Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I just got a call from a reporter about a tweet, which the President-elect has made, canceling the contract with The Boeing Company and the Federal Government to build Air Force One. Now, the last time I looked, I think that the President of the United States is still Barack Obama. He will be President of this country until the 20th of January. What we have right now is a President-elect running around the world with his tweet bar making statements that are disruptive and distractive for the American public. He calls Taiwan and raises questions about our relationship with China as though he were the Secretary of State, but he has not even found anyone to do that job. He should be in the transition office figuring out how he makes a smooth transition of the American Government from the efficiently run government of Mr. Obama to his administration, not making the decisions himself and going out and announcing them through his tweet at 3 a.m. because he can't sleep. This kind of operation is the operation of somebody who is used to running a big business. When he is president of Trump casino or Trump Tower, he can act like that. He can come in and say: Do this, do that, do this, do that. I don't know if he understands, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House of Representatives are the ones who made the contract and appropriated the money for that plane. That is the democratic process of this country. It is not done by the President getting up in the morning and tweeting out 147 characters and ending a contract with hundreds of jobs at risk of people in my district, good hardworking Americans. He will go down to Indianapolis, Indiana, and walk around and say: I have saved 1,000 jobs. We still haven't seen the contract. We don't know what the deal is, how long the jobs have to last, or how many of them have to last. We don't know anything. We just know that a tweet went out that: We have. And then he went and did a big rally down there and did a victory lap, but there is no piece of paper. Mr. Speaker, if I were to make a recommendation to the people in Indianapolis, it would be: Talk to the Indians, to the Native Americans, about the treaties that have been made with the United States of America and how good they are and how hard you have to fight to make those treaties work. He made a treaty with Carrier, which will get $7 million from Indiana. Vice President Pence will give $7 million from Indiana to Carrier, and then maybe there will be some kind of--no one knows what is going on, but the President-elect should spend his time in the transition office and decide who is going to hold the jobs that will make this country run. This is not going to be run by one man in the White House who makes pronouncements and thinks that all the world is going to throw itself down on the ground and worship him. We have a democratic process, and the burden on the House of Representatives, as I leave it--I mean, in some ways, I am sorry to be leaving because I think it is going to be a very tough session--is to help the new President understand how a democracy actually works. It is not a big business; it is a business of the people. The 435 Members of this House take the money that comes in in taxes, and they appropriate it out as they see fit for the country. The President doesn't do that. When the Congress is done, it passes the bill to him, and then he spends the money as the Congress has decided it should be spent. If you look at the Constitution--I am sure the President-elect has looked at the Constitution--the first Article is the Congress. We are the preeminent body in this government because we are elected by the people, and we have the power. Stop tweeting, Mr. President-elect.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is a typical lameduck bill. It has one provision in it that people really want, and that is a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Every provision that Mr. Brady has talked about with respect to the Ways and Means Committee has already been passed out of here, and none of them are harmless, but the issue here is reducing the effect of the FDA in protecting the American public. My colleague, Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, was absolutely right: the weakening of the FDA in protecting the American public is the central part of this bill. Now, it is wrapped in $4 billion worth of inadequate money for NIH. It would take $7 billion to keep us where we are today. The money that went out of here a few months ago was mandatory, and now it is subject to appropriation. Everybody says: Oh, well, there are commitments made. There are commitments made. Anybody who believes in the tooth fairy will believe that money is going to go to NIH. But the changes in law in how we push drugs, that is going to be in law. Now, let me tell you what the problem with that is. If you push drugs out there quickly, there are some side effects and people die and people say, Well, it is too bad; the FDA approved it. We put the FDA in the position of protecting the American public, and then we cut them out at the knees. Once we have done these cures, we come up with these great drugs, who can afford them? The other thing that is wrong with this bill and that this House has failed to do is to deal with the cost of pharmaceuticals in this country. There is not one single thing in this bill. There is a specialty drug called Sovaldi. It is a treatment for hepatitis C. There are actually several million people in this country who need that drug. One pill costs $1,000. Full treatment costs $84,000. Who can afford it? Who is going to pay for that? Are you going to be willing to put the money into part D of Medicare to pay for it? The question here is: What are we doing in giving away to the pharmaceutical companies an open door to push any drug out they want or that they can get through the screen, make the screen big so that it is easy to get them out, and then we pick up the pieces for the American people? That is the reason I oppose this bill. I think there are good things in it. I come from a university that is the number one recipient of research money in this country. The University of Washington is the number one public university. We have so little money at NIH now that you have to be 40 years old until you get a grant from NIH for a research project. It used to be that 17 percent of all the grants were approved. Now we are down to 6 percent. That is because we have been squeezing the life out of NIH. And this $4 billion sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't even the $7 billion to keep us at the present level. That is what is wrong with this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues for their interest in children. I hear some of the speakers stand up and say they are really interested in kids, yet they oppose the CHIP program. They talk about cutting back the help to children. Now, the problem here is that if you are talking about cures, and you are going to create a magnificent cure that costs $80,000, if you don't provide Medicaid, the children who are poor in this country aren't going to get access to that cure. That is a cure for rich people who could pay it out of their clippings on their bonds and their stock. The EPSDT program, which is the program that covers kids, the President-elect has put in the charge of that a woman from Indiana who testified against it. This is the benefit that ensures sick kids will get cures. Now, you are setting in motion something here for pharmaceutical companies to find a way to take as much money out of the system as they can with every drug they can put out there, and you are, at the same time, moving in the direction of making it impossible for poor children to be taken care of in this country. How many States have the Governors said: We don't believe in Medicaid; we don't believe that the government should give Medicaid; we believe the government should stay out of medicine? So they deny their own people health care, simple, everyday, ordinary health care; and we are talking about cures for disease. As somebody said, there were 50 cases in the United States of it last year. One feels for those 50. I am a physician. I have listened to those people. I know that it is awful, but you have to keep in balance and say to yourself: Are we going to spend all the money there or are we going to spend it dealing with all the Americans? That is what is wrong with this bill. The pharmaceutical industry has no control on it whatsoever. When you put in that benefit, in part D, you tied the Secretary of Health and Human Services' hands, and he or she cannot negotiate lower prices. You said: Whatever the pharmaceutical company says the cost is, that is what we are going to pay. Now, the Veterans Administration--veterans are different than ordinary people in this country. They have an administration that has the right to negotiate changes in prices, and their pharmaceutical prices are down 50, 60 percent from what people pay in Medicare. Now, as long as you have that kind of giveaway going on to the pharmaceutical companies, this bill is just kind of frosting on the cake, and I guess Members will vote for it. In the short run it will seem like, you know, it didn't make any difference, but you are going to pay down the line. This is going to be a Fram commercial. You either pay now or you are going to pay later, because if you do not screen those drugs carefully and make sure that they are really doing something, and let the pharmaceutical companies add a Chlorine ion or a Boron or whatever, they are simply putting drugs out on the table that cost too much for the Americans to buy. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to condense 28 years into 5 minutes, but that is what I am going to try to do here. This is a wonderful opportunity that I have had to represent the Seventh District of the State of Washington, and I want to thank the people who sent me here. To represent people for 28 years, having their trust, is a great responsibility and a great honor. My constituents have witnessed the good times and the bad. They have offered encouragement when I did what they thought was right and were gracious to point out to me when they thought that I had veered from where they thought I should be. I have enduring thanks for what they did for me. I also want to thank my colleagues here in the House, my colleagues in the Washington State delegation, all the staff who have served me over these 28 years, and, of course, my family, who allowed me to serve here in the Congress. When I envisioned what might be my final speech on the floor of the House, I had hoped for a brighter political future than the one currently unfolding. For me and for millions of Americans, it is difficult to see the coming 4 years as anything short of calamitous. Never has the role of congressional oversight been as critical to the integrity of our Republic as it is now, and I beg my colleagues to remain vigilant as we confront this menacing wave of nativism, misogyny, and racism that is raging in our country. The systems of checks and balances underpin the very survival of the democracy, and this body must not fail in its constitutional responsibility to scrutinize every executive action and to pass sanction when the rights of the people are threatened. This is the people's House, designed not just to reflect the will of the people, but also to ensure the rights of the people endure. The right to worship as you choose, the right to marry whom you love, the right to equal pay, the right to a livable wage, the right to affordable health care, the right to reproductive choice, and, of course, the basic founding rights affirmed by our earliest tenets and enshrined as ``inalienable'' are always at risk without the people's advocate to protect them. As President Obama said in his second inaugural: History may deem equality for all as self-evident, but we know these rights have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by the people here on Earth. Mr. Speaker, you have a dark and difficult road ahead. Please do not lose sight of the fundamental decency and respect for our fellow citizens that has always made this country great. It is fashionable these days to ridicule the Congress, but I depart this institution steadfast in the belief that the government--and the Federal Government, in particular--can, should, and does make a positive impact on the lives of all Americans. Moreover, I am a proud member of the Democratic Party. We may spend the next couple of years massaging our message and regrouping our strength, but the values that define us as a party are as true and as important today as they ever were. This is still the party of social and economic justice; it is still the party of environmental protection; it is still the party of international diplomacy; it is still the party of guaranteed health care and quality education; and this will always--always--be the party of ethnic, racial, and gender inclusion. We are a party of service, of dignity, and of hope. I came to this House 28 years ago to work on health care, and with President Obama, we were able to get it started. It is incumbent on this body not to leave the American people out in the cold when they are sick or ailing or worried about whether they can go to the hospital and pay for what they have got. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to serve here. I leave here. It has been a good run, and I thank everyone who has been helpful to me during that period of time. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to condense 28 remarkable years into five minutes, and it's even harder to thank each of those people with whom I have worked and who have helped me over the course of this fortunate career. First, I want to thank the people of the 7th District of Washington State. It has been my privilege to serve them in the United States Congress. I leave forever grateful for their unwavering trust and support. My constituents have witnessed the good times and the bad; they offered encouragement when I did something right, and were gracious to point me in the right direction when I had wandered off the path. They have my enduring thanks. I also want to thank my colleagues here in the House; my colleagues in the Washington State delegation; all the staff who have served with me over the last 28 years; and of course my family who has supported me in my public service. When I envisioned giving what is perhaps my final speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, I had hoped for a brighter political future than the one currently unfolding. For me, and for millions of Americans, it is difficult to see the coming four years as nothing short of calamitous. Never has the role of Congressional oversight been as critical to the integrity of our republic as it is now and I beg my colleagues to remain vigilant as we confront this menacing wave of nativism, misogyny, and racism that is raging our country. The system of checks and balances underpin the very survival of our democracy and this body must not fail in its Constitutional responsibility to scrutinize executive action and to pass sanction when the rights of the people are threatened. This is the ``People's House,'' designed not just to reflect the will of the people, but also to ensure that the rights of those people endure. The right to worship as you choose; the right to marry who you love; the right to equal pay; the right to a livable wage; the right to affordable healthcare; the right to reproductive choice; and of course, those basic founding rights, affirmed by our earliest tenets and enshrined as ``inalienable,'' are always at risk without the people's advocates to uphold them. As President Obama said in his Second Inaugural, history may deem equality for all as self-evident, but we know these rights have ``never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.'' My colleagues, you have a dark and difficult road ahead. Please do not lose sight of the fundamental decency and respect for our fellow citizens that has always made this country great. It is fashionable these days to ridicule the Congress, but I depart this institution steadfast in the belief that government, and the federal government in particular, can, should, and does make a positive impact on the lives of Americans. Moreover, I am a proud member of the Democratic Party. We may spend the next couple of years honing our message and regrouping our electoral strength, but the values that define us as a party are as true and important today as they ever were. This is still the party of social and economic justice; this is still the party of environmental protection; this is still the party of international diplomacy; this is still the party of guaranteed healthcare and quality education. And this will always be the party of ethnic, racial, and gender inclusion. We are the party of service, of dignity, and of I hope. I came to the House 28 years ago as a proud liberal. And that is how I am going to leave. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor, and my privilege.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of those things that you fill time with, and I guess it is not going to hurt anything. So I would recommend that all of my colleagues vote for it. It will be moot on Friday, when we pass the NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While we are here today to debate H.R. 5458, which focuses on one small part of the transition for veterans completing their service and entering the civilian workforce, I wish to take a moment to reflect on a broader issue. While many veterans enter the workforce, and some may even be offered a health savings account as part of their insurance coverage, many millions depend on Medicare and Medicaid. Now, we in the Congress can't forget the role these programs play in caring for our veterans and their loved ones as they return to the workforce, as they age, or as they live with disabilities. For more than four decades, Medicare and Medicaid have helped Americans from all walks of life by improving their financial and health security; but if you have been paying attention to the news lately, you know these programs are under grave risk next year with a new Congress and a new President. As we speak today to honor veterans' service to our country, we must also think about the safety net that has been in place for many years to offer security. For example, today, nearly 1 in 10 veterans lacks health insurance at all. More than 340,000 uninsured veterans and their spouses live in States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid to cover more residents. If those States offered coverage, these veterans would have insurance if we really cared about them--but their Governors apparently don't. In Florida, more than 55,000 veterans and their spouses would be Medicaid eligible had the State chosen to cover individuals earning less than $21,000 a year. In North Carolina, 32,000 veterans and their spouses, and in Texas 67,000 veterans and their spouses would be eligible. But their Governors saw fit not to care. Slashing Medicare funding by more than $1 trillion, as Speaker Ryan has proposed, is not a way to help veterans. Yet that is what will be in store next year. That is what people are talking about as what we are going to do in the new year. Turning Medicare into a capped voucher, privatizing the program, shifting more costs on beneficiaries, won't help either. Now back to the bill at hand. For veterans who are receiving coverage through TRICARE, using employer coverage that offers health savings accounts coupled with high-deductible health plans can cause a problem. Under present law, eligibility for TRICARE coverage disqualifies a retiree from HSA eligibility because the TRICARE program is not a high- deductible plan. This, I believe, is a good thing, and it keeps health care affordable for veterans, especially those who do not have the option for other coverage. While there is a difference of opinion in the committee on tax- preferred health accounts, the legislation recognizes that some veterans may have that coverage and could run afoul of current law because of enrollment in TRICARE. H.R. 5458 would provide that military retirees may disclaim their eligibility for the TRICARE program. This would allow a retiree who enrolled in a high-deductible health plan to receive or make HSA contributions. When we considered this bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, the Department of Defense as well as the House Committee on Armed Services had some concerns with the approach in this bill, in particular, that TRICARE eligibility is a statutory entitlement that cannot be waived. If the NDAA conference language is passed later this week, this legislation will no longer be needed as TRICARE enrollment will be voluntary and retirees can move between employer-sponsored insurance and TRICARE, depending on which coverage is best for their current needs. In other words, this bill is going to last about 3 days, until we pass the NDAA on Friday and it is signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Medigap plans currently provide supplemental coverage to approximately 11 million Medicare beneficiaries. However, many of the laws governing the Medigap market have remained largely unchanged since 1990. In particular, consumer protections are inadequate, leaving many beneficiaries subject to discriminatory practices by issuers, lacking sufficient information about their plan options, and often enrolled in lower quality coverage. That is why, today, I am introducing the Medigap Consumer Protection Act. This important legislation will make a number of reforms to the Medigap market that will strengthen the health security of millions of Americans and significantly improve the beneficiary experience. Most importantly, this bill ends discriminatory treatment of Medicare beneficiaries by extending guaranteed issue rights to the entire Medigap-eligible population. Currently, federal law provides limited guaranteed issue rights to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, issuers in many states are permitted to deny consumers access to Medigap policies based on preexisting conditions. This creates substantial barriers to coverage, particularly for individuals who qualify for Medicare due to disability or End-Stage Renal Disease. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 2 percent of beneficiaries who are under 65 and living with a disability are enrolled in a Medigap policy, and 21 percent have no supplemental coverage at all. The Medigap Consumer Protection Act closes the holes in federal law that permit discriminatory treatment of consumers by extending guaranteed issue rights to the entire Medicare population, including beneficiaries who qualify for Medicare due to disability or End-Stage Renal Disease. It also will protect a number of other populations, including beneficiaries who have enrolled in Medicare Advantage for more than one year and wish to switch back to traditional Medicare; dual eligibles who either lose their Medicaid coverage or who are only Medicaid- eligible with a Share of Cost; and individuals enrolled in COBRA coverage who wish to switch into Medicare. The bill also makes a number of reforms that will strengthen access to quality plans and improve the beneficiary experience. It calls on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to review loss ratio standards for Medigap plans and submit recommendations to the Secretary to update federal standards. It reforms how issuers price their products by calling on the NAIC to update its Model Regulations to prohibit pricing discrimination based on age, and by requiring Medigap issuers to set premiums by county. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to improve the Medicare Plan Finder website to increase consumer access to information regarding their coverage options through Medicare, Medigap, Medicare Advantage, and Part D. The public will be afforded opportunities to comment on and improve the presentation of this information. It restores access to the most popular Medigap plan options, which under current law are scheduled to be eliminated for beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare beginning in 2020 or later. Finally, it provides consumers with additional information about potential conflicts of interest by requiring issuers to disclose payments made to brokers, agents, and other third parties selling Medigap policies. These disclosures will be available to consumers through the Open Payments Database maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Mr. Speaker, Medicare beneficiaries deserve access to high-quality Medigap coverage. The reforms made by the Medigap Consumer Protection Act will correct many of the problems that continue to exist in the market, including discrimination by issuers and a lack of information available to consumers. These reforms are long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to move to enact this bill without delay.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a piece of advice to my Republican colleagues. Be careful what you wish for because you may get it, because, despite this newfound compassion for consumers, if you listen to these crocodile tears flowing out here, you would think they really cared. The truth is Republicans wanted the CO-OPs to fail from the very start. For years, they have systematically undermined the program and made it virtually impossible for CO-OPs across this country to succeed. Now, let's look exactly at what they did, because that is a pretty hard thing I am saying. Back in 2013, under Republican leadership, Congress slashed the funding for loans and grants to CO-OPs by nearly two-thirds. The President set it at one level and the Republicans said: No, we will give you one-third of it. So they cut it from the very start. That devastated the program during the early days and denied consumers access to dozens of new plan choices in the marketplace. But they didn't stop there. They were determined they were going to get those CO-OPs. In 2014, the Republicans inserted a rider in the CR/ omnibus bill. This blocked the administration from shifting discretionary funding--discretionary funding--into the ACA's risk corridor program which they disingenuously--the Republicans--called an insurance company bailout. The truth is that this rider was a deliberate effort to destabilize CO-OPs which were taking on new populations under the ACA. It isn't only the CO-OPs, but it is also the small insurers. It cut risk corridor payments to one-eighth. The President put in a dollar, the Republicans put in 12 cents, and that devastated CO-OPs. It created unpredictability, and small insurers have also got their problems and are now raising rates. With the deck stacked against them, it is no wonder that so many fledgling CO-OPs struggled. They were a victim of a partisan political attack that they simply couldn't withstand. They didn't have the money. Now, my Republican colleagues didn't do this out of ignorance. They did it out of malice because they knew the importance of risk mitigation. They knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, when they wanted to make their own insurance program work--put in a few years before called part D of Medicare--the Republicans embraced risk management with open arms. In 2003, when President Bush's Medicare part D bill incorporated risk management measures, they were nearly identical--nearly identical--to the ones in the ACA. But unlike the ACA, they funded those measures very generously. In fact, as the part D market--the drug market--fully stabilized, many experts have been saying that the risk management measures could now be scaled back or revised. Yet, once the Republicans give money to somebody, they continue to fund it generously, funneling millions-- billions, actually--into part D plan sponsors even if they don't need it. They are giving it to the drug companies. But they wouldn't give it to the CO-OPs. The drug companies they love, but the CO-OPs they hated, so they took it away. Now, talk about an insurance company bailout. Of course, the Affordable Care Act hasn't received the same treatment. Instead, we are prepared today to vote again to undermine the law weakening the individual mandate with yet another carve-out. Republicans somehow believe you can put together a healthcare system and only take in the sick, I guess. You can't have an individual mandate that everybody has to be a part of it. So this bill raises many questions, but we never even had a hearing on it. They didn't want anybody to come in and testify about what this bill was going to do or what it might do or what it has done or what it will do. They simply rammed it through the Ways and Means Committee. One member wanted it, and one member had one story from one place in this country and said this is a bill we need. We don't actually know how many people might have paid the individual mandate because they didn't enroll in coverage following the midyear CO-OP collapse, but we do know one thing: this bill will weaken the individual mandate. It seems like a small change, and I admit it is a small change, but if you go down this road--the Chinese say death by 1,000 cuts. This is the first cut or the second cut or whichever one you want. They are threatening the sustainability of the entire health insurance industry. We know this because, in Washington State, we have seen it. When you try to provide universal coverage but don't have a mandate, the system simply doesn't work. We tried it in Washington State in 1993. We had an individual mandate and everybody had to have insurance and so forth, and then the Republicans in Washington State decided let's take out the individual mandate. The result was a disaster. Healthy people couldn't get covered, and premiums spiked out of control, creating a death spiral that devastated the individual insurance market. By 1999, not one single insurer in the United States of America was selling individual policies in the State of Washington because of taking away that individual mandate. This was a catastrophe for everyone: doctors, hospitals, insurers, and most importantly for consumers like the person that we heard the story about that we all feel it is too bad it happened. But they created it. They created the facts that made it happen. So when my Republican colleagues put forward a bill to weaken the mandate under the guise of helping consumers, I have a hard time believing it because their record is clear. After more than 60 votes to deny Americans health coverage--they tried to repeal ObamaCare over and over and over and over and so on--years of systematic sabotage of the CO-OPs and today's crocodile tears about the plight of CO-OP consumers, it is downright impossible to take them seriously. The Members in this body should vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my friend Justice Charles Z. Smith, of Seattle, Washington, who passed away at the age of 89 on Sunday, August 28, 2016. Charles was the first African American state trial judge and Supreme Court justice of Washington State. He was a role model to many, and leaves a trailblazing legacy of social justice and public service. Charles Zellender Smith was born in Florida in 1927 to an African- American mother who was the daughter of slaves and a Cuban immigrant father. After serving in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II, he attended Temple University and graduated in 1952. Charles moved to Seattle and was accepted to the University of Washington Law School. Out of a class of 120, he was the only student of color to graduate in 1955. His career was a series of firsts: unable to find a law firm to hire him after he graduated, he became the first African-American law clerk for a state Supreme Court justice. In 1965, he became the first African-American to serve as a Seattle municipal court judge, and in 1966, he was the first person of color named to the King County Superior Court bench. He stepped down to become a professor and associate dean of law at the University of Washington, during which he began a long fight for reparations for Japanese Americans interned in camps during World War II. Later, in private practice, he urged the Seattle City Council to declare the city a ``sanctuary city'' for refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. In 1988, Gov. Booth Gardner appointed Smith to the State Supreme Court and he served until his retirement in 2002. He was known as a thoughtful judge with a reputation for fairness and often was the swing vote in split decisions. From the bench, he spoke eloquently, without notes, and often advocated for immigrant rights and innovative criminal rehabilitation methods. As well as serving on the Washington State Supreme Court, Justice Smith was a television commentator and president of the American Baptist Churches. In 1999, while still on the Court, President Bill Clinton appointed him to serve on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, where he helped develop policies promoting religious freedom and ending the civil war in Sudan. Mr. Speaker, Justice Smith worked tirelessly for over five decades as an advocate for truth, justice and freedom. He broke down barriers and forged a path for generations to follow. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Ernestine Anderson, who was recently commemorated in Seattle with a street renamed in her honor. Ms. Anderson passed away on March 10, 2016. She was an internationally renowned and a beloved Seattle jazz vocalist. Ms. Anderson's career spanned over six decades and earned her four Grammy nominations. In fitting commemoration, Ernestine Anderson Way now spans the heart of Seattle's Central District, where her career started. Ernestine Anderson was born in Houston, Texas on November 11, 1928 and began singing when she was 3 years old. Her family moved to Seattle in 1944 and she began singing in clubs on Jackson Street in the Central District as a teenager. During her career, Ernestine Anderson performed at the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall and in 1958 she performed at the first Monterey Jazz Festival. After many years touring and recording music in Los Angeles, New York and London, Ms. Anderson returned to Seattle and briefly retired from music, working as a hotel maid and at a telephone answering service. Ms. Anderson is known for her song ``Never Make Your Move Too Soon,'' which was recorded by B.B. King, and appeared on her Grammy nominated album in 1981. In 2002, Ms. Anderson was awarded the Golden Umbrella by the popular Seattle music and arts festival known as Bumbershoot. In 2012, the Low Income Housing Institute named one of their projects Ernestine Anderson Place. These acknowledgements are a testament to the impact that Ms. Ernestine has had on Seattle. Ernestine Anderson has left an indelible mark on our community and her legacy will live on through her music. A memorial service for Ernestine Anderson took place on April 9, 2016 in Seattle, Washington at the historical Paramount Theater. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend Bob Santos, of Seattle, Washington, who passed away at the age of 82 on Saturday, August 27, 2016. Mostly referred to as ``Uncle Bob'' and unofficial mayor of the International District, Bob fought to improve and preserve the neighborhood for over five decades. In the late 1960s and 1970s, Mr. Santos joined Larry Gossett, Bernie Whitebear, and Roberto Maestas to form an activist group: ``The Gang of Four''. Rather than competing for limited resources, the group unified communities of color to fight for equal rights in Seattle. Robert ``Bob'' Santos was born in Seattle on February 25, 1934, to parents of Filipino and Tlingit Nation heritage. He became aware of discrimination as a young child. In 1942, his elementary school closed when the majority of his classmates, who were of Japanese descent, were taken to internment camps. He recalled wearing an `I am Filipino' badge to avoid anti-Japanese violence. Mr. Santos became involved in activism in 1963, when black activist Walter Hubbard Jr. invited him to join a march supporting open housing. He later became known for his ties to the International District Improvement Association (Inter*Im). Over the course of three decades, his leadership in the organization helped add over 1,000 low-income residential units to the neighborhood. His advocacy also fought for the soul of the International District by starting a community produce garden, rehabilitating dilapidated apartment buildings and fending off unwanted developments such as a trash-burning plant and a prison. He continued to fight fearlessly for equal job opportunities and better educational opportunities for people of color and was arrested six times in the process. In 2005, Partners for Livable Communities awarded the Gang of Four with a Bridge Builders Award for their work for minority populations of King County. In 2006, the Seattle City Council recognized Mr. Santos for his work with Inter*Im. Mr. Speaker, throughout his decades of advocacy, Mr. Santos never lost his sense of humor or his fondness for karaoke, especially songs by Frank Sinatra and Elvis. I will miss his vigorous spirit and his passion for social justice. He changed the city of Seattle for the better and he did it ``his way''.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise today to honor the memory of my friend Pat Gogerty, who passed away August 26, 2016 at the age of 86. Pat was a pioneer in child welfare advocacy and created Childhaven, a program that changed the lives of countless abused children in Seattle and continues to serve as a national model for therapeutic child abuse programs. Patrick ``Pat'' Gogerty was born September 12, 1929 in Oregon and raised in Seattle. Physically abused by his father, and placed in foster care several times, Mr. Gogerty had a natural understanding of the abused children for which he would become an advocate. After serving in the Army, he became the director of Seattle Day Nursery in 1973 and fully transformed it from a daycare into an effective center for early intervention and therapy. The key tenets of the program continue to this day: three hot meals, an on-site nurse, speech, physical and play therapy, as well as support and education for parents. With the help of his brother, Seattle Deputy Mayor Bob Gogerty, Pat obtained funding for the program. Mr. Gogerty worked to identify abused children under the age of five. When parents were unable or unwilling to bring them to the center, he arranged for them to be transported to the center in a van. At the time, treating children regardless of parental participation was a revolutionary concept, but Mr. Gogerty proved it effective. In 1979, he commissioned a longitudinal study that found after 10 years, the children from Seattle Day Nursery were found to be significantly less likely to be involved in criminal activity than children from other state programs. Mr. Gogerty became a master of public relations and Seattle Day Nursery began to receive national attention. Shortly before changing its name to Childhaven, it was the subject of a major article in Life magazine. When funding for the program was threatened in 1985, I stood on the State House floor and read the story featured in the article, a child saved by Childhaven. The boy had broken his arm saving his brother, who had been put in the dryer by their mother as punishment for wetting his pants. Childhaven subsequently retained its funding. In 1992, The Patrick L. Gogerty branch of Childhaven opened in the city of Auburn, WA. Upon his 1998 retirement, Mr. Gogerty was recognized in a Seattle Times editorial titled ``Fighting for Kids Unable to Fight for Themselves.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gogerty was an advocate for the defenseless. His legacy will live on in the Childhaven, its renowned model of care and the children whose lives he helped change. His lifetime of kindness and advocacy left an indelible mark on the state of Washington and he will be dearly missed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues Mr. Reichert, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Reed, I am proud to introduce today the Improving Employment Outcomes for Foster Youth Act, which provides federal tax incentives to private sector employers that hire youth transitioning from the foster care system to independence. The outcomes for transition age foster youth in this coup are heartbreaking: half are unemployed at age 24; half will spend time in a homeless shelter; and 70 percent will be reliant on government assistance after emancipating from foster care. The federal government has both an economic and moral interest in improving outcomes for these youth. In 2008, we passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which recognized the challenges faced by youth transitioning out of foster care and enables them to continue to receive supports and services until they turn 21. In passing that bill our goal was not to extend dependency on the foster care system, but rather to use the additional time spent in extended foster care to help them become independent. While extended foster care is providing a critical lifeline for thousands of youth across the country, more needs to be done to help these youth connect with career opportunities and attain self-sufficiency. A key strategy will be engaging the private sector in this effort. There is a developing partnership in California between the nonprofit iFoster, public child welfare agencies, community-based organizations, and the grocery industry to create an employment pipeline for foster youth that is already demonstrating great success in preparing foster youth for competitive work, and supporting them on the job to ensure retention and promotion. The Improving Employment Outcomes for Foster Youth Act will make transition age foster youth categorically eligible for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), an existing federal credit that provides incentives to businesses to hire employees from certain populations with specific employment challenges. In doing so, this bill will help encourage other sectors to follow the grocery industry's lead in hiring and investing in our nation's foster youth and starting them on a successful career path. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of awesome to become a myth in your own time. I was not a Peace Corps volunteer. I was in Africa in 1961 before the Peace Corps ever existed. When we were in Ghana in 1961, the first Peace Corps volunteers arrived, so I was there when it all started. I also want to remind you--when you know the history of something, it is kind of interesting to listen to it--this started in 1995. We put a bill in and, actually, Speaker Gingrich got it out of the House. It passed the House in 2000. We couldn't get it through the Senate. It had to come back under Mr. Bush. Then we finally got it through the House and the Senate, and it became law. It has been an issue that everyone recognizes something needs to be done. As I look at this bill today, I read some of the language that the President is directed to provide training for business and government trade officials, provide capacity building for entrepreneurs and trade associations, and promote diversification of African products. Now, I don't know how many bills I have seen that in. What is missing here, unfortunately, in my view--I am going to support the bill, and the ideas of it are great, but what has been missing ever since 1995 or 2000 has been a commitment of the resources to actually help the Africans figure out how to use our system. I can give you one example. There are shrimp all over the coastline. Now, why don't shrimp from Africa come into the United States? Because they can't pass the phytosanitary rules of our government. We won't let food come into this country that we think will be problematic for our people. So if we are going to actually help the Africans--we tried several times to get the Department of Agriculture to base people in some of the places along the coast, Senegal and some other places, in order to give them the instructions necessary to be able to bring those products in. What I hope will happen--and Charlie Rangel and I are going to leave the scene, and we did everything we could during the time we were here--for the rest of you, you have got to put some money in, put some money down on the ground. I had a project in one of the bills. Lions are a huge issue in Africa. If you want to have lions, and you want to have people go out and hunt them, well, if you kill a lion, it is only worth $800. But if you leave a lion there for tourism purposes, it is worth $50,000. So we have encouraged these countries to get the poachers to become game wardens and the women to run B&Bs out there, so we would have tourism which would bring foreign exchange into Africa to give them the ability to invest and do more. An epidemic of tuberculosis occurred in the African lions. There were only two people in all of Africa who had ever dealt with a big game animal, so we thought, let's start a school; we will start a veterinary school. We couldn't get the money. There are a lot of things that we could do with very small amounts of money in terms of helping them develop the capacity because the bill is filled with this capacity building. Give them the opportunity to develop capacity. But sometimes it takes a small investment on our part, and that is really what I hope will come. Maybe the bill will pass and then we can get a little bit of money into the Foreign Operations appropriations act and use it for that kind of program. I think this is a work in progress. It won't be done when I leave and Charlie leaves. I remember the first meeting Charlie and I had with the ambassadors from all of Africa. Nobody thought that it would ever happen. So we called them all up and said: Do you want to trade or do you want aid? They said: We want trade. We said: Okay. Come in here, in the office, and sign a paper. We got them to sign a paper where they all asked the President of the United States to give them a trade act. That is the only time it has ever occurred around here that I know of. So it has been there, and it has gradually developed, but more slowly than it could have. I hope that we will pass it and the message will get to the appropriators that a little bit of money could make this go a long way.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of the founding of The Boeing Company. The history of the company is a true American success story. Founded in Seattle, Washington, by William E. Boeing, assembly of the first Boeing airplane was completed in a hanger located on the northeast shore of Lake Union. Since its founding, Boeing has been instrumental in building the economy in the Puget Sound region. The Boeing of today, with more than 165,000 employees worldwide, has evolved into a global leader in the aviation industry. Despite Boeing's global footprint, the company's commitment to more than 200 community partners and non-profits in the Puget Sound region is unparalleled. I commend Boeing for years of support and contributions to projects focusing on STEM education, foster care, land conservation and food distribution, all of which have paid tremendous dividends toward improving the overall health of communities across Washington State. Boeing's focus and commitment to environmental leadership, ethics and compliance, working conditions and human rights, employee safety, diversity and inclusion, education, military and veteran engagement and community engagement has contributed to an impressive and rewarding first 100 years. I wish the company an equally successful second century. Lastly, I give thanks to the past and present employees of Boeing whose hard work, talent and determination have allowed the company to follow the sage advice of William Boeing to ``build something better.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was impressed this week with the release of the long-awaited Chilcot report from the United Kingdom's inquiry into the Iraq war. While the main conclusions of the report should be familiar to all of us--that the U.S. and Britain justified the invasion of Iraq with flawed and manipulated intelligence and that subsequent preparations for post-invasion Iraq were woefully inadequate and mismanaged--it is, nonetheless, an overdue public accountability of British leadership and a detailed and searing rebuke that no member of the Bush administration has ever undergone. During his news conference, Mr. Blair said: ``I express more sorrow, regret, and apology than you can ever believe.'' Mr. Speaker, what is the chance that we will ever hear those same remorseful and contemplative words from Mr. Bush? Mr. Cheney? Mr. Rumsfeld? It is virtually nonexistent. God forgive us and them for our indifference. Iraq never will. Mr. Speaker, I was impressed this week with the release of the long- awaited Chilcot Report, the United Kingdom's inquiry into the Iraq War. While the main conclusions of the report should be familiar to all of us by now--that the U.S. and Britain justified the invasion of Iraq on both flawed and manipulated intelligence and that subsequent preparations for post-invasion Iraq were woefully inadequate and mismanaged--it is nonetheless an overdue public accountability of British leadership, a detailed and searing rebuke that no member of the Bush administration has ever undergone. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president, a decision that cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and that led to the deaths of over a million people, including 4,500 American servicemembers and scores of Iraqis. Moreover, the ripple effect across the Middle East from that single event 13 years ago has been brutal and violent, spawning terrorist groups like ISIS and miring U.S. foreign policy in a region we continue to misunderstand. For me, and for a number of others in this chamber who boldly spoke against the war before it even began, this report has enormous resonance. And it was cathartic to watch former Prime Minister Tony Blair's news conference, where he appeared if not exactly repentant, at least deeply affected by the report's scathing criticism. President Bush and the other architects of the war have never deigned to present themselves before the public to explain, much less atone for, their actions and decisions. Meanwhile, House Republicans have been far more determined to waste this body's time and resources investigating Benghazi, Hillary Clinton's emails, or the IRS rather than the biggest foreign policy disaster of the last quarter century. Indifference, Mr. Speaker. That's what the Iraq War has amounted to: a regrettable blip on an otherwise sterling American reputation abroad. That's what President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and the rest of the political elite who enabled their actions would have you believe. But while they continue to enjoy their comfortable retirement, free of punishment or official censure, Iraq continues to burn. Perhaps you think a Chilcot Report of our own would be futile, now that the American people popularly regard the Iraq War as a profound mistake. But public censures have their uses, not the least being that they serve as a warning to those who would forget or ignore our past missteps. An American Chilcot Report would certainly check those voices now calling for increased military action in Iraq and Syria. Over the past 5 days, during the final week of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, over 320 people have been killed in Baghdad. This is just the latest of Iraq's horrors, Mr. Speaker, horrors that we wrought with our senseless and criminal invasion 13 years ago. During his news conference, Mr. Blair said ``I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever believe.'' Mr. Speaker, the chances of ever hearing the same remorseful and contemplative words from Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld are virtually non- existent. God forgive them and us for such indifference, for Iraq never will.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, during my 28 years representing Seattle in the Congress, there have, unfortunately, been several mass shootings in my district, including one in 2006 at the Jewish Community Center and another one in 2014 at Seattle Pacific University. I know the pain and the frustration that members of the delegation from central Florida are feeling 3 weeks after the shooting in Orlando. As a psychiatrist, I know and understand the trauma that these types of violent events inflict on individuals and communities. As someone who was around Congress in 1994 when the first assault weapons ban was passed, and in 2004 when it expired without action, I thought it would be useful to talk for a few minutes today about the history of that ban and how Congress capitulated to the gun lobby and allowed weapons designed for killing to flood our communities. Congress began consideration of an assault weapons ban after two mass shootings in California. In January, in 1989, a disturbed man with a long criminal history walked into the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, and fired 106 rounds in 3 minutes from his semiautomatic rifle, killing 5 children and wounding 32. Nothing happened. It is no surprise that we have the same thing happen in Connecticut and nothing happens. Four years later, in 1993, a failed businessman opened fire in the Pettit & Martin law firm in San Francisco with a pair of semiautomatic pistols, shooting hollow point ammunition. The predictable public outcry and strong support for an assault weapons ban following these shootings led Senator Dianne Feinstein to put forward legislation that would ban semiautomatic weapons. In an unprecedented show of bipartisan support, former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford joined together to publicly urge Congress to ``listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.'' A ban on assault weapons eventually passed the Congress in 1994 as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. However, in order to get that legislation through the House, a costly consensus was made to gun rights supporters and the NRA that allowed the ban to sunset or expire after 10 years. So, despite the importance of the assault weapon ban, it was allowed to expire. From 2003-2008, Senator Feinstein led numerous efforts to reauthorize the ban, but not a single bill left her committee. We had the same here in the House. Carolyn McCarthy made the plea over and over again. Her husband and son died on a Long Island Railroad train from a guy who came into the train and shot up the aisle and killed them. One hundred four people were gunned down during this time period in mass shootings, and all Congress did was to send a message that weapons designed for use in the theater of war were acceptable for use on our streets. While I certainly do not want to minimize the loss of lives, I find it important to point out that Congress felt compelled to act on an assault weapons ban in 1994, following two shootings that killed a combined total of 13 people. For some reason, this body can't seem to summon the courage to act after 27 are killed in Connecticut, 24 in San Bernardino, 9 in Oregon, 12 in Colorado, and 49 in Orlando. And I could go on and on and on for my entire speech. The question you have to ask is: Have we become so numb to the pain of mass shootings that, no matter how many innocent people are gunned down, we won't find the will to act? Has the NRA desensitized my Republican colleagues so much that the slaughter of children in a kindergarten doesn't even result in a single vote on the floor, a denial to bring the issue out here and debate it in public? What is the price that the American people must pay before Republicans quit this obstruction? 100 killed? 200? Fifty doesn't seem to hit threshold. I understand reinstating the assault weapons ban will be tough, but, Mr. Speaker, we must have that debate if we are going to have a society in which we all feel safe.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, bipartisan expanded background checks legislation. It is really to honor the memory of Paul Terrell Henry. He was a victim of gun violence in Orlando, who never received a moment of silence on this House floor.