Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this underlying bill. It reminds me, as I listen to this debate, of debates around the Vietnam War. I remember a village that was napalmed by a military unit, and the officer who had them do it, he was asked why he did it. He said, well, I destroyed it to save it. Now that's the argument we are hearing today on Medicare. We have to destroy it to save it. Now ask yourself--and there are a lot of people watching, Madam Chairman. If I were sitting at home trying to figure out what's this all about, well, why would Representative Ryan suggest that a voucher system is the way to save Medicare because of the rising costs? Everyone knows that the costs of Medicare and medication and health care in this country are totally out of control. Now, President Obama came up with a plan which he brought out here. It wasn't like he created something that nobody had ever thought about before in the whole United States. He looked at the State of Massachusetts. It's been a place where a lot of great things have come from. And he saw what Governor Romney, a Republican, a Republican thought that we ought to have a universal plan for Massachusetts, and so they passed the law and they covered everybody in Massachusetts. Now, then came the question: Once you have got access for everybody, how do you control the costs? Well, then the problems developed. And the problem was they found in Massachusetts they didn't have enough primary care physicians. Now, what does that have to do with it? That's what this bill is about. This bill is about the training of primary care physicians. What everybody in this country needs is a physician that knows them and is a medical home. When they get sick, they go to that person. The doctor knows them. If they need some preventive care, the doctor takes care of it. The doctor does it in a very cost efficient way, before the catastrophes. Now, for the many people in this country who don't have a primary care physician, they sit at home and say, well, I've got to wait until I am really, really sick, and then they go to the emergency room. Now, if you have your blood pressure monitored and you take medication, you can live a long life; but if you don't, you are very likely to wind up with a stroke. Now, we spend millions of dollars in hospitals on stroke victims that could have been prevented by good primary care. And we say to ourselves, well, why don't we have more primary care physicians? Well, because the health care system is designed to take care of people after the big event. After they have got the cancer, we will spend millions of dollars on cancer treatment. We will spend millions of dollars on heart problems, on all these things where prevention could have prevented it all and cost less. That's what every industrialized country in the world has done. It's why the Swiss are able to provide universal coverage to everybody in Switzerland for a little over one half of what we spend in the United States. Because they provide good preventive care in the form of general practice, general medicine. That's true in England, in Norway, in Canada, in every other country except the United States, where we are dominated by specialists. Now, in this country, if you get sick or you have a pain, if you don't have a primary care physician, a doctor who knows you, you call up your friends and you say, I've got a pain in my leg. What should I do? And they say, well, I saw an orthopedic surgeon, and his name is such, and so you go to a specialist. And that specialist looks at your leg. He doesn't look at all the rest of you. He doesn't know what's going on with you. He doesn't know your whole history. When I started in medical school, the maxim we were taught at the very beginning was: Listen to the patient. He is telling you what's the matter with him. And everybody knows that doctors are running on a conveyor belt today, one right after another, no time to listen because we have not invested in primary care physicians. Now, the average kid going to medical school would like to take care of people; but when he comes out, or she comes out, they are $250,000 in debt. This bill is making that problem worse and, therefore, is bad for Grandma and everybody else.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Timothy Egan today because I, and countless other readers, have learned so much from his first-rate reporting and his terrific books. In well-deserved acknowledgement of Mr. Egan's ongoing contributions to our civic discourse and public understanding, the Rainier Club, one of Seattle's oldest urban institutions, has named Mr. Egan its ``Artist Laureate for 2011.'' Many in this chamber will recognize Mr. Egan's byline as the Northwest Correspondent of The New York Times. He is a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist whose insightful reporting and opinion pieces exemplify outstanding journalism. Even more remarkably, Mr. Egan's talents, and achievements, are not limited to newspaper reporting. Hardly. His six successful books include five works of non-fiction (The Good Rain, Breaking Blue, Lasso the Wind, The Worst Hard Time, and The Big Burn) as well as a novel (The Winemaker's Daughter). Mr. Egan's books are great reads--his subjects range from the distinctive qualities of the Northwest region and an unsolved Spokane murder case to the powerful mythology of the American West and most recently, an early twentieth century wildfire that triggered permanent and far-reaching changes in land management policy and attitude. In 2006, Mr. Egan published perhaps his best-known book, The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dustbowl, for which he received the National Book Award. This is a powerful account of a truly critical episode in our country's history. Mr. Egan details the almost incomprehensible hardships endured by those American families who fought to survive the Dust Bowl of the Thirties, and in so doing, he brings his subjects and their circumstances fully to life. His newest book, The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America, recounts the story of the devastating 1910 wildfire in the Rocky Mountain high country that claimed nearly 100 lives and changed forever our commitment to protect our public lands and their precious resources. His research is painstaking, and his commitment to the story unfaltering. Through his lens, we better understand ourselves and our relationship to the natural world. In addition to the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding newspaper reporting and the National Book Award, Mr. Egan has twice received the Washington State Book Award and the Pacific Northwest Booksellers' Award. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the honoring of Tim Egan's lifetime achievements, the Rainier Club celebrates a son of Seattle who has reached millions with words of purpose and meaning. I extend to him my congratulations and my appreciation. Thank you.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in the recent months, taxes and spending have become a central topic in our national debate. How much federal income tax people pay and what those taxes pay for is not well understood by many Americans. Very little information about how tax revenues are spent is ever made available to the American people. This results in significant misinformation. For example, a Washington Post and Kaiser Foundation poll found that by a margin of two to one, Americans believe that the federal government spends more on foreign aid than on either Social Security or Medicare. This is why I am reintroducing the Taxpayer Receipt Act of 2011. This bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to provide each taxpayer with a simple annual statement explaining how his or her federal income tax dollars were spent. In the previous session I introduced this bill to bring transparency to government spending. Today, in tandem with the President's launch of the official federal taxpayer receipt, I will reintroduce this legislation to require by law that this critical information be provided to the American people for years to come. The taxpayer receipt act provides an unbiased objective receipt that details federal spending based on the same budget functions used in the appropriations process and rarely changed. This ensures accuracy and consistency from year to year, to ensure that the tax receipt is used to inform the American people objectively and not be used as a political document. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Information is the currency of democracy.'' To that end, providing Americans with information and transparency on government spending is essential to maintaining the strength and health of our democracy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker pro tempore, there's a joke going around in Congress: the difference between a Boy Scout troop and the House of Representatives is that a Boy Scout troop has adult leadership. Now, I predicted a shutdown of this place more than a month ago, not because I'm some kind of prophet but because I saw the movie of the Gingrich shutdown in 1996. The same elements are here today that were there then. I don't want a shutdown. I know what it does. I think it's silly and stupid and hard on the American people and a lot of people are going to suffer, but the elements are there. First of all, a number of Members came in new, a lot of them, who were absolutely sure that they knew what was right. Secondly, they had no experience in governing. They didn't understand compromise. ``Compromise'' was a dirty word. It meant you give up your principles. If you operate on that principle, you can never negotiate a settlement in anything. What they don't understand is that there is a time when you take what you can get and come back tomorrow. Everybody who has been here for more than one term knows that nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. I have been here in this place for 23 years, and I have gotten 60 percent and I figure I'm a big winner. Now, you come back the next year for the rest. We're doing that on the health care bill. We're doing that on a whole lot of things. You do not get it all now by saying, It's my way or the highway. No, every battle is not to the death. The only hope I had for us was that our leadership on the Republican side had been here in 1996. They saw what happened. And 2 years later the Republicans lost seats, 2 years after that they lost seats, and the Speaker, Gingrich, was gone, he's history, on the basis of coming in here and saying, My way or the highway. Now, if you think this is the big battle, let me give you the real facts: In 5 weeks we're going to come to the debt limit. If you think people who believe that their way is the right way are going to fight over what's going on right now, what is it going to be like when we get to the debt limit, or by September when we get to the next budget resolution? We could have three shutdowns this year with no problem at all if the leadership on the other side allows their Members to drive them into this craziness. They have to stand up and tell them, Look, guys, there is a tomorrow; all right? We're hurting people and they're going to remember. People are not going to forget what happens here. They didn't forget in 1998, and they didn't forget in 2000. They kept whacking away at the people who were in charge. Now, what's it all about here? It's not about money. H.R. 1 was $101 billion. Okay. The President has come all the way to $71 billion or $73 billion. That's more than halfway. The Republicans won that issue. Take it. Take it. No, no, they say, but we have to change social policy. This is really about social policy. It's not about winning or cutting down the deficit or any of that stuff. It is just as it was in Wisconsin. It was not about the deficit in Wisconsin; it was about breaking unions. The judge said that. That's why he threw the law out, because, he said, you're taking away people's rights in unions; you're not here worrying about the deficit in Wisconsin. Well, here the issue was NPR. Now, if we took NPR off the radio tomorrow morning, do you think the deficit would be one bit affected? Of course not. If we got rid of the EPA, would there be some effect on the deficit? No. In fact, the Senate, they took the EPA repeal off the table. They said, Look, rich people breathe the air; rich people drink the same water as everybody else in the country. That's a stupid public policy change. So we're not going to take that one. What was left? Family planning, abortion, poor women. Now, there's a bunch that can't fight back. Let's go get 'em. Let's hold out and we will finally get the poor women in this country. That's what this is about. It is not about balancing the budget. It is not about anything else except getting poor people.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republicans ran on a jobs agenda; but so far this Congress, they have not done one thing to help Americans find jobs. For 14 weeks, they have been running the House with not one mention of jobs. The Republicans have put their budget proposal out now, and now we have their real agenda: a radically ideological plan to protect giveaways to corporations and to attack the elderly, the poor, women and children of the country. Reaganomics drove this country to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1980s. Reaganomics drove the world economy to the brink again in the Bush years, and now the Republicans are trying for a third time to impose their intolerance and everyone-for- themselves economics on the American people. We need to be fiscally responsible. I think there are things moderate Republicans and Democrats can agree on, but the Republican plan is to dismantle the social safety net of this country. This is a debate we should have. Republicans often chuckle that winning at politics is worth the cost to their conscience of being straight with the public. I think we need to let citizens come to their own conclusions by giving them some facts. And here are some indisputable facts about the Republican budget plan: First, the Republican budget has mostly fictitious numbers. The media has picked up on the Republican number of ``$6 trillion in savings'' like catnip, but the Republicans made up most of the numbers of the plan to get there. To create this big number, the Republicans ignored the Congressional Budget Office. That's quite a strategy. If the nonpartisan budget scorekeepers don't say what the Republicans want, the Republicans just ignore it and make up their own numbers. Secondly, the Republicans' answer to the people in need is to dismantle Medicaid and leave health care for the poor to the States. The Republicans will drop millions of low-income people, children, seniors, disabled, and pregnant women off their rolls. Not only that, those patients that are left on the rolls will get a different kind of care from State to State, and some of that care is very bare bones. You shouldn't have to care about where you live if you are poor, elderly or a child in this country. There are some States that you don't want to live in. Third, the Republican plan does nothing, not one thing, about the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks American people give corporations every single year. The Republican plan even cuts more for the superrich in this country. Republicans say they don't like to pick winners and losers. But they pick winners and losers all the time when they give money to oil companies and Wall Street and then push the disabled people living in poverty off the Medicaid health insurance. And the Republican Party does nothing, not one thing, about the defense budget. Iraq is winding down, Afghanistan is winding down, and Libya will be over shortly, but they don't take one thin dime out of the defense budget. They can't find anything to save anyplace. Now, the American people need to know the facts. The fact is that if we restored the fair Clinton-era tax rates, what we had in effect before 2000, and kept all other spending at the same point, our deficit drops by two-thirds. That's where we are today. In 10 years, it drops by two-thirds. That's a simple plan that is very doable without destroying the safety net in this country, without going after all the poor and the dispossessed in this country. We still have to work to lower the deficit even more. We need the right priorities. And the right priorities should be figuring out more ways to save on health care spending. We spend too much for too little results. If we don't deal with health care costs, this deficit is going to be very tough to deal with. But the Republican plan is to demonize poor people and union workers. Take a good look at Wisconsin. You'd think all the problem in Wisconsin was because of school teachers. Now, that blaming everyone else for the economic disaster is simply to avoid the admission of what they have done. The Republicans take zero responsibility for their disastrous policies and then say the situation they created is the reason why we need to implement every form of their radically failed philosophy. It's cynical. It's ugly politics. And it's the Republican strategy. Consider what they're doing to seniors. They're saying to seniors: Now you have a set of guaranteed benefits. We're going to take it away and give you a voucher. Go look for some health insurance. And good luck.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act includes key provisions to increase availability of primary care doctors. For example, it will pay a 10 percent Medicare bonus, expand loan forgiveness programs and create flexibility within the National Health Service Corps. However, and underlying persistent problem exists in Medicare that must be corrected if we are to make primary care sustainable. No single factor is driving the workforce crisis in medicine more than the income gap between certain procedure-heavy specialists and primary care/cognitive specialists. Last October the Wall Street Journal published an expose of the American Medical Association's Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, also known as the ``RUC''. For two decades the RUV, a specialist-dominated panel, has encouraged national health care reimbursement policies that financially undervalue the essential and complex work of primary care providers and cognitive specialists, while favoring sometimes unnecessarily complex, costly and excessive specialty medical services. This imbalance drives results down for patients and drives medical costs even higher. The RUC's votes are not open to the public, yet Medicare has mostly rubber-stamped the RUC's recommendations over 90 percent of the time. Since the creation of the RUC in 1991, the income disparity between primary care versus procedure-heavy specialists has exploded. Today, I'm introducing a bill called the, ``Medicare Physician Payment Transparency and Assessment Act of 2011'' that will put a transparent light on the way CMS identifies and values health care services. My bill would add public and transparent data collected from independent analysts to compare to the RUC's recommendations. It would also use independent analytic contractors to conduct surveys and collect data for physician services paid under Medicare and to annually identify services that may be over or under-valued. I am proud to note that this bill is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Society of General Internal Medicine. It's time we let taxpayers, the citizens who pay the bills for Medicare, see for themselves how Medicare decides how much to pay doctors and for what.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republican follies go on. The Republicans have done nothing in their 13 weeks in charge of this House to help Americans get jobs, nothing to open markets for businesses to expand, nothing to open up markets overseas for American workers and businesses to compete more fairly. While they hold the economy hostage to their cultural war agenda, maybe we could do something to help the American people. I rise today in support of the effort to defeat the previous question so that we can take a first step toward addressing the egregious imbalance between China's currency and our own. For too long, the Chinese have been playing unfairly in the international trade arena, and this Congress has to send a clear message that China must become a responsible player in multilateral trade. The Chinese export-driven strategy is smart, but subsidizing it by suppressing their currency is an unfair way to do it. This effort is a good step, and we should follow up by working together with our trading partners to bring a multilateral WTO case against China on the currency issue. This commonsense legislation helps the Commerce Department do a fairer job for making the multilateral mechanisms more available to U.S. businesses. We must send a clear signal with this legislation that the American people respect international agreements and expect fairness. After years of an unlevel playing field, it is time to act; and this motion to defeat it and bring it to the floor is the right kind of measured first step we can take now. I hope the Republicans will join us in helping this economy. I am tired of reading the Constitution and all the silly things we have done for the last 13 weeks. When are we going to see anything having to do with job creation?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there should be a family doctor for every American family. That shouldn't be hard in the richest country in the world, but it's not a reality for too many Americans. There is nothing worse than having to worry about how you are going to pay for something that you absolutely need like health care. That is why for the past century, leaders from Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton to President Obama have tried to advance varying forms of comprehensive health care reform. At every opportunity conservatives have warned that ensuring comprehensive care would be the end of freedom and usher in a new era of socialism. Despite this alarmism, Medicare passed in 1965 and thank God for that. Seniors and others such as people suffering from diseases like End Stage Renal Disease have a low cost way of accessing high quality of care. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last year, the promise of more access and fairer rules are being realized for all Americans. We have more to do, though. There has been a lot of attention made towards the supposed lack of flexibility in the ACA. States argue, correctly in my view, that they are in the best position to evaluate and address the specific needs of their communities. The ACA gives states a great deal of flexibility, but some states believe they can build on it to do even more to expand access, lower costs and raise the quality of health care. For example, in Vermont, there is a grassroots movement that has swept into the State House to move the State of Vermont towards a single payer system. The people in Vermont are fed up with insurance companies and want more progress. They think it's ridiculous and shameful for insurance companies to post their highest profit margins ever this year while also charging higher premiums to consumers. The American Health Security Act I am introducing today would give states the ability to increase quality and get control of costs by taking out the profiteering middle-man--insurance companies--and letting doctors focus on what they do best: treat patients. I believe this bill builds on the ACA by offering states an excellent option in moving our country towards a health care system that finally puts the patient first.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today is St. Patrick's Day--a day that is universally associated with good luck. Calling on my Irish heritage, I would like to convey continued good luck to the University of Washington men's basketball team. This past weekend they won the Pac-10 Championship and tomorrow they seek to continue their run in the NCAA tournament when they open against the University of Georgia. Good luck and go Dawgs.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduced legislation that would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to grant State waivers from certain Federal requirements under the foster care and adoption programs, so States can test innovative strategies to serve children better. Representative Geoff Davis (R-KY) is an original cosponsor of the bill. The legislation is identical to the bill I introduced in September 2010, which passed the House last fall by voice vote. Child welfare waivers will allow interested States to test interventions that help children and families, but they are only a first step toward the comprehensive child welfare financing reform that began with the Fostering Connections Act of 2008. Additional resources and improvements are needed to ensure we provide critical services to all children and families at risk. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve this important goal.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I am here to report that the Republican follies continue today. Today, we were scheduled to debate the Republicans' proposal to terminate the President's foreclosure prevention program called HAMP. But late last night, the Republican leadership decided to postpone debate until after returning from the recess. As the country faces a number of problems, including a serious housing crisis, the House Republican leadership decided that today wasn't the best time to terminate a program that has helped more than half a million homeowners stay in their homes. See, tomorrow, the House will close up shop until March 28, and Republicans recognize that killing a foreclosure prevention program today would be bad politics. It would force Republican Members to go home and defend this feckless move for 10 straight days--to defend ending a foreclosure prevention program face to face with the people they represent, many of whom are struggling right now to keep their mortgage and keep their home. But, after the 10-day recess, when House Republicans come back out of the sight of their constituents, they'll move forward with their plans to end the home loan modification program. This kind of leadership is disgraceful. American homeowners are struggling. Nearly 7 million homeowners are facing foreclosure in this country. One in every four houses are owned by people who owe more than the house is worth. Nearly half a million homeowners have been able to stay in their homes because of the Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. Ending that program will undoubtedly kick families out of their homes. That's something the Republicans realized they didn't want to do before a 10-day recess. I'll be the first to admit the Affordable Modification Program is not perfect. So let's fix it or replace it with something better. However, I have yet to see a legitimate alternative from House Republicans. They just want to cut, cut, cut, cut. Cutting deficits is important, but the Republicans' policies and scheduling gimmicks indicate that they don't really care about the American people. Every Republican Member should watch the ``60 Minutes'' special, entitled, ``Hard Times Generation.'' It aired two Sundays ago, on March 6. The special focused on families that were homeowners and part of the middle class before the 2007 recession started. Now hundreds of thousands of those American people are homeless and hungry for the first time in their lives. The children of one former home-owning family described what it was like to live in their parents' van. Before school, they'd go to a Walmart bathroom to brush their teeth, wash their faces, and get cleaned up to go to school. The kids and their parents are now living in a motel room, the whole family of six, which is, quote, ``better than the van,'' although it's small. Is this the America that Republicans want our children to grow up in? Are Republicans really comfortable killing a program that has prevented 500,000 people from moving out of their house and living in their car? Clearly, my Republican colleagues need a wake-up call today, and I am here to help. Watch that ``60 Minutes'' special. I've made it easier for you to watch the ``60 Minutes'' segment. All you have to do is go to my Web site, mcdermott.house.gov, then click on the very first slide in the slideshow that says, ``60 Minutes Special: Poverty.'' If you see that, click on it and you can watch what's going on. And when my colleagues, Madam Speaker, are back in their districts over the 10-day recess after they've watched this, then they should meet with some of these people and see what their thoughts are about ending the program and doing nothing to help American families. If they still believe that they should simply do away with the modification program, my belief is they have forgotten why they were elected and who they represent. The housing program that we will debate after the 10-day recess has saved the homes of over half a million people, or 500,000 families. It's far from perfect, but we need to focus on improving it or replacing it with something better, not just killing it. How many more kids have to take their morning bath in the Walmart bathroom or the Exxon gasoline bathroom before we begin to help the homeowners who were caught in the debacle from Wall Street from which not one person has gone to prison or served one single day?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, 4 days ago, a huge earthquake and tsunami hit Japan. I was sort of surprised last night when we came in and there was no resolution recognizing the problems of the Japanese people and the terror and the difficulties they are dealing with at this time. So I want to come today to rise in support of them as they cope with this tremendous tragedy and the challenges that both the earthquake and the tsunami have created for them. For the last 10 years or so, I have been the chair of the Japanese American exchange between the Diet and the Congress, and I've gotten to know many Japanese members of the Diet very well. I was a member of this commission some years ago when Kobe had a huge earthquake and devastation that took a hundred billion dollars to recover from. So I was sort of brought up short by what happened when I saw it on television, and thought of my friends. And I immediately started trying to call them. I couldn't find them. I only this morning got in touch with a friend of mine named Matsuda San. We've been friends for a long time. In fact, I have been to his home a very few miles from Sendai City, where the earthquake--the center of this whole event was. He's well. His family is well. He said his friends are also safe and his house is still standing. So for many people, they have escaped the terror of this. But there are thousands and thousands of people who are struggling with this. The Japanese people have shown a resilience that is amazing. When the government said there's going to be rolling blackouts in Tokyo, we need to conserve electricity, the Japanese conserved electricity so quickly that they didn't have the rolling blackouts. That's how they came together in the interest of the common good in Japan. Washington State, where I come from, has the third largest Japanese population in the United States. Only California and Hawaii have more. As I said, we have a sister city with Kobe. When that hit, it was shock for everyone in Seattle because we also live on the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean that we've seen strike so recently not only in Japan, but in New Zealand. Sometimes you can't believe that you live in a place like that; you know it can happen any time, but you still go on with your life, sort of denying that it's real. After the Japanese earthquake in Kobe some years ago, there was a lot of criticism of the government: you didn't plan enough. Well, they have been planning for this for the last 10 years. But nobody can plan for an 8.9 Richter scale earthquake. That's just too much. I think that it is important to remember the Japanese are not just good allies. They're good friends. To many of us, they are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers. Some of them are among my very best friends. This tragedy, as it continues to unfold, just think of what life is like for those people who are alive and under the rubble, or the homeless. Imagine, you have a life; it's a nice life. You're working, going to school, you're kids are growing up. And, suddenly, you have no food, no heat, no water, and you're in the freezing cold. The United States has responded. We have had military bases in Japan for a long time. Luckily, they were close by so they could immediately move some of the aircraft carriers and other ships in to deliver relief aid. It is at that time when you realize--in fact, their government has actually realized--that fighting about some of the things politically they fight about are not so important. What is really important is the basics of life being provided to everyone in the country. This is a national disaster that has been complicated by another factor that we have to consider in the United States, and that's the whole question of nuclear power and what happens to nuclear power plants. We have nuclear power plants in this country that are sitting near earthquake zones. So this is not something that we can say, Well, that's over there in Japan; that's 9,000 miles and 12 hours away. That is, in fact, very near to us here in this country. For the Japanese, the threat of nuclear contamination, of radiation, is a special horror because they suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--the only use of nuclear weapons--and the fallout that followed that. Today, millions of Japanese are still trying to absorb what they are seeing and are valiantly fighting to control the damage. Our thoughts and prayers go to the Japanese people.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to my friend, the late Judge Douglas Luna. Judge Luna was born in 1944 in Seattle, Washington, where he grew up in the Central District. Doug Luna served honorably with the United States Air Force during the Vietnam War, assigned to Da Nang until the late 1960s. After returning from his distinguished military service, he completed law school and served as the Deputy Corporate Administrator for The Boeing Company's Small and Minority Business Program. Doug loved the law; he became an administrative law judge for the Washington State Department of Employment Security, and also served as a review judge for the Department of Social and Health Services. Among Doug Luna's many lasting achievements is the judicial structure he helped to create for Alaska's Tlingit-Haida Tribe. The Tribe was part of his heritage, and he was proud to serve as an elected judge on the Tribal Court for nearly twenty years. Judge Luna later served on the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, an agency charged with determining if racial or ethnic bias exists in the courts of the State of Washington. He was a Eucharistic minister at Immaculate Conception Church and also was active with Saint Matthew's Church. Throughout his life, Doug Luna was deeply involved in the Native American and Asian communities--in addition to his Tlingit heritage, Doug also shared Filipino heritage. He was a founding member of the Asian American Bar Association, and volunteered with the Seattle Indian Center, the InterIm Community Development Association, the International District Housing Alliance, and the Filipino American National Historical Society. Doug was the volunteer every organization dreams of: he was smart, dedicated, absolutely reliable, and a pleasure to be with. Doug Luna championed the poor and the underrepresented throughout his life. His efforts to better his community were limitless, and he brought to his work a gentle spirit that touched hundreds of lives. Doug will be long remembered for his kindness, his generosity, and his unwavering integrity. He was a proud and loving father to his daughter, Mercedes, and I join her and so many others in mourning the loss of this extraordinary friend. It was a privilege to know Doug Luna.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it's been 2 years, 5 months, and 23 days since Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Wall Street dominos began to fall. It's been 2\1/2\ years since Wall Street mortgage bond traders and their criminal management brought the world financial system to its knees. There hasn't been one person held accountable for it. Not one conviction. The biggest scandal in American history, and there's been no jail time for anyone. We Democrats cleaned up the mess. We saved the country from riots in the streets. But no one was convicted. I think a lot of voters, Tea Party voters included, are seething with anger about the injustice. Riding this wave of voter anger, 2 weeks ago this House passed one of the worst bills ever considered in Congress, H.R. 1, a bill the Republicans have called a ``budget,'' that was nothing less than an attack on children and working people in this country. I think all the people who voted for it should be ashamed. Budgets are moral documents. They say what a country's priorities are. But looking at what the Republicans passed in this House, it's hard to believe that the bill is what Tea Party voters really bargained for in the last election. In the papers this week, we're reading that the Tea Party freshmen are now going to school. They are taking classes on the Federal budget--``Budget 101'' is what they call it. So after they balanced the books of the country entirely on the backs of children and women, they are actually learning a thing or two about the budget. It's about time. They're learning the basics after the vote. But I don't think the Tea Party voters wanted a war on children. Tea Party freshmen certainly didn't run on that basis. I think the voters look at what this country has been through in the last few years and they see the terrible injustice of it. I don't think the Tea Party movement is about punishing women and children and poor people. I think they want commonsense justice. Mr. Speaker, only 12 percent of the country's budget is spent on these important programs for the needy. When you cut these programs, you pull American children out of Head Start, you put Americans on the street, you let the bridges we go to work on crumble. That doesn't balance the budget. Without any changes to current policy, the budget deficit will drop to $500 billion in 2 years. Now, that deficit will slowly rise again. This slow rise in the coming years is the big issue, and it's caused by two things: increased health care costs and a defense budget that is out of control. Mr. Speaker, we're going to fix the long-term budget deficit of this country by lowering health care costs and by having a sensible defense budget. We aren't going to do it in an orgy of intolerance and demonization of the middle class and working people in this Republican budget. I think the Tea Party voters want responsible spending. So do my constituents. The Tea Party voters want basic fairness. So do my constituents. Tea Party voters have been misled by the American fear machine into thinking that education and basic services and public employees is where the big savings are. That is a terrible myth and a terrible disservice to the public. I hope the Tea Party members in the House quickly learn the basic math of the budget. The deficit is about defense and health care spending, not about pushing even more children into poverty. Every Member of this House ought to watch the 60 Minutes segment from last Sunday night on children who are living in cars, living in motels, living in shelters because they have lost their homes. Twenty-five percent of American children in this country are living in poverty. That show looked like we were looking at Bangladesh. That's what we ought to be pointing to, not spending our time out here today on H.R. 830, whacking the daylights out of another bill to prevent foreclosures. It is simply not what America is about. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to go pull up on the Web that segment from last Sunday night and look at the faces of those children and realize you're creating their lives by the kind of economy you put together.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer special recognition to my constituents and friends at the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project as they commemorate the 125th anniversary of the expulsion of Chinese residents from the State of Washington. Thousands of Chinese immigrants were forced to leave their homes and businesses in the greater Seattle area during the fall of 1885 and winter of 1886. The expulsion of Chinese workers in Washington State stemmed from the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, a measure passed in Congress at the request of labor unions because of competition from Chinese laborers. A few years after the expulsion, Chinese immigrants were welcomed back, and they helped rebuild the city after the Great Seattle Fire of 1889. The Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project reminds us of the critical role immigrants have played in the development of our community, city, state and country. A deeper understanding of our past gives us a strong context for understanding immigration issues as we move forward. The Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project also helps us to better understand the vital role that Chinese immigrants, as well as immigrants from other countries, play in Washington State. This results in our communities being more educated and less inclined to allow fear and intolerance to go unquestioned. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the organizers of the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project for their time, talent and contributions. Thanks to the vision and leadership of Bettie Sing Luke, Ron Chew, Maxine Chan, Edward Echtle, Tim Greyhavens, Theresa Pan Hosley, Kathy Hsieh, Brian Lock, Debbie Louie, Chieko Phillips, Cynthia Kan Rekdal and Connie So, the awareness and appreciation of Chinese American history has greatly risen in our community. As Seattle commemorates the 125th anniversary of the Chinese expulsion, it is important for us to remember that our country's diverse population has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in growing our economy and creating jobs. The efforts of the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project have touched so many of us, and they have shown that education is an invaluable asset to the Seattle community.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I have good friends, and I know they have to defend their hometown as adequately as they want. But let me read from the IG's report: ``In our view, the more fundamental problems pertaining to NOAA's process prior to the competitive lease process, a primary cause of these problems is grounded in the fact that NOAA did not subject the MOC-P project to a rigorous capital investment planning and oversight process. While the Department has clear property policy, NOAA did not follow it. NOAA thus proceeded with requirements for its desired option of consolidated facility based on justification and consideration of alternatives that, on the face and without additional documentation, are significantly lacking. NOAA's financial analysis of the four offers submitted in response to the solicitation did not assess the total cost to the government, and NOAA provided no evidence that it had thoroughly considered the operational and logistical implications of the relocation.'' Now that's not two rivals from one State and another. This is the Inspector General of the Commerce Department going down and looking at the process. And the fact is that the CRS report, dated 30 September 2010, which I will submit for the Record, says that the Federal Government is able to terminate its contracts for convenience. The governmental interest is always higher than the commercial interest. So the Federal Government can get out of this. They save $50 million. It's not going to be $50 million because they still have the pier. They can do whatever they want with it, but they do not have a contract with the Federal Government for the next 20 years in a place that is very far away. NOAA has been in Seattle for 40 years. That's true. Whence it was created, it was put there for a very good reason. I don't care if it goes to Bellingham or it goes to Oregon or where it goes, but there ought to be a transparent process.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of NOAA. The scientists and analysts at NOAA do extraordinary work for this country. Unfortunately, NOAA's process for choosing a location for the Marine Operations Center jeopardizes the operation of the Pacific Center and is wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. My amendment would save at least $5 million immediately, and beyond that, probably $10 to $20 million in long-term costs. It would defund the move of the Marine Operations Center from Seattle to Newport, Oregon, for the rest of the year so that there is time for the broken process to be looked into. Now, this is not a case of sour grapes. If it was what was best for the country, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against some jobs moving from one place to another. But the Commerce Department's inspector general and the Government Accountability Office have written scathing reports about this move and the decision process. They found it is among the worst run, least transparent, and least competitive bidding processes they have ever investigated. If you want to compare it to the Bridge to Nowhere, this is exactly what it is. I came from Chicago, and when we looked at something like this, we would always say the fix was in. Spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to dislocate hundreds of families to a site that's frequently unavailable for navigation because of dangerous conditions, is not near shipyards or maritime suppliers, is more than 120 miles from the nearest airport, and will be hugely expensive to run every year makes no common sense. And the reports of the inspector general report that very clearly. Now, Newport is an environmentally sensitive area, and NOAA's own, their own private consultants say the site is the least qualified destination for the move. Despite all these issues, NOAA has charged ahead and been completely unaccountable. NOAA officials are not willing to admit their huge mistake and fix it. And this is just plain wrong. Taking a breather for the next 7 months while we get a truly transparent process is the right thing to do. NOAA and Newport are saying that any delay, any examination, any looking at this will have catastrophic consequences. That simply is not true. We have studies from the CRS and others it won't put contracts at risk, it will not increase costs. So I rise today to stop the process for the remainder of the year, to give NOAA and the Commerce Department time to get their ducks in a row, hit the restart button, and stop wasting taxpayer money. U.S. Department of Commerce, The Inspector General, Washington, DC, May 26, 2010. Memorandum for: Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere From: Todd J. Zinser Subject: NOAA's Acquisition of Facilities to House the Marine Operations Center--Pacific By letter dated March 5, 2010, Chairwoman Maria Cantwell and Ranking Member Olympia Snowe of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, requested that the Office of Inspector General review NOAA's decision to award a lease to the Port of Newport, Oregon, to house NOAA's Marine Operations Center-Pacific (MOC-P). Their letter raised several specific questions regarding the decision-making process that resulted in this lease. NOAA began the lease acquisition process as early as September 2007, when it initiated a market analysis. It published a Solicitation for Offers for a new lease on November 24, 2008. Four bidders submitted offers, and NOAA awarded a lease to the Port of Newport on August 4, 2009. One of the unsuccessful bidders, the Port of Bellingham, Washington, filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on August 27, 2009--10 days after it received a post-award debriefing from NOAA. On December 2, 2009, GAO sustained Bellingham's protest against NOAA's lease award and recommended that NOAA conduct an analysis of practicable alternatives to the Newport offer. In its January 29, 2010, response to GAO, NOAA stated that it expected to complete all corrective actions relating to the successful bid protest by May 28, 2010. Although the lease acquisition process began in 2007, the decision-making process related to the acquisition can be traced back approximately 10 years. Together, these processes involved several separate offices within NOAA, the Department, and other federal agencies. In addition, they involved many statutory provisions, regulations, NOAA and Department policies, other administrative directives, and changes in personnel. Given the scope and complexity of these processes, we continue to gather and evaluate information, and in order to gain the best understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding NOAA's process, we will need to continue our work beyond the time by which NOAA intends to finalize its assessment of practicable alternatives. Although our review is ongoing, we have identified one issue that warrants higher-level review by NOAA before it finalizes its examination of practicable alternatives. Specifically, based on our review, we believe that NOAA should examine whether it sufficiently complied with the requirement to consider existing federal facilities before pursuing a new lease acquisition. Such an examination will help to ensure that the ultimate decision--whether it be to affirm the original choice or select an alternative approach--is grounded in a more thorough, well-substantiated, and well-documented analysis. According to 41 C.F.R. 102-73.10, before acquiring real estate by lease, purchase, or construction, federal agencies should first use space in government-owned and government- leased facilities. Similarly, Department of Commerce policy generally disapproves of long-term lease solutions (Department of Commerce, Real Property Management Manual, 5.4.1(d) (2003)). These issues are separate, but both relate to how NOAA assessed its options for MOC-P. We address each issue separately here, detailing factors that may potentially impact NOAA's own assessment of how well it followed these directives. While there is a lack of detailed criteria against which to measure NOAA's efforts to consider other federal facilities, the Department's Real Property Management Manual does require the Department to make ``every reasonable effort to utilize Government-controlled space'' before leasing space. Our review uncovered some evidence that NOAA considered other federal facilities; however, NOAA was not able to provide evidence that other federal facilities were systematically inventoried, analyzed, and rejected before initiating efforts to acquire a follow-on lease from other sources for MOC-P, nor was the decision to reject other federal facilities well- documented. For example, we were told by NOAA officials that NOAA had considered collocating with select Coast Guard and Navy facilities, but its consideration was not documented. In preparation for the lease acquisition, NOAA received proposals in mid-2007 for an alternative site analysis to (1) investigate the most functional, efficient, and cost- effective options for reconsolidating MOC-P and (2) provide an indication of how each site might perform during the subsequent lease solicitation process. That study, conducted under contract, was completed in September 2008. Of the 32 ports, cities, and economic development councils contacted, 11 responded, offering a total of 22 potential site options for further analysis. The 22 were further narrowed to a total of 15, only 3 of which were federally-owned: GSA's Federal Center South, the Department of Labor's Tongue Point, and NOAA's Western Regional Center. In November 2008, in an apparent rejection of those federal sites, NOAA issued the Solicitation for Offers. NOAA also considered and declined GSA's May 2008 offer to fulfill the MOC-P requirements at the GSA-owned Federal Center South (FCS) facility. NOAA's Western Regional Center (WRC) was also rejected as a long-term solution because of what NOAA characterizes as litigation risks in that area. Having ultimately rejected the use of other federal facilities, it is also unclear whether NOAA adequately considered other required alternatives. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, which requires cost-benefit analyses of decisions on whether to lease or purchase, is an example of other potentially applicable requirements that may apply to NOAA's decision-making. Our review has thus far uncovered three key issues regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal facilities. First, at some time between 2000 and 2007, as detailed below, NOAA may have changed from considering a dispersed model for fulfilling the MOC-P requirement, which could have affected the analysis of available federal facilities. Although NOAA's 2008 Solicitation for Offers was limited to the lease of a consolidated facility (which would collocate all ships and staff), it commissioned a June 2000 Homeport Alternatives Analysis, conducted by SRI International, in which it contemplated operating from dispersed facilities as a cost-saving measure. This study was commissioned to explore alternative homeports, given the possibility of the Lake Union lease not being extended beyond 2003. The 2000 study indicated that NOAA was seeking to reduce costs by moving MOC-P staff to the WRC. Noting that NOAA. was evaluating split homeporting, the study also explored homeporting two of four MOC-P vessels in Alaska to reduce ship travel time. To date, NOAA has not provided an explanation of what factors led to the apparent shift from the 2000 study to the current preference for a consolidated, leased solution. This apparent change in the vision for meeting the MOC-P requirement may have had a significant impact on how NOAA approached its available alternatives. Notably, since the July 2006 fire that destroyed the MOC-P piers at Lake Union, MOC-P has operated under a dispersed model, using piers at NOAA's WRC and GSA's FCS. Also, NOAA's Marine Operations Center-Atlantic operates in dispersed facilities. This suggests that a dispersed model may be feasible and should have been assessed as part of NOAA's requirements-planning process. Second, NOAA's analysis of how well it considered other federal facilities should include an examination of how thoroughly it analyzed and weighed its potential long-term options at the WRC and FCS, where it currently operates. NOAA should consider whether it would have been feasible to maintain its current dispersed configuration while relocating staff to the WRC or other leased offices. Specifically, we found that the WRC was dredged in the 1970s in anticipation of developing four long piers to accommodate many more vessels, and utilities may already be in place for two additional planned buildings that were not developed. Although NOAA has cited neighborhood opposition to expanded use of the WRC and litigation against NOAA in that area in the 1970s, MOC-P has been homeported there since 2006. We have reviewed recent letters from some surrounding neighborhood groups that support locating MOC-P at the WRC. The potential cost savings of using these existing facilities may outweigh the litigation risks. Third, GSA's pre-solicitation offer to serve the MOC-P requirements at FCS may have presented a viable federal facility for NOAA's consideration. This is particularly relevant because of the changed circumstances at this site. GSA's May 2008 offer arrived well before NOAA issued its Solicitation for Offers in November 2008. NOAA declined this offer one month later, citing the narrowness of the waterway adjacent to the existing FCS pier, the fact that the waterway was a Superfund site, and NOAA's established goal of being operational in a new lease by July 1, 2011. Since then, GSA has obtained American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to redevelop three FCS buildings and plans to relocate a large tenant, leaving an existing building potentially available for NOAA, with some modification. We have been advised that NOAA currently has access to a pier that is sufficiently equipped and sizable to accommodate three of its vessels. Although NOAA has cited concerns regarding underwater property lines, it has not provided an indication that this situation has been a problem during its use of the pier since 2006. Regarding FCS being a Superfund site, according to a senior official at GSA with whom we spoke, this would be an issue for GSA, not NOAA. While the potential issue exists and an environmental impact statement would be required, Superfund liability would lie with GSA or another FCS tenant. NOAA cited its June 30, 2011, deadline for vacating the Lake Union site in its June 2008 letter declining GSA's offer. However, this deadline was driven by the expiration of the Lake Union lease, and suitable workarounds--such as short-term office leases through GSA--may potentially have been available. Pursuing such workarounds may have enabled NOAA to garner the necessary time and funding to develop the WRC and FCS individually or together for the MOC-P requirement. In our view, NOAA's examination of these issues related to its consideration of other federal facilities will ensure that the final decision regarding practicable alternatives to Newport is thorough and well-documented. We noted above that Department policy generally disapproves of long-term lease solutions, and it states that leased facilities should not be considered a permanent solution. Yet although the Newport lease award will commit NOAA to a leased solution for another 20 years, our review of how NOAA approached government-owned solutions found little documented analysis. NOAA has told us that leasing was preferred because acquiring funding for such an acquisition would have required considerable lead time and because funding of facilities has historically received lower priority than other funding requirements. NOAA officials also cited the fact that MOC-P has historically used leased sites. The relevant documents show that on at least two occasions, NOAA briefly considered acquiring the Lake Union site, which housed all MOC-P operations prior to the fire, but documentation of those efforts was limited to what can be characterized as passing comments. We have not been provided with evidence of systematic efforts to assess the feasibility of purchasing or constructing facilities elsewhere. We understand that NOAA's consideration of the practicable alternatives to the Newport site is in progress and scheduled to be completed by May 28, 2010. Although NOAA had the authority to define the scope of the practicable alternatives as it saw fit, it limited its assessment to the four offers that it received under the solicitation. However, considering the range of options that were available to NOAA in government-owned and government-leased space, a broader examination may be warranted as part of this analysis. According to NOAA, it is standard GSA practice for lease- to-build leases not to include a termination clause in the lease, and such a clause was not included in the Port of Newport award. We understand that NOAA obtained a preliminary estimate of potential lease termination costs from the Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel. However, as part of its decision-making process, NOAA should conduct a rigorous analysis of the potential termination costs and document the specific components of this estimate. As it continues to evaluate its practicable alternatives, it would be prudent for NOAA to minimize these potential costs to the extent possible. Whatever conclusion NOAA reaches, it should carefully examine and document all pertinent factors, including those that we have highlighted. In order for both of our offices to be responsive to the Subcommittee, it is important to examine these issues regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal facilities. As we finalize our response to the Chairwoman and Ranking Member, we will follow up with your office to determine what additional information NOAA may have identified. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman from Minnesota really made the point. Here we are at a quarter to 3 in the morning, going after the working people of this country. In 1932, we didn't have unemployment insurance. Now, I'm sure your next amendment will be ``no money should be spent for unemployment insurance in this country'' because that creates that moral hazard where people sit at home and wait for that check to come in, right? They won't go down and look for work. We also had no workers' comp in this country before 1910. If a guy got hurt, they threw him out in the street and got somebody new. We didn't care. If that's the kind of country you want to go back to, I suppose the next bill you bring out here will be ``let's repeal the minimum wage.'' Why the heck do we have minimum wage? Do you know what the prevailing wage in this city was when this building was built? It was built by slaves. Now, is that where you want to go? What are you after? The Government of the United States should set a standard of what we want for the working people in this country. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Report for the Record which I referenced during debate on my Amendment No. 99 to H.R. 1. Decision Matter of: Port of Bellingham. File: B-401837. Date: December 2, 2009. Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Troy E. Hughes, Esq., and Maggie L Croteau, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for Port of Newport, an intervenor. Mark Langstein, Esq., Lynn W. Flanagan, Esq., and Diane M. Canzano, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we've been here now the better part of 2 months, and we've seen political theater go on and on and on. Each day we bring out something that looks like it might have some usefulness, but it turns out it's just more political theater. We read the Constitution in here. Well, that took us a day. Then we spent 9 hours arguing about a bill that we knew wasn't going anywhere. Then we brought out the health care bill. Then we keep doing this. Meanwhile, the American people are saying--and Bill Frist--now, I wouldn't say Dr. Frist was a good friend of mine, but he was the majority leader in the Senate, a Republican, a doctor who said don't repeal this law, fix it. There have been no hearings in 2 months about how you would fix the bill, and yet the American people--the problems that my colleagues come out here talking about one after another are multiplied by the millions in this country. They know there's a problem, they don't want to repeal it. The numbers for repeal have been dropping as the people have seen more and more provisions of this law come into effect. They want you to fix it, not political theater. It doesn't help them in the emergency room or in the doctor's office.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to my constituent, Doctor Usha Varanasi, on the occasion of her retirement as the Science and Research Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northwest Fisheries Science Center, a position Dr. Varanasi has held since 1994, when she became the first woman to lead a National Marine Fisheries Service Science Center. During Dr. Varanasi's 35 years of federal service as a research chemist and marine scientist, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center has made potent advances in the fields of ecotoxicology, molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology. Dr. Varanasi's multidisciplinary approach has produced innovative research and established the Center as a high-performing and internationally-renowned research institution. Throughout her remarkable career, Dr. Varanasi has furthered science and technology essential to wise fisheries management and marine resource preservation. Dr. Varanasi began her career at NOAA pursuing breakthrough research on the effects of chemical contamination on marine organisms. Dr. Varanasi's research revolutionized the field. Her work led to the development of techniques to assess the impacts of oil-related pollution on fisheries resources. As a result, Dr. Varanasi and her team provided invaluable seafood safety evaluation during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Hurricane Katrina, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Dr. Varanasi's research is recognized nationally and internationally. She has authored more than 150 peer-reviewed articles in journals including Nature and Science. She has edited two acclaimed books and her seafood safety editorial, The Seafood ``Dilemma''--A Way Forward, has influenced policymakers broadly. Dr. Varanasi's ongoing efforts have ensured that the Center's science is of the highest quality, providing the scientific underpinning for complex decisions that guide management of the Nation's marine resources. From careful monitoring of the West Coast ground fishery, to salmon recovery, to protection of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, and, finally, to crucial regional ocean governance structures, Dr. Varanasi has led the way. Her foresight and dedication have made possible new collaborations and effective partnerships that changed the way we approach fisheries management and marine resources preservation. A generous colleague and mentor, Dr. Varanasi has served for many years on the faculties of Seattle University and the University of Washington. She has been instrumental in helping countless students to understand that the wisest policies come from the best science. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Varanasi's remarkable career has advanced substantially our understanding of marine life and its vital connections to our own existence. Her legacy of leadership and breakthrough research will inspire students, scientists, researchers, and policymakers for decades. I extend to Dr. Varanasi my congratulations on her outstanding achievements, my appreciation for her many years of exceptional public service, and my best wishes for her future endeavors.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my Republican colleagues to stop their attack on women. Family planning is between women, their doctors, and their family. Republicans have no business being in that discussion. The anti-choice, anti-women Republican majority in the House has made eliminating critical health services for women a top priority. Apparently, protection begins at conception and ends at birth. Republicans want to gut all reproductive health care in the country and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood. What an amazingly immoral thing to do. It is utterly disingenuous of the Republicans to go after Planned Parenthood in their inhuman crusade. Radical Republicans are catering to their most extreme base at the expense of 150 million women in this country, and they should be ashamed. But they won't. The Republicans are also at war with the poor, again, leaving millions of low-income women and women of color with no access to basic health care. Let's not forget, the American people sent us here to solve problems that face everyone. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is laser- focused not on jobs or the economy or the national security, but on attacking women and children in this bill, waging a culture war to get campaign contributions from the extremists in this country. In their rush to appease religious conservatives and undermine the health care law, Republicans have gone from pro-life to pro-government intrusion in the extreme. Republican government is about silencing you as you talk to your doctor. Republicans love to silence Americans and anyone else they can get to on their moral crusade. Only a real Republican could love a law that says it has a gag rule. Let me be clear. The so-called pro-life agenda set by the Republicans is the most unprecedented form of government intervention on reproductive rights in decades. I remember the seventies and the sixties. The Republicans are defining what constitutes forcible rape and penalizing private businesses that choose comprehensive insurance coverage. If that's not government intervention, I don't know what is. Women are the victims in several major bills and amendments that the Republican leadership is pushing at a mind-boggling speed. These radical anti-choice bills all seek to fundamentally erode the right of all women to health care. More importantly, they don't reflect the will of the American people. A recent national survey conducted by the Lombardo Consulting Group found that more than 60 percent of the voters support family planning. How is attacking women helping the economy or creating jobs or helping our national security? We have been in the House for a month now and we have seen lots of talks about how we're going to slice the deficit, but not one single discussion, serious discussion, about how to get there. It is irresponsible to allow these narrowly driven ideological debates about women's health to dominate the House calendar when we have a budget to work out and almost 15 million unemployed. I urge my colleagues to abandon this vicious attack on women and to focus on issues the American people actually sent us here to solve: Looking for jobs. And I urge my Republican colleagues to get out of the doctor's office and leave women and families and doctors alone. Mr. Speaker, I submit for inclusion in the Congressional Record an article by Joel Connelly of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that talks about the duplicitous and dangerous agenda set by the House Republicans to severely restrict the rights of women, children, and low-income families. [From www.seattlepi.com, Feb. 13, 2011] House GOP Agenda: Curtailing Abortion, Cutting Kids (By Joel Connelly) The new ``pro-life'' Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives seems dedicated to a curious proposition: The protection of life begins at conception, and ends at birth. The leadership is pushing a Protect Life Act that would prohibit any subsidies for abortion in any component of the 2010 Affordable Health Care act. It is moving to end any U.S. government support for abortion providers--anywhere. ``We need to protect human life from the unborn to the elderly,'' Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, said recently. Pitts has headed the Values Action Team, a House caucus concerned with pro-life and pro-family issues. When it comes to spending on children and health and the elderly, however, House Republicans' new budget is The Pitts. The budget axe is about to fall on, to use Ronald Reagan's line stating his opposition to abortion, ``those who have already been born.'' Women, Infants and Children was the one new, bipartisan social program passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. (Then-Rep. Mike Lowry of Seattle was a lead sponsor.) House GOP budget writers have targeted it for a $758 million cut. WIC provides federal money to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals and nutrition education for low income women, and to infants and kids under 5 who are at nutritional risk. The budget axe in Congress' lower chamber will also fall-- to the tune of $1.3 billion in cuts--on Community Health Centers. The program supports community health, migrant health centers, health care for the homeless, and primary care programs in public housing. Maternal and Child Health Block Grants to States have been targeted for a $210 million reduction. The program helps train providers and support services for children with special health needs, screening of newborns, injury and lead poisoning prevention. The cuts continue through stages of life, and programs that sustain and enhance life. AmeriCorps, the Clinton-era program in which young people do public service work in exchange for college tuition, is marked for elimination. Job training is targeted for a $2 billion cut. LIHEAP, the program that provides winter heating assistance to low-income families, is to be hit with a $400 million reduction--despite the growing need for it as America goes through the Great Recession. The National Institutes for Health would see a $1 billion reduction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would see a $755 million reduction, or 12 percent. Nor do cuts stop at the water's edge. A total of $544 million would be axed from international food aid grants to such organizations as World Vision and Catholic Relief Services. The House members championing such cuts are the very people who profess to be advocates for the unborn and defenders of life. Yet, their policies hit at society's poor and vulnerable, and at the ability to pursue the American dream. How could anyone, in good conscience, proclaim himself/ herself ``pro-life'' while axing a child nutrition program? Check that. The late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina, managed it for 30 years. The new majority seems proud of its handiwork: Rookie Tea Party lawmakers have forced even deeper cuts on the House Republican leadership. ``Remember, this is historic: The level of cuts here have not taken place in Congress since World War II,'' House Majority Leader Eric Cantor boasted Friday. But we should remember another moment in history: Just before Christmas, Congress and the White House extended tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Jim Wallis, editor of the Christian publication Sojourners, has suggested posing a question to the ``peoples' house'' of Congress. It's a variation on the familiar What-Would-Jesus- Do slogan used by some Christian believers. What would Jesus cut?