Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we have spent months in this House watching the Republicans create an unstable business environment and hurt U.S. jobs while they delay the reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank. While the Export-Import Bank supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs every year at no cost and no risk to the taxpayer, the Republicans have been stuck between their radical tea- party ideology of pure free-markets on one side and the Republican Majority's relationship with Delta Airlines on the other. We now have a compromise that does not extend the Bank for as long as it needs to be or for as much as it needs to be long-term. We also have a real lack of understanding in the Congress and in the Public of what this Export- Import Bank does. Over 50 countries have export-import banks and all of the them are growing right now. While they are competing and running faster, the Republicans have us sitting on our hands and unilaterally disarming. I could fill this chamber with the bipartisan, non-partisan, expert studies telling us for decades that we here in the United States don't do a good job promoting our exports. My constituents, the port in my district and the huge number of exporting businesses in my district need the same kind of support from their government that all of their Chinese, and Indian, and European competitors are getting. The current deal that's being worked on only reauthorizes the Export- Import Bank for a few years. My bill uses the same bipartisan framework that exists today and would authorize it for 10, through 2021. Building on this bipartisan framework, my bill would also truly expand the Export-Import Bank's lending authorities, doubling it to $200 Billion. The Export-Import Bank makes money for the taxpayer, is virtually no risk, and the lending authority should be big enough so that it will actually keep up with our exports into the foreseeable future. This higher authority, along with the longer extension, will create the stability businesses and their workers need. Finally, my bill asks the Government Accountability Office to study the Export-Import Bank and compare it to the Export-Import Banks its competing against in other countries around the world. How are we competing now that we have real stability and a cap that's responsible but doesn't constrain us? What can the ExIm Bank do better? This is the kind of forward analysis Congress needs to help our exporters. Mr. Speaker, it's long past time for us to get the lobbyists out of the way of all other American businesses so that we can create jobs here at home.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I and my colleagues are introducing the ``Ensuring Child Care for Working Families Act of 2012.'' This bill creates an entitlement to the states to provide guaranteed child care assistance for children up to age 13 for low-income families with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level. In the context of growing poverty, declining incomes, and high unemployment, we must invest in child care. Working families today are faced with the challenge of finding stable, high quality child care to enable them to work. This challenge is compounded for low-income working families who are severely impacted by federal and state cuts to child care assistance. These cuts have profound economic and social costs. Research is clear that child care assistance helps low-income mothers afford the reliable child care they need to get and keep a job. Child care helps children, families and communities prosper. It gives children the opportunity to learn and develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life. It gives parents the support and peace of mind they need to be productive at work. Yet today, only one in six children eligible for federal child care assistance receives help. Twenty-two states have waiting lists for child care assistance. Despite the importance of child care assistance, families in thirty-seven states were worse off in February 2011 than in February 2010 under one or more key child care assistance policies. In 13 states, a family with an income above 150 percent of poverty cannot qualify for child care assistance. Yet in the majority of communities across the country, a family needs an income equal to at least 200 percent of poverty to meet its basic needs, including housing food, child care, transportation, health care, and other necessities, based on a study by the Economic Policy Institute. What we define as poverty no longer reflects what it really means to be poor in this country. Reliable high quality child care makes the difference in the economic health and survival of families and in the educational development of children. Too many families are forced to find ways to pay for child care assistance while they struggle to put food on the table and pay their rent. Child care assistance enables us to have a stable work force, with fewer absences and more productivity. Yet, absent an increase in funding in 2013, as few as 1.4 million children might be served in 2013. This would result in the smallest number of children served since 1998. According to the National Women's Law Center 8th annual review of key child care subsidy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, families were worse off in 2011 than they were in 2010, but they are also worse off than they were a decade ago. Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided an additional $2 billion for child care, states had used most of that money by the end of 2010 and were battling severe budget deficits. Enacting the ``Ensuring Child Care for Working Families Act of 2012'' will help lessen the burden of struggling parents as it will: Maintain state investments in child care prior to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, including existing provisions relating to federal matching of state expenditures. Provide federal grants to States and qualified Indian tribes and tribal organizations in amounts necessary to provide child care assistance to any family with a dependent child requiring such care in which: family income does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and child care assistance will enable a family member to work or participate in an education or training program. Require States and Indian tribes/tribal organizations receiving such grants to guarantee the provision of child care assistance to all families meeting the specified criteria. Ensure that States continue to comply with the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, including the requirement to set aside a minimum of 4 percent of funding for quality. Direct the Secretary to promulgate regulations to implement the bill's provisions. Provide that such amendments are effective on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the 12-month period beginning upon enactment. This legislation is based on a 2007 paper presented at the Center for American Progress entitled ``Next Steps for Federal Child Care Policy.'' Our federal child care policy must catch up to the economic and social reality of the world in which we live. The number of families falling further into poverty, but don't yet qualify for child care assistance, is increasing. This costs our society billions in lost productivity and increased spending on health care. This bill helps ensure our society will be strong and prosperous well into the 21st century. Ensuring Child Care for Working Families Act Section-by-Section Summary Section 1--Short Title. The ``Ensuring Child Care for Working Families Act of 2012.'' Section 2--Child Care Funding. Amends Section 418 of the Social Security Act to: Maintain state investments in child care prior to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, including existing provisions relating to federal matching of state expenditures. Provide federal grants to States and qualified Indian tribes and tribal organizations in amounts necessary to provide child care assistance to any family with a dependent child requiring such care in which: family income does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and child care assistance will enable a family member to work or participate in an education or training program. Require States and Indian tribes/tribal organizations receiving such grants to guarantee the provision of child care assistance to all families meeting the specified criteria. Ensure that States continue to comply with the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, including the 4 percent quality set-aside. Direct the Secretary to promulgate regulations to implement the bill's provisions. Provide that such amendments are effective on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the 12-month period beginning upon enactment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this week marks World Immunization Week, in which countries across the globe mobilize for a week of vaccination campaigns and public education about the value of immunization. I rise today to celebrate a major milestone in global health: the rollout of two new vaccines to protect infants from two of the biggest killers of children under the age of five--pneumonia and diarrhea--that is taking place today in Ghana. Hundreds of Ghanaians have played a frontline role in making their country the first in Africa to simultaneously introduce both pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines to their people. While the Government and the people of Ghana are to be congratulated for this unprecedented accomplishment, I also want to acknowledge the role U.S. taxpayers have played in making this moment possible. The United States' commitment to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance) has been instrumental in making these vaccines affordable and accessible for children in the world's poorest countries. Immunization is one of the most successful and cost- effective public health interventions. By supporting new vaccines, the GAVI Alliance is well within target to immunize more than 250 million children in the world's poorest countries by 2015, preventing more than 4 million premature deaths. Seattle, which I represent, has made significant contributions toward the United States becoming a leader in global health innovation, including vaccination research. For example, earlier this year, promising preliminary results from the trial of a malaria vaccine known as RTS,S made headlines around the world when it showed that nearly fifty percent of children who received the vaccine were protected from malaria--a leading cause of death among children in developing countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and PATH, both based in Seattle, were at the forefront in developing this potentially life-saving vaccine. I am proud to say that American research and technology in global health are at the forefront in making medicine accessible to the most remote corners of the world. But we cannot stop here. U.S. bilateral support for maternal and child health provide critical infrastructure--including supply chains, trained health workers, and facilities--to deliver vaccines around the world, along with other essential and complementary interventions such as nutrition and clean water. Immunization leads to significant economic benefits by protecting individuals not just against life-threatening illnesses but against long-term effects of that illness on their physical, emotional and cognitive development. With the introduction of these vaccines, mothers across Ghana will be able to provide their children hope for a brighter future. On this day, while communities around the world are celebrating the power of lifesaving vaccines, we can be proud as Americans that our investments are making a durable impact on the prosperity and security of those who need it most.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 5 hours we're going to get on planes and go home, so we have to get the press releases ready to go. And that's what this is about. This bill will be dead in the Senate the minute it hits the desk. It's not going anywhere. It is a press release, and it is the most wasteful bill of the season so far. Now, I'm sure that Mr. Cantor and others will find worse things to do down the way as we get closer to the election. This week has been a disaster in here. We started on Tuesday by deeming the budget passed, here and in the Senate. It's a fiction. It never happened. That's how this week started. Then we went to the Ways and Means Committee yesterday, and we cut $68 billion out of health, children's services, social services, foster care, in reconciliation to balance the budget. And then we get up this morning and here we have a bill that borrows $46 billion from the Chinese, or whoever, to give it to small business. The fact is that 125,000 millionaires in this country will get an average tax cut of $58,000. That's what this bill does. It does not create jobs. It's supposed to create jobs. In fact, the job creation is so small, as you heard, it's incalculable. Now, that wouldn't satisfy the majority leader. He had to go and find an economist somewhere who'd give him a better number. So he found Herman Cain's guy, the guy who had the 9 9-9 tax deal. Now, there's a solid citizen. He really knows what's going. Well, he comes up with 39,000 jobs will be created. 39,000 jobs. It sounds like quite a bit, doesn't it? Until you figure how many billions of dollars are going to create them. The figure is that each job will cost $1.1 million in tax cuts. This is to get one job. Do you think they're hiring somebody for $1.1 million? They're hiring them for $6 or $8 an hour. This is not a job creation bill. It is simply a press release. The Republicans have not brought out a serious job creation bill. Yesterday was as close as we came when we finally did the highway bill so that we could at least keep highway infrastructure being created. Otherwise, there has been nothing solid that has gotten through the Congress. The highway bill will get through because everybody knows it creates jobs, but this kind of stuff is simply sinking us. What's really interesting, though, is that, as I look at that $1.1 million per job, I remember when they came up with the phony claim-- never proven--that the Recovery Act would cost $278,000 for a job. This costs us four times as much, and it's from his own economist. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend Mr. Boustany's amendment. I think it's a good step forward. Spending all the money that's in the cash that we take in is in the best interest of maintaining our harbors. But I think we need to take another step. I hope I can get Mr. Boustany and others to help. We need a solution that helps all our ports, like those on the west coast, those in Pennsylvania, those in Massachusetts that pay the tax. We collect $20 on every can that comes across the dock, and we don't get any money because we don't dredge. We've got a 70-foot draft, but we do have problems with our seawall. We have big infrastructure needs all across, and nearly half the money that's raised never is spent in the port where it is raised. Now, we compete with international ports. We compete with Vancouver, and the Canadians are putting in a port at Prince Rupert, and we need to maintain our ports to be competitive in this very, very competitive industry. We have a good geographic location. We're close to Asia, but they're going other places because they've got better ports. That's our issue, and we would like to have some money later on. Thank you very much. I support the amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, some of my distinguished colleagues claim that we must cut spending to protect the future of our country and our children. But what costs are we willing to incur with reckless cuts to a critical program that has helped 46 million Americans stay fed? If we cut SNAP, we will be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Children make up nearly half of the Americans who rely on food stamps. SNAP continues to play an instrumental role in our nation's economic recovery, helping millions of struggling American families to feed their kids. With SNAP, students across the country can start each day well-fed and ready to learn. There's no question that SNAP works. The best way to shrink the program is not through funding cuts, but by making the American dream a reality for all Americans once again. If we truly want to protect our children's future, we cannot steal food off their dinner tables. To protect our future, we must protect SNAP.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Justice for Wards Cove Workers Act'' in order to correct a grave injustice against thousands of Asian American workers that took place over a quarter century ago. In the 1970s, workers of Filipino, Samoan, Chinese, Japanese and Native American descent traveled north during the summer to work in the fish canneries in Alaska. Management at the Wards Cove Packing Company treated these migrant workers differently from white workers. They were forced to eat in separate dining halls, sleep in separate bunkhouses, and were unable to rise to top-paying positions in the company. In 1973, two Seattle Filipino labor activists named Silme Domingo and Gene Viernes led several class-action lawsuits on behalf of these Asian American and Native American cannery workers alleging discrimination in the workplace. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled against the Wards Cove workers, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, which became a major impetus for the civil rights community to reverse the tide against employee rights. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which became the most comprehensive civil rights legislation signed into law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, what most civil rights communities forgot was that in the final hours before passage of the Civil Rights Act, a highly unusual and narrow amendment was inserted by two Senators from Alaska that exempted the Wards Cove workers from the expansive protections against workplace discrimination outlined in the Civil Rights Act. They feared that the Civil Rights Act could be applied retroactively to the workers. The Senators' amendment was inserted in Section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act, and its sole target was the Wards Cove workers. To date, the Wards Cove workers remain the only people who have been denied the rights promulgated by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Mr. Speaker, while my bill cannot retroactively alter the Supreme Court's ruling or grant retroactive rights for the Wards Cove workers, it does remove Section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as a symbolic measure to right the wrong. This is a legislative fight that I started in 1991, when I first introduced this bill. Every time I introduced this bill, it received bipartisan support but was never voted on the House floor. In 1993, then-President Bill Clinton wrote a letter of support for my bill, stating, ``It is contrary to all of our ideas to exclude any American from the protection of our civil-rights laws.'' Too often, the struggles of Asian American and other ethnic minorities do not get the attention they deserve by policymakers and law enforcement officials. The savage beating and murder of Danny Vega, a Filipino-American resident of South Seattle, last November is one of many examples of the discrimination that minorities continue to face. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the Wards Cove workers by supporting this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act. In February of this year, the 49 state attorneys general announced that they had completed negotiations with the country's five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims arising from mortgage fraud and wrongful foreclosures. The settlement, which amounts to over $25 billion is the largest settlement this country has seen since the 1998 Master Tobacco Settlement. This historic settlement will allow hundreds of thousands of distressed homeowners to stay in their homes through enhanced loan modifications and principal reduction, and it will also provide payments to victims of unfair foreclosure practices. Unfortunately, under current law, those settlement payments would subject the homeowners and servicemembers who receive them to additional tax burdens. For instance, homeowners receiving relief in the form of mortgage debt forgiveness and direct cash payments for wrongful foreclosure could be subject to federal income tax. Moreover, additional tax would be owed on the payments made to servicemembers who were wrongfully foreclosed on while deployed overseas. To prevent that injustice, the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act would extend the exclusion for debt forgiveness on a primary residence throughout the term of the settlement agreement, and exclude the relief payments from income for homeowners and servicemembers. This bill also considers the particularly egregious actions taken by the five largest banks in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Over the past three years, the five largest servicers violated the law and wrongfully foreclosed or overcharged mortgage interest on servicemembers, many of whom were deployed overseas in combat zones. Accordingly, the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act not only excludes this relief from income to servicemembers, but denies these banks the ability to deduct these payments from their federal income taxes. The estimated 1.7 million homeowners eligible to benefit from this settlement deserve to receive the full benefit of this relief--relief that was negotiated in good faith by the states, the banks, and the federal government. Collecting federal income tax on relief for struggling homeowners is not only bad policy, but is simply the wrong thing to do. As we move forward from one of the worst recessions in American history, we must be vigilant and provide as much help to the American people as possible. This bill will do just that, and will ensure that our homeowners and servicemembers get every bit of relief they deserve.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Republic of Georgia Democracy Act of 2012. This bill sheds light into the deteriorating political situation in the Republic of Georgia and makes clear to the Georgian Government that maintaining democratic institutions and regular free, fair and competitive elections are key priorities for a strong relationship between our two countries. This bill will help to reverse the suppression that has been intensifying by showing the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili the cost of these anti-democratic actions. I know Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle share my growing concern over the violent suppression of parties, nongovernmental organizations and workers in Georgia. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and stand up for democracy in Georgia.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Nine years ago this month, members of the U.S. Armed Forces invaded Iraq in what became one of the bloodiest and most protracted missions in our military's history. Today, our country is still paying the extraordinary price for the nine years in Iraq, both in terms of lives lost and trillions of dollars that could have gone toward nation building here at home. For many veterans, coming home marks the beginning of another fight-- fight for treatment, care, and integration into civilian life. Invisible wounds of war, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, affect one in five veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I also submit an article by Jon Soltz, a former Iraq War veteran, on the need for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to own up to the promise to care for veterans instead of paying lip service. The title of his article, ``GOP Budget Doesn't Even Say The Word `Veteran,' '' speaks for itself. [Published in the Huffington Post, Mar. 22, 2012] GOP Budget Doesn't Even Say the Word ``Veteran'' (By Jon Soltz, Co-Founder of VoteVets.org and Iraq War veteran) Do Republicans care about keeping our promise to veterans? Looking at the recently released GOP budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan, it's hard to see how they do. In fact, looking at the nearly 100 page document, the word ``veteran'' doesn't appear once. Not once. Today is the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Last night, I spoke with someone who served with me in Iraq during my first tour. And for the first time in almost nine years, she wanted to talk to me about an incident where she drove through an IED and a soldier was killed. It was a profound moment that shows how war and sacrifice stay with us, always. For those of us who served, in many ways, yesterday is today. And today, we read that the GOP doesn't even talk about veterans in their budget. But, without saying the word ``veteran,'' the budget tells us a lot about what they think about veterans. The budget calls for across the board spending freezes and cuts. If enacted, the Ryan GOP budget would cut $11 billion from veterans spending, or 13 percent from what President Obama proposes in his own plan. It's unconscionable that they'd do this at a time when so many Iraq veterans have just come home and rely on veterans care. Over 45,000 US troops were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more will come who will rely on VA services, on top of veterans of other wars and eras who depend on the VA. But, this shortsightedness isn't new. Back in 2005, President Bush underfunded the Department of Veterans Affairs by about a billion dollars, despite its need. The result? Secretary Jim Nicholson was forced to crawl before Congress and plead with it to pass emergency supplemental spending, just so it could keep the doors open. After that debacle, I have to admit, I never thought Republicans would do the same thing again, if for no other reason than that it just looks bad politically, leaving aside the horrible effect it would have on veterans in need. Additionally, after the backlash against ending Medicare the last time Paul Ryan released a budget, they're at it again. That, too, affects veterans. I was speaking with one veteran in Missouri, who lost both of his legs in Iraq. His entire primary care now relies on Medicare. It pays for all of his primary care, as it does for so many veterans with 100 percent disability. So, no, I couldn't believe that Paul Ryan and the GOP would again propose ending Medicare. Yet, here we are. A budget from the GOP that short changes veterans, horribly. And where does that money go? Not to reducing the debt. The debt as a share of GDP would actually increase under the Ryan plan. The money doesn't go towards anything, really. But it does go towards some people. As in $3 trillion in tax giveaways to the richest Americans and corporations. People like Mitt Romney, who already pays a tax rate lower than most of our troops. That's the choice the Ryan plan presents to America--do we want to fund the wealthiest Americans and corporations, or keep our promise to our veterans? Ryan and the GOP say the former. I can't believe that most Americans wouldn't say the latter.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, you might ask why we're having this debate. Well, the Republicans have never wanted to solve the Americans' problem with health care access and cost; and the Congress passed, with the President's help, a bill that gave access to many millions of people and put in place some mechanisms to control costs. The Republicans have tried to repeal it again and again, Mr. Chairman; and they know next Wednesday it's going to be in the Supreme Court. So today is press release time, and they have a formula for press releases in this House. The Members are going home to their districts, so they select a straw man and they put him up here. The straw man in this case is the IPAB. Then they scare seniors. They say: this IPAB is going to take away your health care. Then all the seniors are supposed to crawl under the chair or under the bed because the Republicans are out scaring people again. They do it by telling half truths. This commission will make recommendations that the Congress can adopt, change, or if they don't want to do it, they can let them go into play. They have three choices, and the Congress can do either to change them or adopt them. We're not to giving away our power. That is a half truth to say that we are. Secondly, as you heard from the whip, it's 10 years before this happens. Folks, if you're sitting at home watching this--Mr. Chairman, they are probably all scared and have quit eating their dinner because they're worried about what's going to happen. We're talking about something that's going to happen in 10 years. This is simply a scare tactic, and it is directly related to the attempt to derail the President's reelection. If they can take down this health care bill, they will have him. They will have shown he hasn't done anything. But the fact is he got it through here, and it's going to be implemented in 2013. You can spend all the time you want passing bills in here that are absolutely kabuki theater, because this bill is going to go over to the Senate. You all know it has to pass both the Senate and the House. The Senate put this in. Does anybody think that the United States Senate is going to take away seniors' rights to health care? I mean, does anyone think that? You're accusing the United States Senate of putting this in the bill, setting it up to take away health care benefits from seniors. That is nonsense. If you think the Senate is going to walk away from this provision, well, more kabuki theater. We will be back on another day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, when we came into this session, there was a lot of talk in this House about the fact that we needed jobs, lots and lots of talk on the other side about how they were going to take care of this economy and we were going to finally get some jobs. There hasn't been one single bill put out here in 441 days. We are still waiting for a jobs bill from the Republican leadership. Now, I don't want to dismiss the piece of legislation we're discussing here. I'm sure it's very important to have 32 acres of Virginia, and perhaps maybe there will be 100 jobs there. Those are important jobs for those people. We are in favor of that. What's hard to understand is the Republicans' idea of priorities. Mr. Chairman, I can't understand how the Republican leadership could let the highway bill expire in 11 days and end highway construction in the United States of America and bring out instead a bill for 32 acres in rural Virginia that--most of us would have a tough time finding Accomack County on a map. There are 550,000 people working on rebuilding infrastructure in this country in the highway system, and the Republican leadership won't bring it out because they've got a fight inside. They've got a fight inside. They've got a bill that is so bad that it bankrupts the highway trust in 2016 and creates a $78 billion funding shortfall over the next 10 years. That's the highway bill that they won't bring out here. I understand why they won't bring it out here. They'd get chewed up by the fiscal irresponsibility. They have a bill sitting on the desk from the Senate they could bring up tomorrow, and we could ensure construction jobs all over this country for 550,000 people. But no, we're out here with this little-- the last speaker said, it's really interesting, all the jumping, shouting, and waving of arms, we're not going to have any more earmarks in the House of Representatives. Earmarks are evil. They're evil things created by the devil, and we have wiped them out. Now, if this ain't an earmark, I don't know what is. If you put a bill out here for 32 acres in two Members' districts, that's an earmark, folks. That's an earmark. And I'm not saying earmarks are bad. Frankly, I went to three of them last weekend in my district. One was the restoration of the King Street Station in the railroad system. Another one was an addition to the Wing Luke Museum, which is a national monument. These kinds of things make sense, and I think this piece of legislation makes sense, and it will probably go out of here without a single vote against it. But it can't go out without somebody saying, where are your priorities? Where are they? Why is it that the leadership of the Republicans can't get their people in line to get a highway bill out here when it's 11 days from the day it expires? What is the matter? Well, I think really what it is, it's driven by the ideology that is creating most of the problems in this 2 years in terms of recovery. Nobody wants to give President Obama one single success, and they will kill the highway department and the highway construction fund and everything else if they can just make sure they don't reelect President Obama. That's what it's all about. It's very clear. We see it going on tomorrow. It begins over across the street in the Supreme Court. They've spent 3\1/2\ years fighting providing health care for all Americans--3\1/2\ years fighting it, not trying to improve it, not trying to make it work better, but trying to repeal it. That's what's going on in this city. In fact, thousands of people have got health care now that didn't have it. The fact that you can now keep your kids on your policy to the age of 26 has added millions of young people to those who are insured against health problems. There are people who have health care in spite of the fact that they have a preexisting condition.

Mr. McDERMOTT. They've got their health insurance because the bill that the President got through the Congress with our help was one that made it possible for you to get insurance if you have a preexisting condition. Now there are thousands of people who have benefited from that in this country, but not one single attempt has been made by the Republicans in 3\1/2\ years to do anything to make that work better. All they want to do is destroy it. This is the party of destruction--the destruction of the infrastructure of the country, the destruction of an attempt to do the health care. You can go right down the list--441 days, no jobs bill-- and what we get out here is this earmark. It would really be kind of laughable if it weren't so serious.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the American people to consider the price of the Afghan war, not only its unsustainable financial toll, but also the psychological cost to those on the front lines as well as those here at home, because this war, fought on the ground by a tiny percentage of Americans and largely ignored by the greater majority of us, nonetheless, has had powerful effects on each one of us. In the past 3 months, there have been several high-profile incidents in Afghanistan that have forced us to reflect on the mental state of the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in Afghanistan. In January, four soldiers in combat gear urinated on three bloodied corpses. In February, American soldiers burned copies of the Koran, which triggered 6 days of riots across Afghanistan. And this month, a soldier went on a murderous rampage in Kandahar province, killing 16 Afghans, including nine children. These events have shocked us, but they remain remote to most of us. I want to talk today about what this war has done to our national psyche, that is, our sense of connectedness to one another and our sense of mutual obligation to this country. The war in Afghanistan is being fought primarily by a small group from the Army and Marine Corps who serve multiple tours because we do not have adequate replacements for them. This has allowed most of us to disengage ourselves from the terror, the suffering and despair endured by those who are sent to war. Retired General Robert Scales wrote in the Washington Post last week: ``We are fighting too many wars with too few soldiers.'' He's right. More than 100,000 of our soldiers have been deployed three or more times since 9/11. Many of them are overused, exhausted, demoralized, and unprepared to come home to a country that has little personal investment in the war and does not fully understand its objectives. Is it fair or reasonable to send these courageous citizens to war four, five, and six times? I was a doctor who treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam, and I know that no one escapes multiple tours of combat duty without trauma. There have been almost 100,000 new cases of PTSD among our servicemembers since 9/11. The military suicide rate in some months has been higher than the casualty rate. We are wrong to subject such a small group--fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all Americans--to such a disproportionate share of the consequences of war. I felt this way in 2007 when I supported fellow veteran Charlie Rangel's bill, declaring it an obligation of every American citizen between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a 2-year period of national service either as a member of the national forces or in civilian capacity that promotes national defense in times of war. Several weeks ago, my constituent, Sergeant William Stacey, became the 399th resident from Washington State to be killed since the war on terror began following 9/11. In his letter, which soldiers write in case they die, Sergeant Stacey wrote: My death did not change the world, but there is a greater meaning to it. There will be a child who will live because men left the security they enjoyed in their home country to come to his. If more Americans sacrificed their time and energy toward our country's ideals, perhaps Sergeant Stacey's dream of a more peaceful Afghanistan could become a reality. As the overwhelming majority of the Nation stands by while 23-year olds die in a distant war zone, our national psyche has been frayed, and our shared identity is diminished. We have become immune, immune to the traumas of war, and we have lost our sense of common purpose. In the Vietnam War, when everybody served, you had no immunity because everybody knew somebody, but now it's not that way. We must face the true cost of war on not only our soldiers, but ourselves and our ideals.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this week is yet another week in which the House of Representatives has done virtually nothing. We heard my colleagues say they're repackaging some bills, putting a new bow around it, and they're going to pass it out of here. It's a press release for the week that they go home. After 14 months of running the House, Republicans haven't passed a real jobs bill. I'll give a great example. Economists and business people know that the biggest growth markets for American companies are exports. When we support U.S. exports, we are supporting American economics. But to support, we need the Export- Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank is a wonder. It provides extremely low-risk loans for businesses for exports, small business, medium-size, and big. The U.S. Export-Import Bank does not cost the American taxpayers one penny. It actually makes money, and it helps American businesses and workers sell hundreds of billions of dollars of American goods. In short, the Ex-Im Bank does just what we need to be doing: compete in the world economy with every tool we have. Study after study, year after year says that American export efforts need a huge overhaul. The President is doing all he can. He stood in this well and talked about it and has put forward proposals. But with simple legislation like the extension of the Export-Import Bank, we could do very much more. The Export-Import Bank is the center of our export strategy. Now, how does it work? General Electric was recently bidding on a $500 million rail project to supply 150 diesel-electric locomotives to Pakistan. Pakistani officials told GE they preferred the GE locomotives and were willing to pay a premium for their high quality and dependability. There was a complication in that the bid from the Chinese locomotive manufacturer included a financing package with longer terms and drastically reduced fees that GE could not match on its own with private sector financing. The Export-Import Bank stepped in with a financing package that matched the Chinese financing package and enabled Pakistan to make its decision on a true apples-to-apples comparison of American and Chinese goods. We can win that one. We can win it always when we have a level playing field. That's what the Export-Import Bank does. It helps us compete. It's not just big businesses--GE, Boeing. It is also that every office in the Congress receives a letter once a month from the Export- Import Bank, telling us of the companies that got that service in our districts. Nucor Steel, Brooks Rand Labs, NOVA Fisheries, American Wine Trade, Coastal Environmental Systems, International Lubricants, which are all in my district, receive the support of the Export-Import Bank. Without it, they could not have done business on their own. Now, in the past year, not only have we supported $34 billion worth of exports and 227,000 jobs in 3,300 companies in this country, but the U.S. Treasury has gotten back $3.4 billion in fees from the loans they make. So where are we? Fifty countries in the world do this. China is using every tool available to it, including this one; but the House Republicans sit over there with their heads stuck in the sand, and we're about a month away from it expiring. We should increase the amount of money we allow the Export-Import Bank to use. Remember, the Export-Import Bank makes money on extremely low-risk loans to support tens of thousands of jobs in the United States. Why aren't we working on this kind of jobs legislation? Well, it's because the President asked for it. They are so determined, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the President from being reelected that they won't do what's good for American business and what's good for American workers. This is not partisan. These small companies are all over our districts. They want to make loans. They want to make sales overseas. They need the help of this bank, and the Republican leadership sits--I don't know where they are. They're somewhere in a dark room. Somebody should turn on the light and tell them there is some stuff to be done and to get out here and pass a real bill, not this jobs cockamamie thing we're going to do in a few days about repackaging stuff we've already passed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to Kidney Action Day today March 1st and World Kidney Day on March 8, 2012. I would also like to recognize the month of March as National Kidney Month. As one out of nine Americans suffers from kidney related disease, it is more prudent than ever to devote time, resources and compassion to this community. We must raise awareness and encourage screening in order to catch the disease early. There are 31 million Americans affected by kidney disease, and we should do everything in our power to make sure this number does not rise. As a physician, I have seen the devastating effects of Chronic Kidney Disease, especially in the end stages. The two leading causes of this disease are high blood pressure and diabetes, both ailments which would spare the kidneys if patients were screened early and managed properly thereafter. As there is no cure for Chronic Kidney Disease, it is in our nation's best interest to help everyone gain access to the resources needed in order to prevent this disease from progressing. Prevention is crucial. For those who do have kidney diseases that progress, dialysis and transplant become the only options. The world's first outpatient dialysis facility opened 50 years ago in my district in Seattle, and although technologies continue to improve, the basic idea remains the same: Patients with end-stage renal disease are dependent on access to dialysis centers to survive. We must continue to fully fund the Medicare ESRD program, as well as advance kidney disease research at the NIDDK (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases). Today, I join other members from both sides of the aisle to attend Kidney Action Day events on Capitol Hill. I encourage my fellow members to join me in helping to spread awareness about a cause that affects us all. I hope we will all stand together to fight Kidney Disease and support those living with the disease every day, as well as their families.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Highline Community College, which is located in Des Moines, Washington, south of Seattle. Highline was founded in 1961 as the first community college in King County. Since then, it has served as Washington state's most diverse community college, educating over 17,000 students, of which almost two- thirds are students of color. Today, Highline serves as the hub of innovative education and training opportunities, supporting students, the community, and the King County economy. In 2010 alone, Highline supported 800 local entrepreneurs through programs and services, helped launch 12 new businesses, and generated $9 million in investments. International students bring an additional $7.7 million to King County's economy annually. As the co-chair of the Congressional Indonesia Caucus, I have been following Highline's State Department-funded initiative with Indonesian community colleges with particular interest. Indonesia is home to over 230 million people and faces acute challenges in making education accessible for all. Highline's work is important in that regard. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Highline Community College, I want to express my strong support for Highline's commitment to education and in ushering students toward a pathway to the American Dream. Thank you.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a firearms bill that will restore a common-sense rule in our national parks. Hundreds of millions of people from across the country and abroad have visited our world-famous national parks. Before 2009, visitors could enjoy our national parks knowing that they were free of loaded guns, thanks to a common-sense policy providing that guns were not to be brought into national parks unless they were unloaded and safely stored. In fact, this common-sense regulation was enacted by the Reagan Administration. But in 2009, Congress passed the Coburn Amendment, allowing people to carry concealed loaded weapons into national parks if it is permissible under state law--and many states allow just that. I believe that the 2009 Coburn Amendment was a huge step in the wrong direction. That is why I am introducing the Guns-Free National Parks Act of 2012--to repeal it. I have always believed that loaded weapons have absolutely no place in our national parks, which are natural sanctuaries and some of the last sacred spaces in our country. Last month Margaret Anderson, a park ranger in Mount Rainier National Park in Washington, executed a routine traffic stop in an effort to ensure that a driver was driving safely. The mentally unstable driver then shot and killed the park ranger. This brave public servant was a wife and mother of two young children. My heart goes out to her grieving family. We have too many guns in American society, and too many needless gun-related deaths. As Americans we rightly pride ourselves on the progress we have made over the decades in science, in civil liberties, and our standard of living in general. But rolling back sensible and appropriate public-safety rules is not progress. I am proud that this bill is endorsed by several well respected national and state-level groups that have worked for years on ending gun violence: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Ceasefire Washington, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Violence Policy Center.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this country has many faces of bravery, and today I want to recognize the courageous patriotism of active duty Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, who recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan. He traveled thousands of miles throughout the country, patrolled with American troops in eight provinces, and spoke to hundreds of Afghan and American security officials and civilians about conditions on the ground. Convinced that senior leaders of this war, both uniformed and civilian, have intentionally and consistently misled the American people about the conditions in Afghanistan, Davis wrote an 84-page report challenging the military's assertion that the war in Afghanistan has been a success. This report, which I read, was written at great risk to Lieutenant Colonel Davis' military career and personal life, and it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the war in Afghanistan and about the decision-making that has led us to our current situation. Davis reports: Senior-ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. I strongly encourage every Member of Congress to read this report as soon as possible. It's like the Pentagon papers in its power. After reading it, you will find it impossible not to heed Davis' advice to hold public congressional hearings on the state of the Afghan war. More than 5,500 Americans were killed or wounded in Afghanistan in 2011 alone. ``How many more soldiers,'' he says, ``must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding?'' That is his question. Each and every one of us ought to ask himself or herself this difficult question. Even our intelligence agencies are skeptical about the Afghan war--if it is salvageable and if our objectives are realistic. Last month, a National Intelligence Estimate given to President Obama painted a bleak picture about our efforts in Afghanistan. At current levels of foreign assistance by the U.S. and Europe, which will be hard to sustain under the budgetary pressures, the NIE does not forecast rapid improvements in Afghan security forces or governance or in the removal of the Taliban. I fear that we have forgotten the difference between respect for our military leaders and unquestioning deference to them. Questioning the war's strategies and objectives and consequences all too often discredits one's patriotism and impugns one's motives. Yet that unflinching assessment is precisely what the lieutenant colonel implores us to do. After 10 years in Afghanistan, what is the wisest course for us now? Sadly, we cannot even begin to answer that question because the rampant over-classification of information has made it nearly impossible for Congress to fully oversee, evaluate and to, perhaps, recast our war efforts. Recently, declassified information about the Afghan war exposed brutal realities that have been withheld from the public--American troops incidentally and accidentally killing Afghan civilians, widespread corruption in the U.S.-backed Karzai government and revelations about Pakistan's assistance to Afghan insurgents, to name just a few. Not every American has traveled 9,000 miles and witnessed what Lieutenant Colonel Davis has seen, heard, and understood; but we can in this body, and must, begin to investigate the charges of deception and dishonesty in his report. For our democracy to work, congressional officials and the public must have access to this type of information. The American public, which bears the extraordinary cost of this war both in money and in pain, deserves to know the truth. The ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus cautioned: ``In war, truth is the first casualty.'' It is time to reclaim the truth of our war in Afghanistan by having congressional hearings. They should begin now. Some of us believe we ought to bring the troops home more quickly than the President, but we have to have hearings so that the American public will understand why it is this action should be taken.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to give recognition to the stalwart Filipino and Filipino-American veterans who fought alongside U.S. troops in the Battles of Bataan and Corregidor following the Japanese invasion of the Philippines in December 1941. By Executive Order, the Filipino soldiers' service entitled them to U.S. veterans' health benefits, pensions, and money for college. But when the war ended, the VA benefits promised to the Filipino soldiers were rescinded by Congress' passage of the Recession Act of 1946. I also rise to honor those prisoners of war forced into the Bataan Death March, a harrowing episode of dreadful suffering and immense casualties. The heroic resistance of these fighters engaged the Japanese Imperial Army for four months, preventing Japanese occupation of Australia. On February 4, 2011, at Dr. Jose Rizal Park in Seattle, Washington, I joined the Association of Bataan and Corregidor Survivors and their families and friends for the unveiling of two bronze memorial plaques honoring the Filipino and Filipino-American veterans. These permanent reminders of their extraordinary bravery and sacrifice will always speak of the strength of the Filipino and American spirit. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 210, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2011. This measure deems certain service performed before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts, active military service eligible for veterans' benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Filipino World War II veterans, who fought so courageously alongside U.S. troops during critical engagements of World War II, have waited far too long--almost 65 years--to receive what they were promised by our government. Most have now passed on. Mr. Speaker, our debt to the surviving veterans and their families is long overdue. We must fulfill our obligation to them now.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing the contributions of the World Affairs Council of Seattle as it marks the 61st anniversary of connecting the Seattle community with the global community. Seattle has long served as a gateway for the global economy, as home to one of the United States' largest ports, innovative companies and world-class research. Since the World Affairs Council of Seattle was founded in 1951, the Council has been integral in providing extraordinary opportunities for people to participate in global debates and expanding people-to-people relationships across the globe. I thank the World Affairs Council of Seattle for its contribution in fostering dialogue in the Seattle region and Washington State.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, tomorrow is Groundhog Day. We've been in session this year for 1 month. And this is the 1st day of the 2nd month, and we've had 2 legislative days and haven't done one single thing for the working Americans in this country. Now, this bill is the whole reason why the Occupy Wall Street movement is out there and why the opinion of the performance of the Congress is so low. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs, training the unemployed, helping businesses grow, or moving the country forward. It is about the ninth time we've brought a piece of so-called ObamaCare--Obama does care, you know. They brought it out here, and they keep trying to repeal it, which is not what the people want us working on. Instead, the Republicans are giving us just a bunch of press releases. I can see them going out of the offices now to the Tea Party all over the country--rile up the base, rile up the base, oh, yeah, and nothing is being done for the people. The second problem is that the Republicans aren't being straight with the American people. This bill does more than the Republicans are saying. The Republicans aren't just repealing the CLASS Act. The Republicans are trying to kill another important and inexpensive program that seniors and families depend on. They're defunding the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, an important and useful government Web site that seniors and their families use to take an active role in understanding, planning, and financing their long- term needs. Remember, these are the most frail people in our society, and they rely on this information to plan for their futures. Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills, and a lot of those astronomical bills are caused by the debilitating costs of long-term care. And the Republicans aren't trying to solve the problem. Instead, the Republicans want to repeal the first ever Federal law creating a stand-alone long-term care program. Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate some years ago said, Don't repeal it; fix it. But the Republicans can't figure out how to fix it because they don't care about seniors. Granted, this CLASS Act needs to be fixed. It's not a perfect bill. We know that. And that's what we should be doing so that the country stops allowing long-term health care costs to bankrupt families. That the Republicans don't care enough to do anything about chronic bankruptcies caused by long-term care is bad enough, but the Republican wrecking ball goes even further. The Republicans are trying to get a scalp. They want to please their base by repealing a part of ObamaCare, that law that insures 31 million more Americans and saves taxpayers money--so-called ObamaCare, that law that already is driving down health care costs and getting Americans better service for less money. In 40 years of legislating, I've seen State houses shift parties, Congress shift parties, but I've never, ever seen a legislative body that failed as badly as this one. This is the most unproductive Congress I've ever seen. And if you think this bill is going to go out of here and go over to the Senate, even the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, wouldn't want this brought up as the bill that we deal with. The Republicans are running their demonize everything and do-nothing agenda, and it's having the predictable results. It gets the base whipped up and angry, but it accomplishes nothing for jobs, nothing for health care, nothing for the deficit, nothing for the economy. The American people need the CLASS Act fixed. They need to be able to continue to rely on the Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. As the Republicans put out their plan for wasting this entire year of 2012 not serving the American people, the voters should look very carefully at what they actually are doing. When they put out their platform, you know, it's going to say, What did you do? Well, I voted ``no.'' I voted ``no.'' I voted ``no.'' I voted ``no.'' They will have nothing positive to put on that agenda. What did you do? Well, I tried to get rid of the EPA. I didn't want clean air. I didn't want clean water. And I didn't want labor unions. And, and, ``no,'' ``no,'' ``no.'' This is a terrible piece of legislation. It should be fixed. There's none of us who would stand up here and say it's a perfect piece of legislation, but I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3801, the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012. This bill, as you have heard, will help prevent drug smuggling across our borders, and it does it, really, in three ways: It amends the current law to give our prosecutors the authority to charge smugglers who fly ultralight aircraft the same way as they charge smugglers who fly conventional aircraft. Second, the bill adds both an ``attempt'' and a ``conspiracy'' provision to the aviation smuggling law. That means our prosecutors will be able to seek higher penalties when it makes sense. And finally, the bill directs the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment and technology that could be used by our Customs officials to detect these ultralight aircraft. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that addresses a real problem and does so in a way that deserves broad bipartisan support. A very similar bill passed the House in the last Congress by a vote of 412-3. So this is a broad bipartisan bill. I expect this bill to pass with the same kind of bipartisan support today. What's unique about it is that it comes on the day when Gabby Giffords is going to resign from the Congress, the woman who brought this bill to the floor. And I want to congratulate her, not only on this important piece of legislation, but for the impressive record she developed over the 5 years that she was representing the Eighth District of Arizona. We all know Gabby's spirit well enough to know she will be back to serve the public as soon as she possibly can. She has an office down the hall from mine, and I occasionally walked with her from the office over here in the times when we came over to vote, and I got to know her on a human basis. She is truly a wonderful woman, and we will miss her. She had a bright future before her here, and it's sad to us that she's leaving, but it's important for her to take care of herself. I'm a physician. I'm a psychiatrist, and I have seen cases like hers in the past and know that the possibilities for rehabilitation are very good. But it takes time, and running political campaigns and doing the kinds of things that you have to do in this business doesn't give you much time to take care of yourself. So we want Gabby to go home and take care of herself and return to her highest level of ability, because she has much to offer the people of the State of Arizona and her husband and the country. So it's with a great deal of sadness that we say good-bye to her, but on the other hand, we're very happy for her. We very much urge everyone to vote for this bill.