w2w-briefing book 2009 - part 1

8/14/2019 W2W-Briefing Book 2009 - Part 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/w2w-briefing-book-2009-part-1 1/66

May 17 - 20, 2009

24th Annual



Table of Contents1. Maps / Congressional Background2. 2009 Chamber Delegation Roster

3. Economy & Tax Reform4. Energy & Environmental Policy5. Transportation6. Trade7. Training and Education8. Health Care9. Military Affairs



1:

Maps &CongressionalBackground



Senator Patty Murray (1950-)



MURRAY, Patty, a Senator from Washington; born in Seattle,

King County, Wash., October 11, 1950; graduated, Washington StateUniversity 1972; education volunteer 1977-1984; instructor,

Shoreline Community College, Shoreline, Wash., 1984-1987; citizenlobbyist 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 whip1990-1992; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in1992; 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 OfficePhone: 202-224-2621Fax : 202-224-0238

Main District OfficePhone 206-553-5545Fax: 206- 553-0891

Website: www.murray.senate.gov

Senator Maria E. Cantwell (1958-)

http://www.murray.senate.gov/

http://www.murray.senate.gov/



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 OneHundred Seventh and to the four succeeding Congresses (January 3,2001-present).

Contact Information


Main District OfficePhone 425-252-3188Fax: 425-252-6606

Website: www.house.gov/larsen

Image, Congressional Pictorial

Directory, 109th.

http://www.house.gov/larsen

http://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 tothe One Hundred Fifth Congress in 1996; elected as a Democrat tothe One Hundred Sixth Congress and to the five succeedingCongresses (January 3, 1999-present).

Contact Information


Main District Office

Phone 360-695-6292Fax: 360-695-6197

Website: www.house.gov/baird


Directory, 109th.

http://www.house.gov/baird

http://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 orchardworker; member, Washington state house of representatives, 1994-2004; minority leader, 2002-2003; elected as a Republican to theOne Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses(January 3, 2005-present).

Contact Information

Washington OfficePhone: 202-225-2006

Fax : 202-225-3392


Website: www.house.gov/mcmorris

33Image, Congressional

Pictorial Directory, 109th

http://www.house.gov/mcmorris

http://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 toUnited States Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington, 1968-1976; elected as a Democrat to the Ninety-fifth and to the sixteensucceeding Congresses (January 3, 1977-present).

Contact Information



Website: www.house.gov/dicks


Directory, 109th.

http://www.house.gov/dicks

http://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 IllinoisMedical School, Chicago, Ill., 1963; residence in adult psychiatry,University of Illinois hospitals, 1964-1966; residency in child psychiatry, University of Washington hospitals, Seattle, Wash., 1966-1968; United States Navy Medical Corps, 1968-1970; psychiatrist;

faculty member, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 1970-1983; 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, 1975-1987; unsuccessful candidate for election as governor of Washingtonin 1980; unsuccessful candidate for nomination as governor of Washington in 1984; medical officer, United States Foreign Service,

1987-1988; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred First and to the ten succeedingCongresses (January 3, 1989-present); chair, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (OneHundred Third Congress).

Contact Information



Website: www.house.gov/mcdermott

Image courtesy of the Office of

the Clerk, U.S. House of

Representatives

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott

http://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., 1993-1995; member of the Washington state senate, 1991-1996; elected asa Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth and to the six succeeding

Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

Contact Information


Fax : 202-225-5893


Website: www.house.gov/adamsmith


Directory, 109th.

http://www.house.gov/adamsmith

http://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., ConcordiaLutheran 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; electedas a Republican to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two

succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

Contact Information


Fax : 202-225-4282

Main District OfficePhone 206-275-3438Fax: 206- 275-3437

Website: www.hosue.gov/reichert


Directory, 109th.

http://www.hosue.gov/reichert

http://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 WilliametteUniversity in Salem, Oregon, 1975-1977; B.A. in Economics,Georgetown University 1980; J.D., Willamette College of Law1985; attorney; member, Alaska Bar Association; AnchorageDistrict Court attorney 1987-1989; private practice 1989-1996;Mayor’s Task Force on the Homeless 1990-1991; Anchorage EqualRights Commission 1997-1998; Alaska State house of

representatives 1999-2002; appointed to the U.S. Senate onDecember 20, 2002, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of her father, Frank H. Murkowski; elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004for term ending January 3, 2011.

Contact Information


Main District Office

Phone 907-271-3735Fax: 907-276-4081

Website: www.murkowski.senate.gov

http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/

http://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. Thatmindset likely stems from his earliest days as Rep. Adam Smith’s (D-Wash.) only campaignstaffer. Bjornstad was a recent college graduate in 1990 and the “only person to respond tomy flier” looking for help, Smith said. The two rang 25,000 doorbells to get Smith, equallyyouthful 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 likethem. And we want to make sure that’s always the case.”

That’s why Bjornstad responds to Washington state constituents, executives and localofficials with what he calls “Nordstrom customer service” — aggressive, thorough assistance

much like the service offered at the noted department store, headquartered in Seattle. Theapproach is crucial to keeping Murray, who is 2,300 miles away from home when she is inthe 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 Internetlingo 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 hasworked for three Washington Members. “There’s only so much a human being can do in aday.”

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. Thereis a weekly videoconference between Murray and the state staff, and on Fridays, theSenator 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 tofocus on committee work and policy.

“At its most basic level, this job is about representing people, and Jeff always kept that inmind,” Smith said, noting that Bjornstad “was not heavy on policy. I’m very issue-oriented. Ididn’t need a chief of staff to advise me on that.”

Bjornstad’s friendly personality complemented Smith’s more measured and serious tonewhen 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 anotherrising Washington Democrat from a swing district. The chief had to hire a new staff andquickly acquaint them with his constituent-service approach, which became even moreessential 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 sothat 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 forBjornstad in the Senate, with a larger staff and more constituents, and he relies on aregimented weekly schedule to keep things moving smoothly.

The flow of information starts with Bjornstad and trickles to the rest of the Washington statedelegation, 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 thedelegation, that’s important.”

Bjornstad relishes his latest posting. “The Senate is so much better,” he said with a widesmile. “It’s a more intimate setting with just 100 Members, as opposed to 435. You actuallyhave the chance to get to know each other better.”

Bjornstad has flourished in the Senate by forging relationships with chiefs of staff from bothsides of the aisle. They talk about everything from policy negotiations to officemanagement.



“We face the same basic issues in every office,” from promotions and sick leave to internprograms 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-basedpublic relations arm of McBee Strategic Consulting, said Bjornstad’s energetic style fits wellwith the Senator.

“It’s important to demonstrate to Sen. Murray how things will affect her constituents andhow 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 throughthat filter and be prepared to answer those questions.”

Bjornstad is proud of his Washington roots. He graduated from the University of Washingtonand lived in the state while he worked for Larsen from 2001 to 2006. He has worked onlyfor Washington Members and offers no hints he would defect.

And while Smith recalled Bjornstad, as a fresh-faced staffer years ago, sharing his ownambitions 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 watercommissioner 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 helpnavigate this tricky terrain, we offer a business leader's guide to the newCapitol 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 nopolitical risk in rounding up the witches," says crisis consultant Eric Dezenhall, who likens today's Congress to acolonial Salem for corporate executives.

Capitol Hill scriptwriters, who know a compelling political narrative when they see it, have located the ideal villains inthis 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 tosuggest 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 - theS&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 thatwith an ideological power shift - Democrats who think corporate America has been pampered too long control theWhite 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 adjustingeverything 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'spopulist juice in attacking you). "The public doesn't understand data; they understand symbols and narratives," saysDezenhall. "And in this climate, people can't see past the symbols. No one wants to see company executivesenjoying themselves right now." It may not be rational to focus on the use of private jets, but this is the newWashington. 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; itsounds 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 thatyour company provides tax revenues to the Treasury. Think broadly: No lawmaker wants to be caught on camerashaking hands with a big banker today. But credit unions and community banks are still as popular as apple pie, sothey've become useful frontmen for big-bank agendas.

RULE 3 Don't wait until your name is called

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/28/news/economy/easton_congress.fortune/mailto:[email protected]

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=WFC&source=story_quote_link


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/snapshots/2578.html?source=story_f500_link


http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/28/news/economy/easton_congress.fortune/mailto:[email protected]





Lobbyists are pressing their clients to meet early and often with every member of every committee they can possiblyencounter. "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. WhileWall 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 hishands. "Think of it as a mugging," says Dezenhall. "The goal is not to get out of it with your money - it's to get outalive." The best lobbyists coach their clients to stick to a script religiously (think Obama at a press conference), avoidmaking news, and be humble and excruciatingly dull. "It's all about a conciliatory tone, saying, 'We want to work withyou,'" 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 tobe 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 atleast 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 someconservative, Blue Dog Democrats who will object to the most antibusiness pieces of the Obama agenda, thenumbers are against you. Voting power resides firmly with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose tightfisted control of thechamber has earned her the moniker "Tom DeLay in a pantsuit." (And don't let the Armani label on that wardrobe foolyou - 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 Republicanswho can either grant or deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the 60 votes he needs to pass legislation. "Thecentrist moderates will find and use their voice because of simple math," says the Chamber's Bruce Josten. Thatmeans 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.

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=How+business+can+navigate+Capitol+Hill+-+Apr.+28,+2009&expire=-1&urlID=35138403&fb=Y&url=http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/28/news/economy/easton_congress.fortune/index.htm&partnerID=2200#TOP



The Cannon House Office Building

Cannon HouseOffice BuildingPhotograph

The Cannon HouseOffice BuildingRotunda

The Cannon HouseOffice BuildingCaucus Room

The Cannon House Office Building, completed in 1908, is the oldest

congressional office building as well as a significant example of the Beaux Artsstyle of architecture. It occupies a site south of the Capitol bounded byIndependence Avenue, First Street, New Jersey Avenue, and C Street S.E.

The first congressional office buildings were constructed immediately after theturn of the century to relieve overcrowding in the Capitol. Previously, memberswho wanted office space had to rent quarters or borrow space in committeerooms. In March 1901 Congress authorized Architect of the Capitol EdwardClark to draw plans for fireproof office buildings adjacent to the Capitolgrounds. In March 1903 the acquisition of sites and construction of thebuildings were authorized. In April 1904 the prominent New York architecturalfirm of Carrère and Hastings was retained. Thomas Hastings took charge of theHouse 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 restrainedcomplements to the Capitol.

Architecturally, their elevations are divided into a rusticated base and acolonnade with an entablature and balustrade. The colonnades with thirty-fourDoric columns that face the Capitol are echoed by pilasters on the sides of thebuildings. Both buildings are faced with marble and limestone; the RussellBuilding's base and terrace are gray granite. Modern for their time, theyincluded such facilities as forced-air ventilation systems, steam heat, individuallavatories with hot and cold running water and ice water, telephones, andelectricity. Both are connected to the Capitol by underground passages.Originally there were 397 offices and fourteen committee rooms in the CannonBuilding; the 1932 remodeling resulted in 85 two- or three-room suites, 10single rooms, and 23 committee rooms.

Of special architectural interest is the rotunda. Eighteen Corinthian columnssupport an entablature and a coffered dome, whose glazed oculus floods therotunda with natural light. Twin marble staircases lead from the rotunda to animposing Caucus Room, which features Corinthian pilasters, a full entablature,and a richly detailed ceiling. The Cannon Building was occupied during the 60thCongress in January 1908. By 1913, however, the House had outgrown theavailable office space, and fifty-one rooms were added to the original structureby raising the roof and constructing a fifth floor. In 1962 the building wasnamed for former Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/chob_1.cfm



http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/chob_rotunda.cfm



http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/chob_caucus_rm_1.cfm

















The Longworth House OfficeBuilding

Longworth HouseOffice BuildingPhotograph

Completed in the spring of 1933, the Longworth House Office Building is thesecond of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives as well as a fine example of the Neo-Classical Revival stylepopular in the second quarter of the twentieth century. It occupies a site southof the Capitol bounded by Independence Avenue, New Jersey Avenue, C StreetS.E., and South Capitol Street.

Plans to provide the House of Representatives with a second office buildingwere begun in 1925. Severe overcrowding in the Cannon House Office Building(completed in 1908) led to the renovation of the Cannon Building and theconstruction of the Longworth Building. It is the smallest office building, with afloor 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 alocal firm known as The Allied Architects of Washington (Inc.). The principalarchitects were Frank Upman, Gilbert LaCoste Rodier, Nathan C. Wyeth, andLouis Justemente. They produced two schemes for a simple, dignified buildingin harmony with the rest of the Capitol Complex. In January 1929 Congressauthorized $8,400,000 for acquiring and clearing the site and for constructingthe new building. The foundations were completed in December 1930, and thebuilding was accepted for occupancy in April 1933.

Because of its position on a sloping site, the rusticated base of the LongworthBuilding varies in height from two to four stories. Above this granite base standthe three principal floors, which are faced with white marble. Ionic columnssupporting a well-proportioned entablature are used for the building's fiveporticoes, the principal one of which is topped by a pediment. Two additional

stories are partially hidden by a marble balustrade. It presents a somewhatmore restrained appearance than the neighboring Cannon Building, which wasdesigned in the more theatrical Beaux Arts style. The Longworth Building takesits place along with the National Gallery of Art (1941) and the JeffersonMemorial (1943) as one of Washington's best examples of the Neo-ClassicalRevival.

When the Longworth Building was completed, it contained 251 congressionalsuites, 5 large committee rooms, 7 small committee rooms, and a largeassembly room now used by the Ways and Means Committee. It was in thisroom, which seats 450 persons, that the House of Representatives met in 1949and 1950 while its chamber in the Capitol was being remodeled. The buildingwas named in 1962 in honor of Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who served asSpeaker of the House of Representatives (1925-1931) when the building wasauthorized.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/lhob_1.cfm









The Russell Senate Office Building

Photo of RussellSenate OfficeBuilding fromSouthwest

The Russell SenateOffice BuildingRotunda

Statue of Richard B.Russell, Jr.

The Russell SenateOffice BuildingCaucus Room

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 ConstitutionAvenue, First Street, Delaware Avenue, and C Street N.E.

The first congressional office buildings were constructed immediately after theturn of the century to relieve overcrowding in the Capitol. Previously, memberswho wanted office space had to rent quarters or borrow space in committeerooms. In March 1901 Congress authorized Architect of the Capitol EdwardClark to draw plans for fireproof office buildings adjacent to the Capitolgrounds. In March 1903 the acquisition of sites and construction of thebuildings were authorized. The Senate Office Building Commission selected asite

In April 1904 the prominent New York architectural firm of Carrère and

Hastings was retained. John Carrère took charge of the Senate Office Buildingproject, while Thomas Hastings oversaw the construction of an almost identicaloffice 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 acolonnade with an entablature and balustrade. The colonnades with thirty-fourDoric columns that face the Capitol are echoed by pilasters on the sides of thebuildings. Both buildings are faced with marble and limestone; the RussellBuilding's base and terrace are gray granite. Modern for their time, theyincluded such facilities as forced-air ventilation systems, steam heat, individuallavatories with hot and cold running water and ice water, telephones, andelectricity. 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 columnssupport an entablature and a coffered dome, whose glazed oculus floods therotunda with natural light. Twin marble staircases lead from the rotunda to animposing Caucus Room, which features Corinthian pilasters, a full entablature,and a richly detailed ceiling; the Russell Caucus Room retains its original 1910benches and settles with carved eagles. This space has been used for manyhearings 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 itscompletion resulted in the addition of a fourth side, the First Street Wing, tothe originally U-shaped building. Nathan Wyeth and Francis P. Sullivan were theconsulting architects for the new wing, which was completed in 1933. In 1972the building was named for former Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/rsob_1.cfm




http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/rsob_rotunda.cfm



http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/russell_stat.cfm


http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/rsob_caucus_rm.cfm




















The Dirksen Senate Office Building

Dirksen SenateOffice BuildingPhotograph

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

Despite past efforts to accommodate the needs of the Senate, including theconstruction and expansion of the Russell Senate Office Building, the growth of staff and committees in the 1930s and 1940s prompted efforts to provide theSenate with additional space. In 1941 the Senate Office Building Commissiondirected the Architect of the Capitol, David Lynn, to prepare preliminary plansand cost estimates for an additional office building. The site east of the RussellBuilding was acquired and cleared in 1948-1949, and New York architects OttoR. Eggers and Daniel Paul Higgins were engaged to prepare the preliminaryplans.

Eggers and Higgins submitted a plan for a simple, seven-story building faced inmarble. Each committee room was designed with a committee rostrum androom for reporters and witnesses. Features incorporated into the design of thebuilding, which reflected the modern advances of the time, included anauditorium seating approximately five hundred persons and equipped withradio, television, motion picture, recording, and broadcasting facilities; acafeteria seating seven hundred persons; a telephone exchange system; aparking garage for two hundred cars; and a fluorescent lighting system. Theoriginal subway system, which had been installed in 1909, was expanded to adouble-track system in a new tunnel to the Russell and Dirksen Buildings.

The final plans and specifications were approved by the Senate Office BuildingCommission in 1949, but construction was delayed until 1954. As a result of the delay and increasing costs, it became necessary to delete the entire interiorcenter 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. Theground-breaking exercises for the Dirksen Building, named in 1972 for formerMinority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen, were held in January 1955, and thebuilding was occupied in October 1958.

The principal (First Street) elevation was designed with a pilastered central baywith an entablature and pediment. The bronze doors at the north and southentrances were designed by Otto R. Eggers and modeled by the Rochette andParzini Corporation. In the center are the American Eagle and symbolsrepresenting Equality and Liberty. Five figures on the spandrels of the windowsrepresent shipping, farming, manufacturing, mining, and lumbering.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/dsob_1.cfm









The Hart Senate Office Building

Hart Senate OfficeBuildingPhotograph

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 sitebounded by Constitution Avenue, C Street, First Street, and Second StreetN.E., it adjoins the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 toexperience a strain on its existing office facilities and initiated the process thatled to the creation of the Hart Building. In 1972 the Senate Office BuildingCommission authorized Architect of the Capitol George M. White to commissionJohn Carl Warnecke & Associates to prepare studies. In addition to satisfyingspace and design requirements, the architects were required to preserve theneighboring 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 theDirksen Senate Office Building (the extension would later be named the HartSenate Office Building). The design included suites for fifty senators, with overone million square feet of interior space, including three floors of garage andservice facilities, eight floors of offices, and a mechanical equipment floor atthe top. A central atrium provides offices and corridors with light in an energy-efficient manner. To allow flexible office space design, Warnecke introduced atwo-story "duplex suite," consisting of a Senator's office with traditionalsixteen-foot ceilings and two staff levels that can be easily rearranged by theuse of demountable partitions.

Excavation began in December 1975, and in August 1976 the building wasnamed 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 aluminumclouds, the largest of which weighs 1 ton, are suspended from the roof,revolving above the 39-ton steel mountains.

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/hsob_1.cfm









2:

ChamberDelegation

List



Tacoma-Pierce County ChamberWashington to Washington D.C.

Delegation 2009

Doug Richardson City of Lakewood Mayor Dick Marzano Port Commissioner

Stephanie Bowman Port of TacomaGary Brackett Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber

Jeff Brown BCRCJake Fey Tacoma City CouncilDon Gallion Boeing Company

David Graybill Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Kathy Hanna CH2M HillHans Hechtman Comcast

Norm LeMay LeMay EnterprisesSpiro Manthou City of TacomaToby Murray Murray Pacific CompanyJohn Parrott Totem Ocean

Marilyn Strickland Tacoma City Council

Mike Weinman Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Liz Warman Boeing Company

Eddie Westmoreland 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 periodto 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



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 allstages 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 beginsin 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. Thesestudies reflect that there is a great need for children to enter kindergarten preparedto learn. Unfortunately, too few young children today are in fact prepared with thesetools. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes that to begin to address this issue of maximizing educational effectiveness, while remaining fiscally responsible, theremust be far greater coordination among the existing patchwork of federal, state,local, and private early childhood programs. Through these efforts, states andlocalities should strive to provide access to high quality programs for all children.

These programs should include a strong family engagement component to facilitateearly 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 qualitystandards are maintained.

Improving College Readiness. High school students must graduate with ameaningful high school diploma that prepares them to enter and succeed inpostsecondary education programs. Too often, this is not the case as demonstratedby the fact that 40 percent of all college students end up taking at least one non-credit or developmental course. This not only creates additional barriers forstudents to complete a postsecondary education, it also presents additional andunnecessary costs for both students and taxpayers. Therefore, there must be betteralignment between high school graduation requirements, state academic

achievement standards, and postsecondary entrance requirements. Such alignmentwill increase understanding of what is needed to transition from high school topostsecondary education and increase the likelihood of student success onceadmitted. Alignment is also necessary between postsecondary education andemployer expectations.

Developing a Business-Driven Employment and Training System. Thepurpose of a national employment and training system is to help increase



opportunities for individuals to prepare for and find employment and to provideinvestment in an educated, skilled, and adaptable workforce able to meet the needsof 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 tomaximize efficiencies in the delivery of services and for targeting services tomeet local needs. Flexibility should also be provided in the types of servicesprovided, such as enabling the provision of incumbent working training basedupon career ladder progression or retention and the use of technology as astrategy to leverage increased learning. Also, training needs to be futurefocused 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 uponaccurate and timely local labor market data.

• Market Oriented: Actual employment and training services should be

offered in a fully competitive environment. Business and trainingorganizations, community based organizations, private and for-profit trainingproviders, community colleges and other organizations should all have theopportunity to compete for the ability to provide services. Eligibility tocompete should be based on performance in meeting employer needs forqualified, employable persons and on conformance with professionalstandards for employment and training programs. Program design mustconcentrate on the development of useful and demonstrated skills andassure assimilation of the trainee directly into the workplace. Individual

trainees should have maximum choice among the eligible employment andtraining 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 alsoreflect the effectiveness of the local public-private partnerships that comprisethe 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 andopen up wide swaths of the economy to union organizing, especially smallbusiness.

• Existing law honors a worker’s right to a private ballot. Currently,workers sign cards indicating interest in an election. The union and theemployer then have a chance to make their case before workers vote in afederally 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 CardCheck, if more than 50 percent of workers at a facility sign a card, theNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would have to certify the union, and aprivate ballot election would be prohibited, even if workers want one.Seventy-one percent of voters agree that a private election is better thancard check.

• Card Check would give union organizers free rein to pressureworkers into joining unions, potentially subjecting them tointimidation and abuse.

• Under a Card Check organizing campaign, a union has no obligation

to tell an employer it is launching an organizing drive. An employermay not find out an organizing campaign is underway until ordered by thefederal government to start collective bargaining.

• Card Check could force companies to let government arbitratorsdecide how their business operates. Card Check would send companiesinto binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement with the union on aninitial contract after 120 days. This means a panel of government arbitrators

with no understanding of the business would impose a two-year contractwhich would decide all workplace terms without any review by the companyor its employees. Because this package will always be more than theemployer is prepared to offer, the company will always lose. Seventy-fivepercent of voters believe government arbitrators shouldn’t decide theconditions 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, wouldeffectively 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 bargainingagreement were not reached within as little as 130 days. The government-

appointed 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 arenot 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



Energy & The

Environment



Energy and the Environment

Background. Energy powers our economy and our lives—without it, we are quiteliterally 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 self-inflicted 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 themarket. 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 bestsuited 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



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 andappliances 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 newadministration 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 improveenvironmental stewardship at home and abroad without sacrificing jobs and growth.

We must address the impact of our growing energy consumption on theenvironment 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. Energyefficiency 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 legislativeobstacles to development and deployment of affordable, innovative energytechnologies.

• Encourage measures that foster long-term technological innovation aimed at

addressing energy, security, and climate change challenges as well as long-range sustainability objectives.

• Resist ill-conceived climate change policies and measures that could severelydamage 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, theSuperfund program is slow, ineffective, very expensive, and has managed toaddress very few sites. Historically, a relatively small percentage of money in theSuperfund program is actually applied to site cleanup. Rather, the funds are used topay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 5,000 Superfund employeesand litigation costs related to Superfund. Businesses interested in redevelopingthese sites are often prevented from doing so, even if they in no way contributed tothe 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 legalfees. As a result, more than 20 years after CERCLA's enactment, cleanup is only nowconcluding at the original Superfund sites. At numerous other sites, cleanup hasonly 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 finalcleanups 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'swater quality has continuously improved as U.S. businesses have spent more than$50 billion annually to monitor and control water pollution. The result is thatAmerica'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 marginalcleanup 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, andrecognize 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.



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 KittitasCounty 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 theintervenor 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 arecommendation to the Governor by the end of the year. Should the council ultimatelyrecommend that Governor Gregoire approve the Desert Claim project, it would mark the secondtime the state has overridden county opposition.

Local residents organized a grassroots effort to defeat the project. On March 6, 2009, a CentralWashington 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 duringthe year it is being built. The study also estimated that once completed and in operation, DesertClaim 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 isbeing 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 DesertClaim, 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 landcrossed by three major transmission lines. enXco submitted a revised application to the state Energy Facility SiteEvaluation Council (EFSEC) last month. With 95 turbines and 190 megawatts of power generating capacity, DesertClaim 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 taxrevenues 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 Economicsat 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 firstyear and generate $3.6 million in payroll.

http://www.jeraone.com/





Once in operation, the study found that Desert Claim would provide up to 25 new jobs and $970,000 in annualpayroll. Half of the new jobs would be for workers directly employed on the project, while the other half would be jobsindirectly supported by Desert Claim.

New tax revenues for schools, services. In addition to new jobs and income, the study found Desert Claim would be amajor 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 intax 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 thefirst 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 $775,000annually for state schools. The total would come from lease payments to the state Department of Natural Resourcesand from state schools property taxes.



Transportation



2009 Priorities

RAMP acknowledges the budget limitations of 2009 at the state and federal levle. Inconsideration of the fiscal requirements of the 2009 budget, RAMP offers the followingtransportation 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 tothe process currently being pursued for the SR-520 bridge replacement program.Specifically, this would include an analysis of whether tolling could generateenough 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 usefultool for transportation funding. RAMP supports strengthening the local TBDoptions 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.

• Prioritize transportation funding over regional governance. RAMP

maintains that transportation governance revisions are secondary to theprovision of adequate financial resources for transportation (both roads andtransit); to that end, RAMP will support Legislative goals and recommendationsthat make adequate financing their top priority. RAMP believes that subareaequity is important for any regional transportation investment plan and will seekto increase Pierce County’s fair share of funding while working collaborativelywith 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 Soundand Washington State. Our mission is to ensure a healthy regional economy associated with the development of an effective, efficient transportationsystem and the resources to sustain it. RAMP is co-chaired by Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy, Port of Tacoma Executive Director Tim Farrelland Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber President & CEO David Graybill.For more information please contact Chelsea Levy, [email protected], (253) 627-2175



Transportation Policy Positions

As Tacoma-Pierce County’s primary coalition for transportation issues, RAMP will advance thearea’s consensus regarding transportation projects, policies and priorities. While circumstancesmay require a more focused set of legislative priorities in any given year, this document reflectsthe long-term goals and ongoing policy positions adopted by RAMP.

General Policies

RAMP supports transportation policies essential to our region’s economic development, whichinclude the following:

RAMP supports the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) statutory authority as potentially auseful tool for transportation funding. RAMP supports strengthening the local TBD options by granting TBDs revenue provisions and authority similar to those in the regionaltransportation investment district statute, as well as removing the ten-year limitation onvoter-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, RAMPwill support Legislative goals and recommendations that make adequate financing their top priority. RAMP believes that subarea equity is important for any regional transportationinvestment plan and will seek to increase Pierce County’s fair share of funding whileworking 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 originallyscheduled.

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

2/3/2009



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

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

RAMP seeks full funding for the recommendations of the Freight Mobility StrategicInvestment 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 regionalpriorities:

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 tothe Nalley Valley Viaduct.

SR-167 – RAMP seeks to secure full funding for this critical link from Puyallup toPort of Tacoma Road, including right-of-way acquisition for the full-width corridor,and supports high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes being added to the portionnorth 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 Fredericksonemployment center, as well as connect to 176th Street E., the major east-westcorridor being improved by Pierce County which connects SR 7 and SR 161 toInterstate 5..

SR-162 – RAMP supports allocation of State funding to the SR-162 corridorbetween the City of Orting and SR-410 in such a manner and amount as toleverage 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 Bypasswill enhance commuter rail service in Pierce County.

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

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



Policy Priorities for 2009

Let’s Rebuild America

• Engage the business community in articulating the need to secure critical capacityincreases 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 transportationinfrastructure 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 federalinvestment 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 totransform our nation’s aviation system through air traffic control modernization to meetthe 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 toreauthorize 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. Therailroad 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 workingsince 1996 on the first phase of a regional mass transit system in the Central Puget Sound region that includes Linklight rail, Sounder commuter trains and ST Express buses. This initial phase, called Sound Move, was approved byvoters 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 aneight-mile extension to Lakewood underway. ST Express buses operate on every major highway in the region. Linklight rail serves Downtown Tacoma, and it will open for service between Seattle and Sea-Tac International Airport in2009. 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 beginin late 2008, with service to start in 2016.

Even with those investments, however, improving transportation continues to be one of the biggest challenges facingthis region.

Another one million people are expected to call this region home in the next 25 years. That's about a 30 percentincrease 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 travelin 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 toensure mobility for people and to help the Central Puget Sound region's transportation system run smoothly. Anexpanded 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. TheSound Transit 2 Plan (ST2) would expand the existing light rail system to serve three major travel corridors. Link lightrail would extend from North Seattle into Snohomish County, across Lake Washington into East King County, andsouth of Sea-Tac International Airport to Federal Way. ST2 would also expand Sounder commuter rail and STExpress 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 andpeople 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

w2w-briefing book 2009 - part 1

Documents