W2w-briefing Book 2009 - Part 1

24th Annual

May 17 - 20, 2009

Table of Contents 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Maps / Congressional Background 2009 Chamber Delegation Roster Economy & Tax Reform Energy & Environmental Policy Transportation Trade Training and Education Health Care Military Affairs

1: Maps & Congressional Background

Senator Patty Murray (1950-)

MURRAY, Patty, a Senator from Washington; born in Seattle, King County, Wash., October 11, 1950; graduated, Washington State University 1972; education volunteer 1977-1984; instructor, Shoreline Community College, Shoreline, Wash., 1984-1987; citizen lobbyist for environmental and educational issues 1983-1988; member, board of directors, Shoreline School District 1985-1989, serving as president and legislative representative for two terms; member, Washington state senate 1988-1992, Democratic whip 1990-1992; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1992; reelected in 1998 and in 2004 for the term ending January 3, 2011; chairwoman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (One Hundred Seventh Congress); Democratic Conference secretary (2007-). Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-224-2621 Fax : 202-224-0238 Main District Office Phone 206-553-5545 Fax: 206- 553-0891 Website: www.murray.senate.gov

Senator Maria E. Cantwell (1958-)

CANTWELL, Maria E., a Representative and Senator from Washington; born in Indianapolis, Ind., October 13, 1958; attended public schools in Indianapolis; B.A., Miami University of Ohio 1980; pursued an academic course at the Miami University European Center, Luxembourg; public relations consultant; Washington State representative 1987-1993; elected as a Democrat to the 103rd Congress (January 3, 1993-January 3, 1995); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the 104th Congress; elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate on November 7, 2000, for the term commencing January 3, 2001; reelected in 2006 for the term ending January 3, 2013.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-224-3441 Fax : 202-224-0514 Main District Office Phone 206-220-6400 Fax: 206-220-6404 Website: www.cantwell.senate.gov

Representative Jay Inslee (1951-)

INSLEE, Jay Robert, a Representative from Washington; born in Seattle, King County, Wash., February 9, 1951; graduated from Ingraham High School, Seattle, Wash., 1969; attended Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1969-1970; B.A., University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 1972; J.D., Willamette University School of Law, Salem, Oreg., 1976; lawyer, private practice; Selah, Wash., city prosecutor, 1976-1984; member of the Washington state house of representatives, 1988-1992; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Third Congress (January 3, 1993-January 3, 1995); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the One Hundred Fourth Congress in 1994; unsuccessful candidate for nomination as Image, Congressional Pictorial governor of Washington in 1996; regional director, United States Directory, 109th. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997-1998; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Sixth Congress and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1999-present). Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-6311 Fax : 202-226-1606 Main District Office Phone 206-361-0233 Fax: 206-361-3959 Website: www.house.gov/inslee

Representative Rick Larsen (1965-) LARSEN, Richard Ray (Rick), a Representative from Washington; born in Arlington, Snohomish County, Wash., June 15, 1965; B.A., Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Wash., 1987; M.P.A., University of Minnesota, 1990; member of the Snohomish, Wash., county council, 1998-2000; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Seventh and to the four succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2001-present).

Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-2605 Fax : 202-225-4420 Main District Office Phone 425-252-3188 Fax: 425-252-6606 Website: www.house.gov/larsen

Representative Brain Baird (1956-) BAIRD, Brian, a Representative from Washington; born in Chama, Rio Arriba County, N.Mex., March 7, 1956; B.S., University of Utah, Provo, Utah, 1977; M.S., University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo., 1980; Ph.D., University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo., 1984; clinical psychologist; professor, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Wash., 1986-1998; unsuccessful candidate for election to the One Hundred Fifth Congress in 1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Sixth Congress and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1999-present). Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-3536 Fax : 202-225-3478 Main District Office Phone 360-695-6292 Fax: 360-695-6197 Website: www.house.gov/baird

Representative Cathy McMorris (1969-) McMORRIS RODGERS, Cathy, a Representative from Washington; born in Salem, Marion County, Oreg., May 22, 1969; B.A., Pensacola Christian College, Pensacola, Fla., 1990; M.B.A., University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 2002; fruit orchard worker; member, Washington state house of representatives, 19942004; minority leader, 2002-2003; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

33Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-2006 Fax : 202-225-3392 Main District Office Phone 509-353-2374 Fax: 509-353-2412 Website: www.house.gov/mcmorris

Representative Norman Dicks (1940-) DICKS, Norman DeValois, a Representative from Washington; born in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Wash., December 16, 1940; graduated from West Bremerton High School, Bremerton, Wash., 1959; B.A., University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 1963; J.D., University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Wash., 1968; lawyer, private practice; legislative and administrative assistant to United States Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington, 19681976; elected as a Democrat to the Ninety-fifth and to the sixteen succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1977-present). Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-5916 Fax : 202-226-1176 Main District Office Phone 253-593-6536 Fax: 253-593-6551 Website: www.house.gov/dicks

Representative James McDermott (1936-) McDERMOTT, James A., a Representative from Washington; born in Chicago, Cook County, Ill., December 28, 1936; B.S., Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill., 1958; M.D., University of Illinois Medical School, Chicago, Ill., 1963; residence in adult psychiatry, University of Illinois hospitals, 1964-1966; residency in child psychiatry, University of Washington hospitals, Seattle, Wash., 19661968; United States Navy Medical Corps, 1968-1970; psychiatrist; faculty member, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 19701983; member of the Washington state house of representatives, 1971-1972; unsuccessful candidate for nomination as governor of Washington in 1972; member of the Washington state senate, 1975Image courtesy of the Office of 1987; unsuccessful candidate for election as governor of Washington the Clerk, U.S. House of in 1980; unsuccessful candidate for nomination as governor of Representatives Washington in 1984; medical officer, United States Foreign Service, 1987-1988; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred First and to the ten succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1989-present); chair, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (One Hundred Third Congress). Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-3106 Fax : 202-225-6197 Main District Office Phone 206-553-7170 Fax: 206-553-7175 Website: www.house.gov/mcdermott

Representative Adam Smith (1965-) SMITH, Adam, a Representative from Washington; born in Washington D.C., June 15, 1965; graduated from Tyee High School, Seattle, Wash. 1983; B.A., Fordham University, New York, N.Y., 1987; J.D., University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Wash., 1990; lawyer, private practice; city prosecutor, Seattle, Wash., 19931995; member of the Washington state senate, 1991-1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth and to the six succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-8901 Fax : 202-225-5893 Main District Office Phone 253-896-3775 Fax: 253-896-3789 Website: www.house.gov/adamsmith

Representative David Reichert (1950-) REICHERT, David G., .a Representative from Washington; born in Detroit Lakes, Becker County, Minn., August 29, 1950; graduated, Kent Meridian High School, Kent, Wash., 1968; A.A., Concordia Lutheran College, Portland, Oreg., 1970; U.S. Air Force Reserve, 1971-1976; U.S. Air Force, 1976; police officer, King County, Wash., 1972-1997; sheriff, King County, Wash., 1997- 2004; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

Image, Congressional Pictorial Directory, 109th.

Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-225-7761 Fax : 202-225-4282 Main District Office Phone 206-275-3438 Fax: 206- 275-3437 Website: www.hosue.gov/reichert

Senator Lisa Murkowski (1957-) MURKOWSKI, Lisa, (daughter of Frank Hughes Murkowski), a Senator from Alaska; born in Ketchikan, Alaska, on May 22, 1957; attended public schools in Fairbanks, AK; attended Williamette University in Salem, Oregon, 1975-1977; B.A. in Economics, Georgetown University 1980; J.D., Willamette College of Law 1985; attorney; member, Alaska Bar Association; Anchorage District Court attorney 1987-1989; private practice 1989-1996; Mayor’s Task Force on the Homeless 1990-1991; Anchorage Equal Rights Commission 1997-1998; Alaska State house of representatives 1999-2002; appointed to the U.S. Senate on December 20, 2002, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of her father, Frank H. Murkowski; elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term ending January 3, 2011. Contact Information Washington Office Phone: 202-224-6665 Fax : 202-224-5301 Main District Office Phone 907-271-3735 Fax: 907-276-4081 Website: www.murkowski.senate.gov

BACKGROUND ON JEFF BJORNSTAD, MURRAY’S CHIEF OF STAFF:

It’s All Customer Service Oct. 2, 2008 By Jessica Brady Roll Call Staff Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff for Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), fills his job with a fierce and infectious energy that one former colleague described as the approach of a “happy warrior.” Where some chiefs focus on policy issues or outreach, Bjornstad serves more as a coach. His style is to keep the staff informed, motivated and focused on Washington state. That mindset likely stems from his earliest days as Rep. Adam Smith’s (D-Wash.) only campaign staffer. Bjornstad was a recent college graduate in 1990 and the “only person to respond to my flier” looking for help, Smith said. The two rang 25,000 doorbells to get Smith, equally youthful at 24, elected to the state Senate. “In college, I learned that a candidate lays out their issues and the people vote on them,” Bjornstad said. “But I realized that people predominately vote for folks because they like them. And we want to make sure that’s always the case.” That’s why Bjornstad responds to Washington state constituents, executives and local officials with what he calls “Nordstrom customer service” — aggressive, thorough assistance much like the service offered at the noted department store, headquartered in Seattle. The approach is crucial to keeping Murray, who is 2,300 miles away from home when she is in the Capitol, in tune with the state’s needs, he said. “I try to teach my staff to think about it as dealing with customer concerns,” he said. And that means everyone, from interns to top advisers. “The staff assistants are like the home page of the office,” Bjornstad said, using Internet lingo to describe staffers’ roles. “They’re the first point of contact.” Mentoring the “22-year-old kids” who are part of Murray’s staff is a daily challenge for Bjornstad, who oversees a Senate office of nearly 70 people. “We ask [Murray] to do 60,000 things. We have to say, ‘Put yourself in the boss’s place.’ If she says no to the 16th thing, it’s not a reflection of your work,” said Bjornstad, who has worked for three Washington Members. “There’s only so much a human being can do in a day.” Bjornstad set out a rigid schedule for Murray’s office when he arrived in January 2007. Every Monday morning, the entire staff meets to go over the Senator’s schedule for the

week. The legislative and communications shops get together next to lay out their week, and finally, Bjornstad phones the West Coast to touch base with the state managers. There is a weekly videoconference between Murray and the state staff, and on Fridays, the Senator returns to the state with binders of summaries from her aides. The “Nordstrom approach” in Murray’s office was honed during Bjornstad’s years in the House. Smith, Bjornstad’s boss from 1990 to 2000, hailed Bjornstad’s focus — even fixation — on customer service. With Bjornstad assigned to constituents and staff, Smith was able to focus on committee work and policy. “At its most basic level, this job is about representing people, and Jeff always kept that in mind,” Smith said, noting that Bjornstad “was not heavy on policy. I’m very issue-oriented. I didn’t need a chief of staff to advise me on that.” Bjornstad’s friendly personality complemented Smith’s more measured and serious tone when the two first worked together on Smith’s state Senate campaign in 1990. Bjornstad, the more competitive and daring of the two, pushed the young candidate into taking a $2,500 cash advance on his credit card to continue funding his underdog campaign. The gamble paid off, and when the two of them arrived in Olympia, Wash., for Smith’s first term, they shared an office with another of the state’s rising stars — Murray. Bjornstad left Smith’s office in 2000 to work for Rep. Rick Larsen, who was then another rising Washington Democrat from a swing district. The chief had to hire a new staff and quickly acquaint them with his constituent-service approach, which became even more essential when Larsen faced a competitive re-election in 2002. “I knew that Jeff knew the Hill and he knew the district, so I let him loose to do his job so that I could focus on being a Member of Congress,” Larsen said. In Murray’s office, Bjornstad answers to a larger pool of constituents — nearly 6 million — and works for a Member with a leadership post and two subcommittee chairmanships. Murray, her state’s senior Senator, serves as Conference secretary. The stakes are higher for Bjornstad in the Senate, with a larger staff and more constituents, and he relies on a regimented weekly schedule to keep things moving smoothly. The flow of information starts with Bjornstad and trickles to the rest of the Washington state delegation, which is kept up to date on breaking developments. “I can assure you, Norm knows Jeff’s direct number,” George Behan, chief of staff to Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), said with a laugh. “Jeff knows what [Murray] is thinking, and for the delegation, that’s important.” Bjornstad relishes his latest posting. “The Senate is so much better,” he said with a wide smile. “It’s a more intimate setting with just 100 Members, as opposed to 435. You actually have the chance to get to know each other better.” Bjornstad has flourished in the Senate by forging relationships with chiefs of staff from both sides of the aisle. They talk about everything from policy negotiations to office management.

“We face the same basic issues in every office,” from promotions and sick leave to intern programs and hiring decisions. “Those issues are never partisan,” he said. Rick Desimone, Murray’s former chief of staff for 10 years who now runs the Seattle-based public relations arm of McBee Strategic Consulting, said Bjornstad’s energetic style fits well with the Senator. “It’s important to demonstrate to Sen. Murray how things will affect her constituents and how it will play out on Main Street,” Desimone said, pointing out that Murray has a history of hiring Washington state natives to lead her office. “You really need to view your job through that filter and be prepared to answer those questions.” Bjornstad is proud of his Washington roots. He graduated from the University of Washington and lived in the state while he worked for Larsen from 2001 to 2006. He has worked only for Washington Members and offers no hints he would defect. And while Smith recalled Bjornstad, as a fresh-faced staffer years ago, sharing his own ambitions for higher office someday, the longtime staffer said he would rather stick to his customer-service career. “I am never running for office. After 17 years in this business, I might be a water commissioner when I’m older,” he said

2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

HUMOR The business guide to Congress They are not your friends, but you can still make your case. To help navigate this tricky terrain, we offer a business leader's guide to the new Capitol Hill. By Nina Easton and Telis Demos April 28, 2009: 8:56 AM ET (Fortune Magazine) -- Washington is a dangerous place for business leaders these days. "There's absolutely no political risk in rounding up the witches," says crisis consultant Eric Dezenhall, who likens today's Congress to a colonial Salem for corporate executives. Capitol Hill scriptwriters, who know a compelling political narrative when they see it, have located the ideal villains in this plot. Americans now think that corporate America's main contributions to the economy consist of John Thain's $87,000 rug, Vikram Pandit's Falcon 7X jet order, Wells Fargo's (WFC, Fortune 500) Las Vegas junket for employees, and, of course, AIG executives' $165 million in bonuses (which prompted Iowa Republican Charles Grassley to suggest they apologize - and then commit hara-kiri for good measure). Fury at corporate America has swept Congress before, but it has mostly been contained to a particular industry - the S&L scandals, Enron's accounting misdeeds, $4 gas putting Big Oil on the hot seat. Today the careening travails of Wall Street, sucking up billions in taxpayer bailouts along the way, have sideswiped everyone's image. Combine that with an ideological power shift - Democrats who think corporate America has been pampered too long control the White House as well as Congress now - and it's a historically bleak time for business. It's not a question of whether you'll get hurt - it's how much, lobbyists say. Still, business is mobilizing, after adjusting everything from policy strategies to codes of behavior. Enter this treacherous new world gingerly - and only after reading Fortune's new guide to navigating Capitol Hill.

RULE 1 Never forget: It's all about the optics Don't be naive and think that members of Congress really want to hear your side of the story (especially if there's populist juice in attacking you). "The public doesn't understand data; they understand symbols and narratives," says Dezenhall. "And in this climate, people can't see past the symbols. No one wants to see company executives enjoying themselves right now." It may not be rational to focus on the use of private jets, but this is the new Washington. Skip the junkets and the limos - and always assume news crews are watching you, because they are. If you're in a time bind to get to D.C., fly your jet to Philly and take Amtrak from there. And consider the Park Hyatt; it sounds better than the Four Seasons.

RULE 2 Find an ally who's popular, because you're not Corporate lobbyists long ago realized that they need to go to lawmakers' districts and get employees, local chambers of commerce, and (for Big Pharma) medical patients to make their case to Congress. In today's new Washington, finding attractive friends is more important than doling out PAC contributions. It's not enough anymore to argue that your company provides tax revenues to the Treasury. Think broadly: No lawmaker wants to be caught on camera shaking hands with a big banker today. But credit unions and community banks are still as popular as apple pie, so they've become useful frontmen for big-bank agendas.

RULE 3 Don't wait until your name is called

Lobbyists are pressing their clients to meet early and often with every member of every committee they can possibly encounter. "There are times you can be a turtle and pull in and hope the shell protects you," says Doug Goodyear, chief executive officer of the DCI Group, a Washington lobbying firm. "This isn't that time. Business leaders create jobs. That's a story that needs to be told." It's also important to remember that just because you may not be in the spotlight now, you won't be next year. While Wall Street is on the hot seat, last summer it was Big Oil's turn. Goodyear likens Washington's focus to a searchlight that stops for an intense moment and then moves on. "When the light is off you, you really need to be preparing for the next time it focuses on you."

RULE 4 If you are called to testify, be boring This isn't the time to whack Henry Waxman with a stinging comeback when he gets overbearing. Your fate is in his hands. "Think of it as a mugging," says Dezenhall. "The goal is not to get out of it with your money - it's to get out alive." The best lobbyists coach their clients to stick to a script religiously (think Obama at a press conference), avoid making news, and be humble and excruciatingly dull. "It's all about a conciliatory tone, saying, 'We want to work with you,'" says Rhonda Bentz, VP of Global Navigators. If Barney Frank is your prosecutor, check your ego at the door; he's not impressed with the CEO title. "Be prepared to be offended; he will dress you down no matter who you are," says a lobbyist. But he's the smartest of the bunch, so be prepared to make a pithy and airtight case. If possible, it's best to stay off Waxman's screen altogether. Frank at least understands big business; Waxman despises it.

RULE 5 Run the Senate middle Forget the House. While House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will give you a friendly ear, and there are some conservative, Blue Dog Democrats who will object to the most antibusiness pieces of the Obama agenda, the numbers are against you. Voting power resides firmly with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose tightfisted control of the chamber has earned her the moniker "Tom DeLay in a pantsuit." (And don't let the Armani label on that wardrobe fool you - she is not your friend.) Pelosi can afford to let 37 of her own party members take a walk and still pass whatever she wants. The only hope for corporate America this year is in the Senate, specifically in moderate Democrats and Republicans who can either grant or deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the 60 votes he needs to pass legislation. "The centrist moderates will find and use their voice because of simple math," says the Chamber's Bruce Josten. That means it pays to get to know Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Chuck Grassley; and Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, and Evan Bayh. Final advice: Get involved in the details, and don't ask for something without being ready to give something back.

The Cannon House Office Building The Cannon House Office Building, completed in 1908, is the oldest congressional office building as well as a significant example of the Beaux Arts style of architecture. It occupies a site south of the Capitol bounded by Independence Avenue, First Street, New Jersey Avenue, and C Street S.E.

Cannon House Office Building Photograph

The Cannon House Office Building Rotunda

The Cannon House Office Building Caucus Room

The first congressional office buildings were constructed immediately after the turn of the century to relieve overcrowding in the Capitol. Previously, members who wanted office space had to rent quarters or borrow space in committee rooms. In March 1901 Congress authorized Architect of the Capitol Edward Clark to draw plans for fireproof office buildings adjacent to the Capitol grounds. In March 1903 the acquisition of sites and construction of the buildings were authorized. In April 1904 the prominent New York architectural firm of Carrère and Hastings was retained. Thomas Hastings took charge of the House Office Building project, while John Carrère oversaw the construction of an almost identical office building (now named the Russell Senate Office Building) for the Senate. Their Beaux Arts designs were restrained complements to the Capitol. Architecturally, their elevations are divided into a rusticated base and a colonnade with an entablature and balustrade. The colonnades with thirty-four Doric columns that face the Capitol are echoed by pilasters on the sides of the buildings. Both buildings are faced with marble and limestone; the Russell Building's base and terrace are gray granite. Modern for their time, they included such facilities as forced-air ventilation systems, steam heat, individual lavatories with hot and cold running water and ice water, telephones, and electricity. Both are connected to the Capitol by underground passages. Originally there were 397 offices and fourteen committee rooms in the Cannon Building; the 1932 remodeling resulted in 85 two- or three-room suites, 10 single rooms, and 23 committee rooms. Of special architectural interest is the rotunda. Eighteen Corinthian columns support an entablature and a coffered dome, whose glazed oculus floods the rotunda with natural light. Twin marble staircases lead from the rotunda to an imposing Caucus Room, which features Corinthian pilasters, a full entablature, and a richly detailed ceiling. The Cannon Building was occupied during the 60th Congress in January 1908. By 1913, however, the House had outgrown the available office space, and fifty-one rooms were added to the original structure by raising the roof and constructing a fifth floor. In 1962 the building was named for former Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon.

The Longworth House Office Building

Longworth House Office Building Photograph

Completed in the spring of 1933, the Longworth House Office Building is the second of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives as well as a fine example of the Neo-Classical Revival style popular in the second quarter of the twentieth century. It occupies a site south of the Capitol bounded by Independence Avenue, New Jersey Avenue, C Street S.E., and South Capitol Street. Plans to provide the House of Representatives with a second office building were begun in 1925. Severe overcrowding in the Cannon House Office Building (completed in 1908) led to the renovation of the Cannon Building and the construction of the Longworth Building. It is the smallest office building, with a floor area of just under 600,000 square feet. Under the direction of Architect of the Capitol David Lynn, preliminary designs for the building were prepared by a local firm known as The Allied Architects of Washington (Inc.). The principal architects were Frank Upman, Gilbert LaCoste Rodier, Nathan C. Wyeth, and Louis Justemente. They produced two schemes for a simple, dignified building in harmony with the rest of the Capitol Complex. In January 1929 Congress authorized $8,400,000 for acquiring and clearing the site and for constructing the new building. The foundations were completed in December 1930, and the building was accepted for occupancy in April 1933. Because of its position on a sloping site, the rusticated base of the Longworth Building varies in height from two to four stories. Above this granite base stand the three principal floors, which are faced with white marble. Ionic columns supporting a well-proportioned entablature are used for the building's five porticoes, the principal one of which is topped by a pediment. Two additional stories are partially hidden by a marble balustrade. It presents a somewhat more restrained appearance than the neighboring Cannon Building, which was designed in the more theatrical Beaux Arts style. The Longworth Building takes its place along with the National Gallery of Art (1941) and the Jefferson Memorial (1943) as one of Washington's best examples of the Neo-Classical Revival. When the Longworth Building was completed, it contained 251 congressional suites, 5 large committee rooms, 7 small committee rooms, and a large assembly room now used by the Ways and Means Committee. It was in this room, which seats 450 persons, that the House of Representatives met in 1949 and 1950 while its chamber in the Capitol was being remodeled. The building was named in 1962 in honor of Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who served as Speaker of the House of Representatives (1925-1931) when the building was authorized.

The Rayburn House Office Building The Rayburn House Office Building, completed in early 1965, is the third of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives. It occupies a site southwest of the Capitol bounded by Independence Avenue, South Capitol Street, C Street S.W., and First Street S.W.

Rayburn House Office Building Photograph

Statue of Sam Rayburn

Earlier efforts to provide space for the House of Representatives had included the construction of the Cannon Building and the Longworth Building. In March 1955 Speaker Sam Rayburn introduced an amendment for a third House office building, although no site had been identified, no architectural study had been done, and no plans prepared. The Architect of the Capitol, J. George Stewart, with the approval of the House Office Building Commission, selected the firm of Harbeson, Hough, Livingston and Larson of Philadelphia to design a simplified, classical building in architectural harmony with other Capitol Hill structures. The area west of the Longworth Building on Squares 635 and 636 was chosen, with the main entrance on Independence Avenue and garage and pedestrian entrances on South Capitol Street, C Street, and First Street SW. The cornerstone was laid in May 1962, and full occupancy of the building began in February 1965. The design of the building is a modified H plan with four stories above ground, two basements, and three levels of underground garage space. A white marble facade above a pink granite base covers a concrete and steel frame. One hundred sixty-nine Representatives were accommodated in three-room suites, with modern-for-the-time features such as toilets, kitchens, and built-in file cabinets; nine committees were also moved to this building. Amenities include a cafeteria, first aid room, Library of Congress book station, telephone and telegraph room, recording studio, post office, gymnasium, and facilities for press and television. A subway tunnel with two cars connects the building to the Capitol, and pedestrian tunnels join it to the Longworth Building. On either side of the main entrance to the building stand two ten-foot marble statues by C. Paul Jennewein, Spirit of Justice and Majesty of Law. On the east and west walls are eight marble rhytons, drinking horns formed of mythical figures known as chimeras. Speaker Sam Rayburn, for whom the building was named in 1962, is represented in the building in an oil portrait by Tom Lea, a marble relief by Paul Manship, and a six-foot bronze statue by Felix de Weldon.

The Russell Senate Office Building The Russell Senate Office Building (built 1903-1908) is the oldest of the Senate office buildings as well as a significant example of the Beaux Arts style of architecture. It occupies a site north of the Capitol bounded by Constitution Avenue, First Street, Delaware Avenue, and C Street N.E.

Photo of Russell Senate Office Building from Southwest

The Russell Senate Office Building Rotunda

Statue of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

The Russell Senate Office Building Caucus Room

The first congressional office buildings were constructed immediately after the turn of the century to relieve overcrowding in the Capitol. Previously, members who wanted office space had to rent quarters or borrow space in committee rooms. In March 1901 Congress authorized Architect of the Capitol Edward Clark to draw plans for fireproof office buildings adjacent to the Capitol grounds. In March 1903 the acquisition of sites and construction of the buildings were authorized. The Senate Office Building Commission selected a site In April 1904 the prominent New York architectural firm of Carrère and Hastings was retained. John Carrère took charge of the Senate Office Building project, while Thomas Hastings oversaw the construction of an almost identical office building (now named the Cannon House Office Building) for the House. Their Beaux Arts designs were restrained complements to the Capitol. Architecturally, their elevations are divided into a rusticated base and a colonnade with an entablature and balustrade. The colonnades with thirty-four Doric columns that face the Capitol are echoed by pilasters on the sides of the buildings. Both buildings are faced with marble and limestone; the Russell Building's base and terrace are gray granite. Modern for their time, they included such facilities as forced-air ventilation systems, steam heat, individual lavatories with hot and cold running water and ice water, telephones, and electricity. Both are connected to the Capitol by underground passages. Originally there were 98 suites and 8 committee rooms in the Russell Building; the First Street Wing, completed in 1933, added 2 committee rooms and 28 suites. Of special architectural interest is the rotunda. Eighteen Corinthian columns support an entablature and a coffered dome, whose glazed oculus floods the rotunda with natural light. Twin marble staircases lead from the rotunda to an imposing Caucus Room, which features Corinthian pilasters, a full entablature, and a richly detailed ceiling; the Russell Caucus Room retains its original 1910 benches and settles with carved eagles. This space has been used for many hearings on subjects of national significance, from the sinking of the Titanic (1912) to Watergate (1974) and the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas (1991). The Russell Building was occupied in 1909 by the Senate of the 61st Congress. The growth of staff and committees in the twenty years following its completion resulted in the addition of a fourth side, the First Street Wing, to the originally U-shaped building. Nathan Wyeth and Francis P. Sullivan were the consulting architects for the new wing, which was completed in 1933. In 1972 the building was named for former Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.

The Dirksen Senate Office Building The Dirksen Senate Office Building was the second of three office buildings constructed for the United States Senate. Located northeast of the Capitol on a site bounded by Constitution Avenue, C Street, First Street, and Second Street N.E., it adjoins the later Hart Senate Office Building.

Dirksen Senate Office Building Photograph

Despite past efforts to accommodate the needs of the Senate, including the construction and expansion of the Russell Senate Office Building, the growth of staff and committees in the 1930s and 1940s prompted efforts to provide the Senate with additional space. In 1941 the Senate Office Building Commission directed the Architect of the Capitol, David Lynn, to prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for an additional office building. The site east of the Russell Building was acquired and cleared in 1948-1949, and New York architects Otto R. Eggers and Daniel Paul Higgins were engaged to prepare the preliminary plans. Eggers and Higgins submitted a plan for a simple, seven-story building faced in marble. Each committee room was designed with a committee rostrum and room for reporters and witnesses. Features incorporated into the design of the building, which reflected the modern advances of the time, included an auditorium seating approximately five hundred persons and equipped with radio, television, motion picture, recording, and broadcasting facilities; a cafeteria seating seven hundred persons; a telephone exchange system; a parking garage for two hundred cars; and a fluorescent lighting system. The original subway system, which had been installed in 1909, was expanded to a double-track system in a new tunnel to the Russell and Dirksen Buildings. The final plans and specifications were approved by the Senate Office Building Commission in 1949, but construction was delayed until 1954. As a result of the delay and increasing costs, it became necessary to delete the entire interior center wing of the building. The latter was finally completed in 1982, as part of an entirely new building that was named the Hart Senate Office Building. The ground-breaking exercises for the Dirksen Building, named in 1972 for former Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen, were held in January 1955, and the building was occupied in October 1958. The principal (First Street) elevation was designed with a pilastered central bay with an entablature and pediment. The bronze doors at the north and south entrances were designed by Otto R. Eggers and modeled by the Rochette and Parzini Corporation. In the center are the American Eagle and symbols representing Equality and Liberty. Five figures on the spandrels of the windows represent shipping, farming, manufacturing, mining, and lumbering.

The Hart Senate Office Building The Hart Senate Office Building is the third office structure designed and built to serve the United States Senate. Located northeast of the Capitol on a site bounded by Constitution Avenue, C Street, First Street, and Second Street N.E., it adjoins the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Hart Senate Office Building Photograph

Earlier efforts to provide space for the Senate had included the construction of the Russell Building and the Dirksen Building. By 1967 the Senate began to experience a strain on its existing office facilities and initiated the process that led to the creation of the Hart Building. In 1972 the Senate Office Building Commission authorized Architect of the Capitol George M. White to commission John Carl Warnecke & Associates to prepare studies. In addition to satisfying space and design requirements, the architects were required to preserve the neighboring 19th-century Belmont House. In August 1974, the Senate Office Building Commission and the Senate Committee on Public Works approved a proposed nine-story extension to the Dirksen Senate Office Building (the extension would later be named the Hart Senate Office Building). The design included suites for fifty senators, with over one million square feet of interior space, including three floors of garage and service facilities, eight floors of offices, and a mechanical equipment floor at the top. A central atrium provides offices and corridors with light in an energyefficient manner. To allow flexible office space design, Warnecke introduced a two-story "duplex suite," consisting of a Senator's office with traditional sixteen-foot ceilings and two staff levels that can be easily rearranged by the use of demountable partitions. Excavation began in December 1975, and in August 1976 the building was named in honor of former Senator Philip A. Hart. The first occupant, Majority Leader Howard H. Baker, moved into the building in November 1982. Installed in 1986 in the building's atrium was the sculpture Mountains and Clouds by Alexander Calder, creator of the mobile. The matte black aluminum clouds, the largest of which weighs 1 ton, are suspended from the roof, revolving above the 39-ton steel mountains.

2: Chamber Delegation List

Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Washington to Washington D.C. Delegation 2009 Doug Dick Stephanie Gary Jeff Jake Don David Kathy Hans Norm Spiro Toby John Marilyn Mike Liz Eddie

Richardson Marzano Bowman Brackett Brown Fey Gallion Graybill Hanna Hechtman LeMay Manthou Murray Parrott Strickland Weinman Warman Westmoreland

City of Lakewood Mayor Port Commissioner Port of Tacoma Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber BCRC Tacoma City Council Boeing Company Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber CH2M Hill Comcast LeMay Enterprises City of Tacoma Murray Pacific Company Totem Ocean Tacoma City Council Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Boeing Company Pierce County Recycling & Refuse

The Economy & Tax Reform

The Economy and Taxes

Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally designed to ensure that all taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of taxes, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) unfairly penalizes businesses that invest heavily in plants, machinery, equipment, and other assets. The AMT significantly increases the cost of capital and discourages investment in productivity-enhancing assets by negating many of the capital formation incentives provided under the “regular” tax system—most notably, accelerated depreciation. To make matters worse, many capital-intensive businesses have been perpetually trapped in the AMT system, unable to use their suspended AMT credits. The AMT is extremely complex and burdensome. Even businesses not subject to the tax must go through the computations to determine whether they are liable for it. While the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 exempted “small business corporations” from the AMT, larger corporations and many individuals may not be exempt. Additionally, while recent legislation offered modest increases to the exemption amounts for individuals, more and more middle-income individuals are vulnerable to the AMT. Reforming the AMT would spur capital investment in the business community, thereby creating jobs. The U.S. Chamber supports measures to simplify and reduce the scope of the corporate and individual AMT, while ultimately working for full repeal of both.

Capital Gains Tax. Many economists believe that reducing or eliminating the tax on gains from the sale of capital assets and on dividends paid from corporate earnings will stimulate economic growth by promoting capital formation and mobility. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act reduced the maximum tax rate for long-term capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent (10 percent for those in the 15 percent income tax bracket) while increasing the holding period for such gains from 12 to 18 months. The 1998 Internal Revenue Service reform bill reduced this holding period to 12 months. The 1997 Act also allowed married couples to exclude up to $500,000 of capital gains on the sale of their principal residences every two years. Single filers may exclude up to $250,000 of such capital gains. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 reduced the maximum individual income tax rates on capital gains and dividend income to 15 percent, effective through 2008. Further lowering the capital gains and dividend income tax rates, and making these

cuts permanent, will spur investment activity, create jobs, and expand the overall economy, benefiting individuals of all income levels.

Estate and Gift Tax. Permanent repeal of the estate tax (“death tax”) is a priority. The current estate tax system can deplete the estates of those who have saved for their entire lives, force family businesses to liquidate and lay off workers, and motivate people to make financial decisions for estate tax purposes rather than for business or investment reasons. Family-owned businesses should not be punished because they are successful or because their owners die. The United States is the land of opportunity, encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs. The estate and gift taxes run contrary to this basic philosophy. Small Business Access to Capital. Small business makes a distinctive and creative contribution to the American economy. For most Americans seeking economic independence, small business ownership offers the greatest opportunity. Small businesses produce a major share of business innovation. Their numbers make them the largest source of private employment and the most tangible local representation of the private enterprise system in America today. One barrier to entry into small business ownership is access to capital, especially long-term debt financing. The business community recognizes that ensuring the availability of financing to foster the growth and expansion of small businesses is in the best interest of the American economy. Congress must continually assess the adequacy of government programs that reduce the risk of private sector lending to small business. Education and Training

Background. In business today, no competition is tougher than the global race for talent. In every industry, every job sector, and every part of the world, employers are asking the same question: How are we going to find, train, and retain the best workers? Ninety percent of the fastest-growing jobs in America require at least two years of postsecondary education. Over the next several years, the U.S. Department of Labor predicts there will be roughly four million new job openings in health care, education, and computer sciences alone. At the same time, nearly seventy-eight million baby boomers are heading toward retirement. Yet, the nation's young people remain unprepared either to replace those workers or to fill new positions in high-growth areas—today, a third of all students do not finish high school. Up to half of those who do graduate lack the advanced literacy and math skills they need to succeed in post-secondary education and the workforce.

Further, given the quickening pace of change in workplace technology and the growing demand for flexible, highly-skilled employees in all sectors of the economy, not even the most experienced workers can afford to rely on existing skills. To remain competitive, businesses must invest not just in the preparation and recruitment of new talent, but also the continuing development of workers at all stages of their careers.

Unless America makes dramatic improvements in education and workforce training, it will pay a terrible price, risking its place as an economic superpower and its identity as a striving, middle-class democracy.

Building the Foundation - Early Childhood and Pre-K. Studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota reveal that the capacity for developmental skills begins in the first five years of life. This is the beginning point for a person's creativity, communication, team working, problem solving, and critical thinking skills. These studies reflect that there is a great need for children to enter kindergarten prepared to learn. Unfortunately, too few young children today are in fact prepared with these tools. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes that to begin to address this issue of maximizing educational effectiveness, while remaining fiscally responsible, there must be far greater coordination among the existing patchwork of federal, state, local, and private early childhood programs. Through these efforts, states and localities should strive to provide access to high quality programs for all children. These programs should include a strong family engagement component to facilitate early literacy development; should focus on academic preparation; and be held accountable for their performance. Research shows that lasting benefits of Pre-K programs only persist when staff is professionally prepared and high quality standards are maintained. Improving College Readiness. High school students must graduate with a meaningful high school diploma that prepares them to enter and succeed in postsecondary education programs. Too often, this is not the case as demonstrated by the fact that 40 percent of all college students end up taking at least one noncredit or developmental course. This not only creates additional barriers for students to complete a postsecondary education, it also presents additional and unnecessary costs for both students and taxpayers. Therefore, there must be better alignment between high school graduation requirements, state academic achievement standards, and postsecondary entrance requirements. Such alignment will increase understanding of what is needed to transition from high school to postsecondary education and increase the likelihood of student success once admitted. Alignment is also necessary between postsecondary education and employer expectations. Developing a Business-Driven Employment and Training System. The purpose of a national employment and training system is to help increase

opportunities for individuals to prepare for and find employment and to provide investment in an educated, skilled, and adaptable workforce able to meet the needs of employers. The current employment and training system consists of numerous (often overlapping) programs throughout the federal government involving multiple federal agencies, each with separate rules and regulations. Typically these individual programs focus on targeted populations such as displaced workers, welfare recipients, and economically disadvantaged individuals. For many of these individuals, the services provided are often a critical, and a last-chance opportunity to reconnect to the workforce. However, the confusion and bureaucracy of the current system hampers the ability for these individuals to receive the services they need and deters employers from wanting to participate in meaningful ways. Efforts must be made to create a more rational employment and training system based upon the following principles: •

• •

•

Non-Duplicative and Flexible: To avoid costly duplication, efforts must be made to streamline federal employment and training programs. In addition, there must be local flexibility in overseeing and administering programs to maximize efficiencies in the delivery of services and for targeting services to meet local needs. Flexibility should also be provided in the types of services provided, such as enabling the provision of incumbent working training based upon career ladder progression or retention and the use of technology as a strategy to leverage increased learning. Also, training needs to be future focused and concentrate on transferable skills and lifelong learning. Employer Driven: To be relevant and viable, the employment and training system must be driven by the actual needs of employers based upon accurate and timely local labor market data. Market Oriented: Actual employment and training services should be offered in a fully competitive environment. Business and training organizations, community based organizations, private and for-profit training providers, community colleges and other organizations should all have the opportunity to compete for the ability to provide services. Eligibility to compete should be based on performance in meeting employer needs for qualified, employable persons and on conformance with professional standards for employment and training programs. Program design must concentrate on the development of useful and demonstrated skills and assure assimilation of the trainee directly into the workplace. Individual trainees should have maximum choice among the eligible employment and training providers offered. Accountable: Performance should be developed to measure the effectiveness of the system in meeting both the employment needs of individuals as well as the workforce needs of employers and should also reflect the effectiveness of the local public-private partnerships that comprise the employment and training system.

The Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check)

•

The threat. Unions have lost their prevalence in the workforce over the past five decades, making up 30 percent of the private workplace in the 1950s and less than 8 percent today. “Card Check” would reverse this trend and open up wide swaths of the economy to union organizing, especially small business.

•

Existing law honors a worker’s right to a private ballot. Currently, workers sign cards indicating interest in an election. The union and the employer then have a chance to make their case before workers vote in a federally supervised private-ballot election. If the union wins more than 50% of the votes, they are certified and collective bargaining begins.

•

Card Check would effectively eliminate private elections. Under Card Check, if more than 50 percent of workers at a facility sign a card, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would have to certify the union, and a private ballot election would be prohibited, even if workers want one. Seventy-one percent of voters agree that a private election is better than card check.

•

Card Check would give union organizers free rein to pressure workers into joining unions, potentially subjecting them to intimidation and abuse.

•

Under a Card Check organizing campaign, a union has no obligation to tell an employer it is launching an organizing drive. An employer may not find out an organizing campaign is underway until ordered by the federal government to start collective bargaining.

•

Card Check could force companies to let government arbitrators decide how their business operates. Card Check would send companies into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement with the union on an initial contract after 120 days. This means a panel of government arbitrators with no understanding of the business would impose a two-year contract which would decide all workplace terms without any review by the company or its employees. Because this package will always be more than the employer is prepared to offer, the company will always lose. Seventy-five percent of voters believe government arbitrators shouldn’t decide the conditions of a union contract.

April xx, 2009

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA; S. 560, H.R. 1409). As businesses of every size and industry with substantial operations in all 50 states, we collectively employ millions of American workers.

EFCA has three provisions, each of which we oppose. The first provision would require union recognition based on authorization cards signed by a majority of employees. This provision would allow organizing to be conducted in secret, would effectively eliminate the secret ballot election, and would hinder or even eliminate an employer’s ability to tell its side of the story and correct misleading union rhetoric. Card check recognition also would effectively disenfranchise employees who oppose unionization and, as courts have repeatedly recognized, is inherently less reliable than traditional election processes for determining whether employees wish to have union representation.

The second provision would enable a union seeking a first contract to require the employer to enter into binding interest arbitration if a collective bargaining agreement were not reached within as little as 130 days. The governmentappointed arbitrator would be able to set all terms of a union contract, not limited to wages and benefits, but also including management rights clauses, work rules, use of technology, and other critically important provisions. Compulsory interest arbitration is the antithesis of free collective bargaining and would put an arbitration panel in the position of judging which tradeoffs are in the best interests of the employer, union, and employees. No government-appointed arbitrator should have the power to impose a contract that could radically alter an employer’s business model and potentially destroy its competitive advantage and ability to compete in these difficult economic times. This provision would completely overturn the longstanding principle that the parties are obligated to bargain in good faith, but are not compelled to agree to terms they believe will put them in jeopardy. Employers and employees will lose any opportunity to shape the contract if this provision is enacted.

The third provision would significantly increase penalties on employers for certain violations of labor laws. There are significant problems raised by these provisions, including the lack of due process in the mandatory reinstatement provisions and the conversion of the NLRA from a remedial statute to a punitive one. Most telling is the fact that the new penalties are imposed for employer violations and not union violations demonstrates the lack of balance in this ill-conceived bill. It is hard to see how coercion by labor organizations should be favored over coercion by employers.

For these reasons we urge you to oppose EFCA as well as any procedural votes, such as a cloture motion in the Senate, that would lead to its passage.

Sincerely,

Washington Companies Only

Cheryl Cromees, Cuz Concrete Products, Arlington Aaron Zachry, Cuz Concrete Products, Arlington Lindsey Echelbarger, The Echelbarger Company, Bothell Judy Coovert, PrintCom, Inc., Burien Jim Coovert, PrintCom, Inc., Burien David MacKenzie, Design Real Estate Associates, Camano Steve Johnston, Landau Associates, Edmonds Mike Biringer, Biringer Farms, Everett Dianna Biringer, Biringer Farms, Everett David Chin, GoSmallBiz, Everett Rosemary Brester, Hobart Machines Products, Inc., Hobart Greg Bakamis, Great American Gaming Corporation, Kent

DJ Brown, Getting Personal Imprinting LLC, Lakewood Patricia Woodruff, InterSpace Inc., Lakewood Eldon McDonald, McTerry’s Creating Balance, Lakewood Pat Terry, McTerry’s Creating Balance, Lakewood Ne Witting, Print NW, Lakewood Deidrich Meinken, Careforce, Lynnwood Susan “Sam” Miller, Careforce, Lynnwood Donna Petzold, Integra Pacific Mortgage, Lynnwood Art Freed, Retired, Lynnwood Chuck Clugston, KB Alloys / Wenatchee, Malaga Gary Wright, Coldwell Banker Gary Wright Realty, Inc., Marysville Donna Wright, Coldwell Banker Gary Wright Realty, Inc., Marysville Steve Gates, Marysville Grocery Outlet, Marysville Deniece Gates, Marysville Grocery, Marysville Kim Kron, OD, Marysville Vision Center Andrew Ballard, Marketing Solutions, Inc., Mill Creek Ron Rants, The Rants Group, Olympia Richard Asche, Bremerton-Kitsap Airporter, Port Orchard Jon Bridge, Ben Bridge Jewelers, Seattle Barbara King, King Enterprises, Snohomish Deni Maroni, Snohomish Fitness Center, Snohomish John Hennessey, Nuprecon Full Service Demolition, Snoqualmie Catherine Brazil, Cowles Company, Spokane Pamela Senske, Pearson Packaging Systems, Spokane Steve Robinson, Spokane Rock Products, Spokane Steve Mullin, Washington Roundtable, Seattle

Mike Gommi, Courtyard Marriott Tacoma / Downtown, Tacoma Jay Dowed, Famous Dave’s BBQ, Tacoma Leslie Swalley, Pierce County Council Dist. 6, Tacoma Jim Slonaker, Action Business Furniture, Tacoma Brad Carlson, Evergreen Memorial Gardens, Vancouver Eddie Westmoreland, Waste Connections, Inc., Vancouver Geraldine Coleman, Coleman Consulting, Walla Walla Jim Russi, Piety Flats Winery, Wapato Kris Russi, Piety Flats Winery, Wapato Dick Baskin, RLB Associates, Wenatchee Anke Yarnell, Van der Salm Bulb Farm, Inc., Woodland Verilynn Best, Fairfield Inn & Suites, Yakima John Gehlson, Yakima Steel, Yakima

Energy & The Environment

Energy and the Environment

Background. Energy powers our economy and our lives—without it, we are quite literally in the dark. Passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a critical first step toward securing America's energy, economic, and national security. However, policy alone cannot overcome the energy challenges that we face as a nation. Without access to affordable and reliable supplies of energy in the United States, U.S. businesses are forced to move elsewhere, taking U.S. jobs and support for the economy with them and impacting our global competitiveness.

Increase and diversify energy supplies. The restrictions we have placed on the production of our own domestic oil and natural gas resources are a significant selfinflicted wound to our security and prosperity. The limitations and moratorium on exploration and production of domestic resources on our lands and on the Outer Continental Shelf must permanently end, and the states must be able to share in royalties collected from such production.

Renewable sources of energy are growing at a faster rate than traditional sources; however, they still only provide a fraction of generated electricity. The alternative and renewable tax credits provide a useful incentive to bring initially expensive technologies into the mainstream and allow these technologies to compete in the market. The tax credits should be extended for eight years and then phased out over the succeeding four years.

Technology is the cornerstone of our energy future. The billions of research and development dollars that the federal government has spent over the years have produced many of the technologies that we possess today to diversify our energy supply. However, our current funding levels are about half of what they were 30 years ago. Federal research and development funding be doubled within the next five years and concentrated in the areas that are most crucial to the nation and best suited for the size and scope of the governmental research and development enterprise.

We need to mobilize the capital that will be needed to deploy these clean energy technologies into the marketplace. Therefore, we make a very important

recommendation: to create a United States Clean Energy Bank, a domestic entity modeled after the existing Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank. This will accelerate capital formation and provide an essential vehicle to mitigate the barriers to commercialization of innovative technologies that can truly change the world we live in.

Improve energy efficiencies across all sectors. The next best source of new energy is the energy we can save every day. Immediate benefits can be realized by increasing building efficiency and appliance standards, two areas with high energy savings potential. We must explore new business models that reward energy savings, especially for utilities and ultimately the customers. We must expand the suite of voluntary programs, mandates, and fiscal incentives for greater benefits of energy efficiency. While solving our energy challenges is a long-term proposition, we can realize almost immediate near-term benefits by better harnessing the energy we unintentionally waste every day and more robustly utilizing energy efficiency as a crucial component of our nation’s energy portfolio. By doing so, we can liberate a tremendous amount of energy for more productive purposes and save consumers and businesses unnecessary expense. Modernize and protect U.S. infrastructure. Our energy infrastructure is increasingly inadequate for our growing demand and economy. Blackouts, brownouts, service interruptions, and rationing could become commonplace without new and upgraded capacity. Critical energy infrastructure must also be adequately protected from both terrorist threats and natural disasters. Stable energy supplies delivered to homes, businesses, and fueling stations across the country underpin a robust U.S. economy. More than 80% of our country’s energy infrastructure is owned and managed by the private sector. U.S. transmission lines span more than 200,000 miles, U.S. oil pipelines could circle the equator eight times, and U.S. natural gas pipelines carry natural gas over 1.8 million miles each year. Robust investments are needed to modernize, protect, and upgrade these critical assets, which are essential to America’s national security, economic security, and way of life. Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector must work together to enable needed expansions and upgrades to this aging infrastructure. In August 2003, the power failure that affected 50 million people in the United States and Canada was not caused by a single extraordinary event on a single system, but rather a series of routine events that quickly became unmanageable because of an aging electricity distribution system lacking redundancy. National laboratories and others that have evaluated the weak points in our energy infrastructure have identified similar scenarios where a seemingly modest, routine

occurrence can cascade into a debilitating energy supply disruption in very short order. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) supports the accelerated modernization of the nation’s electricity distribution and transmission system. With the rapid deployment of smart power grid technology, our systems could self-diagnose and repair problems, accommodate new demand-response strategies, and promote greater efficiency through advanced metering and appliances that can interact with the grid using communications protocols that can be layered with electricity delivery. To improve security, efficiency, and reliability in our regional transmission grids, the next administration must place a high priority on transitioning to a sophisticated smart power grid. In addition, most energy forecasts routinely assume that new power plants, oil refineries, pipelines, electricity distribution and transmission lines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and tankers (as well as the roads, railroads, barges, and seaports that support energy production, conversion, and distribution) will be built or expanded whenever there is demand and a simple economic incentive to do so. Unfortunately, the reality is that regulatory uncertainty, permitting challenges, and litigation, as well as organized opposition, have delayed or suspended new investment in needed infrastructure. Capital has flowed to other investments offering quicker returns. Meanwhile, demand for new infrastructure in China, India, and elsewhere in the developing world has driven up the cost of steel, concrete, and manufactured components that make up much of our infrastructure. Therefore, the next administration should direct the DOE, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, to undertake a robust, systems analysis of energy and associated infrastructure dynamics and requirements from 2009 through the year 2030, and ask the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) to incorporate this analysis into its forecasting methods. In addition, the new administration will need to vigorously exercise, and Congress will need to strengthen, provisions in EPAct2005 that provide federal backstop authority for the establishment of new electricity transmission lines. Promote Environmental Stewardship. The United States must improve environmental stewardship at home and abroad without sacrificing jobs and growth. We must address the impact of our growing energy consumption on the environment and climate. However, climate change should be addressed as part of an integrated agenda that enhances energy security, maintains economic prosperity, reduces pollution, and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency is central to our approach, and advanced technologies—for example, carbon capture and storage, advanced nuclear power, renewables, and smart grid— will be needed on a vast scale to eventually reduce emissions significantly. In addition, we must continue to protect the air we breathe. As our understanding of the basic science related to air quality continues to progress, we must ensure that decisions about air quality keep pace with science and that our standards remain

protective. Accelerating air quality improvements will be made easier by many of the measures and strategies that address concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. The United States should also work with developed and developing countries alike to tackle the interrelated challenges of energy security, economic development, environmental quality, and climate change. We should work to promote an approach to climate change that allows each nation to find its own best path for meeting strong environmental and economic development goals, while ensuring that all economies are included in addressing global environmental challenges. Innovative clean energy technologies and processes, developed by Americans with our intellectual property fully protected, can be an indispensable part of future environmental solutions. Reduce the Environmental Impact of Energy Consumption and Production. We must address the impact of our growing energy consumption on the environment and climate, while recognizing that any approach must be both economically viable and environmentally effective. We must not set targets for which technology does not yet exist or which threatens major economic displacement. We must give industry a predictable investment climate and incentives for innovation in clean energy. Costs and benefits must be transparent to consumers. We must commit to a course that promotes global participation while considering the priorities of the developing world. Climate change is a significant global environmental issue. Increasing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are largely, but not exclusively, related to the production and use of fossils fuels. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels accounts for roughly 55% to 60% of global GHG emissions. Therefore, climate change should be addressed as part of an integrated agenda that enhances energy security, maintains economic prosperity, reduces pollution, and mitigates GHG emissions. In the climate change debate, energy is viewed as the problem. In reality, affordable energy provides a solution to climate change because it sustains the economic growth necessary to drive technology change and environmental protection. History has shown that poor economies do not have the resources to make protecting the environment a priority, but vibrant economies do. A smart energy policy can capitalize on this dynamic, providing clean energy to power economic growth and poverty eradication across the globe. Achieving our energy security goals through greater efficiency and a highly competitive marketplace of energy options can reduce GHG emissions. Encouraging greater energy conservation and efficient use of all forms of energy (including fossil fuels) and diversifying energy supplies (through greater use of nuclear, wind, and solar power; biofuels; flex-fuel and plug-in hybrid vehicles; clean coal; smart grid;

and other technologies) make sense from both an energy security and an environmental perspective (Figure 2). Our focus, therefore, should be on policies and technologies that produce more of these win-wins.

Environmental Issues

Air Quality. In order to protect the health and well-being of Americans, air quality standards must use the best publicly available scientific information to accurately assess the impact of the standards on affected communities and businesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state and local governments share the responsibility for regulating air quality under a complex statutory scheme in the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA imposes emissions limitations using National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under the CAA, EPA has developed NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. Using a State Implementation Plan (SIP), the NAAQS are applied to individual facilities by state and local governments.

Each SIP takes into account unique local conditions as part of its overall plan for meeting the NAAQS, including current and projected economic and population growth, traffic patterns, the types of local industries, and the effect of transported pollutants. Accordingly, implementation of NAAQS has a profound impact on the economies of localities across the nation. Failure to attain NAAQS results in severe penalties for state and local communities, including the loss of federal highway funding, restrictions on the issuance of new industrial permits, and other limitations on economic growth.

Due to the significant impacts that can result from NAAQS implementation, revisions to NAAQS should be based upon the best scientific and risk assessed information available, and should consider human health, economic impacts, and the future effects of air quality initiatives currently in place. If NAAQS are revised, their implementation should be timed to cause minimal economic harm and to take full advantage of all current efforts to improve air quality. Finally, market-based models that can be used to significantly and cost effectively reduce large percentages of pollutants are the most useful regulatory schemes. •

Support a thorough scientific evaluation of proposals to revise NAAQS.

•

Challenge the use of data and models of poor quality, as well as the use of models whose validity has not been established.

•

Support an evaluation of the impacts of any proposed NAAQS revision on the economy and human health.

•

Support and advocate market-based pollution control and abatement programs.

Climate Change. Along with world economic growth, global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. Regardless what this means for climate change, the private sector and Congress have expressed a very important common point of view, specifically: measures taken to address any stated climate change challenge —such as limiting greenhouse gas emissions to no more than double what they were in pre-industrial times—must not harm the United States economy.

If this key point of agreement continues to prevail in forthcoming Congressional debates, informed discussion may lead to an appreciation of the economic benefits and consequences of various proposed legislative courses of action. The business community is working to discourage ill-conceived climate change policies and measures that could severely damage the security and economy of the United States. At the same time, we encourage positive measures, such as long-term technological innovation and long-term clean technology deployment.

• •

Defeat proposed measures that are economically disruptive of business and industry activities. Resist ill-conceived legislation that creates regulatory and legislative obstacles to development and deployment of affordable, innovative energy technologies.

•

Encourage measures that foster long-term technological innovation aimed at addressing energy, security, and climate change challenges as well as longrange sustainability objectives.

•

Resist ill-conceived climate change policies and measures that could severely damage the security and economy of the United States.

Contaminated Lands. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted in 1980, created the Superfund, a pool of money to be used for remediating contaminated properties. However, the Superfund program is slow, ineffective, very expensive, and has managed to address very few sites. Historically, a relatively small percentage of money in the Superfund program is actually applied to site cleanup. Rather, the funds are used to pay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 5,000 Superfund employees and litigation costs related to Superfund. Businesses interested in redeveloping these sites are often prevented from doing so, even if they in no way contributed to the contamination, by unreasonable liability and cleanup standards that have raised

the average cost of cleanup to more than $20 million per site, much of it in legal fees. As a result, more than 20 years after CERCLA's enactment, cleanup is only now concluding at the original Superfund sites. At numerous other sites, cleanup has only just begun. The result is a continued glut of contaminated properties. Passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) has started the process of needed reform. However, its protections only provide part of the solution, and do not fully address lingering liabilities at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are covered by the corrective action provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The failure to fully cover these RCRA sites continues to be a needless deterrent for the transfer and redevelopment of distressed urban properties known as brownfields. •

Encourage the creation, development, and enhancement of state response programs for the rapid and efficient cleanup of contaminated sites.

•

Work to enact comprehensive Superfund reform legislation.

•

Work to implement the SBLRBRA and to include increased funding for brownfields cleanups.

•

Fight to ensure that cleanups completed under state brownfields programs are final, and that EPA reexamination of the sites is prohibited if the final cleanups are in compliance with state law.

•

Work to expand SBLRBRA type protections to RCRA corrective action facilities.

•

Continue to lead the fight against reinstatement of the Superfund tax.

Water Quality. Since Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, America's water quality has continuously improved as U.S. businesses have spent more than $50 billion annually to monitor and control water pollution. The result is that America's water resources are their healthiest in generations. Several initiatives, with significant economic impacts, have been proposed to attempt further purification of water quality. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program would severely restrict local economic growth by limiting the ability of companies to construct new, or expand existing, facilities in certain locations with already impaired waters. A June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report questioned the design of the TMDL program and called for a more science-based approach. Similarly, a rule on non-point source pollution would lead to the marginal cleanup of some water bodies, but at a staggering cost, while efforts to target storm water runoff have so far been misguided. Many state regulators, farmers, and members of Congress agree that the new regulations are unworkable and too costly. We support efforts to ensure the maintenance of water quality at levels that protect human health and well-being, as well as physical and biological aquatic

environments. Strategies to achieve these water quality levels should be based on technically sound, practicable, and achievable methods, rather than politics. The U.S. business community must ensure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not issue new water quality rules unless the costs and benefits are clearly identified. Additionally, those regulations should be flexible, efficient, and recognize the role of states to • •

Fight to ensure that any new rules issued by EPA are based on sound science and that the data used are objective, useful, and of high quality. Fight to ensure that EPA does not implement new water quality rules until the costs and benefits are clearly identified.

•

Fight to ensure that any water quality regulations are flexible, efficient, and recognize the role of states to address their own water quality issues.

•

Fight water quality requirements that are based on politics instead of science.

Energy - Back on Track One of the promises in the development and deployment of new energy technologies is the creation of “green jobs,” and it is a promise we embrace. But the sad fact is all to often these “green jobs” run afoul of “green tape.” Even more unfortunate is that many of the same groups who are thinking globally are often acting locally to stop the projects that would create jobs and reduce CO2 emissions. These "Not In My Back Yard" folks, or NIMBYs as they are called, block energy projects by organizing local opposition, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and bleeding projects dry of their financing. And far from just blocking modern coal plants; the truth is that they really don’t want a wind farm or any other energy source either. Together we can stop the NIMBYs, get these projects back on track, help our nation meet its energy needs responsibly, and start our economic recovery today. Some of those projects in our state include:

Desert Claim Wind Power Project TYPE: Wind Power Project STATUS: In progress, with opposition OPPOSITION: Kittitas County officials; local residents BACKGROUND: EnXco wants to build a wind farm on 5,200 acres, north of Ellensburg, Washington. With 95 turbines and 190-megawatts of power generating capacity, Desert Claim could generate enough power for 57,000 homes. It is a $330 million project. The project would create 160 jobs during construction and a total payroll of $3.6 million. The company hit an impasse when Kittitas County planning officials denied its application over concerns about the setback distance of the wind turbines from existing homes. The developer then decided to seek state approval. A revised proposal was submitted to Washington State officials in February 2009, calling for reductions in the number of turbines as well as the number of residences that would be within a 2,500-foot setback from the turbines. Company officials say the Desert Claim site, located on rural farmland, has “a rare combination of qualities,” with plentiful wind and proximity to a power transmission corridor. No new transmission lines would need to be built, saving $500,000 to $1 million per mile in construction costs that the company claims “otherwise would have to be passed on to ratepayers in higher utility bills.”

Three agencies, including Kittitas County, want to intervene in the siting and application process. In addition to the county, the petitioners are The Economic Development Group of Kittitas County, the county’s economic development arm, and the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Representatives of both say their petitions favor the project. The executive director for The Economic Development Group of Kittitas County said the group supports the plan because of the economic stimulus, jobs and added tax base it will provide. The Washington state Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) is considering the intervenor requests. Hearings before the EFSEC on the wind farm proposal may be conducted, at the earliest , this summer. EFSEC officials have indicated it is their hope to make a recommendation to the Governor by the end of the year. Should the council ultimately recommend that Governor Gregoire approve the Desert Claim project, it would mark the second time the state has overridden county opposition. Local residents organized a grassroots effort to defeat the project. On March 6, 2009, a Central Washington University study was released, which estimates that the Desert Claim Wind Power project would generate total economic activity of up to $17.3 million in Kittitas County during the year it is being built. The study also estimated that once completed and in operation, Desert Claim would generate $2.8 million in total economic activity in the county. STUDY: Desert Claim Wind Power Project in Washington Offers 'Economic Stimulus' – March 6, 2009 By JeraOne - http://www.jeraone.com A Central Washington University study released today estimates that the Desert Claim Wind Power project near Ellensburg, Wash., would generate total economic activity of up to $17.3 million in Kittitas County during the year it is being built. Once completed and in operation, Desert Claim would generate $2.8 million in total economic activity in the county, the study also estimated. Total economic activity represents the dollar volume of local transactions due to Desert Claim, said Richard Mack, a CWU economics professor and the study's lead researcher. The proposed Desert Claim wind farm is located about 8 miles northwest of Ellensburg on 5,200 acres of rural land crossed by three major transmission lines. enXco submitted a revised application to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) last month. With 95 turbines and 190 megawatts of power generating capacity, Desert Claim could generate enough power for 57,000 homes. "Our study shows that throughout Ellensburg and Kittitas County, you'd see benefits in new jobs, income and tax revenues because of Desert Claim," said Mack. "It would literally serve as a privately funded economic stimulus for our businesses and workers, one that should be especially welcome in today's difficult times." The study was commissioned and funded by enXco. It was conducted by professors in the Department of Economics at Central Washington University. Findings include: New jobs and income. The study estimates that construction of the project would create up to 160 new jobs in the first year and generate $3.6 million in payroll.

Once in operation, the study found that Desert Claim would provide up to 25 new jobs and $970,000 in annual payroll. Half of the new jobs would be for workers directly employed on the project, while the other half would be jobs indirectly supported by Desert Claim. New tax revenues for schools, services. In addition to new jobs and income, the study found Desert Claim would be a major source of new tax revenue. The project would generate estimated property tax revenues of more than $900,000 for local schools and services. Those tax revenues would provide new funding to the taxing districts in the first year and serve to reduce the millage rates for their levies in all subsequent years of operations. According to the study, of the more than $900,000 total, Ellensburg School District would receive nearly $340,000 in tax revenues in the first year. Similarly, the project would provide Kittitas County Fire District No. 2 with more than $210,000 in tax revenues in the first year. More than $315,000 in tax revenues would go to Kittitas County annually for police, roads, and other critical services. State schools. In addition to local tax revenues, the study found that Desert Claim would generate up to $775,000 annually for state schools. The total would come from lease payments to the state Department of Natural Resources and from state schools property taxes.

Transportation

2009 Priorities RAMP acknowledges the budget limitations of 2009 at the state and federal levle. In consideration of the fiscal requirements of the 2009 budget, RAMP offers the following transportation priorities. •

Extend SR-167. RAMP supports the development of a comprehensive approach to fund the extension of SR-167 from Puyallup to SR-509 in Tacoma, similar to the process currently being pursued for the SR-520 bridge replacement program. Specifically, this would include an analysis of whether tolling could generate enough revenue to pay for a substantial portion of the roadway.

•

Strengthen Transportation Benefit Districts. RAMP supports the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) statutory authority as potentially a useful tool for transportation funding. RAMP supports strengthening the local TBD options by granting TBDs revenue provisions and authority similar to those in the regional transportation investment district statute, as well as removing the tenyear limitation on voter-approved tax collections.

•

Prioritize transportation funding over regional governance. RAMP maintains that transportation governance revisions are secondary to the provision of adequate financial resources for transportation (both roads and transit); to that end, RAMP will support Legislative goals and recommendations that make adequate financing their top priority. RAMP believes that subarea equity is important for any regional transportation investment plan and will seek to increase Pierce County’s fair share of funding while working collaboratively with the rest of the region.

RAMP is a regional coalition including business, labor, public and private organizations and citizens dedicated to improved mobility in the South Sound and Washington State. Our mission is to ensure a healthy regional economy associated with the development of an effective, efficient transportation system and the resources to sustain it. RAMP is co-chaired by Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy, Port of Tacoma Executive Director Tim Farrell and Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber President & CEO David Graybill. For more information please contact Chelsea Levy, [email protected], (253) 627-2175

2/3/2009

Transportation Policy Positions As Tacoma-Pierce County’s primary coalition for transportation issues, RAMP will advance the area’s consensus regarding transportation projects, policies and priorities. While circumstances may require a more focused set of legislative priorities in any given year, this document reflects the long-term goals and ongoing policy positions adopted by RAMP. General Policies RAMP supports transportation policies essential to our region’s economic development, which include the following: 

RAMP supports the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) statutory authority as potentially a useful tool for transportation funding. RAMP supports strengthening the local TBD options by granting TBDs revenue provisions and authority similar to those in the regional transportation investment district statute, as well as removing the ten-year limitation on voter-approved tax collections.



RAMP maintains that transportation governance revisions are secondary to the provision of adequate financial resources for transportation (both roads and transit); to that end, RAMP will support Legislative goals and recommendations that make adequate financing their top priority. RAMP believes that subarea equity is important for any regional transportation investment plan and will seek to increase Pierce County’s fair share of funding while working collaboratively with the rest of the region.



RAMP will work to ensure that projects funded within Pierce County via the 2003 Nickel package and the 2005 Transportation Partnership package are completed as originally scheduled.



RAMP opposes container taxes that would hamper the state's competitiveness and treat maritime cargo differently from other users of our state’s transportation system. RAMP supports freight infrastructure funding mechanisms that rely on either true user fees that do not create free-riders of a given piece of infrastructure, and treat all categories of freight equally, whether that freight passes through a port or not.



RAMP supports financial incentives, such as tax credits, for new construction and infrastructure improvements on the state’s rail lines.



RAMP supports allocation of all multimodal funds to public transportation and opposes any efforts to allocate federal transit funds to highway purposes.



RAMP seeks full funding for the recommendations of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) to improve freight mobility and the state’s competitiveness.



RAMP supports keeping the state accountable for efficiencies in the construction of transportation projects by producing verifiable and quantifiable results through cost savings, project prioritization, benchmarks, planning and project streamlining.

Projects RAMP will work to develop local, regional, state and federal funding for critical transportation projects. RAMP has identified the following projects as regional priorities: 

I-5 HOV Lanes – RAMP seeks to secure full funding to complete construction of the HOV system from the King/Pierce County line south to SR 512 and SR 16 to the Nalley Valley Viaduct.



SR-167 – RAMP seeks to secure full funding for this critical link from Puyallup to Port of Tacoma Road, including right-of-way acquisition for the full-width corridor, and supports high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes being added to the portion north of Sumner.



SR-704 – RAMP is an advocate for the construction of the “Cross-Base Highway”, which will provide a critical link between Interstate 5 and the Frederickson employment center, as well as connect to 176th Street E., the major east-west corridor being improved by Pierce County which connects SR 7 and SR 161 to Interstate 5..



SR-162 – RAMP supports allocation of State funding to the SR-162 corridor between the City of Orting and SR-410 in such a manner and amount as to leverage the use of private funding being identified by the Plateau Transportation Partners for transportation improvements.



Sound Transit – RAMP supports state projects that are essential for Sound Transit’s planned service improvements, for example, the Point Defiance Bypass will enhance commuter rail service in Pierce County.



Rail Improvements – RAMP supports construction of grade separations that will serve Sounder, Tacoma Rail and Port of Tacoma infrastructure needs.



Regional Mobility Grant (WSDOT’s Office of Transit Mobility) – RAMP supports funding for proposed Pierce County projects

Policy Priorities for 2009 Let’s Rebuild America •

• • •

Engage the business community in articulating the need to secure critical capacity increases in the near term to provide speed, reliability, and cost effective service to businesses and citizens. Redefine the infrastructure debate to focus on the capacity crisis and mobilize the business community to support increased investment in transportation infrastructure. Activate the Chamber’s national grassroots networks to garner support for transportation infrastructure and industry issues. Continue to educate the media, lawmakers, and opinion leaders about the national economic contributions made by transportation industries and derived from transportation infrastructure investment.

Highways and Public Transportation •

Advocate for the swift reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU while ensuring that the federal role is defined, existing programs are reformed, wasteful spending is curbed, and federal investment in U.S. highways and transit systems is increased.

Aviation •

Advocate for Congress to quickly reauthorize the taxes, fees, and programs associated with the daily operations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on a long-term basis. The FAA has been operating under a series of extensions since its authorizing legislation expired in September 2007. Also urge Congress to work with FAA to transform our nation’s aviation system through air traffic control modernization to meet the projected growth in passengers and freight.

Ports and Inland Waterways •

Push for Congress and the administration to reinforce the federal government’s commitment to invest in the nation’s water infrastructure by acting expeditiously to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act.

Freight Rail •

Promote enactment of an infrastructure investment tax credit for the rail industry to help accommodate a projected 67% increase in freight traffic between 2000 and 2020. The railroad industry’s investment in infrastructure alone will not be enough to handle the projected increase.

Sound Transit

Sound Move achievements:

New light rail from Downtown Seattle to Sea-Tac Airport opens 2009; extension to UW opens 2016

74 miles of Sounder commuter rail with 10 stations

ST Express bus routes offer all-day, two-way service around the region

Tacoma Link light rail connects Tacoma Dome Station to Downtown Tacoma

More than $800 million invested in transit centers, HOV direct access ramps and park-and-ride lots

PugetPass easy transfer fare system Sound Transit proposes to improve and expand the regional mass transit system. The agency has been working since 1996 on the first phase of a regional mass transit system in the Central Puget Sound region that includes Link light rail, Sounder commuter trains and ST Express buses. This initial phase, called Sound Move, was approved by voters in 1996 in response to burgeoning growth and traffic problems. Sounder commuter trains currently operate in a 74-mile corridor from Everett to Tacoma, with construction of an eight-mile extension to Lakewood underway. ST Express buses operate on every major highway in the region. Link light rail serves Downtown Tacoma, and it will open for service between Seattle and Sea-Tac International Airport in 2009. Together, these services carry more than 14 million riders a year reliably around the region to jobs, shopping, school, sporting events and other places they need to go. Construction of the Link light rail extension between Downtown Seattle and the University District is expected to begin in late 2008, with service to start in 2016. Even with those investments, however, improving transportation continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing this region. Another one million people are expected to call this region home in the next 25 years. That's about a 30 percent increase in population and is more than the current combined populations of Seattle, Bellevue, Everett and Tacoma. Put another way, the population of the Central Puget Sound region is growing by more than 40,000 people per year. By the year 2030, growth will lead to a 35 percent increase in employment and a 30 percent increase in vehicle travel in the region. By 2030, the typical commuter could spend nearly an entire work week of additional time stuck in traffic. Weekday rush hour could last from breakfast through dinner, strangling the movement of traffic and freight, jeopardizing our economy, and hurting the environment. With a strong mass transit foundation in place and more growth on the way, additional investment is needed to ensure mobility for people and to help the Central Puget Sound region's transportation system run smoothly. An expanded mass transit system that builds on what we have is more important than ever. In response, Sound Transit is proposing a plan that builds on the Sound Move program called Sound Transit 2. The Sound Transit 2 Plan (ST2) would expand the existing light rail system to serve three major travel corridors. Link light rail would extend from North Seattle into Snohomish County, across Lake Washington into East King County, and south of Sea-Tac International Airport to Federal Way. ST2 would also expand Sounder commuter rail and ST Express regional bus service significantly. The ST2 Plan was developed through an open public process over a four-year period. During that period, Sound Transit coordinated closely with cities and counties and conducted substantial public outreach. With more jobs and people on the way, the time is now to continue building our transportation future.

Trade

Free Trade Agreements Since presidential Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) was restored in 2002 the United States has embarked on an unprecedented effort to open foreign markets to U.S. exports by expanding its network of free trade agreements (FTAs) with Israel and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) from the 1980's and 1990's.

The U.S. Congress has approved free trade agreements with the following countries: Implemented September 1, 1985...............................................Israel January 1, 1989.....................................................Canada (C-USFTA) January 1, 1994.....................................................Mexico (NAFTA, with Canada joining) December 17, 2001..............................................Jordan January 1, 2004.....................................................Chile January 1, 2004.....................................................Singapore January 1, 2005.....................................................Australia January 1, 2006.....................................................Morocco March 1, 2006........................................................El Salvador April 1, 2006...........................................................Nicaragua April 1, 2006...........................................................Honduras July 1, 2006............................................................Guatemala August 1, 2006......................................................Bahrain March 1, 2007........................................................Dominican Republic

Pending Implementation Costa Rica (has yet to ratify the agreement) Oman

Peru

Pending Congressional Approval (with date negotiations were concluded)

Colombia (Feb. 27, 2006 – agreement signed) Panama (Dec. 19, 2006 – agreement signed) Republic of Korea (April 1, 2007 – agreement signed) FTAs benefit U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers in significant ways. These agreements do much more to open foreign markets to U.S. exporters and investors than vice versa, because the U.S. marketplace is already one of the most open in the world. With the European Union joining East Asian and Latin American countries in negotiating dozens of FTAs, U.S. firms run the risk of being placed at a competitive disadvantage unless the United States moves forward aggressively with its own FTAs. Nonetheless, it is critical that FTAs meet certain criteria if they are to maximize their potential for business opportunities, economic growth, and new jobs. •

•

First, FTAs must be comprehensive, with all goods and services placed on the negotiating table, including sensitive products. Seeking exclusions for particular commodities from the beginning can undermine the commercial value of an FTA. Second, FTAs must be ambitious, with market-opening disciplines on services, investment, and intellectual property that go far beyond the relatively modest commitments made in the context of the World Trade Organization.