Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2014. This legislation offers a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to reforming our estate tax system that is supported by voters across all income levels. As America comes out of one of the worst recessions in its history, this Congress must carefully consider all sources of revenue that are not only effective, but fair and equitable. This estate tax embodies those values. The past decade of failed tax policies have killed jobs and resulted in significant income and wealth disparity in this country. The promise and strength of America lies in a system that benefits everyone. These tax policies have steered us away from this promise and crippled the American economy. The middle class continues to shrink as more and more wealth flows to the top--and this country's current tax system makes this unfairness worse. The current estate tax policy is the poster child for the unfairness we all see. That is why I am introducing this legislation. This bill will bring the estate tax back to the rates and exemptions from before the Bush tax cuts--a time when this country experienced continued prosperity and budget surpluses. Specifically, the Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2014 will return the top marginal rate to 55% and lower the exemption for individuals to $1 million. Estate tax loopholes are also addressed, including a 10-year minimum on grantor retained annuity trusts, limitations on the generation skipping transfer trust exemption, and rules for consistent basis reporting. Succeeding financially in life is a wonderful American right and the families of wealthy people should benefit from that good fortune. But no one gets wealthy on their own. Financial success for any American is achieved by using the roads, schools, and public services that all Americans pay for. It is only fair that they reinvest in the country that provided them with so much opportunity.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in the Seattle tradition I would like to rise and recognize the football game that was played last night in New Jersey. Our team played very well, and no one in Seattle was the least bit surprised at the result.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, when you are not limited by the facts, you can say almost anything out on this floor; and we are hearing that today because, in the grand tradition of the anti-choice terminology, the title of this bill is an absolute farce. Taxpayers do not currently fund abortions, and this legislation would do nothing more than make it difficult for private businesses to provide adequate health care for their workers, restrict how our Nation's Capital conducts its affairs, and generally block poor women from accessing safe and legal abortions. In 1963, I was an intern in Buffalo, New York, before the Hyde amendment, before all the business and abortions were illegal. I stood there on the general medicine ward with two women, one with eight children, one with 12 children, who had gotten septic abortions done in a back alley, and they died. They left eight and 12 children in that situation. Now, they did that because they didn't have access to clean abortions. They had made a choice. They can make a choice. If we say women can't make a choice, that is very simple. We will just tell women what to do, which is really what this bill is all about. The Republicans want to tell women what to do. Stay out of our lives, get the government out of our lives. No, in every area except women's health. Now, the truth of the matter is not tax credits or health coverage. The heart of this debate is a simple question about does women's health count? Do women deserve comprehensive health care? Or are they some kind of submissive person who hangs around the house and we tell them what to do? Are their health care needs real? And does 51 percent of our population deserve control over their own health decisions? Or are they special exceptions who need to be taken care of because they can't decide for themselves? Do they have a right to make health decisions for themselves? Does Congress have a right to stigmatize a safe, legal procedure? Imagine if we were standing up here debating whether or not private business would be allowed to help employees get coverage for prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction drugs or vasectomies. Suppose we were to pass a law and say you can't pay for that kind of stuff? Imagine if we told men that they would lose their deserved tax credits in the exchange if they purchased insurance that covered their health needs as they decide them?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Women's health care is health care. It is not Congress' job to stigmatize legal medical procedures and punish women who use them. It is also not Congress' job to tell Washington, D.C., what to do or to stop people from having their options. This bill is insulting to women, and the Republicans are asking for it in the next election. If anybody votes for you, it is because they haven't paid attention to what you are doing out here today. You are insulting every woman in this country. She can't make her own decision about her health care. I urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in today is what I call loving a bill to death. Every legislator knows how you do it. You load it up with a bunch of stuff to kill it. They are still trying to do this. They are not talking about transparency or accountability. It is simply another plan to muck up the path to better health for Americans. It is not surprising, because the House Republicans don't want a health care system that works any more than they want a balanced budget. If they wanted a balanced budget, they wouldn't push for health care policies that cost more to get less. America spends more on health care than any other advanced nation, and we get worse outcomes. Let me tell you one of the reasons for that. We spend less on social services. Instead of helping people afford good food to stay in shape, we cut food stamps. Instead of supporting families who care for their parents in the comfort of their home, we force them to push them into nursing homes. Instead of helping people to stay in their homes, instead of strengthening the bridge between job and new career, we pull the rug out from under them. And right now, every 8 seconds, another American loses his unemployment insurance. While I am speaking, 15 families will lose their way of supporting themselves. Where do these people go? How do they stay healthy? Is it any wonder our diet is full of what we call comfort food? And is it any wonder that we are the most anxious country in the world? Is it any wonder that the ER has become more common than the doctor's office? We can pay now. We can invest in a country where people have jobs. We can help people keep their homes and care for themselves, or we will pay later in skyrocketing health care costs and the economic drag of a sick nation. If Republicans wanted a health care system that works, we would be investing, not wasting our time in forcing States and the Federal Government to spend more on useless bureaucracy. Nobody is asking for this. Maybe the insurance companies want to have more data. I don't know. But nobody who is administering this program has said, Let's have more reports. We don't know enough. It is like babies; you don't weigh them every day to see if they have gained weight. You take them in every couple of months or every month to get the baby checked. That is what we are doing here already. And they say, No, let's do it every day. Let's do it every week. Let's waste more time and money. Vote ``no'' on this wasteful, destructive bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Bob Drewel on the occasion of his retirement as the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council. Throughout his service in this capacity for most of the last decade, as well as his long tenure as Snohomish County Executive, Mr. Drewel demonstrated time and again his dedication to the continued development and success of the Puget Sound region. His civic service, by even the strictest of standards, is second to none. During his tenure as Executive Director, Mr. Drewel built effective partnerships among business, labor, government, and civic interests. Most notably, he spearheaded creation of the Prosperity Partnership, a broad coalition devoted to the advancement of long-term economic prosperity in the central Puget Sound region, and VISION 2040, the region's integrated growth, economic development, and transportation strategy. It is my privilege to thank him for his years of public service and for his unwavering commitment to the prudent growth of our region. Mr. Drewel's many contributions to the Puget Sound region also include leadership to assure assembly of the Boeing 787 jet airliner in Everett, and subsequent efforts to secure development of a new Air Force Tanker and the Boeing 737 MAX family of aircraft in Renton. In addition, Mr. Drewel was the first President of the Aerospace Futures Alliance, and he is the founder and President of the Washington Aerospace Partnership. He also is a past President of the Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the former Chairman of the Sound Transit Board that led the successful attempt to win voter approval of the Sound Transit system in 1996. A man of seemingly endless energy (and forbearance), Bob also was Chairman of the Highway 520 Tolling Implementation Committee to fund replacement of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, an absolutely crucial transportation link in the region. Finally, Bob served as Co-Chair of the Transportation Partnership of 2008 that advocated Washington state's largest-ever transportation improvement package, which ultimately was approved by the voters. Bob Drewel exhibited remarkable conviction and resolute commitment to the central Puget Sound region through the many roles and positions he held during his three decades of civic service to King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. On behalf of the people of the City of Seattle and the State of Washington, I extend our gratitude and our deep appreciation to Robert J. Drewel for his extraordinary leadership and deep commitment to our region. We wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two technical corrections to the Affordable Care Act. These two bills provide minor technical corrections to avoid confusion and to ensure that regulators can effectively do their work in combatting fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program. We need to extend the solvency of the Medicare program and to do so, we must ensure that the regulatory agencies are empowered to fully enforce provision to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program. The first bill would allow certain physician extenders, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists, to document that the face-to-face encounter required by the Affordable Care Act has occurred. The Affordable Care Act currently requires that a physician document that a face-to-face encounter has occurred, even though the law allows the face-to-face encounter to be performed by a physician extender. The face-to-face encounter is an important tool to combat fraud and abuse in the durable medical equipment context, and it is important to recognize the role that physician extenders play in many instances. The second bill would correct an error in the ACA that was carried over from an underlying law, which prevents regulators from stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. A provision in the Affordable Care Act intended to allow regulators additional discretion to impose a surety bond on home health agencies based on the volume of payments they received from the Medicare program. However, due to a drafting error in the underlying law that was inadvertently perpetuated in the Affordable Care Act, the bond that regulators can require from home health agencies is essentially capped at $50,000. For large providers, this amount is too low a sum to have a meaningful impact and directly contradicts Congress' intention to require a higher bond from home health agencies that receive substantial Medicare payments. We must continue our efforts to extend the solvency of the Medicare program. Fighting fraud is a nonpartisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support these technical correction provisions.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as the diplomats gather in Geneva today, I applaud their hard work in moving toward an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear challenge. After years of confrontation, today marks an important moment for all of us who support a diplomatic solution. We have spent a great deal of time to get to this place: taxpayer dollars, political capital, and global influence. We must not turn back now. Right now, we have the maximum amount of leverage for a deal vis-a- vis Iran without fracturing the international coalition. Therefore, we should focus 100 percent on reaching a deal in Geneva under the P5+1 framework. It is absolutely critical. Like using a wrench to tighten a nut, you can strip it if you push too hard. We have pushed to exactly the right point, and I hope that we will be successful. We must, however, remember Mr. Reagan said, ``Trust, but verify.'' It is possible to prevent nuclear problems if we trust, but verify. That is what these diplomats are doing.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with all the remarks of my friends. We have had a remarkable occurrence in my time in the Congress. This was once a death sentence. Today, we are on the verge of being able to produce an AIDS-free generation. Now, it is great and we are always excited when we do something new and big and exciting, but maintaining and pushing forward to finish the project is really where we are. This bill will pass without a vote against it, I am quite sure. But the real question is: What do we put in the budget? Because if we don't maintain what is going on in the world today, we will lose. We will go backward. It is like we have built a dike and we are holding back the sea. But the fact is if we don't have the drugs available when mothers deliver children and you do that intervention right at the appropriate time, you will not prevent the children from getting it. You will not be able to give the long-term care to the mothers as they raise these children. In my view, that is really where we are. This was the crowning achievement, I think, of the administration of George Bush. His starting this was a statement to the world that the United States cared about an epidemic that affected the entire face of the universe. And we have done a good job. But I say this because I worry about the sequester. What does sequester mean to this? What will be the reductions? Because I am getting calls from my friends in South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Kenya, saying, How much money is there going to be next year? Will we be able to expand the program, keep it the same, or are we going to have to retrench? That is what the world is watching as we face this upcoming vote on the budget. I hope that we have as many votes for funding the program as we do for reauthorizing it here today in this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Honoring Our Fallen Heroes with Dignity Act of 2013. This act protects the rights of families to leave small keepsakes at the gravesites of servicemembers buried in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, many of whom bravely served their country in Iraq and in Afghanistan. During the summer of 2013, officials at Arlington National Cemetery came through Section 60 and, without providing advance notice to families, threw away mementos left behind for the heroes buried in Section 60. Teresa Arciola, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq in 2005, cried when she found out that the mementos she left at her son's gravesite had been removed. ``It was like no one cared anymore,'' she told The Washington Post. The act would allow mementos to be left on the top of and immediately next to grave markers in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery as long as they did not interfere with normal operations and maintenance procedures, such as mowing the grass. The items can not be a health or safety hazard, be permanently affixed to gravestones, and can't interfere with normal operations of the Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery. At end of each month, items left on the grave stone will be collected, cataloged, and stored.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two important legislation that would make common-sense reform to Section 3319 of title 38 of the United States pertaining to post-9/11 educational assistance, also known as ``Post-9/11 GI Bill.'' I supported the creation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill because the brave men and women in uniformed services deserve our nation's support in attaining education. I have heard from many constituents who are benefiting from this worthy program. I have also heard from some who say that the law needs to be amended to ensure that the benefits are fully used. My first bill, Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Enhancement Act, would expand the authority of veterans to transfer post-9/11 educational assistance to dependents within five years of separation from the uniformed services. Currently, members of the uniformed services must transfer their benefits to their dependent before leaving the services. My bill would give veterans more time to ascertain whether or not life circumstance dictates the need to transfer the educational benefits to their dependents. The goal is to ensure that more people can take advantage of the educational assistance. My second bill, Increased Age Limit for Post-9/11 Education Assistance Dependents Act, would increase the age limit to use transferred post-9/11 educational assistance from 26 years old to 29 years old. This is again intended to capture more beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, particularly those who are pursuing medical school or other professional degrees where the typical age of entry is higher than other degrees. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these two measures so that we can better serve our veterans and military families.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my mother used to say ``patience is a virtue.'' I haven't seen so much panic on this floor since 9/11. Now, the fact is that a couple of Members who used to be here--Jay Inslee, who is now Governor of the State of Washington, and Mike Kreidler, who is the insurance commissioner of the State of Washington--have already said they will not implement this because it is not good for the people of the State of Washington. They have looked at it. We have worked hard to implement the Affordable Care Act. Now we have a bill out here with no hearings whatsoever run out here, and we are told there will be no confusion. There will be nothing but confusion. You have 50 insurance commissioners around this country who are going to be suddenly given a bill after we write some rules and regulations here that require the insurance companies to sell policies to people. I can't believe what I am hearing. I thought that the Republicans believed in the free enterprise system. This is socialism. This is government saying to insurance companies: you must sell a policy to somebody next year that you sold to them this year. When did we shift on the Republican side to the Congress telling an insurance company who they have to sell a policy to or what is in the policy? The fact is that they are going to have to put the policy out there. They have been working on implementing this law for 3 years. Now 6 weeks before it actually begins to take effect, we run in here and say, wait a minute, wait a minute, you got to start selling policies like the ones that you sold last year. Do you think they didn't think through what they are doing? I mean, I don't understand. The free enterprise system is lions and they are eating antelopes. I urge you to vote ``no'' against this because you are going to create endless confusion in this country and the insurance market. Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner, November 14, 2013. Kreidler Statement on President Obama's Announcement Today Olympia, WA.--``We have worked for three years to implement the Affordable Care Act in a way that works best for Washingtonians. One goal of our efforts has been to build a stable, fair and competitive individual health insurance market. I know that many people who buy their own health insurance have struggled to keep their coverage. That is why we have worked so hard to make these significant changes. We have brought meaningful benefits to this market that the rest of us with employer-sponsored health plans have enjoyed for years; benefits like prescription drug coverage, maternity care, and reasonable limits on out-of-pocket costs. Our state-based Exchange--Wahealthplanfinder.org--is up and running and successfully enrolling thousands of consumers. I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits today. But I have serious concerns about how President Obama's proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market. I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington. In the interest of keeping the consumer protections we have enacted and ensuring that we keep health insurance costs down for all consumers, we are staying the course. We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the health insurance market in Washington. We estimate that 290,000 people will need to buy new coverage and that at least half of them will qualify for a premium subsidy. I encourage anyone who is shopping for new health plans--whether you've been uninsured or have received a cancellation notice from your insurer--to look at all of your options. Don't just take what your insurance company says. You may find better, more affordable coverage with a different insurer. There are 46 individual health plans for sale in the Exchange and 51 plans available outside the Exchange. If you need help reviewing your options, contact a navigator or an agent or broker.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2013. This bill would generate new streams of revenue for the federal government as well as state and tribal governments, create an estimated 30,000 new jobs in America, and provide funding for children in foster care and for historic preservation and the arts. This is a companion bill to H.R. 2282, legislation sponsored by Cong. Peter King and Capuano, which would license and regulate online gambling at the federal level. Under current law, intra-state online gambling is legal, but inter-state online gambling is not, except for betting on horseracing, which is legal on an inter-state basis. Under my legislation, the federal government along with state and tribal governments would recognize a new, untapped stream of revenue. The revenue could help jurisdictions fund needed services at a time when many governments are struggling with tightening budgets. Online gambling operators would pay a tax to the federal government as well as state and tribal governments equal to a percentage of the total deposits they collect. The money paid to the governments would not be deducted from the accounts of online gamblers. Operators will pay a tax to the federal government equal to four percent of the funds deposited by players who reside inside the U.S. Operators will pay a tax to state and tribal governments equal to eight percent of the funds deposited by individuals residing within their jurisdiction. The deposits to state and tribal governments would be made automatically every month by website operators, in lieu of them (the governments?) imposing other taxes of their own. This deposit tax for states and tribes would be an optional, simple, and uniform way to participate. A quarter of the revenue raised by the bill would go to providing assistance to the nearly 500,000 children in America who live in foster care. The funds generated would be directed at helping foster children through grants to each State to carry out educational and transitional support for individuals who are or were in foster care. Finally, the bill sets aside 0.5 percent for historic preservation and the arts. I helped enact a similar program in my home state of Washington, and it has been hugely successful over the years. Some in this body may be concerned that legalizing online gambling would further open the door of the virtual casino to children, but evidence shows the current availability of online gambling options on the Internet has not led to an increase in gambling among minors. Moreover, technology is widely available and used in the United States and abroad to verify identity, age and location for online financial transactions from online banking to online gambling on horseracing. The future is happening. People in small towns and big cities across America are gambling online either legally under a patchwork of inconsistent state laws or illegally without any consumer protection. We have to deal with this issue. If we regulate online gambling, we can create jobs, generate revenue, and expand aid to children in foster care.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we have this debate over opening the government, I want to talk about an agency that people are not thinking about. The National Institutes of Health started in 1887 in one room, the Public Health Service Hospital in Staten Island, New York. It was modeled on something that the Germans had been doing for a number of years that was called the Laboratory of Hygiene. In 1891, it came to D.C. In 1901, they built the first building. The appropriation was $35,000. It was for the investigation of infectious and contagious diseases. In 1912 in St. Louis, 12 kids died when they got a diphtheria vaccine that was contaminated with tetanus. At that point, they decided they would pass the Biological Control Act, and that was given to the Institutes of Health. Joseph Goldberger, a doctor, discovered the cause of the pellagra, which was a scourge of the South in this country, a dietary deficiency because of bad diet. That came from the Institutes of Health. In 1930, a Senator from Louisiana by the name of Ramsdell started the National Institute, one, the National Institute of Health. It was to give fellowships to physicians to study problems in the health care system. That situation went on from that day to this day. Now they tried to do it in the private sector. After the First World War and all of the problems of chemical warfare, the Congress said let the private sector figure out how to do it, and they couldn't do it. They couldn't find anybody to finance it, and so they came and established the National Institute of Health in the government. In 1937, they added the National Institute of Cancer. And in 1938, they built the first building up in Bethesda, Building 6. Now until the Second World War, they discovered and worked on various things, and then the war came, and they spent an enormous amount of effort trying to figure out the health problems of this country. People don't realize, 43 percent of the people who were inducted or brought forward to be inducted into the Army were rejected because they were unfit physically. The National Institutes of Health went to work on that. There were a whole variety of issues--diet, teeth, syphilis, all kinds of things that were not being done in this society, and they did the initial research on that. In 1946 after the war, they decided we've got to expand this thing and they began creating new Institutes of Health. One was arthritis and metabolic diseases. That's where we started working on diabetes. Then they did allergy and infectious disease, which is what went on to deal with AIDS. In 1970, there were 15 Institutes of Health. Today, there are 27. All over this country in every university and everywhere you look, there are scientists and physicians who are submitting grants to the Institutes of Health on issues that affect all of us. It has been the practice until very recently that one out of five of them is accepted. One is good, four are not so good. We're going to pick the one that's good and put our effort there. We are down at the point where we are now doing 6 out of 100; 6 out of 100. This country that boasts about our health care system is killing it by this kind of bill, by squeezing the National Institutes of Health to death. Mr. Speaker, bring out a clean bill and let's start up the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republican Caucus is standing out here naked, and they keep bringing fig leaves out to cover themselves. This is another fig leaf. It is not intended to do anything. At the end of the Second World War, it was determined that 43 percent of the people who were drafted were unfit for military service because of nutritional deficiencies. We have, as a public policy, from that point onward, fed people at every level. School lunches, Head Start, WIC program, SNAP--they have all been designed for making this a healthy country. One of my colleagues says, well, this has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It has everything to do with ObamaCare. If you don't feed kids the proper things, they get sick. Everybody knows that, apparently, except the Republican caucus, Madam Speaker. The fact is that what we need to do is bring out a clean resolution and reopen the government and feed all the people. This business about picking one group that's entitled to a little something and leaving some others out is absolutely cynical beyond belief, and it should not happen in this place. We have the ability to have the most healthy people in the world. We produce food, we ship it everywhere, and yet you hear from my colleague, Mr. McGovern, how many people are hungry in this country because they don't have it. Now, somehow you think a mother's going to sit there, she's got her stuff from the WIC program, right? She's got a kid that's 1 year old and one that's 3 and one that's 7, and she's going to say to the 3 and the 7-year-old, you don't get anything; but I've got a little something for your brother Johnny? What kind of situation is this? Do you understand what it's like to be deprived in this country? We can do better than this. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for this cynical fig leaf. I urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 513 I was delayed in traffic and missed the vote. I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my father used to get up in the morning and say: Today is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. It's a verse from the Book of Psalms. This is a day I think we can be positive about. All we're hearing is negative stuff and bad stuff, but let's talk about the good things. Today is the first day in our country that you have the ability to apply for health insurance. No matter what your status is, you can go down to the exchange and ask for a quote and buy an insurance policy, no matter what your condition is. No matter your employer, no matter what illnesses you have in your family, no matter what, you can have insurance. That brings the United States up to the level of every other country in the industrialized world. For the first time, we have joined the countries that take care of the health security of their people. But it's very clear it's going to be uneven across this country. I come from the West Coast. We call it the ``Left Coast.'' Washington, Oregon, and California are up and running. They have been planning for 3 months how they're going to get out and get everybody enrolled. The State of Washington's goal is something like 70 percent in the first 6 months for those people who don't have insurance. We're serious about making this thing work. The Governor of Kentucky has just said almost the same thing. There are spots across this country where you are going to see this law take effect, and people, for the first time in their life, can relax and know that they won't be bankrupted by an illness or injury or be able to say: I'm sorry, we can't do for you whatever is necessary for you or some member of your family. This is a great day. In other States, people are going to stand around watching what is going on on the West Coast and say: Why can't we have what they have in California? Why can't we have what they have in Washington? And the answer is: Look to your political leadership. Look to your Members of Congress who said: No, we don't want to put a plan in. We don't want a plan. They'll say: Yes, we want to repeal and replace, but they never once put a ``replace'' on the table. I sit on the Ways and Means Committee, where Medicare and the Affordable Care Act came from. The Republicans have been in control ever since it passed in 2009. They have never put a plan on the table to repeal and replace. They do not care about people who do not have health insurance. It is very clear. The Governors across this country who refuse to take the Congress's generous offer of full funding for Medicaid are simply saying: We don't care about the poor people in our State. We are not going to provide health care for them. Even if the Federal Government will pay the whole thing, they say: No, they can't have it. The people of those States are going to have to look, Mr. Speaker, at their leadership and say: What are you doing? Do you not understand what it is to be a human being in this society without health insurance and wait and wait and wait until whatever it is that's bothering you is so bad that you have to go to the emergency room? The reason some people have good health care in this country is because they have health insurance and they can have preventive care. They can have mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pleasure checks, sugar checks, and all kinds of things that people who do not have health insurance don't have access to because they can't afford it. Beginning today, anybody in this country can have their blood pressure checked and their blood sugar checked to see if they have high blood pressure or diabetes. They will be able to begin the process of having much better health care and not have to worry about what happens to their family. I talked to Bill Frist, who was the Republican leader of the Senate, for about an hour the other day on the phone. He said: Jim, what those guys ought to do is simply amend the bill that's there and make it work. There hasn't been a single amendment brought in the House to make it work better. This is a wonderful day for everybody.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in Psalm 118:24 it says: This is the day which the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. This is a day of rejoicing. The Republican wrecking ball that was supposed to take out ObamaCare has failed. It was a failed idea. It was a bad idea. And ObamaCare is going into effect today. So rejoice. Everyone in this country now has a chance to have health insurance coverage. We've been waiting for 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt first proposed it. And finally, it's here. Newt Gingrich said, If we allow Mrs. Clinton's health care plan to pass, the Democrats will be in for the next 60 years, like they were after we passed the Social Security Act of 1935. Well, folks, that day is here. It's a glorious day. Rejoice. You can get your health insurance.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 1st of October when everyone in this country is going to have an opportunity to have health insurance, you know that there are some people who always like the status quo and they will say anything and do anything. The public is today being subjected to a propaganda campaign, the likes of which we have never seen in this country, against ObamaCare. Somehow it is the worst thing that has ever happened--the sky is going to fall, the world is going to end as we have known it, we should run and pray that in the latter days we will be saved. The fact is that ObamaCare is going to go into effect. The Supreme Court has looked at it and said it is constitutional. It is going to happen, folks. Will there be a few problems? Of course. You can't make the change and bring 30 million people into a program without having a problem here and there. Some of the complaints I hear on the other side are from people saying: Oh, it's going to do this, it's going to do that, it's going to do this, it's going to do that--but they didn't want to make one single change to make it better. We should just be calm.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Arizona for bringing this issue to the floor. Forty-five years ago, I was a part of another era when there was a draft, and everybody was subject to that draft. In 1975, we stopped that draft, and we changed the nature of our military. We made it an all-voluntary military. What we've done in this country is we've taken 1 percent of the people and said, You volunteered for this. You go and do this for us. We buy the guns, the bullets, and everything else and send them out there. When they come back, we don't know them. There's a fascinating book, called, ``Breach of Trust,'' by a man named Andrew Bacevich. He is a colonel in the United States Army. He lost a son in Iraq, and he has written an incisive account of what the problem today is. The subtitle is ``How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country.'' I know about PTSD because I dealt with it as a psychiatrist with people coming back from Vietnam. The kids that were in ``Apocalypse Now'' are the kids that came to my clinic. So I saw what people who went through tough war was all about. What is happening today that we do here on this floor--and I'm always uneasy when we do it--is we stand up and we have a moment of silence. It's nice. We should do it, and we do it. We thank people for their service. Every veteran finds that as hollow, because they didn't go and get us a cup of coffee; they were under orders to go and kill people. They did it on our behalf. We bear the responsibility for sending them out there to do it. Every one of us on this floor, all 435 of us, bear the responsibility, as does the American public. When we receive them back, what do they get--homelessness? joblessness? They get PTSD that may or may not be treated. We say, Oh, well. The Veterans Administration will take care of that. You can't put it off on the Veterans Administration. It is all our responsibility. There is a movie, called, ``The Invisible War,'' about what happens to women who are now serving in the military. You can look at brain injuries of kids who could do all kinds of things and come back and can't remember their phone number, can't remember what their house address is, and they are suffering from things that have happened to them because of the war that they've been involved with, and what happens to them is they get isolated. They get isolated, feeling that nobody really understands what's going on with them. For some, suicide seems like the only way. Now, Native American tribes, more ancient people, understood this, that when they sent warriors out to war, they received them back into the tribe. The samurai did it. There was a whole process by which we brought people back in and cleansed them of the guilt of what they've done on our behalf. That collateral damage you read about or hear about is our responsibility as well as theirs for having actually pulled the trigger. We sent them, and they did it on our behalf. They cannot get away from that. We have put a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that will create a commission for high-level people to look at how we bring these people back, and it's more than just fixing the process at the VA. That's not enough. There is a much larger process of getting us to accept what we're sending people to do. This recent brush we had with Syria, we were about to send people down there to kill people all over the place and say, Well, it was the Air Force that did it. I didn't direct the smart bomb to go in there. Yes, you did. Yes, I did. Yes, all of us did. So when we talk about suicide and these isolated young men and women who come back and feel there's no other hope, it is a much bigger issue. It's an issue of getting them to come and talk to us and tell us what they've done and accept, as we accept, the grief from that kind of event. I thank you for the time, and I encourage you to read the book, ``Breach of Trust.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fairness for Beneficiaries Act of 2013. Before Medicare beneficiaries can access skilled nursing facility (``SNF'') care, they must have a preceding three (3) day inpatient stay at a hospital. Historically, this made sense. The goal was to ensure the use of SNF care was limited to certain circumstances where such care was medically necessary. The relatively arbitrary 3-day requirement was acceptable; medical developments and technology were such that beneficiaries usually would need 3 days of inpatient care prior to accessing SNF care. I contend that times have changed. First, many Medicare beneficiaries are simply not medically appropriate for inpatient stays; they require direct admission to a SNF. Thus, the 3 day stay requirement imposes a burden--both physical and financial. We know inpatients can often acquire healthcare-associated infections (``HAIs'') during their stay at a hospital. The potential for beneficiaries who may have compromised immune systems to acquire an HAI is substantially higher, compared with the rest of the population. One recent estimate projects the annual direct cost of HAIs to United States hospitals at $28.4 to $45 billion. Some of this financial burden could be avoided potentially if beneficiaries could bypass the inpatient setting and go directly to a SNF, when a physician certifies that SNF care is appropriate. There is another reason that this legislation is of critical importance. The use of observation status by physicians has cause a substantial burden for patients. Medicare beneficiaries may go to a SNF thinking that because they had been sitting in a hospital bed for 3 days, that their SNF care would be paid for by Medicare--only to find that this is not the case because 1 or 2 of the days that they spent at the hospital were spent in observation status. Such patients are hit with substantial financial liability time and time again when they access SNF care. This issue has directly affected my constituents and I am seeking to put an end to this problem by eliminating the requirement for a 3 day stay prior to beneficiaries accessing SNF care. Finally, I recognize that some critics may say there is a substantial cost to this legislation and that the cost to the Medicare program is simply too great. I believe that some of the cost associated with this legislation could be offset. First, as described above, there is a potential savings in reducing some HAIs that Medicare beneficiaries acquire during the inpatient stay since the beneficiaries can now go straight to a SNF when medically indicated. Second, I note that there will be a decrease in the use of inpatient hospitals by this population when beneficiaries are ready to go straight to a SNF. Third, I note that beneficiaries deserve the best care that we can afford to them. As such, the right policy in this regard is to allow them to access SNF care where medically appropriate as certified by a physician. Finally, the legislation contains certain protections to protect against fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare program relative to this benefit. First, a physician certification continues to be required prior to a beneficiary being able to access SNF services. Second, the legislation requires CMS to develop uniform requirements that will allow CMS and its contractors to audit to ensure that SNF care is appropriate. For all of these reasons, the Fairness for Beneficiaries Act of 2013 is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation that will fix an error and enable homeless veterans and youth to pursue full time education while living in Low Income Housing Tax Credit financed housing. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) have been a crucial foundation to incentivize the building of affordable low income housing. LIHTC housing has been invaluable in providing much needed shelter for those living in poverty or on the streets. Unfortunately, a provision in the law is having unintended consequences. Currently, a homeless veteran or youth that wishes to pursue full time education must choose between an education and living in LIHTC housing. This is not a choice they should be forced to make, nor is this a policy America has ever supported. Education is the cornerstone of American excellence and ingenuity and remains the best means to escape poverty. It is critical that we fix this defect in the law, and ensure that our youth are given every opportunity to reach their educational goals.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, although this hall is empty, there are a lot of people watching it, and I wonder how many of them have ever actually gone hungry. How many of the people watching this have had to go without a meal so their kids could eat? How many have had to wonder how they'll get through a summer without subsidized school lunches? It's easy to talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when you've had designer shoes on your whole life. Tomorrow, we will be voting on whether or not to cut $40 billion from SNAP. That's a nutrition program for people who do not have access to adequate nutrition. It's a program that helps one out of seven Americans to put food on the table. If this seems familiar, it's because it is familiar. Republicans tried just exactly this before the August recess, a couple of months ago, and not surprisingly, for the most unproductive Congress in decades, this bill had to be pulled at the last minute because of a lack of support. Even some of the Republicans saw it was too much. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that symbolic votes to nowhere are the bread and butter for this Congress, but the Republicans couldn't even get their own support on the bill--$20 billion of cuts that primarily help children and the elderly wasn't enough for them. They had to hurt people more, so here we are again with a new, improved plan that doubles the cuts to $40 billion. On top of making 2 million people ineligible for benefits, they are also going to take away our States' ability to provide temporary benefits in times of high unemployment. As a result, the CBO predicts that this will add an additional 1.8 million hungry Americans to the ``ineligible'' list. Why are we attempting to inflict another needless wound on the working poor? Republicans will tell you that the program has grown too much over the last few years, as though the need for food stamps were unrelated to a dragging economy. They see no connection between the economy and the fact that people don't have food. That's exactly what the program was designed to do--quickly help people who are in need. When unemployment is high and people can't pay their bills, that's exactly the time they need the SNAP program. Caseloads rose dramatically when the recession hit. We laid off 700,000 people a month in 2007, but that growth has also slowed as the economy has recovered slowly. The CBO projects that, in just a few years, SNAP spending will be back down to 1995 levels as a share of the GDP, and since it's shrinking on its own, it isn't adding to the long-term deficit problems. The rhetoric is simply empty and stupid. Conservatives can try and push this tired welfare abuse narrative. It's a talking point. Every time they come out here, ``Welfare abuse. Welfare abuse. People are getting money for food. That's welfare abuse,'' but as usual, the reality is not in their corner. Studies show that food assistance has some of the lowest rates of fraud of any benefit program. If you go to one of those food banks and talk to the people who are there, you'll find some surprising people there, people who thought they would never have to go there, but they are short on money and can't feed their kids, so they're getting some money. So I ask you again: Why are we doing this--wasting time to satisfy the furthest right-wing of the Republican Party? We are again catering to a fringe agenda thought up by partisans who are obsessed with the deficit bogeyman. That bogeyman has been roaming around here for 4 years. ``We're going to have a terrible collapse. We're going to have inflation. We're going to have terrible things.'' It has never happened. The President has done a miraculous job in keeping us on an upward track in spite of the resistance of the other side. What it does is it makes it harder for 4 million people to put food on the table. So be it. That's their attitude. I'm in. At least they won't risk facing a primary in the next election. They are all worried about somebody further on the right. We've already got one Member over here, Mr. Speaker, who is worried about somebody coming from the right, and he's about the furthest right I can imagine on the floor. Senate Democrats and Republicans appointed conferees to negotiate a farm bill back at the beginning of August. Quit worrying about scoring points with the Heritage Foundation, and let's focus on the American family and vote this bill down.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record four documents. One is a letter from the President, in his opposition to the bill. The second is technical assistance from the Inspector General, saying they have no ability to do this. The third is a cost estimate from CBO, and the fourth is a letter from HHS detailing their verification plans. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, September 10, 2013. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2775--No Subsidies Without Verification Act (Rep. Black, R-TN, and 103 cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2775 because the goal of the bill is already being accomplished while the text of the bill would create delays that could cost millions of hard-working middle-class families the security of affordable health coverage and care they deserve. It is time for the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity and security for middle class families and all those working to get into the middle-class. The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over their own health care and has already improved many aspects of the Nation's health care system. Beginning in October 2013, millions of low- and middle-income Americans will be eligible to receive tax credits to help them purchase insurance and cost-sharing reductions to help with out-of- pocket expenses for coverage effective January 1, 2014. Tens of millions of Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition will now be covered. The nearly one in two Americans under the age of 65 with pre-existing medical conditions will have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they cannot be dropped from their health plan or denied coverage because of those conditions. House passage of H.R. 2775 would undermine this security by delaying tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that will otherwise be provided to millions of Americans. H.R. 2775 is unnecessary because the Secretary of Health and Human Services has already put in place an effective and efficient system for verification of eligibility for premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions. Moreover, it would create vague standards for the Inspector General, whose office has never performed this type of prospective review, to ``successfully and consistently'' verify eligibility. As a result, this legislation's unnecessary pre-certification requirement would impede opening the Marketplaces on October 1, 2013, driving up out-of-pocket health care costs for millions of Americans and reducing timely access to much- needed and long-denied affordable coverage. If the President were presented with H.R. 2775, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).