Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McDERMOTT. I have no other speakers, so I will close on our side. Mr. Speaker, I expect this bill will pass in 5 minutes without a vote against it. This bill could be law by tomorrow at noon if the Senate would act, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side will do as we will do on this side, which is to contact our colleagues in the Senate and ask them this time, put it up and move it. Now, if they don't, all you can say is this was a trial balloon we put up in the air, and we found out the Senate was asleep or dysfunctional or--I don't know what you would put on it. They have to act on this if they're serious about a trade agenda for this country, and I hope that we can make it happen for the American worker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2832, a bill which extends the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, for 22 months. Let's make it very clear what's going on here tonight. Usually, Members of Congress come from all over the country on the first day of session, and we come back here and we rename post offices. So the President said: Why don't I go over there on Wednesday and give a speech about jobs and about the agenda that this country ought to face. He sent a pro forma request to the leadership of the House, and they said: Oh, no. We have important business. We can't make room for you. It's the first time in history the President has been denied access to a general speech to the entire Congress. Now, then you have the problem, what important stuff have you got? So they come looking for a bill. So this is the bill they brought forward. It's going to pass on unanimous consent. It could have passed months ago. It should have passed months ago because it is the cornerstone of our U.S. trade and development policy and has been in place since 1976. The GSP program allows duty-free entry into the United States for lots of products coming from 129 developing countries, including some of the poorest in the world. But the poor countries are not the only ones that rely on this. As you just heard, American businesses rely on GSP to be competitive. In fact, most GSP products are import products for U.S. manufacturers. Unfortunately, GSP was allowed to lapse in December in the midst of all of the anti program; anything that the White House or anybody wanted around here, they said ``no.'' This was no. This was the Congress of no. And so it undermined the development goals of GSP. Now, this job-killing delay didn't have to happen. But like so much else, the Republicans wanted to use GSP as a hostage no matter what the cost to U.S. businesses and consumers. Despite the damage to our economy by the Republicans, I am supportive of finally passing GSP. And now that we are about to get this done, hopefully we can act on the other critical trade programs the Republicans have allowed to expire. In particular, I'm talking about the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, or TAA, as it is known around here, which helps workers who are laid off as a result of trade. It retrains workers so they can compete better in the global environment. TAA has been in place since 1962, and the bunch running this place let it expire early last year. The expansion in 2009 had strong bipartisan support as recently as up to this past December, and with good reason. Most Members understand or should understand that to compete in a global economy, you need a globally competitive workforce. Now, the Speaker has taken TAA hostage--or the leadership of the Republican Party. I don't know who's doing it. But they have held it hostage for no good reason whatsoever, even though they voted for it in the past--unanimously voted for it in the past, and now suddenly they can't pass it. Mr. Speaker, the level of dysfunction in this body is astonishing, and it's not just intentional delays in extending TAA and our other preference programs. Mr. Speaker, the level of dysfunction in this body is astonishing, and it's not just intentional delays in extending TAA and our other Preference programs. The Republicans have refused to act on any of the trade agenda. And why? Because they want action on the three pending FTAs first, above all else, no matter what. Even when the Obama administration wanted to move forward on the renegotiated Korea FTA last spring, the Republicans refused to act because they wanted action on all three Bush-era agreements, all at once, regardless of how flawed they might be. And as the Republicans delayed the agreements with their hostage-taking, they have criticized the administration. Mr. Speaker, U.S. businesses are failing. They are falling behind their EU competitors who already have their agreement up and running, making contracts, while we're still sitting here waiting for the leadership of the Republican Party to let it loose. Now, the Republican delay: Republicans kill jobs with their tactics and then they blame the President. They must have found out something in August when they went home, and that's why they're back here worried about jobs. We'll see about it. We'll see how serious they are. They spent too much time with Alice in Wonderland--where up is down and down is up. It's a cynical game the Republicans are playing with the public. We need to act on the two FTAs that have been fixed--Korea and Panama--and also on the trade programs that have expired. For example, I have submitted a bill that will extend the important parts of AGOA-- the African Growth and Opportunity Act--that will expire next year and add the new country of South Sudan to our list of trading partners. These changes need to be made soon to keep the development that is already occurring under AGOA from withering. And nobody is opposed to the changes. It's just being held as a hostage. We need to put American jobs first and get this work done, and we need to do it quickly. We just need to pass this bill that's before us today. I'm sure it will pass by unanimous consent. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend by two years the three-year effective period of extended Supplemental Security Income, SSI, eligibility for time- limited humanitarian immigrants. This is a commonsense bill that simply extends the current policy, which is set to expire on October 1, 2011. The population that would be assisted by this legislation is elderly and disabled refugees and other humanitarian immigrants who have very low income, and who face barriers to passing the naturalization exams within the time limits. In 2007 during the 110th Congress I introduced H.R. 2608 with bipartisan support, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008 (P.L. 110-328). This legislation would extend that policy again so that approximately 3,000 refugees do not lose SSI benefits on October 1. Failure to enact this legislation would cause serious hardship for this population. Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2011 marks the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, an international treaty signed by 142 nations, including the United States. This treaty remains the cornerstone of refugee protection and represents the struggle of millions of displaced people who are uprooted by conflict and persecution. The treaty explicitly commits nations to ensure that lawful refugees be eligible for basic public assistance. This legislation is a small step toward meeting our commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the House has acted. No time for celebration--it's not over yet. Until it passes both houses, the American economy is not safe. Standard & Poor's and Moody's announced to the University of Washington and to Seattle and to King County that if there is a default on Tuesday, these institutions in my State go on the credit watch list for downgrade because they received money from the United States Government, and there is no certainty that the United States Government is going to pay its debts. This is a question about whether the United States is going to be viewed in the world as being responsible and paying their debts. It's not about the future; it's about what we have already contracted, and this House, led by the Republicans, has put every State, every county, every city, every university that writes bonds for their financing at risk. It's going to cause people to pay more in the State of Washington and in every other State because of this foolishness. We need a clean lifting of the debt limit.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation called the Medical Neutrality Protection Act of 2011. In times of war and civil unrest, the independence of physicians and health care workers are often hindered, endangering their safety and limiting their ability to care for the wounded. I first became aware of this issue back in the 1980s during the civil war in El Salvador. The conflict ended in the early 1990s with over 75,000 people killed, some of whom were medical workers who were caught in combat or working in refugee camps. Then, as now, I was concerned that the United States was not doing enough to stop government forces from harming medical workers, who are some of the only unbiased eyewitnesses that we have on the ground. While international humanitarian laws codify the concept of medical neutrality, we have seen systematic attacks against medical professionals by various armed forces over the last several months, particularly in the Middle East. Several independent human rights organizations--including Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch--have documented these abuses and are calling for more countries to address this disturbing trend. This bill elevates the protection of medical professionals as a policy priority for U.S. government so that countries that attack doctors and shut hospitals will no longer be able to carry out business as usual. Under this Act, the Secretary of State will be required to maintain and regularly update a list of countries that violate medical neutrality. Countries on this list will not qualify for certain military assistance, and government officials from the violating countries will not be eligible for visas to travel to the United States. The bill also calls for the creation of a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Medical Neutrality. The issue of protecting doctors and access to medical care is not a partisan issue. This is a common sense bill that fills a void in foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, Speaker, I would also like to submit a letter of support from Physicians for Human Rights. Physicians For Human Rights, Washington, DC, July 26, 2011. Hon. Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC. Dear Representative McDermott: Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) congratulates you and Representative Walter Jones (R- NC) for introducing the Medical Neutrality Protection Act of 2011, an important bill that will protect medical neutrality around the world. Medical professionals often risk their lives and security to provide essential services, and they must be able to uphold this duty to patients and others in need without fear of violence, retribution, or arbitrary arrest. The importance of protecting medical professionals, facilities, and transport from attack makes up the foundation for the norm of medical neutrality, which is firmly grounded in international humanitarian law, professional codes and ethics, and international human rights law. Violations of medical neutrality include attacks on health care facilities, medical personnel, and patients; wanton destruction of medical supplies; willful obstruction of medical ethics; deliberate misuse of health care facilities, services, uniforms, or insignia; deliberate blocking of access to health care facilities and care; and arbitrary arrest or detention of medical professionals or patients. PHR researchers documented violations of medical neutrality related to uprisings in Bahrain earlier this year including the government's takeover of hospitals, intimidation of patients, and arrest and prosecution of doctors as part of its crackdown on popular dissent. The Medical Neutrality Protection Act of 2011 would allow the United States to promptly respond to such violations. ``Physicians for Human Rights and the medical community are deeply grateful to Congressmen Jim McDermott and Walter Jones for their outstanding leadership on the issue of medical neutrality,'' said Dr. Robert Lawrence, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Human Rights. ``The Medical Neutrality Protection Act of 2011 for the first time shines a bright light on serious human rights violations which strike at the heart of communities at large all over the world. The act introduced today in the U.S. House of Representatives makes it crystal clear that the United States will not tolerate any attacks under any circumstances on medical professionals, hospitals, equipment and supplies, or will turn a blind eye to any interference with the ability to seek medical treatment or the ability to provide it without concern of politics, religious affiliation, or ethnic background. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass this crucial piece of legislation immediately, and call on President Obama to sign it into law.'' Thank you for taking a stand against violations of medical neutrality and supporting the efforts of medical professionals worldwide. Sincerely, Physicians for Human Rights.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I would only say that this bill expires on the 26th of July, so we need to act on it quickly. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 66, a measure to renew the ban on imports for Burma. Over the past 23 years, Burma's authoritarian regime has detained or killed political opponents, waged war against ethnic minorities and, in the process, accumulated one of the worst human rights records in modern history. Finally, in 2010, with continued pressure from Congress and the inspiring leadership of Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's military junta promised to lay down its arms and clear the way for democracy. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it was a sham. Parliamentary elections held last November were rife with fraud. Opposition parties were intimidated by the police and banned from offering up candidates. Votes were rigged to provide electoral legitimacy to the existing military rule. Once again, the people of Burma were denied a free and fair opportunity to choose their own leaders. Human rights abuse is widespread and continues to go unprosecuted. Under the guise of a new civilian parliament, it is ``business as usual'' for the old regime. In light of the unchanged political reality in Burma, the renewal of America's ban on Burmese imports could not be more urgent. We must send a message to Burma's new rulers, who turned out to be the same old rulers, that empty promises of democratic reform are unacceptable. Now, there are some who question whether we should maintain our import ban following Burma's election and the formal dissolution of the military junta. Even our European allies have begun to rethink their strategy as EU travel and financial restrictions have been lifted on certain officials in the new government. The problem with that approach, Mr. Speaker, is that meaningful reform has yet to take place in Burma. By opening our borders to Burmese imports, we would only strengthen and enrich the same old regime that maintains a stranglehold on civic and family life in Burma. According to the U.N., the new government has failed to make any significant progress on land confiscation, forced labor, the internal displacement of people, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence against women. The Obama administration affirms this view. Burma's sanctions are unique because they have the widespread support of the Burmese people. Aung San Suu Kyi, herself, recently said, ``Sanctions must remain in place'' and ``should only be lifted when something has changed here.'' Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, the National League of Democracy, also confirmed its view that American sanctions ``do not hurt the public at large'' as the true target is Burma's undemocratic leadership. In response, true to form, the so-called ``new government'' warned publicly that Suu Kyi and members of her party could meet ``tragic ends'' if they continued to call for international sanctions. In passing H.J. Res. 66 and reauthorizing the Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008, Congress will send a clear message of support to the people of Burma in their aspirations for true democracy and lasting peace. Until there is meaningful reform in Burma, Mr. Speaker, we must keep steadfast in our support of the Burmese people and maintain the pressure on Burma's undemocratic rulers. I urge my colleagues to pass House Joint Resolution 66. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, due to official House business, I was unable to vote on the following measure: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 2553-- Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (H. Res. 357). Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, due to official House business, I was unable to vote on the following measure: H. Res. 357--Closed Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2553-- Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, over the past several weeks, we've been debating ways to reduce the Federal deficit. Republicans have said that everything is on the table and that nothing is sacred, but that just isn't true. The Republicans refuse to cut tax giveaways to the wealthiest special interests in this country. And when it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in Afghanistan, the Republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. I want to remind my Republican friends, the situation we are in now is not new. Throughout history, from Rome to the Ottoman Empire to the Soviet Union, the overextension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries have crippled empires. Some historians have credited Ronald Reagan for the Soviet Union's collapse, but what really bankrupted the Soviet Union was its wars. Just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in Afghanistan. Overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time, and any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. As of today, the United States has spent more than 2\1/2\ times the percentage of GDP on Afghanistan than the Soviet Union spent of its GDP during its 9-year war in Afghanistan. Public polls are clear: Americans know the cost of the war in Afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. And when it comes to cutting back on support for the neediest Americans, we can't seem to face the urgent reality that the money that we spend abroad needs to be spent here at home. The financial facts tell the story. Taxpayers in my district in Seattle have spent $1.1 billion for the Afghanistan war to date. Think about that: one city, $1.1 billion. For the same amount of money, we could provide health care for 700,000 children from low-income families, or put 125,000 kids in Head Start, or health care for 150,000 more veterans. Imagine how different it would be if States like Wisconsin, which faces a $3.6 billion budget deficit, did not have to bear the cost of the war in Afghanistan. So the question before us is simple: What is our priority? Fighting a war with no end or investing in the American people? The answer lies in what kind of country we are, what legacy we leave behind to our children and our grandchildren, and transcending political decisions toward a common commitment to make America strong again. America will cease to be a world power if we fail to support the domestic foundations of our Nation. Yet the House does not even blink as it approved a $650 billion defense budget last Friday. While the Republicans were cutting any spending that helps people, they didn't so much as flinch as they threw hundreds of billions of dollars into the bottomless pit of the defense budget. We need to stop seeing the world through the lens of constant threat and foster a sense of the common good and shared responsibility. That, not our military footprint, is what will advance our interests in the world and make us confident again. In a national poll conducted last year, 47 percent of Americans rated China's economy as the strongest economy in the world. Our crumbling roads reflect our crumbling self-confidence. Our national prosperity is vital to our national security, and that is why I believe getting out of Afghanistan must be the center of reducing our deficit. Anything short of that would ignore the fiscal reality and the will of the American people to end the Afghanistan war. We have a choice before us: Continue the war and continue downhill, or stop the war and start up the hill to regain what we've lost over the last few years.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would update one of our most important preference programs--the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This bill addresses two important issues. First, it extends the ``third-country fabric'' provision of AGOA for three years, which is due to expire in September 2012. This will align the third-country fabric provision with the rest of the AGOA program which expires in 2015. Of course we are working on an improvement and extension of the AGOA program beyond 2015 right now. The ``third-country fabric'' provision is one of AGOA's most important elements. It allows apparel producers in lesser-developed sub-Saharan African countries to use third-country fabric in making apparel that gets duty-free treatment under AGOA (subject to a quantity limit). In 2010, textiles and apparel were one of the leading AGOA import categories--$730 million in trade last year alone. Much of these imports require fabric that is not commercially available in sub- Saharan Africa. They depend, in other words, on use of the third- country fabric benefits. Textiles and apparel are key exports for a number of AGOA countries including Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, and Swaziland who last year exported $692 million of goods to us, mostly in apparel. As U.S. Trade Representative Kirk recognized at last month's ``AGOA Forum'' held in Lusaka, Zambia, ``AGOA textiles and apparel have created new opportunities for investment and trade that benefit businesses and consumers in both the United States and Africa. This sector remains an important foundation for Africa's growing industrial base.'' It is critical that the AGOA third-country fabric provision be extended now. It's critical for businesses here in the U.S. and for jobs. Buyers and retailers work on substantial lead times and need stable terms and conditions into the future. If there is uncertainty about whether AGOA apparel products will be there next year, they will begin to turn away from Africa. We cannot allow that to happen. The second part of my bill takes another step in welcoming the new Republic of South Sudan to the community of nations. On July 9--the South Sudanese took their future into their own hands and created the Republic of South Sudan. The democratic process that resulted in the birth of this new country is an astonishing achievement--honoring the results of a referendum in which more than 4 million people, or 97 percent of registered voters, participated with 98 percent voting for secession. The fact that this comes at the end of the longest and bloodiest civil wars in Africa makes it all the more incredible. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have already signaled U.S. support for the new Republic of South Sudan. We need to make sure we do all we can to help South Sudan be successful. We should act expeditiously, which is why I am introducing this bill on the first legislative day after the creation of this new nation. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's response to Libya. A week after it started, I received a phone call from a very distinguished professor at the University of Washington, who had left and was back in Libya. He is now the Finance Minister, Dr. Tarhouni. He said to me, Please give us air cover. If you can protect us from the air, we can take care of it ourselves on the ground. As I listened to him, I thought of an experience I had with President Clinton. I flew to Africa, to Kigali, and met with people who had been part of the massacre--the maimed. Then I saw the President go into the hangar and speak to 500 Rwandans and apologize for not having responded to the Rwandan massacre on the first day. This was a situation where the Libyans were asking for it. It was one where the Arab League was asking for it. This was not something that was cooked up in the White House, created and sent out. This was done in response to people on the ground. My belief is that these kinds of situations require the President to act decisively. He did and I support him.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to the 47 million people worldwide who are displaced from their homes due to conflict or persecution. June 20, 2011 is World Refugee Day. This is a day to not only observe the courage and strength of the world's displaced population, but to honor their perseverance and lasting contributions to our communities. These are people who are optimistic that one day they will return to their homes--free from violence, political conflict, or war. However, due to ongoing instability in their home countries, the number of refugees who have been able to safely return to their homes has declined in recent years. We have the responsibility to support these men, women and children in their search for a safe and stable place to call home. World Refugee Day is also a time to recognize those who work to assist refugees across the globe. I am fortunate enough to have in my Congressional District of Seattle, Washington several dedicated organizations who have shown tremendous commitment to assisting the hundreds of newly arrived refugees in Washington State. Organizations such as the Refugee Women's Alliance, Lutheran Community Services Northwest, International Rescue Committee, Refugee Federation Service Center, and Southwest Youth and Family Services, just to name a few, have worked tirelessly to provide consistent advocacy and to improve the lives of many in Washington's Seventh District. Mr. Speaker, as the theme for this year's observance, ``Home'' is ultimately what fuels refugees' drive and optimism to search for a safe living environment. This is a time for Americans to reflect on a population whose quiet courage and resilience are an inspiration to us all. We all carry the responsibility to aid those whose spirits are so resilient and who hope for a brighter future, whether they are Burmese refugees escaping ethnic conflict or Iraqi refugees fleeing from violence. Let us recognize World Refugee Day and honor the millions of refugees worldwide.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Medicare, Medicare in a fact-based universe where truth matters. With Medicare, people's health is at stake and their financial life is at stake as well. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much these days, but most people agree that the long-term deficits of this country are driven by ever-rising health care costs. If you solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs, our deficit problem would largely go away. What to do is the problem. Democrats feel we have an unbreakable compact with seniors. Democrats think basic health needs of the elderly should be guaranteed and the elderly should never be driven into bankruptcy. Republicans think there is no compact with the elderly and that bankruptcy is just natural economics. So the Republicans have wanted to kill Medicare ever since it was passed in 1965. As recently as 1993, Speaker Gingrich said: We want it to wither on the vine. The craziest thing about the Republican plan to kill Medicare is that their plan does nothing to control costs. Despite all the Republican screaming about budgets and deficits, their plan does nothing to fix the single largest problem that threatens the whole of our economic situation in this country. The Republican plan is to give seniors a coupon for about half their monthly premium and then walk away. If you can't pay the other half of the premium, too bad, no health care for you. If you can pay and it bankrupts you, too bad. Costs will continue to skyrocket. We Democrats think that the Ryan wrecking ball is the wrong way to go. Democrats are responsible stewards of the Medicare system. Democrats want to lower costs, improve care, and keep the elderly from going bankrupt. Now, it's important to keep the debate on Medicare reality based. The fact is that when we passed the health care law last year, the Republicans went around wildly screaming about death panels and scaring as many voters as possible. It was all politics, and it was not true. The fact is that the health care reform had 165 measures in it to improve Medicare. Medicare is about paying for doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs. The health care law improved Medicare by helping doctors focus more on taking care of patients, by keeping nurses from drowning in paperwork, by making hospitals more efficient, and by getting fairer prices for drugs. The Democrats worked with hospitals to improve the payments and, so, saved the country $157 billion in the hospital payments. The Republican plan did nothing to save Americans money. It just shifted the cost from the government onto Grandma and her kids. The Democratic health care law saved $136 billion by reducing payments to insurance companies. The Republican plan gave a runaway train of money to insurance companies. The annual Medicare trustee report came out last month, and it said that the new health care law was a sizable improvement to Medicare. $500 billion of savings and better care for more people. Those are the facts. It's what any good company would do--increase quality and lower costs. The Democrats have a plan for Medicare, and we passed it in the Accountable Care Act last year. That's why the Republicans want to repeal it. You've got to understand what all this repeal talk is about. They want to get rid of the improvements that we made in health care. We cut money from one place that didn't make sense and improved care for prevention, for other places for seniors. We knew what we were doing. But the Republicans' goal has always been to end Medicare as we know it. They have been very clear from 1964 right straight through Newt Gingrich and through the Ryan plan. They don't want to have a Medicare that guarantees seniors' security. They want to give them a little coupon and say: Now go find an insurance company that will take care of you, Grandma. Think about that. What seniors really want is certainty. When you get old, what you worry about is: How am I going to take care of myself? And how am I going to help my kids and leave a little something to them? Am I going to have to go to my kids and say: I can't go to the doctor because I can't pay for it? That Medicare card is their security. The Republicans want to get rid of it. We have already passed a plan to save it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. I rise in opposition to this bill in part because the truth of the matter is that the $562 million that was cut in WIC funds last year did not affect participants. The reason it didn't affect participants was that the WIC foods cost less and there were fewer participants in fiscal year 2010. So the funds were not needed. Now, today it's Flag Day, and we're celebrating Flag Day, and I want to celebrate that great liberal of the United States of America, Richard M. Nixon. Richard M. Nixon put this program in. Now, we all know he was a bleeding heart liberal. Right? He just couldn't wait to give money to poor folks. And he also, by the way, put out here a universal health care plan. So there is some question you might ask yourself about why we have WIC. Well, the social safety net is like a spider web, and there are a whole lot of places that you have to help people. We have Social Security, and we have unemployment insurance, and we've got foster kid money, and we've got things for women and children. Now, the Republicans in this session have deliberately set out to go after women and children. The first place was Planned Parenthood. We don't want to give any young women any information about anything having to do with getting pregnant. Now more kids get pregnant. They're 16 years old. They have a kid, and they don't have any counseling, and nobody talks to them about nutrition and gives them the things that they need. What is the result of that? The result of that is more low birth weight babies, more babies born with poor development because they didn't have the nutrition during the cycle of development. Do you know how much is the average amount spent on a woman in the WIC program? It's $100 to deal with the problems of infants and children, on average. Now, I happen to know, being a physician, that if you get a premature baby who comes in at 2.5 pounds, and everybody's so excited that we can save these kids, but let me tell you, it costs money. If you can deal with a premature baby at the hospital for under a quarter of a million dollars, you have a real miracle, and you could have prevented it for 100 bucks. You could have saved--if you're really about deficit reduction, I know you don't care about human beings particularly, but you do care about saving money. If you're going to save money, then you're going to put it into the children at the beginning. Now, there's other reasons for that. If they don't get good nutrition at the beginning and they don't get good brain development and they don't do well in school, they drop out; right? And then we don't have a workforce in this country to do what needs to be done in this country. So we get immigrants to come in and do things. People don't want immigrants, then feed the children that you insisted that women have in this country. You don't want anybody to have any planning on birth, and then the kid comes and you won't feed him, you won't take care of him, and you're going to pay the price. I remember, there used to be a television commercial when I was a kid. It was called the FRAM commercial. It was an air filter on your automobile. And the commercial was, Pay me now or pay me later. Change the filter or you're going to pay having the engine redone. That's why we have all these kids dropping out of school, because we don't take--that's why it's fascinating. The children's feeding program in schools was from Harry Truman. Why did he do that? Well, they looked at the records of the Second World War and they rejected so many draftees because they didn't have good bones. They were malnourished. They were maldeveloped and they weren't fit to be soldiers. They put that school lunch program in so that they could make strong kids so we could have a strong army. This business about saving 100 bucks on a woman who has a child and doesn't know--she's 16 years old, she's 17 years old, she's 18 years old. This is the most shortsighted bill I've ever seen. Vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, salmon are one of America's most precious but delicate resources. Since the construction of four Federal dams on the lower Snake River in Washington State, certain salmon species have become extinct. Others continue to see drastic declines in number. Today, thirteen salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia and Snake River Basin are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. If we do not act now, we stand to lose this valuable resource forever, which is why I am reintroducing the Salmon Solutions Planning Act. Salmon and steelhead populations have major economic, environmental and cultural significance to the Pacific Northwest. Generations of fishermen have relied on salmon as an integral part of their communities along the west coast. Today, even at their current depressed levels, salmon add hundreds of millions of dollars to the American economy and remain an essential part of communities around the Northwest. If we restore these populations to their original levels their economic benefits will reach well into the billions and these communities will be able to continue their rich traditions. Already we recognize the importance of preserving this precious resource. The Federal Government and ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest have spent more than $10 billion in salmon recovery efforts on the Columbia and Snake River Basin. These efforts, while commendable, have done little to help salmon populations recover. This legislation commissions studies to focus our efforts so that all factors are taken into account when considering removal. It is critical that our salmon recovery efforts be informed, cost effective, and successful. Without action, scientists estimate that several of the salmon populations could be extinct in less than 20 years. The time to act is now. Salmon are the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest, and we, as a country, cannot afford to lose this national treasure.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental principles of our tax system is that similar taxpayers are taxed the same. Confidence in our tax system depends on the fair and equitable treatment of our citizens and businesses. Today, I am re-introducing the ``Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act''--a bill that will correct a disparity in the tax code that results in unfair taxes on American businesses and their employees. More than 80 percent of America's most successful companies extend health plan benefits to the domestic partners or non-spouse dependents of their employees. These companies are, in increasing numbers, making the right business decision to make their health plans more inclusive of the diversity in their employees. American businesses understand that by providing their employees with health security on an equitable basis helps them attract and retain the best people, and in doing so, have surpassed the government in the pursuit of equality. Unfortunately, being ahead comes at a cost. On average, a worker who receives these extended benefits pays $2,000 more in federal taxes than their married co-workers. Also, businesses must pay additional payroll taxes for deciding to provide their employees with equal benefits. In the past, the federal government has led America when it comes to equal treatment under the law. On this issue, the federal government has fallen behind. We owe it to the American people to fix the tax code, so that the American people and their businesses can be sure that their government is still committed to ensuring equality for all. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be introducing this bill with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. This highlights the importance of correcting this wrong in existing tax law.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1194, a bill that would reinstate authority within the Department of Health and Human Services to allow up to 10 States and Native American tribes a year to conduct demonstration projects that test ways to improve child welfare programs. I want to thank the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Davis, for following in the tradition of the previous chairman, Mr. Linder. He was the one who worked with us last year in putting this through. It's good to have that same thing going through. This is a rare bill. It's actually a bipartisan bill. This bill reinstates the waiver authority to allow the States and tribes to implement and evaluate innovations to improve outcomes for at-risk families and children. The legislation is cost neutral and renews waiver authority for the next 6 years. Twenty-three States and jurisdictions received waivers under the previous authority, which began in 1997 and ended in 2006. Although the authority for new waivers has expired, a handful of States and counties have continued demonstration projects, including Florida, Ohio, and Los Angeles County, California. The legislation also includes a new emphasis on the Federal side of supporting waivers that identify and address domestic violence and related problems, which lead to children being placed in foster care. It emphasizes early intervention and crisis intervention services that safely reduce out-of-home placements. The waiver authority requires States to report on the Federal, State, local, and private funding sources that support various services under the demonstration project. This additional information will increase our understanding of waiver policies and increase accountability. The innovative strategies successfully tested in States under the previous waiver authority taught us some lessons at the national level that were helpful because it made child welfare policy more effective. One of the most successful demonstration projects provided support to grandparents and other relative caregivers who became the guardians of young relatives in foster care. This became Federal policy when it was incorporated into the Fostering Connections Act, which passed in 2008. Since the waiver authority expired, States, service providers, and foster care experts have called for it to be renewed, to allow continued innovation and evaluation of strategies to address the complex needs of children and families in our 21st-century communities. Many States, like my State of Washington, can do more with limited funds than they have if they have well-defined waivers. Following a hearing last year in the Ways and Means Committee, I introduced legislation with John Linder, as I mentioned before, to reinstate the waiver authority. We did it late in the session; and a short time later, the legislation passed the House. Unfortunately, it was late in the session, as I said, and the Senate was unable to take up the bill. So we thought if we put it over early this time, maybe it will be dealt with before the end of the 112th. The legislation before us is identical to the bill introduced last year and passed in this House unanimously. Mr. Speaker, my support for restoring this waiver authority is not meant to suggest that traditional Federal investments are not needed in the child welfare system. We need to fully fund our child welfare programs. These child welfare waivers simply give the States more flexibility in developing innovations. Waivers are not a panacea. They are not a substitute for comprehensive solutions for the problems that remain in the child welfare system. I also want to point out that the authority provided by this bill in no way affects a child's entitlement for assistance under Federal foster care and adoption assistance programs. This is important to remember for anyone comparing the waiver authority in this bill to proposals for much broader waivers in other safety-net programs. Reinstating the child welfare waiver authority will allow States to continue developing strategies to improve the lives of children and families, who are some of the most vulnerable in our midst. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I simply want to say again ``thank you'' to my colleague from Kentucky. This working relationship on behalf of children is one that has never gotten really political, and it is one of the nicest things about serving in Congress. So I appreciate having Geoff come on as the new chairman of the committee. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lemanuel ``Lee'' Jones, who passed away on the 23rd of April after many years of remarkable service to his country and to other veterans. Lee Jones was born in Crockett, Texas, on September 24, 1942, and entered the U.S. Army in 1963. He served in Vietnam as a sergeant and a squad leader with the First Cavalry Division in 1965 and 1966. He fought in multiple engagements in Vietnam with enemy forces, including the fierce battle of Ia Drang Valley, a battle that was recounted in the best-selling book and as well in a Hollywood movie, ``We Were Soldiers.'' Lee considered this battle to be the prime source of the PTSD that afflicted him for the rest of his life. Lee recently died of physical health problems connected to his service in Vietnam. In recognition of his military service, he was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge and the Air Medal. Upon leaving the military in 1966, Lee earned a B.A. in counseling from Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington. He went on to serve veterans as a counselor at the Seattle Veterans Center created with other vet centers by an act of Congress in 1979. Lee soon was promoted to direct the vet center as a team leader, the first African American to achieve this position in the Western United States. By 1984, Lee was increasingly aware of the cultural and communication barriers that prevented many African American veterans with PTSD from benefiting from therapy groups that were primarily composed of Caucasian members, so he started an African American veterans PTSD group that facilitated culturally sensitive and open communication, education, and therapeutic interactions among its members. Lee's efforts were recognized by the City of Seattle when Lemanuel Jones Day was proclaimed on November 9, 1989. This PTSD group was such a success that it continued to meet at the vet center until Lee retired in 1995. The group then convinced Lee to return as a leader of the newly named African American stress disorders program at the VA Medical Center in Seattle, which continues to meet today. From modest beginnings, this nationally unique program has grown to include hundreds of African American veterans. It has been of great benefit to veterans and to the community. None of this would have been possible without Lee's leadership, therapeutic skills, and compassion for fellow veterans. I had the privilege of making Lee's acquaintance. In 2008, I asked him to share his experience and perspective on a panel at a veterans town hall meeting in Seattle. The purpose of the town hall was to increase awareness of the hidden injuries of PTSD and traumatic brain injury. It was also to honor soldiers and veterans and their families and to educate them on where they could get help. The African American Veterans Group of Washington State, which Lee founded in 1984, is planning a community memorial service on May 28. I know there will be an outpouring of grief and appreciation for this soft-spoken hero. He touched so many lives with his healing skills and lessons of his great pain and sacrifice. Our country is a better place because of Lemanuel Jones. Rest in peace.