Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I take 1 second to remind the gentleman that last year he proposed the same kind of trigger in Medicare. He trusted it then. I am not sure why he does not trust it now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged today in a very fraudulent exercise. I will enter into the Record a letter from Dr.O'Neill, the head of the Congressional Budget Office. The question was asked whether the alternative set of policies proposed by the President would achieve a budget balance in fiscal year 2002, which would be balanced. And her answer is, ``Our analysis, which provides CBO's estimate of the effect on the deficit of the President's alternative budgetary policies, shows a zero deficit in fiscal year 2002.'' The President has submitted a bill, a budget that is balanced, according to the very person that we hear the Members on the other side saying they would worship at her feet. If she says it is balanced, it is zero, if the deficit is zero, that is good enough for them. We have the letter. This is fraudulent. The question we have to ask ourselves is, why are we going through this exercise? I will tell you. It is very simple: 1995-96, the Republicans got burned by coming out here with policies that were unacceptable to the American people. And now we are engaged in what I call the grand stall. The budget is supposed to be ready by the 15th of April. Will that budget be done on the 15th of April? We have 13 working days between now and then and we are not in the committee. We have not had a single discussion about any alternative or a modification that we will make to the President's proposal. We are getting a case built here that the reason we did not do it on the 15th of April was because the President never submitted us a budget. Now, some of the freshmen out here do not understand the game. But let me tell them what it is. We will blame it on the President as long as we can, and then, finally, we will try to jam something through here without any discussion, the discussions about taking away quality of care for senior citizens and a variety of other things. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this. The information referred to is as follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 4, 1997. Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: You asked whether the alternative set of policies proposed by the President in the event that Congressional Budget Office projections are used in the budget process would achieve unified budget balance in fiscal year 2002. As we described in our March 3 preliminary analysis of the President's 1998 budgetary proposals, ``the alternative policies proposed by the President were designed to fill exactly any size deficit hole that CBO might project under the basic policies.'' Therefore, Table 6 in our analysis which provides CBO's estimate of the effect on the deficit of the President's alternative budgetary policies shows a zero deficit for fiscal year 2002. I hope that this answer meets your needs. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve in the U.S. Coast Guard. I extend special recognition to the members of the 13th Coast Guard District who so capably serve my home district and the people of the Pacific Northwest region of our country. The beauty and grandeur of the waterways of the Northwest are paralleled by the dangerous and unpredictable situations they sometimes present. On February 12, 1997, violent weather off the coast of the Olympic Peninsula threatened the safety of a sailboat and its passengers. In the middle of the night the Coast Guard responded to the distress call and saved the passengers. Unfortunately, one of the two Coast Guard rescue boats from the Quillayute River Station capsized in the strong winds and high waves of the Pacific Ocean. Three crewmembers were lost; the fourth survived. On behalf of the people of the 7th Congressional District of Washington, I extend sincere sympathy to the family and friends of PO 2d Class David Bosley of San Mateo, CA, PO 3d Class Matthew Schlimme of Whitewater, MO, and Seaman Clinton Miniken of Snohomish, WA. We extend our best wishes for a rapid and complete recovery to Seaman Apprentice Benjamin Wingo of Bremerton, WA. To Adm. David Spade, Commander, and all members of the 13th Coast Guard District, we extend deep appreciation for the professional accomplishment of your mission of search and rescue, vessel traffic safety, and marine environmental protection. We too frequently take for granted that the Coast Guard is always prepared for an emergency and we fail to recognize the vital contribution of your entire command in support of economic prosperity and the enjoyment we derive from our environment. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this tribute from the editors of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed on February 19, 1997, the date of the memorial services: Honoring Heroes of the Sea The 23rd verse of the 107th Psalm speaks of ``they that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters.'' The members of the U.S. Coast Guard daily do business in great waters. Often it is the business of saving lives. Sometimes the cost of doing business is the loss of their own lives. So the mourning bells will ring today in Seattle and LaPush for three District 13 Coast Guardsmen who died exactly one week ago during the rescue of a couple on a damaged sailboat off the mouth of the Quillayute River. The couple survived, rescued by a Coast Guard helicopter out of Port Angeles. One member of the guard's 44-foot motor lifeboat, Benjamin Wingo, 19, of Bremerton, also survived. The rest of the crew did not. Killed were Petty Officer 2nd Class David Bosley, 36; Petty Officer 3rd Class Matthew Schlimme, 24, and Seaman Clinton Miniken, 22. They died when the lifeboat, a Coast Guard workhorse for 35 years, was repeatedly overturned by 25-foot seas and winds as high as 45 knots crossing the Quillayute bar. That bar already had a reputation as a killer, claiming the lives of seven crewmembers of the fishing boat Gambler in 1990. The last time a Coast Guardsman was killed in the line of duty anywhere in the Northwest was in 1991 during the rescue of a capsized fishing boat off the Columbia River. During 1996, the 13th Coast Guard District, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, was credited with coming to the aid of more than 8,000 individuals, saving 381 lives and rescuing nearly $267 million in property. The Psalm's story has a happy ending. After its sailors ride stormy seas on which they ``mount up to the heavens, they go down again to the depths . . . and are at their wit's end,'' God calms the seas and ``bringeth them unto their desired haven.'' A week ago the seas were not calmed and the three Coast Guardsmen failed to reach safe haven. ``He was my hero,'' said Sandi Bosley of her husband David Bosley, the coxswain of the ill-fated vessel. Today we join family and friends in mourning the deaths, and celebrating the lives, of all these heroes.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to delete the following cosponsors from H.R. 539: Representatives Towns, Martinez, Ford, and Ackerman. They were mistakenly added as cosponsors to H.R. 539 instead of H.R. 615. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to request unanimous consent to delete the following cosponsor from H.R. 615: Representative English of Pennsylvania. He was mistakenly added as a cosponsor to H.R. 615 instead of H.R. 539. Corrected cosponsor lists have been submitted.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would allow people to receive penalty-free withdrawals of funds from certain retirement plans during long periods of unemployment. I am pleased that Representatives Charles Rangel, Robert Matsui, John Lewis, Ronald Dellums, Esteban Torres, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Robert Rush, Maurice Hinchey, Vic Fazio, Zoe Lofgren, Eva Clayton, and Charles Canady have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation. This legislation would allow penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts [IRA's] and qualified retirement plans--401(k) and 403(b))--if the taxpayer has received unemployment compensation for 12 weeks under State or Federal law. Under the legislation, the distribution of funds would have to be made within 1 year of the date of unemployment. Under current law, when a taxpayer withdraws money from an IRA or a qualified retirement plan before age 59\1/2\, he or she is forced to pay an additional 10 percent tax on the amount withdrawn. This additional tax is intended to recapture at least a portion of the tax deferral benefits of these plans. This tax is in addition to regular income taxes the taxpayer must pay as the funds are included in the taxpayer's income. The early-withdrawal tax also serves as a deterrent against using the money in those accounts for nonretirement purposes. The vetoed Balanced Budget Act of 1995 includes a provision which is the same as this legislation with respect to withdrawals from IRA's. This provision recognizes that when an individual or family is faced with long periods of unemployment, they may have no other choice but to draw upon these funds to meet their everyday living expenses. During this financially stressful time, an additional 10 percent tax for early withdrawal is unfair and only serves to make the family's financial situation worse. This legislation would accomplish the goals of that provision by allowing penalty-free withdrawals during long periods of unemployment from IRA's as well as qualified retirement plan--401(k) and 403(b)-- accounts. Many small businesses offer participation in 401(k) plans, thus, this amendment would help unemployed people who at the time of separation from employment chose to leave their 401(k) funds with their former employer. Then, because of unanticipated long periods of unemployment, need access to those funds. Accordingly, many small businesses would benefit from this amendment. In addition, employees who are laid off from their former employment may need access to those funds in order to start up their own small business. State and local government employees who are displaced through downsizing, also may need access to the funds in their 403(b) plans for similar purposes. The benefit this legislation would offer the long-term unemployed is the right thing to do in this period of economic uncertainty. You can plan for many things in your life financially, but the impact of long, unanticipated periods of unemployment can create financial havoc on any individual or family, including those that thought they had adequate savings to get them through such a situation. Long periods of unemployment are similar to major illnesses that can result in catastrophic medical expenses. Under current law, taxpayers are allowed penalty-free early withdrawals from qualified retirement plans to meet catastrophic medical expenses, therefore, it makes sense to extend this benefit in cases of long periods of unemployment. Passage of this legislation would allow unemployed taxpayers a chance to get back on their feet without having to pay an unnecessary financial penalty when they can least afford it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which supports important regional and national interests. My home, the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, is also the home of K2 Corp., the last remaining major U.S. manufacturer of skis and one of three major makers of snowboards in the United States. K2 conducts all significant manufacturing operations for skis and snowboards at its Vashon Island, Washington facility. In fact, all K2 snowboards and virtually all K2 and Olin-brand skis sold throughout the world are individually crafted by technicians on Vashon Island. Moreover, K2 sources almost all of the components for its skis and snowboards in the United States stimulating the U.S. economy through its purchases of raw materials from U.S. suppliers, especially in the Pacific Northwest region of the country. However, for two key ski and snowboard components, i.e., spring steel edges and polyethylene base materials, K2 has been unable to find a supplier of these products in the United States that can meet its needs. Therefore, K2 has been forced to import these products, which are subject to U.S. customs duties upon importation. This legislation provides for a temporary suspension of customs duty on the two raw materials which are vital to the U.S. production of skis and snowboards and which are unavailable from domestic producers. K2 is working hard to remain viable in the highly competitive international market for skis and snowboards. In fact, K2 has endured as a U.S. ski manufacturer in the face of fierce price competition, while several other major ski companies no longer manufacture skis in the United States. This temporary duty suspension legislation would support jobs in the region, as well as K2's ability to continue developing innovative, fine quality products. Equally important, a temporary duty suspension would help K2 preserve and increase its competitiveness in the global marketplace. K2 is the only major exporter of skis made in the United States. In addition, K2 is one of three principal exporters of U.S. made snowboards. Thus, K2's exports of U.S. manufactured skis and snowboards represent a substantial percentage of U.S. skis and snowboards sold worldwide. If K2 is unable to remain competitive in global and domestic markets, skis manufactured in the United States may disappear from the global marketplace. The temporary duty suspension proposed by this legislation would help prevent the shutdown of the only remaining U.S. producer of skis.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the majority leader, sometimes things change. We made that decision on the best information available to us. None of us, not a single person said they would not come back if it made sense, but the bipartisan subcommittee said it could not be done. So that is why we set the timetable we did. Within the last 3 days, I received, in December, a letter from the Speaker's attorney saying, ``We want an expedited hearing. We are ready to go. We want this thing to go just right now.'' And suddenly yesterday they call us and say they want us to delay this to begin on the 13th. Now, what happened between December when they said they were ready to go and then suddenly they say, yesterday they call Mr. Cole and say, ``We are not ready to go. Do not have any hearings until the 13th. We need time to prepare.'' Now if the gentleman cannot respond to things changing, it seems to me he is terribly rigid in setting a date. In this place we find over and over again, we set a date, it may not work just the way we thought. I think that when we have the subcommittee come together, with the special counsel--if it was just Democrats begging for this, that would be one thing, but we are talking about two Republicans and two Democrats and the special counsel saying this is a reasonable schedule. Now, for the gentleman not to respond to that in a positive way seems to me to suggest he has some other agenda. I do not know what it is, but, clearly, it is not in preserving the orderly process of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment, a motion to commit because I believe the committee must have an orderly process, one that is fair and allows sufficient time for both the Members and the American people to understand the importance of these proceedings. Special counsel, as you heard from my colleague from Maryland, has proposed to the subcommittee, which by unanimous vote has accepted and supported the counsel's recommendation, for a process that will allow the House and this process to go in an orderly and fair way. I am sure that, if the chair of the committee were to bring this motion to the committee, there would be a majority of the committee that would support this proposed schedule because the counsel has been fair, evenhanded, and has done a very professional job and we respect his work. Yet for some reason the Republican leadership seems bent on forcing this process to be concluded by inauguration day. What is proposed is that this will, this process will begin on the 13th, with hearings in the House in open session for the American public; how many days that takes, no one knows. And then there will be a couple of days or a day or however long to discuss what the sanctions should be. Then a report must be written, and it must lay on the desk for 3 days before we vote on the 20th. That means from the 13th to the 20th, you have 8 days. If you are going to have hearings and people able to think, you are not going to have 3 days for it to lay on the desk so that the Members of this House can read and know what they are voting on. I suspect there will be an effort to waiver that rule when we come back here or some way to get around it so that people do not have the time to actually look at it. Now, it is in my view very sad, it has been said, that what has been a very professional job is now being forced into a schedule which is designed for political damage control. Demanding that that vote occur on inauguration day, we are going to come in here at 9:00 in the morning, called to order. This issue will be laid before the House. We will have an hour's discussion or whatever. We will vote on it and go around the building and inaugurate the President. That is not an orderly, thoughtful process. People will arrive here on Monday and with no reading of this, it will have been 3 days, Saturday, Sunday, Monday; and they will be expected to vote on it out here in a sensible way. That is not orderly. It is not a good process. Now, you can only guess why they wanted that. The House deserves better than this. After 2 years of an incredibly slow process, the House can take a few extra days to do the job right. I urge the Members to support this motion to commit this back and have an orderly process date set in it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which supports important regional and national interests. My home, the 7th Congressional District of Washington, is also the home of K2 Corp. the last remaining major U.S. manufacturer of skis and one of three major makers of snowboards in the United States. K2 conducts all significant manufacturing operations for skis and snowboards at its Vashon Island, WA facility. In fact, all K2 snowboards and virtually all K2 and Olin-brand skis sold throughout the world are individually crafted by technicians on Vashon Island. Moreover, K2 sources almost all of the components for its skis and snowboards in the U.S. stimulating the U.S. economy through its purchases of raw materials from U.S. suppliers, especially in the Pacific Northwest region of the country. However, for two key ski and snowboard components, i.e., spring steel edges and polyethylene base materials, K2 has been unable to find a supplier of these products in the United States that can meet its needs. Therefore, K2 has been forced to import these products, which are subject to U.S. customs duties upon importation. This legislation provides for a temporary suspension of customs duty on the two raw materials which are vital to the U.S. production of skis and snowboards and which are unavailable from domestic producers. K2 is working hard to remain visible in the highly competitive international market for skis and snowboards. In fact, K2 has endured as a U.S. ski manufacturer in the face of fierce price competition, while several other major ski companies not longer manufacture skis in the United States. This temporary duty suspension legislation would support jobs in the region, as well as K2's ability to continue developing innovative, fine quality products. Equally important, a temporary duty suspension would help K2 preserve and increase its competitiveness in the global marketplace. K2 is the only major export of skis made in the United States. In addition, K2 is one of three principal exporters of U.S.-made snowboards. Thus, K2's exports of U.S.-manufactured skis and snowboards represent a substantial percentage of U.S. skis and snowboards sold worldwide. If K2 is unable to remain competitive in global and domestic markets, skis manufactured in the United States may disappear from the global marketplace. The temporary duty suspension proposed by this legislation would help prevent the shutdown of the only remaining U.S. producer of skis.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the exceptional career of Dr. Jack Lein of the University of Washington. Dr. Lein will retire at the end of the year, concluding a record of service at the University that is without equal. Over the course of more than 30 years, he has worked to enhance the University's medical and health sciences education and administration. Although a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Dr. Lein is perhaps best known for his singular success in bringing Federal attention, and Federal dollars to the University of Washington. In so doing, he has helped to shape and to strengthen the university so significantly that it is nearly impossible to imagine that institution without his forceful presence. A Spokane native, Jack Lein received a medical degree from the University of Washington in 1955. Nine years later, he joined the University as both a faculty member and an administrator, and began the work which would elevate the school's medical research and training programs to national renown. Working with Senators Warren Magnuson and Henry Jackson and House Speaker Tom Foley, Jack guided a steady flow of Federal monies to the UW. Thanks to his skill and tireless effort, the University of Washington today ranks first among all State universities in the country in receipt of Federal funds. Much of this support came through research grants from the National Institutes of Health. Today, the University is widely known for its groundbreaking medical work in areas ranging from cancer research and treatment to fetal alcohol syndrome to burn treatment. None of these achievements would have been possible without Jack Lein. His service to the citizens of Washington State is immeasurable, covering a spectrum of contributions that defies description. Dr. Lein has served the university in a dizzying number of key positions. In addition to his faculty appointment, he was an assistant and then associate dean of the School of Medicine. He founded the School's Continuing Medical Education program and directed it for nearly 20 years. He also was instrumental in developing regional medical education systems that have become national models. Under his aegis, the University's Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, and Community Medicine have flourished, and today, University of Washington Health Sciences students enjoy an educational experience unique in the country. In addition to these achievements, Jack also served as both State legislative liaison for Health Sciences and coordinator of Federal relations for the entire University. My own relationship with Jack Lein spans many years and many endeavors. Among his multiple roles, Jack was a sort of concierge of the medical establishment. He knows nearly every politician in Washington State, and whenever a legislator or other officeholder needed a medical referral, Jack was the oracle. And since he put this role to productive use, as he did all others, he really knew how to get you when you were down. Jack will be long-remembered throughout the University community as a consummate tactician with an absolutely unrelenting sense of humor. No matter how dire the situation, and many have been, Jack finds the humor in it. He is a delightful companion and a wonderful friend. I wish him a long and rewarding retirement, and hope that he will slow down enough to savor it. The University of Washington is losing one its lions, but I know of no one who has contributed more to it than Jack Lein.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is a rather unique bill where all the Democratic conferees come out here, did not sign the bill, hold their nose, and they are going to support it. I know why that is. There are 24 provisions that really are troublesome in this bill and the committee never met and dealt with them. One is the whole question of mental health parity. What that issue means is that if the patient has a mental illness and their insurance plan pays 80 percent for surgery for cancer or a brain tumor or something else, they have to pay 80 percent on a mental health claim. Right now most plans pay 80 percent on some kinds of things and 50 percent for mental illness. People with mental illness in this country are discriminated against by the insurance industry and the Senate voted it and the House refused to consider it and it has been left out of this bill. There will be a motion to recommit. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for that motion to recommit because that will reinsert parity for the mentally ill. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] says one out of five people in this country are affected by mental illness and that is an issue that ought to be dealt with. There is no excuse for us letting the insurance companies discriminate against people simply because they have mental illness. No worse, or equally bad, in this bill is the section on administrative simplification, which aroused the insurance companies to have an insurance data that can use your Social Security number. This is the day that we voted to give the insurance companies the right to use your Social Security number and gather all the information in a clearinghouse for which there is no privacy protection in this bill. Now people want to think that it is called ``administrative simplification,'' but simply what it does is give the insurance companies the ability to shift information back and forth, use it against applicants for life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance. Anything they want to do, they can do in this bill because there is not one single shred of protection of your privacy. I raised this issue in the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman of the subcommittee who stands up here and says, ``It is such a wonderful bill,'' said he would deal with it. It did not get dealt with. In fact, it went in the conference committee and came out worse. He is less protected. Doctors could be required to give a patient data of encounters. That means if a patient goes to see the doctor and tells the doctor anything that has gone on in their life, the doctor could be compelled by the insurance company data system to release that information because there is nothing, nothing in here that protects the doctor-patient relationship. I think people had real qualms on that conference committee about signing it because in many ways, although we help a few people with the whole issue of portability, if we read the bill we find that is not very good, that we are taking away people's privacy and we are discriminating against the mentally ill. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, last year the United Nations adopted a new treaty to assure the conservation of fish caught in international waters, known as the Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. This new treaty, which was recently ratified by Congress with bipartisan support, seeks to reverse the depletion of fish and other marine life that has resulted from unsustainable fishing practices and the lack of effective international management. The need for this new treaty is painfully obvious. Many of our most important fisheries have been depleted, undermining the economic well- being of coastal communities worldwide. Similarly, the wasteful bycatch of marine life in many fisheries poses a major threat to biodiversity. The legislation we are debating today, H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, and the Panama Agreement upon which it is premised, represents the most far-reaching attempt to date to implement the conservation mandates of the new treaty. If enacted by Congress, it will create a model for the management of high seas fisheries around the world. H.R. 2823 advances several of the new, important conservation objectives of the U.N. treaty. For example, like the U.N. treaty, it prevents overfishing by requiring the establishment of catch limits based on a precautionary approach. Like the U.N. treaty, it also requires steps to minimize the wasteful by catch of all forms of marine wildlife. Like the U.N. treaty, it assures transparency in the management of fisheries in the eastern Pacific, so that all interested stakeholders can effectively participate in the management process; and like the U.N. treaty, it secures international cooperation in the conservation of marine resources. H.R. 2823 recognizes that unilateral measures alone cannot succeed in conserving fisheries that are prosecuted in international waters. It builds upon the recent, important work by the United Nations aimed at the sustainable management of world fisheries. H.R. 2823 is our best hope of assuring healthy fisheries as well as dolphin protection in the eastern Pacific Ocean. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote. motion to table offered by mr. largent

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we started this Congress with the majority indicating that they were going to follow new procedures, and they made a big show of all the rules changes we were going to have, but here we are ramming through the biggest change of policy toward children in this country with a bill that has been in our hands for a little more than 12 hours. This 1,200- or 1,500-page bill was delivered to the Members of Congress last night at 1 o'clock in the morning. All that is being characterized as partisan fighting out here is basically a resistance to having something like this rammed through the Congress with a lot of good rhetoric wrapped around it, but the facts belie what is being said. Now, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has started to debate the bill and said this is a bill about work, but if my colleagues take this bill, and they go to page 80 under section 415, it is the section called waivers, and if my colleagues can wade through this language, and I will read it for them: Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if any waiver granted to a State under section 1115 of this Act or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State plan under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) is in effect as of the date of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the amendments made by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (other than by section 103(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) shall not apply with respect to the State before the expiration. Let me tell my colleagues what that means. That means that in 43 States there is no requirement for work. Every bit of work requirement in this bill is a fraud because with that waiver on page 80, section 415, we allow any State who has a waiver now in effect, and there are 43 of them in, if they are in effect, they can waive the work requirements. There are only seven places in the United States making up 5 percent of the welfare load; that is Alaska, Idaho. Rhode Island, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Nevada that do not have waivers. If we read that section further, all they have to do is get a waiver from the Federal Government and those seven States can be out. There is no requirement for work in this bill, because they write all the perfect language, spend 50 pages saying work, work, work, and then at the bottom, they give a waiver. If there is a waiver, Mr. Speaker, in their State, their State does not have to provide a job. Let me tell the Members what it is like in Washington State, because I know the situation there. We have 100,000 people on public assistance. We have 125,000 people who have been drawing unemployment benefits. That is 225,000 people in the State of Washington who do not have work. If tomorrow, with this bill passed, every one of them showed up and said, ``I want a job,'' the State of Washington could say, ``We do not have any responsibility for you. We have a waiver. The State of Washington has a waiver.'' Even if they were going to be responsible, even if the State of Washington said, ``We really care about these 225,000 people and their families,'' last year, and the State of Washington, Members have to remember, is the fifth most rapidly growing State economically. We are at the top in this country. In our State last year we provided 44,000 new jobs. Mr. Speaker I urge people to vote against this bill. It is bad. It is a fraud.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida put her finger on the fundamental problem here, and that is that the Republican bill will not guarantee support to children if all else fails. Now, my brother runs the public assistance program in the State of Washington. I know the facts. In the State of Washington there are 100,000 adults on welfare, 125,000 people, unduplicated count, on unemployment. That is 225,000 people on average every month in the year 1995. If they all showed up for a job on tomorrow, there would be jobs. Last year they created 44,000 new jobs in the State of Washington. That means 181,000 adults in the State of Washington, that DRI, McGraw- Hill, the economic forecaster says is the fifth most rapidly growing State in this country, could not get jobs, 181,000 people. Now the Labor Department has recently said that the unemployment rate is as low as it ever is. Tomorrow Mr. Greenspan is going to meet with the Federal Reserve to talk about raising the interest rates so that we can slow the economy so we do not have inflation. Now, we cannot slow the economy and stop job creation when we have 181,000 people in 1995 in the State of Washington who could not get a job and say to their children, ``Hey, folks, kids, I'm sorry. Your Ma went down for a job, but there was none, and you can't eat.'' That is what the Republican bill says. They will not give a voucher if they have done everything, and there is no way. I think the President, who cares about the kids in this country, is going to take a long careful look at what comes out of this body because, if we are not careful of how we deal with the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society, we are not a civil society.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about the process of the Ethics Committee. I have sat on the Ethics Committee for 6 years. At various times I have been a member, a ranking member, and, in one 2-year period. I was the chair. So I speak with a broad experience on the affairs of the Ethics Committee. For me to speak on this issue is an unusual circumstance but these are unusual times. The charge of the Ethics Committee is to protect the integrity of the House and to deal fairly with the Members charged before this committee. A part of fairness is dealing expeditiously and thoroughly with charges brought to the committee. The appearance of fairness and thoroughness and impartiality is essential to any effort by the committee if the committee expects either the Members or the public to accept the results of the evaluation of any charge. To adequately fulfill these two obligations, there has evolved a process for responding to allegations against a Member. The standing Ethics Committee is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before 1968, ethics complaints were handled in a variety of ways. There was a use of special committees or subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, but since 1969, the Ethics Committee is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before 1968, ethics complaints were handled in a variety of ways. There was a use of special committees or subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, but since 1969, the Ethics Committee has functioned on a bipartisan basis, composed of equal numbers of Democrat and Republican Members. This structure is unique in this partisan body because neither side by force of majority can exert its will. There must be cooperation. Now, undeniably, in controversial cases, partisan feelings arise and cooperation becomes strained. Over the last 20 years, a mechanism has been developed to deal with such complicated or contentious cases and that is the appointment of a special outside counsel. When partisanship has disrupted reasoned evaluation of the facts, the committee rightly has resorted to independent outside counsel on 10 occasions over the last 20 years, the Ethics Committee has chosen to seek outside counsel to resolve partisan differences and to ensure that the truth is presented to the Congress and to the American people. Doing so is nothing new, extraordinary or prejudicial. It is instructive, I think, to review those 10 instances. Here is a list of the cases in which outside counsel was appointed by the House Ethics Committee: In the matter of the complaint against Representative L. F. Sikes in 1976, the Ethics Committee hired William Geoghegan. In the Korean influence investigation in 1977, the Ethics Committee hired Phillips Lacovara and John Nields. In the matter of Congressman Charles C. Diggs, the Ethics Committee hired William Geoghegan. In the matter of Abscam in 1980, the Ethics Committee hired E. Barrett Prettyman. In the matter of Congressman Daniel J. Flood in 1979, the Ethics Committee hired David M. Barrett. In the matter of Congressman George V. Hansen, 1984, the Ethics Committee hired Stanley Brand. In the investigation of financial transactions participated in and gifts of transportation accepted by Congressman Fernand J. St Germain in 1987, the Ethics Committee hired Johnnie L. Cochran. In the investigation, pursuant to House Resolution 12, concerning alleged illicit use and distribution of drugs by Members of the House, the so-called page scandal in 1983, the Ethics Committee hired Joseph Califano. In the matter of Speaker Jim Wright in 1988, the Ethics Committee hired Richard Phelan. And lastly, regarding complaints against Representative Newt Gingrich in 1989, the Ethics Committee hired the firm of Phelan and John. The results are history. In every instance, outside counsel treated the accused Member fairly but got to the truth when the committee itself was unable to. In many instances, outside counsel's recommendation on specific charges were accepted and in others they were narrowed or dropped. This is not unlike disputes in a variety of settings where parties are unable to reach an agreement and an arbiter is sought. In families, in churches, in universities, in legal disputes, and even in sports, the ref's or the ump's decision is final. Committees in most situations are set up with odd numbers of members so that differences of opinion can be resolved by a majority rule. That is how this body operates in most situations. In those areas where committees are set up with an even number of members, the obvious hope is that decisions will be reached by consensus or the committee will resort to an outside arbiter. The advantages realized by the House and the committee in seeking outside counsel are numerous. The House receives the advice and counsel of a jointly selected examiner who comes to the investigation devoid of the discomfort and understandable bias that committee members might bring to such an investigation. In addition, the counsel assists the committee to understand and to winnow the allegations and the application of overlapping rules, statues and standards of conduct to very complex facts. Counsel selected in such a manner can be both fair and thorough, which in turn, in my belief, offers the best chance that the concluding decision of the committee will be deemed a just result. Once counsel is selected, the question before the committee is, what shall be the scope of the counsel's investigation and what shall be his or her authority. Mr. Gingrich, in 1988, wholeheartedly endorsed the answer to this question proposed by former Attorney General of the United States, Archibald Cox, who as head of Common Cause suggested the following in a letter to Chairman Dixon: The outside counsel, and I quote, shall have full authority to investigate and present evidence and arguments before the Ethics Committee concerning the questions arising out of the activities of a member. The outside counsel shall have full authority to organize, select and hire on a full or part-time basis in such numbers as the counsel reasonably requires. The outside counsel shall have full authority to review all documentary evidence available from any source and full cooperation of the committee in obtaining such evidence. The committee shall give the outside counsel full cooperation in the issuance of subpoenas. The outside counsel shall be free, after discussion with the committee, to make such public statements and reports as the counsel deems appropriate. The outside counsel shall have full authority to recommend that formal charges be brought before the Ethics Committee, shall be responsible for initiating and conducting proceedings, if formal charges have been brought, and shall handle any aspect of the proceedings believed to be necessary for a full inquiry. The committee shall not countermand or interfere with the outside counsel's ability to take steps necessary to conduct a full and fair investigation. Mr. Cox goes on to say: The outside counsel will not be removed except for good cause. Because Congressman Gingrich felt the committee was not going to adhere to the principles outlined by Mr. Cox, he wrote Chairman Dixon to raise his concerns and closed his letter with the following statement: The rules normally applied by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical Member are insufficient in an investigation of a Speaker of the House, a position which is third in line of succession to the presidency and the second most powerful elected position in America. Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability and integrity. As usual, Mr. Gingrich was eloquent and his logic was unassailable. I think, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of this body would heartily and readily agree with the words of Mr. Gingrich. With respect to unresolved matters, the committee has only three options. Either to refer to the outside counsel those issues which remain unresolved or to leave those issues unresolved or to report back to the House the committee's inability to resolve the charges before it and ask for further direction. The first option, that of referring to the outside counsel, has been used in the past on a number of occasions, as I outlined, and has been used in a bipartisan way to resolve very thorny issues. The process has been led by an individual whose livelihood and success does not depend on the good graces of the chair or the ranking member. In short, the Member, the committee, the House and the public must have confidence in the professionalism, integrity, open-mindedness of the outside counsel. Referral to an outside counsel must, and I emphasize, must be considered a judgment that the matter merits further inquiry, nothing more. The second option, that of leaving the matter unresolved, is totally unacceptable, since it reduces the Ethics Committee to the Committee on Frivolous Complaints and Rule Interpretation. The committee is able to deal only with issues over which there is no controversy because either party can, by a 5-to-5 vote, prevent the resolution of any serious or difficult issue before it. If one side feels there is an issue that merits further inquiry and the other does not, the issue will simply die in the lap of the chair. If that happens, the chair of the committee will have destroyed the Ethics Committee by failing to lead the committee to a resolution of an issue of major importance. The third option is reporting back to the House the committee's inability to resolve an issue either by consensus or by referral to the outside counsel. The report to the House can be made either in open session or in executive session in the House Chambers. This latter course could be followed since an ethics charge could arguably be considered a personnel matter and the Member is entitled to have it aired in secret, as the Ethics Committee operates. In a session before the House, the committee could receive direction by the House as to whether the matters should be referred to the outside counsel or follow some other course of action, such as dismissal of all remaining charges by a vote of the House in secret session. Being on the Ethics Committee is not a sought-after plum assignment in the House of Representatives, but it is a job that must be done. Attacks on members of the Ethics Committee by either side of the aisle must be viewed with great skepticism. Recently, on July 27, some of my colleagues put out a Dear Colleague letter in which they said, Over the past two years a systematic and coordinated effort has been undertaken to impugn the integrity of Speaker Gingrich. In fairness to the Speaker and with respect to the ethics process, they suggest that I recuse myself from this process. These recent attacks on me are simply attempts by zealous and uninformed Members of the House to destroy the Ethics Committee before it completes its work on unresolved matters. This kind of misguided activity will accomplish nothing but damage to the reputation of every Member of the House. I am really quite honored that after a thorough review of my office and campaign and financial disclosure forms, those who seek to destroy the committee could come up with so little in their vain attempt to discredit the committee. I am here tonight to state that the House should have a report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on matters unresolved before it, so that the House can further instruct the committee on how to proceed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would allow people to receive penalty-free withdrawals of funds from certain retirement plans during long periods of unemployment. I am pleased that Representatives Sam Gibbons, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Barbara Kennelly, Robert Matsui, Bill Coyne, John Lewis, and Richard Neal have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. This legislation would allow penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts [IRA's] and qualified retirement plans--401(k) and 403(b)--if the taxpayer has received unemployment compensation for 12 weeks under State or Federal law. Under the legislation, the distribution of funds would have to be made within 1 year of the date of unemployment. In addition, a self-employed individual would be treated as meeting the requirements of unemployment compensation if the individual would have received such compensation if the individual would have received such compensation if he or she had not been self- employed. Under current law, when a taxpayer withdraws money from an IRA or a qualified retirement plan before age 59\1/2\, he or she is forced to pay an individual 10 percent tax on the amount withdrawn. This additional tax is intended to recapture at least a portion of the tax deferral benefits of these plans. This tax is in addition to regular income taxes the taxpayer must pay as the funds are included in the taxpayer's income. The early-withdrawal tax also serves as a deterrent against using the money in those accounts for nonretirement purposes. The vetoed Balanced Budget Act of 1995 includes a provision which is the same as this legislation with respect to withdrawals from IRA's. This provision recognizes that when an individual or family is faced with long periods of unemployment, they may have no other choice but to draw upon these funds to meet their everyday living expenses. During this financially stressful time, an additional 10 percent tax for early withdrawal is unfair and only serves to make the family's financial situation worse. This legislation would accomplish the goals of that provision by allowing penalty-free withdrawals during long periods of unemployment from IRA's as well as qualified retirement plan 401(k) and 403(b) accounts. Many small businesses offer participation in 401(k) plans, this amendment would help unemployed people who at the time of separation from employment chose to leave their 401(k) funds with their former employer. Then, because of unanticipated long periods of unemployment, need access to those funds. Accordingly, many small businesses would benefit from this amendment. In addition, employees who are laid-off from their former employment may need access to those funds in order to start up their own small business. State and local government employees who are displaced through downsizing, also may need access to the funds in their 403(b) plans for similar purposes. The benefit this legislation would offer the long-term unemployed is the right thing to do in this period of economic uncertainty. You can plan for many things in your life financially, but the impact of long, unanticipated periods of unemployment can create financial havoc on any individual or family, including those that thought they had adequate savings to get them through such a situation. Long periods of unemployment are similar to major illnesses that can result in catastrophic medical expenses. Under current law, taxpayers are allowed penalty-free early withdrawals from qualified retirement plans to meet catastrophic medical expenses, therefore, it makes sense to extend this benefit in cases of long periods of unemployment. Passage of this legislation would allow unemployed taxpayers a chance to get back on their feet without having to pay an unnecessary financial penalty when they can least afford it.