Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, many individuals who suffer from rare diseases or conditions currently face obstacles to participating in clinical research trials that may extend or improve their quality of life. The Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, which passed the Senate on August 5, 2010, by unanimous consent, would eliminate these barriers. This legislation would prohibit disabled beneficiaries who receive assistance from the Supplemental Security Income, or SSI program, from participating in clinical trials. It is standard practice to reimburse clinical trial participants, not only for direct expenses associated with participation in such trials but also to reimburse them for time committed for their participation. Moreover, it is the policy of research institutions to treat all clinical trial enrollees in a consistent manner. As a result, if compensation for expenses and time is paid to one trial enrollee, it must be paid to all. The current program rules under the SSI program regarding compensation or reimbursement from clinical trials has inadvertently created an obstacle for enrollment in such trials that can lead to life-saving therapies. For example, approximately half of all adults with cystic fibrosis are SSI recipients. If one of these recipients were to participate in a clinical trial and received reimbursement for their commitment, that compensation would lead the Social Security Administration to redetermine whether the individual continues to meet the income and asset tests used to determine eligibility for the SSI program. Thus even a modest reimbursement for clinical trial participation may prevent the majority of individuals from enrolling in trials because, under the SSI income and asset limits, it could potentially trigger a loss of their SSI benefit. As a result of this risk, very few SSI recipients who suffer from cystic fibrosis participate in clinical trials. Given the large number of recipients with cystic fibrosis, this may have the undesired effect of slowing the pace of cystic fibrosis clinical research for all Americans, including the approval process for promising therapies that are already in the pipeline or waiting to be tested. The development of new treatments for rare diseases would benefit not only those who suffer from such conditions but the Nation as well. SSI rules should not force recipients to choose between their current income support and health coverage and their long-term ability to manage and potentially overcome the disease that has disabled them. In May of 2008, a number of my Democratic and Republican colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee joined me in sending a letter to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We urged him to consider practical steps to allow SSI recipients to maintain their eligibility for the SSI and Medicaid benefits while participating in potentially lifesaving clinical trials. The Commissioner informed us that such a solution would require a legislative change in the law. The legislation before us today is very similar to the bipartisan legislation that was introduced in the House by Representatives Ed Markey and Cliff Stearns in June of 2009. The bill excludes the first $2,000 received as compensation or reimbursement in a clinical trial from the income and asset eligibility limits in the SSI program. It also would exclude the first $2,000 in compensation from the income tests in Medicaid. Additionally, the legislation would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an evaluation of the impact of this bill on enrollment of SSI recipients who participate in clinical trials. The CBO has determined that this provision, which is scheduled to sunset in 5 years following enactment, has little to no cost. Eliminating the obstacles faced by SSI recipients who suffer from a rare condition could lead to potentially lifesaving treatments or therapies that can improve the quality of life for those who suffer from these diseases. Permitting the SSI recipients to participate in clinical research trials is the right thing to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today will help States test innovative approaches for improving outcomes for vulnerable children who come to the attention of our child welfare system. The bill restores the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to permit up to 10 demonstration projects annually to allow States and tribes to test efforts to improve child welfare policy. The legislation is cost neutral, and it provides the renewed waiver authority for the next 5 years. To both increase our understanding of waiver policies and to ensure improved accountability, the legislation newly requires States to report the various sources of Federal, State, local, and private funds that are used in providing specific services under a demonstration project. Finally, the bill adds a new Federal emphasis on supporting child welfare waivers that identify and address problems related to domestic violence that lead to children being placed in foster care and for waivers that provide early intervention and crisis intervention services that safely reduce out-of-home placements. Past experience has taught us that child welfare waivers can help States improve outcomes for children while also informing child welfare policy at the national level. Twenty-three States received one or more waivers under the previous demonstration authority, which began in fiscal year 1996 and ended in March of 2006. Although the authority has expired, a handful of States continue to have demonstration projects in operation today. One of the most successful strategies tested through the prior waiver authority was providing assistance to grandparents and other relatives who assume legal custody of children in foster care. Through the use of kinship care and guardianship assistance arrangements, children were able to find safe and loving homes with family members. This strategy proved to be successful in improving the outcomes of foster children, and it became Federal policy when it was incorporated into the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which was signed into law 2 years ago. While providing waivers can be a useful tool in improving child welfare policy, we ultimately need more comprehensive changes to fully reform the system: Waivers cannot correct certain basic flaws within our current method of financing child welfare programs, starting with the fact that increasing numbers of children are not eligible for Federal foster care assistance because of badly outdated eligibility criteria; We also need systemic reforms which place a much greater emphasis on preventing abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place. I intend to continue to work towards broader reform to address these and other challenges facing programs serving children at risk of maltreatment. Before I close, I want to quickly note that this bill continues a proud tradition of the Ways and Means Committee and of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support of reporting out bipartisan legislation to improve our child welfare system. During the last Congress, I worked with Representative Jerry Weller of Illinois to enact the Fostering Connections Act, which made a series of important changes to Federal policy related to children in foster care. It passed here by unanimous consent. Today, I am joined by the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative John Linder, in bringing this legislation to the floor; and I expect that it will also pass by unanimous consent. It has been a great pleasure to work with John. I know you are retiring, and I am going to have to work with a new subcommittee chairman one way or another, or with a ranking member. So I am looking forward to continuing this tradition of dealing with the problems of children who need somebody to look out for them, and it should be a bipartisan issue every time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record letters of support for H.R. 6156 that I received from the National Conference of State Legislatures and from the American Public Human Services Association. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, September 21, 2010. Re Renewing Waiver Authority in State Child Welfare Programs (H.R. 6156). Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, House Minority Leader, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we urge you to support H.R. 6156, a bill to renew the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve demonstration projects designed to test innovative strategies in state child welfare programs. Congressman McDermott and Congressman Linder have fashioned bipartisan legislation that helps create opportunities to enhance the state/federal partnership to assist our nation's most vulnerable children. NCSL supports reinstating and expanding federal waiver authority so that states can test the results of increased funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives and on the overall delivery of child welfare services, targeting programs to address the needs of their children. By renewing Title VI-E waiver authority from 2011 through 2016, H.R. 6156 will give states an enhanced ability to provide early intervention and crisis intervention services that will safely reduce out-of-home placements and improve child outcomes. H.R. 6156 will allow states to improve the quality of their child welfare interventions and reinvest savings in their programs. It will also provide both state and federal legislators more information on what innovations are effective to transform the lives of children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. We applaud Congressmen McDermott and Linder for crafting this legislation. Sincerely, Representative Mary Jane Wallner, New Hampshire House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Human Services and Welfare. Representative Wes Keller, Alaska House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Human Services and Welfare.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I want to acknowledge Congressman Holt. Rush came to me and said, Will you help me gather signatures to get this thing before the House? I've got to have two-thirds of the Members sign this thing. And I said, Sure, I will be glad to help you. He immediately handed me a long list of people. And this is not an easy thing to get done in the House of Representatives, to get 290 Members to sign to bring something forward. However, the object of this gold medal, Dr. Yunus, is clearly somebody who it's worth working for. He is a marvelous symbol. I got to know him. I have been out to Bangladesh. I have been out in the villages. I have actually sat on the ground when the women were paying their debts and deciding who got how much money in the next week, and watched the whole process go on at the grassroots level. I also had the opportunity to introduce him when he came to Seattle to a RESULTS dinner, where there were about 500 people. The impact of Dr. Yunus goes far beyond the Grameen Bank. Seattle has, I don't know, probably 40 or 50 microcredit operations working worldwide all through Central America and South America and Africa, where this idea that this man created was taken by other people. And it works everywhere, and anybody can do it. What's amazing about this is to think about how one man, faced with the poverty in the most densely populated country in the world, Bangladesh, could say to himself, you know, I think I can change this. And then not only did he think that; he went out and he did it. And I think that's really why a gold medal for Dr. Yunus is such an important part for us to remember in the Congress. We often think that, you know, we've got to give $100 million or $80 billion or whatever. This man started with $27 and created something that has affected millions and millions of people. The last thing I want to say is that it's affected the lives of women. Women in the world, their status clearly is below that of men in most countries. But the access to credit for these women of Bangladesh gave them the ability to begin to develop a little business, and accumulate a little capital, and then to buy some school uniforms for their children and pay their school fees. Any country that educates their women, begins to educate the children, begins the development of a country. And Dr. Yunus knew that, that if he could give women a chance to have access to credit--a lot of people laughed at him--but a 97 percent payback rate will match Citibank any day of the week. And this is the work of a man who had an idea and proved that if you have an idea and you are willing to work and believe in people, you can make it work. So it's a great honor to have a chance to say a few words about Muhammad Yunus. He is a great man, and a gold medal is little enough to give him.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. In a room of 20-by-20, you had seven people living with no running water and with no hot water for 4 months, and they were trying to deal with babies and diapers and with all the things that go on in ordinary living. Then the people who have put you there turn around and say, We will accept you into our Army to go and fight for us in Italy. Now, you can imagine among these Japanese families the discussions that went on about whether or not they should participate in this. David's grandfather came from Japan and started the Japanese Baptist Church in Seattle. He told his sons, We are Americans, and we will support our country no matter what. This was long before the war, so he was dead when that happened. They were then taken off to the camps. The mother--her name was Misa Sukura--had four sons. She said to her boys, You must go. The camp people were mad at her. How can you send all of your sons to this? She said, They are Americans. We are proud and we will serve. Now, you have to understand what it took then to be thrown into the toughest part of the war. They didn't become the most decorated unit in United States Army history because they were sent out to some easy deal. They were sent into the toughest fighting in Italy. They are the ones who went in when they couldn't find the lost battalion. They said, Send in the 442nd--and they found them. A simple medal hardly speaks to what they did for us, but what they did beyond that is to say, if you're in America and if you're an American, we treat you all the same. We are at a time now when their example needs to be carefully looked at because panic among the American people says suddenly, Oh, those people are to be feared. We can't stand those people. They're not like us. What happened in 1941 can happen again if we do not honor those Nisei vets and their families who stayed at home. They lived through without fathers, without mothers, with all the people who got killed, and everything else. Several years ago, it was my honor to name the courthouse in Seattle, Washington, after a young man named William Nakamura. He went at 19 years old, out of Garfield High School, and won the Medal of Honor. The family never got the medal because the medals were buried. Nobody wanted to demonstrate and distribute them until President Clinton went back and reviewed the records and found these Medals of Honor. They were then given to the families of the fallen. We have much to be proud of in this country, but the Nisei vets have more than most of us because they overcame the racism and the attitudes that put them in concentration camps, and they came out and stood tall. For that reason, I am very proud to be here today. I commend Mr. Schiff and the other members of the committee who brought this gold medal. It's about time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I did not come over to the floor to speak on this issue; I came for the next issue. But I am an honorary Nisei vet. I have been involved with the Nisei community and with the Nisei vets of the 442nd in Seattle for a number of years. Two weeks ago, we dedicated a wall at the Nisei vet hall on which the names appear of all the people from Seattle. It was an extremely moving event to have not only some of the old vets but to also have the young sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters get up and talk about their relatives and what they did. I found out about the Nisei when I was in college. I had a roommate named Dave Sukura. One day, he told me about having been in a prison camp when he was in elementary school. I couldn't believe it. I was a kid from Chicago, and had never heard of such a thing; 127,000 people were rounded up for no other reason than we were panicked about the Japanese, and we put them in concentration camps. Now, you can imagine having a store or having a hotel or having a farm and suddenly being told you have 1 week to get your stuff together and get out of here. They lost all their land. They lost all their holdings. They lost everything. They were sent to these camps. Someday, when you're in Idaho, go out to Minidoka, and see the national monument that we have created. We call it a ``monument'' now, but it was a concentration camp then. There was nothing there. They came and put up barracks very quickly and said to the people, Move in.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer special recognition of the Pride Foundation on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Since 1985, the Pride Foundation, through creation and administration of a vibrant lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) charitable legacy, has helped to unify and to strengthen the Northwest LGBT and allied communities. In 1985, nonprofit organizations serving the needs of the LGBT community were rare. Those that did exist struggled for financial stability while also facing daunting challenges, not the least of which was the emergence of HIV/AIDS. At that time, no scholarships existed to help LGBT students pursue higher education. To address these challenges, a small group of concerned citizens founded the LGBT community's own philanthropic organization. The Pride Foundation created an endowment that would be prudently managed and professionally administered--a place where the LGBT community and its supporters could confidently contribute knowing full well that their donations would not only be used in accordance with the donor's wishes, but would also leave an enduring legacy for future generations. In 1987, the Pride Foundation awarded its first organization grants, totaling $7,654. Today, the Foundation grants hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. In 1993, the Pride Foundation started its scholarship program, giving $3,680 the first year. Since then, the program has become one of the nation's largest LGBT scholarship funds. To date, the Pride Foundation has raised and invested more than $8 million in hundreds of nonprofit organizations and individual students. In recent years, the Pride Foundation has broadened its reach beyond Seattle to the entire State of Washington as well as to Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. The Pride Foundation has enriched tens of thousands of lives, and has touched those who give and those who receive. It has sustained countless students, strengthened many valued non-profit organizations, and helped to improve the quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. Today, I rise to offer my thanks and congratulations to the Pride Foundation for 25 years of inspiring work and a legacy that will impact generations to come.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, balancing work and family is not solely a women's issue. This seems obvious, but all too often both the media and the political debate seem to forget this reality. There is no doubt that the huge influx of women into the workforce over the last 50 years has put them at ground zero for balancing the competing demands of family and work. But that same trend has also created challenges and changes for men. Today, over 70 percent of mothers work outside the home, more and more men are taking on care-taking and household duties. Of course, that's only more household responsibilities relative to what men have done in the past--so in congressional lingo, we are starting from a very favorable baseline. But there is no doubt that men are feeling more anxious about balancing work and home responsibilities, and 95 percent of American fathers report conflicts between work and family demands. This means men have a clear stake in a debate they have been largely missing from, and their absence undercuts a political drive to make long overdue progress. As Americans, we often pride ourselves in leading the world forward. But on work/family issues, we are badly trailing most of our competitors. We remain the only major industrial nation with no form of paid family leave, and many of our public policies fail to adequately meet the needs of parents. Some of these policies, such as child care and unemployment insurance, fall within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, which I Chair. Recently, we've made modest progress in this area by temporarily boosting funding for child care by $2 billion in the Recovery Act. Perhaps more substantially, we've begun to prod States to remove barriers to parents receiving unemployment benefits. Four years ago, I introduced legislation called the UI Modernization Act to improve coverage for low-wage workers and to help parents leaving work for compelling family reasons. This bill, which was included in the Recovery Act, provides a total of $7 billion for States that enact reforms from a menu of options. One of these reforms is to stop denying benefits to workers who become eligible for unemployment benefits based on part-time work simply because they are seeking reemployment in another part-time job, rather than in a full time job. Some Americans work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, but others work part-time to accommodate family issues. I can see no reason to discriminate against parents who choose to work a schedule that best fits the needs of their family, so I am glad we are beginning to make some progress on this issue. As a result of the UI Modernization payments, the number of States providing unemployment benefits to those seeking part-time work doubled, up from 14 to 27. Another reform included in the UI Modernization Act was providing benefits to so-called trailing spouses. These are wives and husbands who quit their jobs when their partners' jobs are relocated to another part of the country. Many States had disqualified these spouses from receiving UI benefits on the basis that they voluntarily left employment. The Modernization Act cites such employment departures as a compelling family reason, and thus maintains eligibility for UI. The number of States now providing benefits to trailing spouses has gone up from 14 to 24. Finally, the Modernization Act also permits taking care of a disabled or ill child or fleeing domestic violence as a compelling family reason for leaving employment. All of these reforms are squarely aimed at acknowledging that certain family situations can have a significant, and often unavoidable, impact on a person's job. I know that two of the biggest goals for those working on work family issues are paid family leave and paid sick leave. I still cannot believe the considerable opposition to the Family and Medical Leave Act before its passage in 1993. That anyone would be opposed to three months unpaid leave for employees at companies with more than 50 employees is absurd. But we have always heard doomsday predictions when it comes to enacting workplace protections--whether it be overtime pay, the minimum wage, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the same is true now when it comes to paid leave. But once again, we haven't seen any evidence that it causes an undue burden to business or to taxpayers after some States and cities have enacted their own paid leave and sick leave standards. In response to paid sick leave requirements in San Francisco, I saw one restaurant executive quoted as saying that paid sick leave--``is the best public policy for the least cost. Do you want your server coughing over your food?'' Moving forward, we need to see progress on work/family issues as part of the continuum of workplace protections that have made America a better place to work, live and raise a family. Helping both mothers and fathers balance work and family responsibilities is something that will have both an immediate and lasting impact on the well being of our Nation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today I introduced legislation with Representative John Linder (R-GA) that would restore the authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to grant child welfare waiver demonstration projects to States. Child welfare waivers will give some States additional flexibility in designing targeted interventions for at-risk children. While I support providing opportunities for States to improve the outcomes of children through this authority, waivers are not a substitute for comprehensive child welfare financing reform or for additional investments in improving outcomes for at-risk children. I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to develop proposals that build on the progress made with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act so that we can ensure the best outcomes for every child that comes to the attention of the child welfare system.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the main issue facing public power providers, corporative electric companies, and tribal utilities who wish to generate renewable energy is the lack of equal treatment under the current tax credit bond system. The ``Clean Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2010,'' brings parity to these providers by giving them the necessary tools to help solve the nation's energy problems while creating thousands of jobs. In 2005, Congress created the Clean Renewable Energy Bond (``CREB'') program to provide the not-for-profit sector of the utility industry with a federal incentive to assist them in creating green jobs and developing renewable power generation. Many much needed improvements and modifications to the CREB program have been discovered through the practical application of the CREBS program over the past five years. This bill provides the much needed improvements to the CREB program, bringing the program's effectiveness in line with Congress's initial intent. The bill contains four key provisions. First it provides parity with the Section 45 production tax credits. Second, it targets incentives to commercial scale projects. Third, it clarifies that tribal utilities may issue CREBs. Lastly, it includes important technical modifications to make CREBs more consistent with other types of existing tax credit bonds. Ultimately, this bill enables these power providers to develop and own renewable resources directly, while ensuring that the full benefit of the federal incentive flows directly to electric consumers-- resulting in lower costs to the consumers through the creation of green jobs and renewable energy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the legislation we will be voting on in a few hours. It isn't perfect, but it will provide critical assistance to States' strapped budgets. It will save or create more than 300,000 jobs. Now, during the debate over restoring the unemployment insurance program, the Republicans whined out here on floor that the bill wasn't paid for. I will remind them the bill before us is paid for and, in fact, will reduce the deficit by nearly $1.5 billion. So we shouldn't hear one single word from now till 3 o'clock about it ain't paid for. It is paid for. I will say it again. It will save 300,000 jobs. Still, I bet every Republican will vote ``no.'' Why? Not because they think it's a bad policy, but because they want to do everything in their power to make certain that President Obama can't get this country going again. They have been dragging their feet for 18 months, 20 months now. Come November, I think they are going to find it was a dumb policy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 because it does just that. It creates jobs and pays for them by creating a fairer playing field by closing down tax loopholes used by multinational corporations. We have taken aggressive action to do what is required of government--that is to work with the private sector and with State and local governments to repair an economy left in tatters by the previous administration. The goal of this jobs bill is simple. It is to bring much needed support to American families who desperately need it. Today's bill will extend job creation measures that we know will work, along with extending a number of highly successful bond programs, like Build America Bonds or Recovery Zone Bonds. This bill also extends the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance program that has successfully created 240,000 jobs. Under this program, employers receive subsidies to pay all or a portion of a new worker's wages if they have an unemployed worker, a welfare recipient, or a low-income youth. Without an extension, this fund will end on September 30. The Emergency Fund has been praised by Republican Governors, including Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the unlikely soul he is, who says it should be extended. The same praise and request for an extension has come from Republican legislators in States and local governments and from county leaders around the country. So you have to ask yourself why Republicans in the House are not supporting this job creation that Republicans outside of Washington are pleading for us to extend. Are congressional Republicans hopelessly out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans? Well, maybe, but I fear the answer is that congressional Republicans want President Obama to fail at any cost, even if it means that struggling Americans have to suffer as a result. We saw this same strategy play out over the last 2 months in the other body where Senate Republicans blocked an extension of unemployment benefits to workers who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Today, Republicans in this House are, once again, opposing an effort to provide jobs to those same unemployed workers. Let's not forget that every job creation provision in this bill is fully, fully paid for by eliminating tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. So the bogus talk we will hear about deficits and deficit creation is simply that. It is bogus. No help. No jobs. No hope. That is what Republicans are offering the American people.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to Camp Fire on its upcoming centennial celebration. Since its founding in 1910, Camp Fire has worked to build caring, confident youth and future leaders nationwide. In 2009 alone, thousands of youth and family in and around Seattle benefitted from its programs. When it was founded a century ago, Camp Fire was the first interracial, non-sectarian organization for young women in the United States. This legacy showcases an early and bold commitment to enriching the lives of all American girls; this spirit of openness was continued when the organization was expanded in 1975 to include boys. Camp Fire has positively affected those it serves through its curriculum and through its physical facilities. Camp Fire's camps and classes prepare our children to be responsible leaders in an increasingly global community, with an emphasis on environmental education and healthy living. Camp Sealth, a Camp Fire facility on Vashon Island, continues to be an invaluable resource to the community, providing children with a safe space to learn and grow, and local organizations with an outstanding retreat. Today, it is as important as ever for the nation's youth to maintain a connection to America's great outdoors, but many children lack such opportunities without outside support. Camp Fire's work to bring communities together around children and to reconnect them to nature is an inspiration. It is with gratitude that I extend my congratulations to Camp Fire on a century of exceptional work, and my best wishes for another century of progress and service.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate and finally put this on the back burner until November when we have to come back and look at it again perhaps--we'll see--one of the speakers on the other side talked about confusion. My view is that the confusion here is between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going to tell people, Go hungry. That's the confusion. People say, Well, it's about paying for it. I will remind my colleagues on the other side Mr. Bush was President for 8 years, and when we did unemployment, we did it on an emergency basis. We never paid for it one time and you guys, the Republicans--I'm not supposed to address them directly--they didn't pay for it, Mr. Speaker. They were in charge and their President was in charge, but they called it an emergency. Now under Mr. Obama, it's not an emergency. Suddenly we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse them. But the fact is that for 6 weeks we have said to workers in this country, We are not going to extend benefits. Now, we have never, in the history of this country, when unemployment was at 7.2 or above, failed to extend benefits until the Republicans got a serious case of fiscal--well, I'm not going to say exactly what I think--but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. And they've suddenly caught this thing--it must be in the air around here or somewhere down around the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Kentucky. They've got leadership that said, You know, we can infect everybody with this fiscal fear. We'll just sacrifice a few million. It's only 2\1/2\ million people who are going to lose their benefits. So it's not very many. There's 300 million in America. We can throw away 2\1/2\ million. That's easy. They won't vote. They're too stupid to know who's doing it to them. That's the kind of message you're sending when you're saying you won't give unemployment benefits. This is so easily understood by the American people. This is not climate change. This is not all the complicated stuff. Some people around here think the American people have a very short memory span, but they don't on stuff where it's right down to the bone. And you will remember this day as the day when finally the Republicans came to their senses. They finally said, You know, this ain't going to work. It really ain't going to work. We're not going to admit it. We're going to say we were doing it on principle. But there is no principle at the table when the mother opens the cupboard and there is nothing in it. Or when the lights aren't turned on because you haven't paid the utility bills. Or when the water is turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. What does a mother say the principle is? Now kids, get in the bathtub, but there is no water. Clean yourself up, right? What kind of nonsense is this? Do you think this money is going for people to buy iPads or iPhones or i4Phones or whatever? This is going for the necessities of life. And you're saying to the ordinary people of this country, Well, we have a principle, under the Democrats, we have to pay for it. Now not under the Democrats. And I can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the Senate to extend the tax breaks and watch you guys do a double flip. You will get a ``10'' in Olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and say, Well, now we don't have to pay for it. And watch, they're going to send over the estate tax. They are going to send over a bailout for the people at the very top. And you're going to say, We don't have to pay for them. Oh, no. No, no. They're very rich. No, no, no, no, no, we can't pay for that. No, no. But they're going to make us pay for the people who are in the most dire distress in this society. It's really shameful, and I'm going to watch with pleasure as you vote ``no'' as you vote yourself out of here. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from Louisiana. I guess fishermen aren't worth anything. Fishermen are worthless. All that sea stuff that comes up and that they sell all over the place, they don't care about that. All they want to do is drill for oil. The President is careful and prudent and says let's look at this drilling before we go on with it because we have just proven that the oil companies are reckless. They have proven it for 79 days in the gulf, and if you can't learn from that and realize what it is doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oystermen, then you have missed the point. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when most of our Republican colleagues vote ``no'' against extending unemployment benefits for Americans today, these people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, they will say they are doing it out of concern for the deficit. But, in reality, they are simply trying to make the President fail at any cost. We have precedent here for that. Back in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich ruled this place, they thought the American people were stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now. In December 1995, Newt Gingrich thought he could win the Presidency for the Republican Party by shutting down the government and proving that Bill Clinton was ineffective. You all remember that. Instead, the American people caught on to this foolishness and overwhelmingly reelected Bill Clinton to office in 1996. Now they have got the same play book again; they are running it again. The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way for the Republicans to get the White House back is by denying unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Show them that this government doesn't work. For over 6 weeks they have held displaced workers as hostages. Now, you would think they would have learned from Gingrich back in 1995. It doesn't work. He only held the country hostage for a few days, and then he gave it up because people need to look at what the Senate Republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they are doing again today. Even after the Senate broke the Republican filibuster on restoring unemployment benefits 2 days ago, the Republicans insisted on running out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote on this bill. They wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. They wanted them to sit at home and wonder is it going to happen. How am I going to feed my kids? Can I pay for my house? For families who are without income and rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, every day counts. Republicans clearly couldn't care less, and they forced these unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. This is a slap in the face to millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline. This effort to undermine the effectiveness of President Obama by denying unemployment benefits to workers, and by denying the President the power to create jobs, will ultimately fail. Republicans have done nothing more than help ensure that Mr. Obama will be elected a second time. Good move, guys. The American people will remember and despite what the Republicans think, the voters are not stupid. They don't want the ghost of Newt Gingrich running this country, and they don't want to return to the failed economic policies of President Bush. They know that they want this government to help people when they need help, and they know that they didn't lose their job because they did something wrong. Greed on Wall Street got them. They are suffering because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago, but they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago this country recognized the plight of senior citizens who had no retirement, who were forced to move in with their kids when they got old; and we created Social Security. And it has been a tremendous success. Many people, however, don't realize what else Social Security does for this country. About 8.5 million Americans who have a disability that limits their ability to work receive assistance from the program. Roughly 6.5 million children receive part of their family income through a program which has lifted nearly 2 million of them out of poverty. When their breadwinner, when their father or their mother, dies, Social Security gives them a benefit. Some of them have used it to go to college. And through the Social Security program, another 7.5 million people, very low income and severely disabled people, receive critical financial support to meet their most basic needs. I urge all my colleagues to review the entire record and support fixing Social Security next session.