Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. So this is one of those issues where you put it on cheap, but you are going to pay for it in the long term. Now, some of you over there, clearly, don't care. As for the guy in Michigan who made the decision that they use that dirty river water and inflict that on the children of Flint and the lead poisoning and the lead effects on their heads, that is the kind of mentality we are dealing with with the people who run this bill every 2 years from the companies that make this stuff. It came in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015. Here it is again this year. It will be back. This bill isn't done. They are going to keep trying to convince the American people that you can just spread chemicals everywhere, and it doesn't have effects on people, but it does. That is what environmental health is all about. That is why this bill is a step backward to about 1950, when we didn't really know what pesticides did to people. Now we do. We are absolutely right in voting against this bill, and the President ought to veto it if it gets through. The Senate, as bad as they are, won't even let this bill through.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution to designate the Nordic Heritage Museum in Seattle, Washington as the National Nordic Museum of the United States. The museum celebrates a heritage with strong and proud ties to the region, with many Seattleites claiming ancestry from Nordic countries. As the only museum in the United States that encompasses a broader focus on all Nordic countries--including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden--the museum's prominence as a source of exhibits on Nordic culture and history is unparalleled. The museum's collections include not only items brought by Nordic immigrants from 1840 to 1920, but also contemporary objects from their descendants. The Nordic Heritage Museum has outgrown its current location, now undertaking the laudable albeit considerable effort to modernize its setting to suit its growing needs. The new location will include upgraded facilities and enable a broader series of exhibits in a more spacious setting. I am looking forward to seeing the museum expand its reach and thrive in its new location. I am fortunate and proud to represent a district that is home to such a rich array of cultural and historical gems. The Nordic Heritage Museum adds to the city's--indeed the region's--wealth of museums, and I am pleased to support an effort to strengthen its national esteem and recognition. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to designate it as the National Nordic Museum of the United States.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I want to first begin by acknowledging Congressman Murphy. He has taken on an extremely difficult issue. It takes courage to bring that kind of issue to the floor of the House. More than half a million Americans with serious mental illness continue to fall through the cracks of a broken and outdated system. As Congress begins the consideration of how to address this national crisis, it is important that we take some stock of history. Prior to the 1960s, commitment was based on a medical model where two physicians made a determination that a patient needed treatment. I did that when I came out of the military in 1970 in Seattle. When the first attempt at comprehensive mental health reform began in the 1960s in California, it signaled a shift from the medical model to the legal model. Ronald Reagan had been elected Governor and was interested in reducing the population in the mental hospitals in California. The result was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in the California State Assembly. This act set a new standard, making it increasingly difficult to obtain commitment to a hospital. That standard was that a patient must be suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled. Gravely disabled means that they can't take care of their basic needs. I moved to California in 1968 shortly after that bill was passed to serve as the chief psychiatrist at the Long Beach Naval Station, where I saw servicemen and -women and their families. For the 2 years I was in California, I had almost no success in getting civil commitment for people that I felt were suicidal. I was overruled by State employees charged with the duty of evaluating the need for civil commitment. The real pressure was so great on them and the court system that it was nearly impossible to get anyone into treatment in a secure facility. The hospitals in the State were quickly emptied, and literally thousands of mentally disabled people went out on the streets. At the same time, in Congress, the mental health center movement was taking hold. The Community Mental Health Act was signed into law in 1963. The bill promised adequate funding would go to mental health centers to effectively treat most of these patients on an outpatient basis. But things didn't go as planned. The political reality resulted in insufficient money going to the mental health system. This had a devastating effect and led to more patients wandering the streets in need of treatment. When I finished my time in the military and went back to Washington State, I went to the legislature and saw a similar movement was occurring in my State. Remembering what had happened in California, I argued against changing that commitment standard, but the majority ruled and a similar law was passed. As a result, we closed one of the three mental hospitals in the State of Washington--Northern State Hospital--with the assurance that the money we saved from closing that hospital would go to the mental health centers. We saved $11 million. $3 million went to the mental health centers, and $7 million or $8 million went elsewhere. As a result, the streets of the State of Washington began to see all kinds of homeless people laying on the street and so forth. As a result, some of the most vulnerable patients were left without a support structure. Many became homeless or were imprisoned. In the end, we simply replaced hospital beds with prison beds, as Congressman Murphy has already pointed out. Right now there are 10 times more mentally ill patients in jails and prison than in State hospitals. Turn the clock forward to 1979. I was a jail psychiatrist in King County, which, in effect, was the second largest mental hospital in the State. I had over 200 patients who belonged in treatment, not in jail. This had a tremendous cost on our society. All across this country-- and Washington is no different than anywhere else you go in this country--it has a human cost as well as a financial cost. The average cost per year for a prisoner without mental illness in a jail is $22,000 a year. For a mentally ill patient who is a prisoner, the cost is more than double that, at $50,000 a year. It costs 20 times more to imprison a mentally ill patient than to provide that same patient with treatment. These statistics are deplorable, and the process continues to remain in place across this country. There are some places that have done things on their own and made efforts to improve how they care for behavioral health patients. In Dixon, Illinois, recently two young people died. It is a town of 20,000 people. The sheriff said: I am going to do what they are doing in Gloucester, Massachusetts, in the ANGEL program. He made the statement to the community: Anybody who is addicted to heroin or opioids, come in. We won't arrest you. We won't prosecute. We will treat you. Twenty seven people showed up in that jail. He said, amazingly, another thing happened. The jail was empty because crime went down dramatically. Most of those people were out committing crimes to buy drugs. Now, this program encouraged those suffering from addiction to go to the police, where they would be directed to drug rehabilitation and not prosecuted. Since then, many individuals have had effective treatment. We need to treat addiction as a disease state and not as a criminal offense or some moral failure. And the same is true with mental illness. A comprehensive mental health reform bill would go a long way to that effort. Now, out on the floor here, again and again, we pause for a moment of silence. Some awful thing has happened someplace in this country, in my city, in 25 cities across this country, and we stand here for 1 minute and commemorate the tragedy with a moment of silence. After that pause, we do nothing. Virtually all mentally ill patients are more likely to be victims of violent crimes rather than perpetrators, and we must recognize there are tragic situations that can be prevented with treatment and early intervention. I understand--I have been involved in this my whole professional life--that the most contentious issue is whether or not the society has a right to detain a citizen and treat them in the most medically effective way. Many fear a return to the indeterminate confinement of people like in the 1960s. I saw that in Chicago when I was in medical school. None of us want to see that happen--not me, most of all. But certainly no one on this floor wants that to happen in this society. The balance between personal liberty and the needs of a society is a challenging one to strike; but difficult as it may be, we have to rise to that challenge. That is why I commend Congressman Murphy for bringing it out here and beginning the debate that ought to go on in this society. If a mentally ill person is a danger to themselves or others, there needs to be an ability to commit that person long enough for the treatment to take effect. We need to listen to those who know the patient best. In many cases, it is not their doctor. We often hear stories from families who have tried desperately to get treatment for their loved ones, or from police officers who have tried desperately to get treatment for people. We, as doctors, can't possible make the best assessment without hearing from family, friends, and those who live with patients and play an integral role in their lives. Giving patients and families the help they need will dramatically improve and even save lives. That is why we need to work together, on a bipartisan basis, on a bill that Mr. Murphy has brought out. Is it a perfect bill? No, but it is a bill from which we can work and reach an agreement to try and help the needs of our society. We have had enough moments of silence on this floor. It is time to act.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 51 (On the Al Green of Texas Amendment to H.R. 3700), had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote 52 (On final passage of H.R. 3700), had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote 53 (On passage of H.R. 3762), the Objections of the President Notwithstanding (Veto Override)), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote 54 (On passage of H.R. 3662), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the distinguished career of Ralph Forquera, a tireless champion of the health and welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives living in urban areas. As Ralph prepares to step down after more than two decades as executive director of the Seattle Indian Health Board, I commend him for his important work and wish him the very best on his next steps. Under Ralph's direction, the Seattle Indian Health Board has become one of the nation's largest community health programs for urban American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Health Board now provides a full spectrum of clinical care, including direct primary medical, dental, mental health, and substance abuse services, to more than 7,000 individuals. Ralph's leadership has been essential to the Health Board's growth and continued successes. Throughout his career, Ralph has been a champion of the Native American community, especially those who are Native American but not a member of or affiliated with a federally recognized tribe. Through his advocacy, Ralph never lets us forget about the challenges that urban Indians continue to face, including a 26 percent poverty rate as well as health disparities and chronic underfunding of health services. Ralph knows it can take a long time for federal policy to be updated and changed, but he is steadfast in his efforts and never gives up. He participated in over a decade of discussions that ultimately led to reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. He played an important role in reauthorizing and making permanent the urban Indian health title of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. And Ralph, to this day, continues to work to extend the 100 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage to urban Indian health programs. I wish Ralph the best in retirement, and I congratulate him on an outstanding career.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on the wall outside my office are the faces of 149 men and women from Washington State who were killed in action over the past 14 years in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Today it is with reverence that I will add the 150th face: Sergeant Matthew McClintock's. Matthew was killed in Helmand Province in Afghanistan on the 5th of January. Sergeant McClintock was a Green Beret, an engineer, a National Guardsman, as well as a dedicated friend, son, husband, and father. He joined the Army in 2006 and served in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of three tours. On one of his tours, his best friend was killed. So you can imagine what was in his mind when he was now leading a group in Afghanistan and one of his men was on the ground, hit. He knew the danger, but he went out to try and save his teammate. He epitomized everything we admire about our warriors: their skill, their mettle, their commitment to their teammates, to their families, and to us as a nation. The loss of a promising, smart, steadfast young man, whose devotion to family and country was freely given, should not and will not be accepted without sorrow and respect. I had the chance to meet Matthew's wife, Alexandra, and their 3- month-old son, Declan, on Friday, when Matthew came back to Dover Air Force Base. Everything his family said about him speaks of a man I would like to have known. It is said that the true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but because he loves what is behind him. Matthew leaves behind a proud and beautiful family. His wife asked that she have a chance to go up to Walter Reed to see the man her husband went out to save, who is still alive. That is the kind of family this is. We, as a nation, should be forever grateful that someone of his caliber--and his family--continues to choose to fight. Mr. Speaker, we have entered the 15th year of this war, and it is easy to forget what is still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places where our soldiers are. I became aware of this because somebody in my district was Matthew's father-in-law. He called me up and asked if I would be of help. I was glad to do it, but I realized I had not been aware of what had happened to him. So I asked the Army press people: Was this reported in the press? They said, yes, that it was on television for 45 seconds. The American people are being allowed not to see and not to hear about Matthew McClintock. They are not being told what is going on. We sent him there. We gave him the gun. We gave him the bullets. We gave him the body armor. We gave him everything and sent him over there and asked him to do this for us. He did it. He was willing to lay down his life for us. We deserve more time with people like Matthew and like many of the soldiers who went before him. But for those who survive them--Matthew's teammates, his family--Alexandra and especially Declan--when this war finally ends, they deserve long and happy lives in peace.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 32 (On Motion to Recommit with Instructions related to H.R. 1927), had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' (By unanimous consent, Ms. McSally was allowed to speak out of order.) Moment of Silence Commemorating Fifth Anniversary of Shooting in Tucson, Arizona

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 33 (On Passage related to H.R. 1927), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Personal Explanation

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, the same fraudulent bill being brought out here again. The gentleman from Michigan says that they have a plan. They have a plan. We have been waiting 5 years for you to bring that plan to the floor and let us have a vote on it. There is no plan that you are willing to bring to the floor because you do not care about the American people and their health security. Taking it away from 22 million people and assaulting women with this bill is simply clear evidence that you do not care what happens. Now, you may think this is good election year politics. But back in the States, the Republicans--even the Governor of Kentucky, a Republican, has decided, you know, I don't want to take it away from people who are on Medicaid. We tried this in Washington. We already know that if you leave in place the requirement that insurance companies give insurance to people, no matter what their healthcare state is, you are going to sink the individual market. We lost it in the State of Washington, and you are sentencing the whole country to that. Besides, you have said you want the repeal vote to be on the 22nd. You know it is going nowhere.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Omnibus spending agreement, which contains harmful riders designed to undermine the Affordable Care Act and jeopardize the privacy of the American people. As a supporter of health reform, I am deeply disturbed by the continuation of a provision that devastates the Administration's ability to mitigate volatility in the insurance markets through the risk corridor program. The risk corridor program is one of three measures designed to balance risk pools as more Americans become eligible for health coverage. Far from ``insurance industry bailouts'' these are carefully designed, temporary measures that are critical to making health reform work. In fact, they are modeled after programs that Republicans created to support the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit in 2003. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle enthusiastically supported these programs then, and continue to do so to this day. But in a cynical effort to sabotage the insurance markets and undermine the Affordable Care Act, my colleagues have inserted a devastating rider that will continue to block the Administration from shifting discretionary funds into the ACA risk corridor program. Without these funds, the program will continue to be badly underfunded, resulting in dramatic instability and potential spikes in premiums around the country. Furthermore, this bill also guts an important revenue-generating measure through a delay in the Affordable Care Act's health insurance premium tax. Under the guise of providing tax relief, Republicans are deliberately eliminating a key source of revenue that is essential to the implementation of the law. Despite what we may hear, this isn't being done for benevolent reasons or out of concern for consumers. The reality is that it is yet another effort to weaken the Affordable Care Act and make sure that the insurance companies don't have to pay their fair share. This is a pattern with this Congress, which at every turn undermine and sabotage the law--simply to score political points. By deliberately creating a spike in premiums and cutting off critical sources of revenue such as the premium tax, they can then point the finger at the ACA when the law is underfunded and consumers have to pay more for their insurance. This is a calculated and cynical example of legislative sabotage. Furthermore, this bill includes a troubling rider that threatens the privacy of the American people. Also slipped into the Omnibus is the Cybersecurity Act of 2015--a so- called compromise bill that gives liability protection to companies in order to incentivize them to share information about cybersecurity threats with the government. However, the legislation undermines American's right to privacy, provides companies with protection from law suits even when they are grossly negligent and includes an overly broad Freedom of Information Act exemption that is unnecessary and promotes potentially harmful secrecy. With our citizens spending more and more time online and storing ever increasing amounts of personal data in the cloud, we should not continue to expand the government's reach into our private lives. We know the right path. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to vote for H.R. 1731, the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act. While it isn't a perfect bill, I believe it would enhance the security of our networks while providing protections for American's privacy. Instead, House leadership has subverted reasoned, public debate in favor of backroom deals. They've snuck their legislation into a must- pass spending bill. This is not how major cybersecurity legislation should be considered. It is a disservice to our responsibility to the American people. Because of these harmful riders I cannot support this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the first broadcast from KEXP's New Home in Seattle, and to salute the station as it prepares for the Grand Opening of its new home for music discovery in April of 2016. Since its founding in 1972, KEXP has always been a champion for music discovery. With a radio broadcast and online stream that reaches over 200,000 people per week as well as a video channel that reaches 750,000 more, KEXP has provided music lovers with decades of trusted, curated music discovery experiences, and introduced a global audience to new artists from the Pacific Northwest and beyond. As a public radio station with vibrant community support, KEXP empowers its DJs to make bold choices and push themselves creatively, introducing audiences to new artists, and putting music in context by sharing stories, connecting musical threads, and juxtaposing today's emerging artists with the seminal artists that inspire them. KEXP provides bands from the Pacific Northwest a stage from which they launch their music careers. KEXP connects thousands of artists to millions of music lovers. KEXP connects talent to record labels, promoters, and the music industry. The result is powerful; a thriving population of artists and bands who have the opportunity to successfully perform and present their art. KEXP is invigorating the community by helping arts and culture thrive in the Pacific Northwest. With the opening of its new home at Seattle Center, KEXP will be able to serve the community in exciting new ways. It will host free live performances, create new educational partnerships, create public engagement spaces, and house cutting-edge broadcast and production technology. As we tune in and celebrate the first broadcast from this state-of- the-art facility, I would like to convey my congratulations to KEXP on the opening of its new home as well as the growing number of opportunities it will create to bring great music into the lives of those in the 7th Congressional District and around the world.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, one of the darkest days in American history was December 8, 1941. Over 2,400 lives were lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor the previous day. Half our Navy was destroyed, and our allies in Europe were on the verge of collapse. It was a terrifying and uncertain time to be in the world. The world feels particularly dark these days, too. Things feel more uncertain. And for a country that enjoys the privilege of security, we might be forgiven for this growing anxiety. Fear makes it easy to be nervous and cynical. We allowed our baser instincts to get the better of us in this country, as we did in 1941. We translated the contagion of xenophobia into national policy with the internment of German and Japanese from my area in internment camps. We are hearing the same contemptible rhetoric today. It is dishonorable, it is false, and to believe it is to reject the fundamental truth that the American people are ultimately made of finer stuff than fear, blame, and prejudice. We will get through these troubles, Mr. Speaker. Nothing is above our strength or our endurance as a nation so long as we have the grace and courage to remind ourselves on our darkest days of our essential values and responsibilities as a free and open people.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, December 1st is World AIDS Day. This past weekend Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday. It is a time of reflection and appreciation. Similarly, World AIDS Day is a moment for us to reflect on our past challenges, appreciate the great strides we have made, and acknowledge that serious work remains to eradicate the disease. Congress has played a vital role, and our future success requires continued Congressional action and vigilance. Today, we can take heart in the knowledge that new HIV infections worldwide have decreased by 35% since 2000. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been a vanguard effort through which rates of infection have dropped in areas of the world hit the hardest by the epidemic. Its initiatives are critical to saving lives and preventing new infections. Our efforts abroad are not just about where the disease is located, but also who it impacts. From decreasing mother-to-child transmission and addressing the nuances of co-infections and co-morbidities to confronting the stigmas that undermine prevention and hinder access to life-saving healthcare, we are better positioned to confront the disease in all its stages and improve the quality of life for those living with the disease. Complementing this effort is our continued march forward on the scientific front. While we have made great strides in drug development, this effort has been hampered by Congress' reluctance to fully support basic research in the sciences through the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, we must work hard to ensure that treatment is accessible to everyone across the socio-economic spectrum, both domestically and internationally. I served as a medical officer with the U.S. State Department in sub- Saharan Africa just as the full force of the AIDS epidemic became readily apparent. Infection was, by and large, a death sentence. Today, with anti-viral treatments we can talk about people living with AIDS, but this also reminds us that confronting the disease is more than just biology, but also public health and the social impact of the disease. One of my first accomplishments as a Member of Congress was to work with my colleagues to pass legislation that ensures those with AIDS have access to housing. Today, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program (HOPWA) continues to help ensure that those living with AIDS affordable housing and contributes to the stability needed to promote adherence to treatment regimens. Today, we see overall declines in infection rates, but we must acknowledge that in some communities, this is not the case. While most sub-Saharan countries of Africa have seen decreases in rates of infection, this has not been the case in Angola and Uganda. Similarly, in the United States we see a geographical shift in rates of infection with the southeastern United States showing higher rates than other parts of the country. If past is precedent, meeting these challenges must start with a strong commitment to education, based in science, and dedicated to empowering communities through knowledge to confront the disease. As we commemorate World AIDS Day this year, we can draw inspiration from our international response to the AIDS epidemic. Rather than a fearful reaction, ill-equipped because of ignorance, and disengaged because of empty rhetoric, the United States is rising to meet the challenge of an AIDS-free generation; motivated by compassion and the pursuit of wellbeing, armed with science, and committed through the dedication of resources. We can take pride in how far we have come, but our success must not breed a false sense of security. Our work is not done and Congress must provide the resources needed to ensure the United States government maintains its leadership role, both at home and abroad, in the effort to make an AIDS-free generation a reality.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress, the Republican propaganda machine is out here pushing a false choice: You either have no regulations or you have no economy. That is what it is. You have to get rid of all the regulations, or you won't have an economy. Now, that simply is not true. The facts are piling up worldwide that we cannot continue what we are doing. Now, on the front page of today's Washington Post is a picture of a Chinese city where you can't see a guy riding a bicycle in the street. That is true in Delhi. That is true in Beijing. It is all over the world. And, unfortunately, climate is all over the world. We can't just have it clean in our neighborhood and have it awful in the rest of the world. We have to think about a larger issue than our own. I have heard the same arguments that I am hearing today when we said, ``You got to stop smoking on the airplanes.'' Why, we heard the tobacco boys running in here saying, ``Oh, this is the end of the Earth. There will be nobody smoking tobacco.'' And look what has happened. The air is cleaned up on planes, it is cleaned up in restaurants, it is cleaned up on this floor because we had rules and regulations. This is a public health problem as much as it is an economic problem. Since I got out of the military in 1968, 76,000 miners have died of black lung disease--76,000. We have appropriated in this House $45 billion in money to those miners because of their problems. Our ravenous appetite for fossil fuels continues to be a real problem, and it is getting worse. And yet, with all the reckless bills, the Republicans are once again turning a blind eye to these costs. ``They don't mean anything. We want the mine owners to have freedom to do whatever they want and the power companies to do whatever they want. We don't want anybody to tell them you have to clean it up.'' In Seattle, we have a steel plant right in the middle of town. It is run by Nucor. The Nucor Steel rebar plant is right in the middle of the city. It has been cleaned up, and you can do it. But the coal boys and the power boys, they don't want to spend any money cleaning anything up. They don't want anybody telling them, with regulations, you have to reduce the amount of particulates in the air. So we have this problem that is going on and on and on. Now, as industry and the industry-bought Republicans fight tooth and nail against any effort to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, they are not just condemning future generations to a world battered by increasing extreme and erratic weather patterns--we are seeing them all over the world.

Mr. McDERMOTT. They are really betraying a generation of Americans who are already reeling from the impact of all of this. Coal miners and the communities they live in are bearing the brunt of this irresponsible action by the coal owners. We had the same thing in Washington State with the forests. People said, ``You have to keep cutting trees. Cut every tree you can see that is standing anywhere.'' And we said, ``If you do that, you destroy the environment.'' So we stopped, and we helped the loggers find another way to make a living, and they are doing just fine. Now, if we keep this up and keep resisting and keep exposing the American public, both in the mines and in the cities, to this kind of environment, we are going to pay for it. It is like that FRAM commercial when I was a kid. The FRAM commercial was you either clean your air filter on your car now or you are going to pay me later by having to have the motor redone. That is what this is about. We are talking about a President who says, let's put some new FRAM filters in here and see if we can't cut down the pollution and save both the people and the economy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing but a PR piece that could have been written by Joseph Goebbels, who said, If you can make people afraid, you can make them do anything. What you are seeing here is the Republican's attempt to panic the American people that there is not a system in place. Let me tell you about this system that is there. Mr. Thompson from Mississippi said what is really there. I helped a woman who for 2 years was a translator for American troops in Iraq. She was so good she saved lots of people's lives. She was so good that the enemy put a mark on her and said they were going to kill her. So she had to go into hiding. It took her from January 2007 until September 2007 to get the papers and the witnesses and all the information necessary to get her into the United States. Somebody who had put her life on the line for us, our soldiers, it took 9 months to get her in. Then her mother and her brothers and sisters, who were 16 and 12 and 9, it took them 2 years to get into this country. We have a robust system that is working. This bill is PR bologna. We ought to vote ``no.'' It sends the wrong message. It says only White Christians can come into this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 594, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 595, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. I include in the Record an article from the Seattle Times entitled ``Why Washington State's Health Reform Faltered After the Loss of Mandates.'' [From The Seattle Times, March 28, 2012] Why Washington State's Health Reform Faltered After Loss of Mandates (By Carol M. Ostrom) As the U.S. Supreme Court tackles the question of whether individuals can be required to buy health insurance--a key provision in the federal health-care overhaul--some in Washington state are battling a strong sense of deja vu mixed with dread. They remember 1993, when state lawmakers passed a comprehensive state law aimed at insuring everyone and spreading the health-care expenses of the sickest throughout a large pool of policyholders. But the law, which relied on both mandates and incentives, was soon dismembered, leaving only popular provisions, such as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to sick people or making them wait many months for coverage. Without any leverage to bring healthy people onto insurance rolls, insurers, left with the priciest patients, began a financial death spiral. Ultimately, companies pulled out of the individual market and almost no one in Washington could buy an individual policy for any price. For those involved, the lessons learned remain sharp as a scalpel. ``It's the same thing we're very likely to face if the Supreme Court blows a hole in the current law,'' warns Randy Revelle, a former King County executive who was heavily involved in the state effort nearly two decades ago. Unlike the debate going on in the high court, the lessons here don't involve constitutional questions. They're all about the realities of the health-insurance market and politics. At the top of the list: Lesson 1: Good intentions, no matter how popular, can backfire--big time. 1esson 2: A machine doesn't work so well if you remove parts. Lesson 3: Buy-in from both political parties and strong public support are needed to maintain enough momentum to sustain complex reforms through potential changes in administration. the '94 ``death spiral'' In an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Gov. Chris Gregoire and other governors referred to the ``death spiral'' in Washington's individual-insurance market that began in 1994. The 1993 law, passed when Democrats controlled both houses and the governor's seat, was then the most ambitious overhaul effort in the nation. The delicate balancing act ended when Republicans, who objected to what they saw as heavy-handed government control of the health industry, swept into power in both houses. By the time the new Legislature finished, the only parts of the law that survived were the ``consumer-friendly'' pieces, championed by then-Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn, a Democrat. ``We kept some of the insurance reforms in law, because they were very popular, but we didn't keep the market reforms,'' says Pam MacEwan, who was a member of the Health Services Commission charged with implementing the law and is now a Group Health Cooperative executive. ``It was a big problem.'' That's primarily because there was nothing left in the law to push or entice people to buy insurance when they were healthy, which would have spread costs more broadly. What happened next is starkly summarized in a 1995 letter sent to Premera Blue Cross by a woman in Eastern Washington. A few months before she gave birth that year, the woman bought an individual policy from Premera. As soon as the insurer paid her hospital expenses, the woman canceled the policy, telling Premera ``we will do business with you again when we are pregnant.'' True to her word, in 1996, she bought insurance, Premera said, once again canceling after the insurer paid for the delivery of her next child. Altogether, she paid in $1,807 in premiums. Premera paid out $7,024.68 in medical bills. You don't have to be a business genius to recognize the problem with those numbers when multiplied by thousands of customers. Claims went up. Premiums rose. Pretty soon only sick people thought insurance was worth the cost. Premiums rose even more. Healthy people, like the Eastern Washington woman, waited until they needed insurance to buy it. At the time, Gov. Gary Locke likened it to buying fire insurance after your house is on fire. state breaks the logjam Before deciding in 1998 not to sell any more individual policies in the state, Premera lost $120 million in today's dollars, says company spokesman Eric Earling. By mid-1999, the state's other two big insurers, Regence BlueShield and Group Health, stopped selling individual policies. In 1999, with the individual health-insurance market essentially dead, Locke began crafting a compromise. Signed into law in the spring of 2000, it was a bitter pill for some, but it got the market back into action. In exchange for coming back into the market, insurers could charge whatever they wanted, bypassing the rate review normally done by the insurance commissioner's office. They could also force patients to wait nine months to be covered, and exclude the most expensive patients. To deal with those patients, the state revived its high- risk pool. Insurers, who would help subsidize the pool, would be allowed to reject 8 percent of applicants, who could then buy coverage through the pool--if they could afford it. At the time, Sen. Alex Deccio, a Republican from Yakima, summed it up neatly: ``We are in a private-enterprise system.'' ``have'' vs. ``have-not'' Washington's insurance experience, some worry, could be repeated on a much larger scale, should the Supreme Court find the mandate unconstitutional. Insurers, in an amicus brief to the court, argue that if the mandate is removed they should be allowed to exclude people and set prices based on health--now barred in the federal plan. Others argue that the mandate, with its relatively weak financial penalty for those who don't buy insurance, isn't necessary for the federal health overhaul to proceed. They calculate that many young, low-income uninsured would buy policies without a mandate, since the federal overhaul dangles attractively low premiums for the young and subsidizes those with low incomes. State Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, who chairs the Senate's health-care committee and a group of lawmakers exploring alternatives, says if the federal mandate is overturned, each state would be left to choose options ranging from doing nothing to legislating ways to bring as many people as possible into a health-insurance pool. ``Of course, that would mean that our country would be made of `have' states and `have-not' states, making the health disparities even worse, which is pretty awful,'' Keiser said in an email. Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler says 85 percent of state residents, who now have group coverage, wouldn't be directly affected by the federal mandate. But, he adds, the typical Washington family's yearly insurance bill includes about $1,000 to cover costs for the uninsured, which his office calculates have reached about $1 billion a year in the state. The state hospital association says charges for charity care and bad debt by patients may amount to as much as $2 billion. Kreidler's office has estimated that under the federal plan, the vast majority of the approximately 1 million uninsured would qualify for Medicaid or subsidies. Revelle, now policy leader for the Washington State Hospital Association, says the state's struggle to improve health coverage was illuminating. ``A fundamental lesson we learned in the process--and that unfortunately was not learned in the federal process--is that health care is so big, so complex, so passionate, that it has got to have bipartisan support,'' Revelle said. It also needs widespread public support to last through the years it takes to impose changes on an entrenched industry. And that's difficult, he says, not only because of health care's complexity, but because people do not agree on fundamental values. ``It's very hard to look out five or 10 years,'' Revelle says. ``But we should constantly be thinking: Where do we need to be five to 10 years from now?''

Mr. McDERMOTT. What we are doing out here today has already been done in one of the laboratories of democracy, the State of Washington. The Republicans did exactly the same thing. They repealed the mandates, and the individual insurance market died. It was impossible to buy a policy in the State of Washington because the insurance companies said: Why should we insure somebody under guaranteed mandate when they could walk in here whenever they are sick and get a policy and when they are healthy cancel it, then walk back in when they are sick again and get a policy? That is what you are setting up. If you were serious about this, you would wipe out ObamaCare totally. You would wipe out the individual mandate. But you know that would be death to you politically, so you wipe out these mandates which you think are good. Now, we know you don't care about the people. I mean, that is pretty clear. But what you are saying is you don't even care about the insurance industry. This bill will die in the Senate because the insurance industry will say: If this passes, we won't be able to sell individual policies. You are wasting our time on an issue that has already been demonstrated does not work in the real world, and yet the ideologues in the back of the boat over there in the Republican Caucus had the idea that if you hit it with a bigger hammer, reconciliation--I mean, it is not enough to just pass a bill out of here. You are going to use reconciliation, which is a sledgehammer in the House, and that will make it pass. Folks, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and is certainly dead on arrival in the White House.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 29th I missed two votes on Ordering the Previous Question and House Resolution 444. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 50th anniversary of Northwest Center. The Northwest Center is a leader in advancing equal opportunities for children and adults with developmental disabilities. Their unique social enterprise model provides services such as inclusive early childhood education, after school programs, job training and placement. Founded in 1965, Northwest Center was initiated by parents who refused to accept that institutionalizing their children with special needs was the only option for their education and enrichment. Washington State is a place of pioneers and it was in that spirit that these parents effected positive change for children everywhere. Fifty years later in 2015, Northwest Center continues to revolutionize the ways we think about people with abilities different than our own. Where Northwest Center's founding parents were once viewed as audacious for their advocacy, today there is a generation of people living rich, productive lives because they were given the opportunity to thrive as a part of a community that nurtured them as part of its whole, instead of isolating them as separate and distinct. Northwest Center's 50th Anniversary celebrates the promise the organization made a half century ago, ``to promote the growth, development, and economic independence of persons with developmental disabilities through programs of education, rehabilitation, and work opportunity.'' Its revolutionary approach recognizes that inclusion, not segregation, is a fundamental tenet of a strong community--at school, at work and in the world around us. In Northwest Center classrooms, children with and without disabilities share high expectations. Innovative companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks have embraced the advantages of workforce inclusion. Against this backdrop of revolutionary achievement, I salute Northwest Center and its founders for their leadership--not only in their programs, but in launching a groundbreaking attitudinal shift that impacts people across the state of Washington and across this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Golden Goose Award, which recognizes researchers whose seemingly obscure, federally funded research has returned significant benefits to society. In particular, I rise to celebrate 2015 Golden Goose Awardees Drs. Walter Mischel, Philip Peake, and Yuichi Shoda for their research using the now famous Marshmallow Test. Their work--funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation--has had a significant impact on how we understand human behavior, how we educate our children, and even how we save for retirement. These researchers used a simple test to measure pre-schoolers' self- control, offering children one marshmallow now or two if they could wait 15 minutes alone in a room with a single marshmallow. Their research showed that how children performed on this simple, silly- sounding test correlated with the children's future SAT scores, their propensity for obesity or drug addiction, and even the very chemistry of their brains. Far from a story about fixed fates, their study showed the importance of self-control and provided an understanding of how it can be cultivated. Our increased understanding of self-control has transformed how we teach our children and helps us recognize the potential that lies in all of us. They have helped usher in a new age of understanding of human development and behavior. Our lives are the better for it. I am proud to stand in recognition of their work. I also believe it is important to highlight the government funding that made their research possible. Basic scientific research is often misunderstood because it may not appear to have an immediate pay off, but the research using Marshmallow Test highlights the profound impact it can have on our lives. We must continue to invest in basic and applied scientific research if we are going to tackle the problems of the 21st century.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, by now, I should be used to the wild and spurious charges my Republican colleagues will level at the administration when they know they are about to lose a big battle. This is an extremely well-conceived arms agreement that does exactly what needs to be done when it comes to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, if it is enforced. There is not an argument or an objection against it that has not been debunked by actual regional and nuclear experts on both sides of the aisle. And yet not a single Republican in the entire United States Congress is willing to consider the deal's exceptional merits--not a single one. Now, that is politics; that is not policy. Instead, we have spent 2 days watching the Republicans trip over themselves on how best to unanimously disapprove of this deal. If we disapprove, where does it lead? You heard: either to war or let's go get another deal. That is not going to happen. Everyone has told us that is not going to happen. It is the same neocons that have led us into 15 years of war in the Middle East that now want us to leave the thing open with Iran; don't settle it. We have seen Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz go toe-to-toe with the Iranians for months. Enduring the through-the-night meetings and countless strained arguments, our diplomats ultimately delivered the most far-reaching nuclear agreement in history. There is nothing that compares with what we have here. That is real leadership. Of course, we have seen the shameful campaigns of misinformation and vitriol before--ObamaCare. If you were to play the ObamaCare arguments, they are the same ones that you are hearing today: Fear; fear, folks; you are going to lose your doctor; you are going to lose everything. And yet we now have it in place, and 20 million people have more health care. Now we are seeing it again. A Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, said it best: Credit goes to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who at best knows, in the end, triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall not be with these cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. The President has gone out on the line. He has listened to this stuff for 2 years and came back with an agreement. You have got experts in Israel, you have got experts around the world saying that this is a good deal. Now, imagine if we were making this agreement 70 years ago with the Japanese. We had been at war with them. We wouldn't have the same arguments. Vote against this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we are with another short-term extension of the highway trust fund. It is silly; it is counterproductive. Anybody who knows anything knows this is ridiculous. They say we have got to have time to work out a compromise. How many years do you need time? When I served in the State legislature in my home State of Washington, a businessman once told me that businessowners don't care what the rate is or how long; they just want to know how long they have to deal with something. Now, how can businesses do any kind of planning in this country when they get 1-, 2-, and 3-month extensions? This is the 25th time that we have done a short-term extension of the highway trust fund. Put another way, this is the 25th time the Congress has shirked its responsibility to the taxpayers and businesses to provide reliable transportation infrastructure across this country. Now, as I thought about this debate, I was reminded of a tube of toothpaste that lays in my bathroom. It is about one-third gone. All of you have one of these at home that is laying there. You know what you do; you keep squeezing it one more time. You say: Can I get one more brush out of this? Will I get one more? Can I get one more? That is what we have been doing here. We are squeezing the tube one more time. We are going to be back. You save your toothpaste because it is going to be back; it is going to be back in November or December. We are going to be right back down here squeezing to get a little bit. Now, my belief is that it is time that we stop this. It is time for a long-term funding bill, and we should have done it this time. Now, in order to make this bill even worse, they wrap in the toothpaste tube of the Veterans Administration. Let's give a little bit of money here, a little bit of money there; and we will see if we can kind of move it along and then stay out of trouble. We never fix anything here. This Congress is the Congress of the half-empty toothpaste tube. I will probably vote with everybody else because you don't want the Veterans Administration to be having problems and you don't want the hospital construction to stop. We will vote for it, but it is foolish, and it is a statement about the failure of the Republican Party to deal with major issues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).