lost. So we find it, frankly, incredible that the Federal Government at this moment could contemplate running a procurement process that would ignore the obvious, which is there have been subsidies that have skewed the playing field. We have suggested that this is not only bad for our economy and not only takes jobs away from hardworking Americans, a couple of thousand of whom work in Washington and probably 6,000 of whom work across the country, but it hurts our national security because we have a national security interest in having a strong military infrastructure and ability to produce airplanes. When we send our ability to produce airplanes over to Europe, our intellectual capital, our engineering ability, our machinists, our tooling, our transportation infrastructure, that is weakened. So for several reasons it is simply wrong for the U.S. Government to contemplate buying a significantly foreign airplane when these illegal subsidies have taken place. Now we have the ability to make this right in a way that is consistent with our international treaty obligations. We want to follow the laws. We want to have a good relationship with our trading partners. We want to sell some of our products to Europe and around the world, and that is why we don't just allow American bidders, exclusively American bidders, in this contract. But what we expect is that the rules will be followed and fairness will prevail in this multibillion dollar issue, and right now it is not. So we have the ability and, I believe, the obligation to change this procurement formula so that we take into consideration this massive illegality. And the way we have suggested of doing it is, rather than to ignore these clearly illegal subsidies, is to take account of these clearly illegal subsidies and adjust the bids of one of the bidders to reflect that illegal subsidy. Frankly, what we should do is use the most astute, the fairest, the most well-respected manner of determining the amount of these illegal subsidies and add it on, adjust it on to the bid of the Airbus consortium, and then consider the bids and let the chips fall where they may. We have a way actually to do this. We have a process in this country called the countervailing tariff system that operates through the Department of Commerce, and we have a group whose job it is to go out when there is an illegal subsidy and figure out how much that illegal subsidy was. So we need to get the Department of Commerce to crank up that system, run the process through, adjudicate what that illegal subsidy was, and add that amount to the bid of the Airbus consortium, broken down per plane of the amount those illegal subsidies held. Now if we do this, we will be fair to the American worker. We will be fair to our need to maintain a national infrastructure. We will be fair to our trading partners, because it is in our treaty rights to act because this is a national security matter. And we will be fair because, frankly, it is consistent with at least a preliminary ruling out of the World Trade Organization. So given all of these facts, that we have the ability to act because it is in our national security interest under the exemption of the World Trade Organization, given that it is in our ability to act because fixed wing aircraft are actually exempt from the procurement agreements we have with the European Union and other countries, given those facts, we are calling upon a fair bidding process which will take into consideration both bidders, but adjusting the price of one of them to take into account the clear, obviously inarguable fact that subsidies have been received by the Airbus consortium and we will not and should not yield on this point. Too much is at stake. Too many jobs are at stake and too obvious a violation of trade laws have occurred. We have expressed this to the good people at the Air Force. We hope that they are considering it. We will be calling on the President to act in this regard. It is the right thing to do and we are fully capable of doing it, and we should make sure that it is part of this process. So I would close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we will be working--and by the way, we want to compliment the Air Force personnel who have been working diligently. We have tried to run a bidding process twice. They now have worked and made very significant improvements in the bidding process to make sure both bidders can understand what the rules are. But we think this issue of a subsidy needs an improvement in the process. There are some other things that we need improvement in the process to take into consideration the true value and price of gasoline because we need to figure that in when we make that procurement, and right now the Air Force, frankly, hasn't, I don't think, looked at the real price of gasoline going forward. But with these improvements, we look forward to an honest, fair, and robust bidding process. Let the best bidder win. We believe it will be a Boeing product. It is good for America and it is good for the world to follow these rules.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, today, with bipartisan support from 151 of my colleagues, I introduced the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2009, which will protect 58.5 million acres of pristine wild forests by prohibiting new road construction and reconstruction and providing critical ecological protections. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to over 60 million Americans, recreational opportunities, and undeveloped habitat for more than 600 threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species. In Washington, 2,015,000 acres of roadless areas, almost 22 percent of our wildlands, are at stake. Washington State crown jewels, like Eagle Rock and Dark Divide, should be preserved for future generations. This legislation will codify the Clinton Administration's Roadless Area Conservation rule to protect these lands and move us closer to permanently protecting our nation's unique and invaluable wildlands. In 2001, President Clinton issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, protecting 58.5 million acres of National Forest land (30 percent of all National Forest land) from new road construction. The Clinton Roadless Rule was the result of a two-year rulemaking process that included the most extensive public involvement process in federal rulemaking history. The U.S. Forest Service held more than 600 meetings, with more than 1.6 million Americans submitting comments to the plan, where my constituents and many other Americans voiced their overwhelming support for the rule. While the Clinton Roadless Rule enjoyed enormous public support, the Bush Administration fought a multi-year battle to overturn it. In 2005, the Bush Administration issued a new roadless rule that removed protections and opened roadless areas up for further development. In addition, numerous lawsuits have tracked the roadless rule's course, both in favor and opposed. Recently, the 9th District court has decided in favor of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This legislation will permanently protect our nation's roadless areas and remove all ambiguity concerning their conservation and protection. As a native Washingtonian and a lifelong outdoorsman, I grew up exploring and enjoying our National Forests. It is my hope that my grandchildren will be able to explore and enjoy the same untouched and protected forests that I have grown to love. By carefully and thoughtfully conserving our National Forest lands, they will be here for future generations to come. I have led the fight for our roadless areas in Congress since 2002 and will continue to seek ways to protect our National Forests.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, today, I introduced the bipartisan Geothermal Production Expansion Act with Representative Mike Simpson, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Our bill will ensure that we tap into clean geothermal energy using on-the-shelf technologies. Geothermal energy has great potential to add clean energy to American electricity supplies. It is especially promising as a renewable resource because it is a base load power which doesn't require any fossil fuel backup. However, at this point in time, proven geothermal resources have at times gone undeveloped in instances involving adjoining federal lands because speculators increasingly drive up the cost of federal lands adjacent to a geothermal development site. This hurts developers who take on the upfront cost of exploration and developing a site because when an exploration proves fruitful, the developer is bid out of the market due to extremely high leasing costs for adjacent lands. In many cases, the end result is that the development is halted and no clean energy comes online. Already under EPACT 2005 amendments, BLM is allowed to issue three different noncompetitive leases for geothermal resources, which include: non-competitive geothermal leases to mining claim holders that have a valid operating plan (having invested capital), direct use leases and leases on parcels that do not sell at a competitive auction. The Geothermal Production Expansion Act is a targeted approach to the aforementioned speculation problem, simply creating a fourth category whereby the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may issue a non-competitive geothermal lease, allowing qualified companies who hold legal rights to develop geothermal leases on certain adjoining lands. An added benefit, the bill will significantly accelerate the development of geothermal projects by reducing the time spent on nominating and waiting for an auction, which can add a minimum of one- to-two years to the development phase of a geothermal resource. This bill is a reasonable policy to ensure that developers who have invested substantial capital and made high risk investments can secure and develop geothermal discoveries. Additionally, it will help add renewable, domestically produced energy resources to the American consumers' electricity supply. I believe that this is an important issue and I hope that the House will soon consider this legislation.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the actor Sigourney Weaver showed a movie in the Capitol which was scarier than her movie The Aliens because it was fact, not fiction, and it was a movie documenting the acidification of the oceans caused by carbon dioxide that we burn that goes in the atmosphere, goes in the water, and makes the oceans acidic. This documentary showed that the waters off the Pacific coast soon will be so acidic that they can actually melt shell life. The reason I mention this is that yesterday the EPA rolled out proposed rules to do something about these noxious gases. Some have said we shouldn't do that, but those are the same people saying we shouldn't pass a bill. They're saying we shouldn't regulate CO2 here, there, or anywhere. I urge all of us to move forward on a bipartisan basis to stop ocean acidification by passing the energy bill we passed in the House. We hope the Senate will pass it. That's a route to do it. But, one way or another, we've got to save the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chair, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3221, and to express my gratitude to Chairman Miller for including in this bill a very important section to close gaps in college degree attainment and completion. Section 783 of the bill, which provides for innovation in college access and completion national activities, authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants to innovative programs that improve student outcomes for college bound students. In 2007, only 27.8 percent of college freshmen, or roughly one- fourth, went on to complete their degrees. In the highly competitive 21st century, America can little afford to fall behind in the technology curve; today, China graduates eight times as many engineering students as us, and India five times more. We have an abundance of bright students in this country, and by increasing the number of individuals with postsecondary degrees, any expenditure we make towards that end will be returned many times over as these graduates enter the work force and start contributing to what is already the world's largest and most advanced economy. In June, I introduced H.R. 3259, to establish grants for college success and completion. My bill, coauthored with Representative Reichert, would encourage and help students from low-income and disadvantaged families attend college. This group of Americans represents the last great untapped source of American brainpower, as only 6 percent of them are expected to earn a bachelor's degree by age 24--seven and a half times smaller than the expected graduation rates of students from wealthy backgrounds. I urge passage of H.R. 3221, and encourage my colleagues to continue investing in America's future by cosponsoring H.R. 3259.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, at my townhall meetings, I was amazed at how much consensus there was about health care reform. People liked health care reform. What they didn't like were things that are not actually in the bill. Because of the massive disinformation campaign on this bill, people didn't like things that weren't there. There were more hallucinations about this from opponents of this bill than there were when Timothy Leary was doing business in Haight-Ashbury in the late 1960s. Take this hallucination that this bill is going to insure illegal immigrants. You look at page 132, it says, ``For purposes of this division, the term `affordable credit individual' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States.'' Look at page 143, ``Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.'' Now, the President was challenged during his joint address to the U.S. Congress. I will tell you what, if there was a deception, it wasn't by the President of the United States. And it is time for us to call out those people who spread hallucinations, phantoms, boogeymen. People want health care and this reform. We are going to pass it.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to just make a point that this program has been spectacularly successful from an environmental perspective. It was originally criticized that we did not call for high enough efficiency improvement in these cars. The people have fixed this problem for us. We are seeing average increases of efficiency of 60 percent--well, well above what was required by Congress. For one car company, 78 percent of the cars that they're buying are over 30 miles a gallon and 39 percent above 30 miles per gallon. The American people have seen spectacular improvements in efficiency and in environmental performance. I want to thank the Speaker and Mr. Obey for essentially assuring us--I'll take it as that, almost--that we, in fact, are going to replace this money. I hope it is in the CR. It is necessary to achieve our efficiency goals.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce that this August, the Suquamish Tribe will be hosting the annual Tribal Canoe Journey from August 3 to August 9 at the town of Suquamish on Washington State's Kitsap Peninsula. Native Americans have lived on the shores of Puget Sound for thousands of years. Canoes carved from massive cedar logs were the traditional mode of transportation for Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest. In 1851, pioneers established the city of Seattle, named for Chief Sealth of the Suquamish and Duwamish Tribes, who helped non-native settlers survive their first years in the Northwest. As the United States expanded westward, the Suquamish and other Native American tribes struggled to preserve their culture. In 1855, the Suquamish tribe signed a treaty that ceded their ancestral lands-- including much of what is now my district--and moved to a reservation west of Seattle. In 1904, Old Man House village, the home of Chief Sealth, burned to the ground and was not rebuilt. For the first time in millennia, traditional canoes no longer plied the waters of Puget Sound. In 1989, the Suquamish tribe hosted the Paddle to Seattle, the first intertribal canoe journey in more than 100 years. During that journey, people from the Helitsuk Nation invited canoes to travel to their village in British Columbia. In 1993, twenty-eight canoes answered their challenge. Since then, canoe journeys have been held annually to celebrate the traditional Native American culture of the Northwest. I am pleased to announce that more than 100 cedar canoes from over 90 Native American tribes are expected to make the voyage to Suquamish in August, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Paddle to Seattle. Canoes will land near the former site of Old Man House village, where visitors will receive a traditional welcome. The Suquamish Tribe expects more than 12,000 visitors and 5,000 campers to participate in the week-long cultural celebration. Native American tribes have long struggled to preserve their traditional culture. The 2009 Tribal Canoe Journey is part of a cultural resurgence among Native Americans in the Northwest, and I am honored to recognize its importance before Congress today.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, our current health care system--and it really is not a system--is not up to the standards of America. I want to address the issue of cost. Our wages have been going down a black hole of health care costs. Health care costs are rising two to three times faster than our wages. If we want to know why we're having trouble making ends meet, it's because our money is going into health care much faster than our wages are improving. Now what does the other party have to solve this problem? Nothing. We are offering some suggestions on ways to have higher quality health care costs, reduce the cost, and reduce the rate of medical inflation. There is one principle that we ought to have on a bipartisan basis: you can't beat something with nothing. I am encouraging our Members across the aisle to join us to bring change to this system so we can restrain the rate on medical inflation and pass health care reform.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, in the first years of the 20th century, Gifford Pinchot fought to protect our nation's forests and rivers from unsustainable logging as the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Nearly a century later, his grandson, Gifford Pinchot III, established the Bainbridge Graduate Institute, or BGI. The Institute, situated on a sustainably-designed 210 acre campus near Seattle, is dedicated to educating the business leaders of the 21st century in sustainable management. I am honored to recognize the Bainbridge Graduate Institute for helping to shape the sustainable leaders of tomorrow. As we face the new challenges of the 21st century, successful businesses will have to consider environmental and social sustainability. The Bainbridge Graduate Institute offers graduate degrees in Sustainable Business Administration as well as certificates in Sustainable Business and Entrepreneurship. The goal of these programs is to change the way companies operate and incorporate sustainability into business decisions. Although it is a relatively new institution, the Bainbridge Graduate Institute is quickly garnering national recognition. In 2007, Business Week named BGI as one of its top global design schools, joining prestigious institutions such as the Harvard Business School, Rhode Island School of Design, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Last fall, BGI named Jon Strauss, former president of Harvey Mudd College, as its new president. The Institute's distinguished faculty includes graduates of Stanford Business School and Harvard University. I am pleased that the Institute is also attracting support from the business world. Some companies, including technology giant Hewlett- Packard, indirectly support BGI by paying for their employees to attend its programs. Clearly, sustainable business practices appeal to even the largest companies. I believe that we can simultaneously grow our economy and improve the health of our environment. The Bainbridge Graduate Institute and programs like it give our economic leaders the knowledge needed to achieve both goals, and I am honored to recognize the Institute's achievements.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, the keepers of the status quo on health care are simply wrong. It is unacceptable for Americans to have their wage increases swallowed up by health care costs. Our medical costs are rising three times faster than our wages. It consumes twice as much of our economy as it did just 12 years ago. The status quo is unacceptable. Now some of my colleagues want to defend the status quo, trying to scare Americans to think that we're going to deliver bad medical care. Let me ask them this: Is the medical care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, so bad? I don't think so. Our bill, basically--and we are improving this bill as we speak--is going to provide the kind of care that Americans are getting at the Mayo Clinic. Because when our bill passes, it will in fact allow and inspire doctors to do what they do at the Mayo Clinic for half the price that Americans are paying for their medical care in Miami, Florida. Half the price at the Mayo Clinic for what Americans pay in medical care. We need reform. We're going to pass it.