Jim McDermott

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. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to once again beg my Republican colleagues in the other body to restore the unemployment insurance program. Yesterday, I read a story in the Washington Post that noted that Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the five richest counties in the United States, is now serving 15,000 free meals a day to children who would otherwise go hungry. This is an increase of nearly 15 percent from previous summers, and I'm sure that most of these children come from families who have lost their unemployment and have no other way to buy food for their families. Nationwide, an estimated 16 million children will go hungry this summer. I'm not sure what it will take for the Republicans to wake up and recognize that they're literally starving American families. We cannot wait one second longer. George Bush said he was a compassionate conservative. They've simply thrown away, Madam Speaker, the word ``compassionate.'' They are just conservative. They will not take care of working people in this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Congresswoman Fudge. I was approached by one of the Members on the floor, actually, Marcy Kaptur. She said, why don't we go out and tell the story of people? Why are we being quiet about this? So I was pleased when we presented this idea to you that you said, hey, come, I have got an hour, let's talk about it, because over the past 6 weeks we have fought to try to get these benefits extended. We cite the statistic of 2.5 million people who have lost their benefits since early June, but we haven't heard much about these jobless workers themselves. I am really grateful for an opportunity to come out here and talk about what we are all going through in our districts, on the telephone, in the newspaper, and in the grocery store. I picked up The New York Times on Sunday and there on page 13 was the story of a woman named Terri Sadler. Terri lost her job in an automotive parts plant in October of 2008. She used to make $14.65 an hour and was able to make ends meet, but since she has been laid off she has had no luck in finding a job. She is like millions of people who have this same story who can't get anybody to pay attention in the United States Senate. Now, there are five unemployed Americans competing for every job, and she told the newspaper, when they asked her, that she had three interviews, that's all she had in 18 months was three interviews for a job, and she spends as much as 12 hours a day looking on the Internet. When Republicans in the other body blocked passage of the unemployment insurance, she lost her only lifeline on June 5. She has had no money since June 5, and she has been able to cobble together some help from her friends and the community in order to get by. A county ministerial association paid her water bill. I mean, imagine not having water in your house because they shut it off because you didn't pay the bill. A local nonprofit pulled enough money together for her last two electric bills. Imagine sitting in the dark in a house with no water and no electricity through no fault of your own except the United States Senate won't pay attention to your problems. Now, Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules and lost their jobs through no fault of their own are going through this all over this country. She is rattled by the daily fear of losing her home, of not being able to afford food, and she told the Times that she had contemplated suicide. Republicans have forced Terri to live in purgatory for the last 2 months as they talk about the deficit. They now worry about the deficit. They spent like there was no end of money when it was for people at the top of the pile, but now we are talking about Terri Sadler and her problems. The New York Times actually wrote in an editorial, ``Deficits matter, but not more than economic recovery, and not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of Americans.'' Now, the question you have to ask is, what will it take to make the Republicans finally understand that? You would think an election might have something to draw their mind. Today, we read a story in The Washington Post that Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the five richest counties in the United States, is now serving 15,000 free lunches a day for children who would otherwise not have food. That's an increase of nearly 15 percent over previous summers, and many of these families are unemployed families. Our failure to get this bill passed has had very real and immediate consequences. Tonight, thousands of people in every corner of this country will suffer because Republicans in the other body have stonewalled against acting. I refuse to believe that we are going to tell Terri Sadler and the millions of Americans like her that we are going to let them fall through the cracks. I wore this pin tonight because I believe that anybody who has lived in a home where somebody was out of a job, or has been out of a job, knows what it's really all about. I fail to believe there is anybody in the Senate who has ever been without a job. This is a cab medallion. When I was 21-years-old, my father lost his job for the second time, and there was no money to pay the rent. We were going to lose the house. There was no money for the food, for anything else, and I went to work driving a cab. That's what happens in families, people do anything. Terri said to the newspaper, she's sitting at home now. One of her interviews was for a company that will pay her $7.65 an hour. Now remember, she was making $14 before. They're paying less than half that, and she's sitting there waiting to hear if she gets a job. She knows that the money she gets from that lesser job won't even meet her bills, won't make it possible for her to pay her house payment and pay her utilities and pay gas and pay the Internet so she can stay on the computer and keep looking for a job. That's the dilemma that Americans are sitting at home tonight living with, middle class people. It isn't people who haven't tried; it isn't people who haven't made an effort; it isn't people who have somehow tried to get by on the easy. They have been out there slogging along, and they suddenly can't do it, and the Senate says, well, we have to worry about the deficit. You know, we want to keep those tax cuts going for the wealthy in this country, that $700 billion, but we haven't got $30 billion for the unemployed. There's something really wrong. It's really important that you brought this Special Order together today so that people can talk about it and talk about what they're hearing on the phone when they go home on the weekend. It's no fun to go to the grocery store because people come up and tell you--and I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but people are telling me in my neighborhood what's going on. Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, recently Senator John Kyl called unemployment insurance ``a necessary evil,'' and I must say his statement gave me some clarity for the first time in months. I've been mystified about how the Republicans could repeatedly block unemployment benefits in a struggling economy that they drove into the ditch. I couldn't grasp this reasoning behind depriving millions of American families the support they need to buy food and pay their mortgage while they searched for work. Now, I understand that Republicans evidently believe that helping jobless workers is an evil. I foolishly thought we might hear some compassion from the very party that is causing countless Americans to lose their lifeline. I just hope that enough Republicans in the other body will find the courage to buck their party and end this. Millions of families are counting on them. Their phone calls come into my office every single day from all over the country: When will the extended benefits be put back in? And I say, look to the Republicans in the Senate.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the crew of the sailing ship Ocean Watch, a 60-foot sailboat, which just completed a 28,000-mile journey around the Americas. It's been a little more than a year ago that Mark Schrader, Herb McCormick, David Thoreson, and David Logan left Seattle and sailed north. They sailed around Alaska and then through the treacherous Northwest Passage, an area that's usually too full of ice to pass but is now navigable because of the rapidly warming Arctic. After about a hundred days, the crew arrived safely in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. From there, the Ocean Watch sailed south along the Atlantic coast of both continents to the challenging route around Cape Horn, where they once again met the waters of the Pacific. After traveling over a year and completing more than 28,000 nautical miles, they finished their expedition and returned home to Seattle. They set sail with the mission of inspiring, educating, and engaging the citizens throughout the Americas to protect our fragile oceans. This amazing journey was envisioned by David Rockefeller, Jr., and Captain Mark Schrader of Stanwood, Washington. To implement their shared vision, Mr. Rockefeller enlisted the assistance of a nonprofit organization he helped to found, Sailors for the Sea, that encourages sailors to become more active stewards of the world's oceans. Over the course of their journey, the crew that included experienced sailors, photographers, journalists, educators, and scientists, visited 13 countries at 45 ports of call. In Alaska, they visited with the Namgis Indians of British Columbia and were themselves educated on the destruction of the local habitat by industrial logging and over- fishing. They docked in New York City for a presentation at the New York Yacht Club, where they shared their experience and mission to a standing-room only crowd. At each stop, the crew shared their experiences and raised awareness of important ocean health issues like polar ice melt, ocean pollution, collapsing fisheries, acidification, and coastal erosion due to sea level rise. To aid in their mission, the Ocean Watch carried with it various instruments and cameras, coordinated data collection with various NASA and NOAA satellites, and took advantage of the unique opportunity to track and monitor global data from a single platform. In the true spirit of conservation and education, these measurements will be shared and used to complement other oceanographic, atmospheric, and climate research programs, the majority of which originated from the Applied Physics Lab and the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans at the University of Washington. To help in accomplishing the educational goals of this project, they used a set of curricula and educational resources developed by Seattle's Pacific Science Center, and brought with them trained, bilingual educators who shared lessons linked to the onboard scientific research with the communities that they visited. The completion of Ocean Watch's extraordinary voyage cannot come at a more critical time in our Nation's ecological history. As we watch helplessly as the oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico and it devastates the region's ecosystem with the far-reaching potential of consequences that extend well into the Gulf, we need more advocates who understand the importance of protecting our fragile oceans. While the crew of the Ocean Watch successfully completed their voyage, their work has only just begin. After both the Exxon Valdez and the disaster in the Gulf, I'm not sure how many more wake-up calls we need, but I do know that we're going to need people like Mark Schrader and his crew to help educate us on what is happening to our oceans. I commend the crew of the Ocean Watch for moving us forward on this difficult path. I recently read a quote by a British man named Thomas Fuller in 1732. He said, ``We never know the worth of water until the well is dry.'' I sincerely hope that with advocates like the crew of the Ocean Watch, we will prove Mr. Fuller wrong.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 419, I was detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are back today to try again to do the right thing for America's unemployed workers and the right thing for our economy. Two days ago the Republicans in the House voted down a bill to continue unemployment benefits for anyone because they had lost their job through no fault of their own. But just last night the Republicans in the other body followed suit, blocking legislation again that would have restored and continued benefits. Their opposition was based on the fact that we have just heard a long speech about, it wasn't paid for. What a joke. It wasn't paid for. This is support that is going to hardworking Americans who have played by the rules, paid into the system, and maybe were making $50,000, $60,000 a year a few weeks ago. These people who spend every day looking for work and have sent out hundreds of resumes, many of which are not even responded to, they paid for this by paying taxes in the past. And with five people competing for every available job, they simply cannot find work, no matter how qualified and educated they are, in the worst economy in 70 years. Republicans seem like they could care less. They claim we cannot afford to help the unemployed. Well, you have to forgive my shock in hearing this, since they had no problem with spending $1 trillion on two wars, not one penny of which was paid for. They voted for all those wars. Now they say they can't afford to help unemployed Americans. The Bush administration presided over the implosion of the housing market and a world economic collapse. Greece, Ireland, and Iceland, you look around the world, they came in that era, they asked for bank bailouts. I remember Secretary Paulson in here with his one sheet of paper asking for $700 billion, none of it paid for, to bail out banks and insurance companies. And Republicans were happy to provide two massive tax cuts for the wealthy that also weren't paid for. And yet now they say we can't afford to help the unemployed. Republicans have spent money like kids in a candy store when they were in charge, but now they say there is nothing left for unemployed Americans. Republicans spent years helping Bush turn the largest budget surplus in our Nation's history into the biggest deficit. But today they claim they are defenders of our budget, and they say we can't help the unemployed. They can help them on the top, but they can't help the people on the bottom. They can stand quietly while the bankers pass out bonuses by the billions to their managers, and we don't have a nickel for the unemployed. Here is the bottom line: If we fail to act, nearly two million Americans will have lost their unemployment benefits by the end of this week, and that number will grow higher in the weeks to come. More homes will go into foreclosure, because if you don't have money, you don't pay your rent. Consumer demand will decline and more people will permanently be out of the labor force. All of this is bad for the economy--never mind the unemployed, just think about the economy--and that is ultimately bad for the Federal budget. Not one Democrat in this room, including me, wants to add a cent to the deficit. We don't want to do this. But we also know it is the right thing to do now, helping millions of Americans keep their heads above water while they desperately look for work. Last night, millions of families in every corner of America had trouble putting dinner on the table because of this foolishness. I don't know how anyone is going to go to a Fourth of July parade or picnic after voting ``no'' on this, but I am sure you will. It is hypocritical and it is callous. In case you missed yesterday reading The New York Times, I suggest you find a copy and take a look at the editorial. They wrote on unemployment, ``Deficits matter. We all agree on that. But not more than economic recovery and not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of Americans.'' I sincerely hope these words affect somebody in this body. And when you go to that Fourth of July parade, don't be surprised at the response you may get if you vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, the ESIGN bill, a landmark piece of legislation that has transformed how we conduct interstate commerce and business. The advent of e-signatures has brought enormous benefit to both consumers and businesses alike by drastically improving convenience, reducing costs, and increasing the speed of transactions. As many of you know, I represent Seattle, which is one of the most wired and high-tech cities in the world. ESIGN has greatly improved the ability of companies in my district to be more effective and competitive in the global marketplace. I would especially like to acknowledge Seattle-based electronic signature platform provider DocuSign for being a leader in the electronic signatures and records industry and for helping spearhead the coalition to recognize June 30 as National ESIGN Day. DocuSign recognizes that the benefits of e-commerce extend beyond the dollar values that are placed on business activity. With over 30,000 current customers and having served over 4.5 million people to date, DocuSign provides its customers with confidence in the integrity and credibility of emerging electronic capabilities. They have been a leader in removing obstacles and barriers to business transactions online and in allowing their customers to work faster, more reliably, and more securely. It is important we recognize the foresight and vision of those who worked so hard to pass ESIGN 10 years ago, including Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Jay Inslee. The passage of that bill has helped more American companies to operate globally, and it has helped to increase productivity and efficiency for consumers, businesses, and governments. When President Clinton signed the bill into law in June 2000, he said, ``Just imagine if this had existed 224 years ago. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have had to come all the way to Philadelphia on July 4 for the Declaration of Independence. They could have emailed their John Hancocks in.'' Now, 10 years later, that is what businesses and governments in every corner of the globe are able to do--instantly complete transactions that used to take days. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) expressing support for designation of June 30 as ``National ESIGN Day''.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, legislation that would create jobs and national service positions to clean and restore the Gulf Coast, and help rebuild communities throughout the Gulf Coast region. Funding for these jobs and services would be provided by BP in accordance with the company's liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. We have now learned twice--both in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill and the ongoing cleanup of this disaster--that oil companies will never hold themselves accountable for their mistakes. Negotiating or trying to work with oil companies is futile. We have heard from BP over and over again that it is prepared to fund the cleanup of the Gulf Coast and compensate those whose livelihoods have been devastated by the spill. And over and over again, the American public has seen how unprepared BP was to handle a catastrophic event like the Deepwater Horizon incident. It's going to take Congress and the Administration to force oil companies to do their fair share. This bill will both help clean up the Gulf and provide a much-needed infusion of jobs into the region. I want to thank Representatives Israel, Himes, Connolly, Langevin, Sutton, Hinchey, Blumenauer, and John Lewis for signing on as original co-sponsors. I also want to thank the continued commitment of the 54 members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, who have endorsed the bill and whose dedication has been invaluable. An estimated one million Gulf Coast residents will likely face permanent job loss as a result of the Deepwater Horizon accident, and experts predict that it will take years, if not decades, to recover from the environmental devastation. We've already heard that some fisheries and ecosystems will likely never fully recover. If we learned anything from the Exxon Valdez spill, it's that we're going to need an enormous and continued effort to clean up this mess, and this bill will help us do just that.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, if we fail to act, 1.7 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of this week. The House tried to address this issue a month ago as part of a much larger jobs package, but Republican opposition killed the bill in the other body. America's unemployed workers cannot wait any longer for all of us to do the right thing. Many of them have lost their benefits after just 26 weeks. And we're not talking about people who've had 99 weeks of unemployment. We're talking people 26 weeks of unemployment in a time when we have almost 10 percent unemployed. And that's even as long-term unemployment has reached the highest levels since we've been counting. And yet, only one, one of more than 200 Republicans in Congress has voted to continue the benefits. So we're bringing up a stand-alone bill to extend unemployment benefits so there can be no excuses. There's no place to hide in this. You are looking the unemployed straight in the face. If you vote ``no'' you will be cutting off unemployment benefits to Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules but now find themselves with no job, no savings, and no support. If you vote ``no'' you are abandoning unemployed Americans when there are five of them desperately searching for every job that's out there. If you vote ``no'' you'll be helping increase the number of homes in foreclosure. If you don't get an unemployment check, you don't have money to pay your mortgage, so your house is going to go in the tank. The number of families declaring bankruptcy and the number of children going hungry will go up in America, in the richest country in the world. If you vote ``no'' you're undermining economic recovery by choking consumer demand at a critical time. And if you vote ``no'' I honestly don't know how you're able to go home and march in a Fourth of July parade as millions of Americans are left without any way to keep a roof over their head or food on the table for their children. No excuses this time. No place to hide. We must pass this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the main obstacles facing homeowners who want to make their homes more energy efficient are the initial costs and poor access to capital. The legislation I am introducing will give the authority to issues bonds to states and large localities allowing them to issue loans for residential energy efficiency improvements. This legislation will significantly help homeowners who want to renovate their homes for increased energy efficiency. Home Energy Conservation Bonds will help homeowners overcome the upfront capital costs of energy efficiency retrofits, allowing homeowners to drastically reduce their energy and water consumption and pay less each month for their utilities. Only through addressing efficiency and conservation in existing homes will we be able to fully address our nation's addiction to energy. Renovating homes for increased energy efficiency provides a critical economic infusion, helps create new jobs and stimulate local economies. I look forward to working with my colleagues to realize that goal.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the designation of June 30 as National ESIGN Day. National ESIGN Day will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN), which has transformed how interstate commerce and business is conducted. The advent of e-signatures has brought immeasurable benefit to consumers and the business community, providing for increased consumer convenience, and reduced costs. E-signatures have significantly increased transaction speed and closure rates, saving time and money for businesses, and provide secure and predictable outcomes with fewer errors. Recognizing June 30 as National ESIGN Day acknowledges the previous contribution made by the Congress to adopt modern solutions that keep our nation on the leading technological edge and reaffirms the Congress's commitment to more efficient and environmentally conscious business practices. I represent the city of Seattle--one of the world's greatest technology hubs--where the Electronic Signatures Act has greatly enhanced the ability of companies to remain competitive and active with companies from around the globe. The first agreement signed with electronic signatures by sovereign nations happened in 1998 between the United States and Ireland. Since then, electronic signature technology has significantly strengthened global communications. New strides are made every day in this area. Just this past spring, the Federal Housing Administration announced that it will now accept e-signed third party documents which will help expedite real estate transactions. Less than two weeks ago, the Utah Supreme Court ruled to allow electronic signatures on petitions in the election process, becoming the first state in the nation to do so. I would especially like to acknowledge Seattle-based electronic signature management platform provider DocuSign for being champions in the electronic signatures industry and for spearheading the coalition to mark June 30 as National ESIGN Day. Dozens of industries and associations have offered their support for this resolution to celebrate the advancements that have been made in the past decade, and more importantly, to encourage even more rapid adoption of electronic signatures in the future. This resolution enjoys the support of several companies and industry leaders, including DocuSign, Inc., Electronic Signature and Records Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, National Association of REALTORS, Insured Retirement Institute, CML America, USAA, Adobe Systems, Sallie Mae, Fidelity National Financial, Fiserv, eOriginal, Silanis Technology, AlphaTrust Corporation, AssureSign, LLC, Amica Mutual Insurance Company, First Marblehead, Flagstar Bank, Quicken Loans, IMM, Stewart Lender Services, Ellie Mae, MERS, MISMO, EverBank, SigniaDocs, Inc., Encomia, Direct Mortgage Corp., Digital Docs, Inc., Relevant Technologies, Magnolia Technologies, Simplifile, eSignSystems (a division of Wave Systems Corp.), Realtime Solutions Group, LLC, Lending Tree, and the Pennsylvania Association of Notaries. This resolution honors the forethought and vision of those who worked to pass the landmark Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ten years ago. The passage of that bill paved the way for American companies to operate globally, and it is truly a victory for every businesses and governmental agency looking to increase productivity and efficiency. Let us recognize June 30 as national ESIGN Day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 394, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of disgust over recent comments by Rush Limbaugh about child hunger. A few days ago, I was sent Mr. Limbaugh's response to the news that more than 16 million children will face ``a summer of hunger'' because they won't have access to free or discounted meals they usually get at school. Mr. Limbaugh ultimately recommended these children dumpster dive-- dumpster dive to find food until school starts back up. In the midst of a deep recession that has forced millions of Americans to face the daily fear of losing their homes and of failing to provide food for their kids, all Mr. Limbaugh can contribute is another awful example of shameless and callous commentary. Ask yourselves: When is the last time that Rush Limbaugh missed a meal? Take a look. You judge for yourselves.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize June 20, 2010 as World Refugee Day. There are more than 42 million people in the world--16 million of them refugees--who have fled their homes due to war, political conflict, or persecution in their country. We have the responsibility to support these men, women and children, many of whom have struggled in the face of unfathomable violence. Despite the trauma refugees experience, these are people who remain hopeful that one day their lives will return to normal and they will once again be safe from harm. Today is not the time to dwell on the daunting number of people who are fleeing from their home country, but rather to celebrate the will to live, demonstrated daily by the millions of refugees who attempt to find a better place to call home. We should learn a lesson from those who have lost or given up so much and we must find that kind of courage to support our refugee communities here at home and abroad. Although much has been done to assist newly arrived refugees, our challenge is far from over. I would like to thank my community organizations who work directly with newly arrived refugees into Washington State. They are the ones who rise to the occasion and should be commended for the great work they have accomplished. Organizations such as The Lutheran Community Services Northwest, The International Rescue Committee, the Refugee Women's Alliance, the Coalition for Refugees from Burma, and the Southwest Youth and Family Services are only a few of the many whose constant advocacy has been a tremendous asset in the lives of my constituents. Community organizations are not the only ones to be recognized. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the hard work of community individuals who volunteer their time and resources to assist newly arrived refugees to Washington State, many of whom arrived to the US as refugees themselves. World Refugee Day is a time to come together and spread the word to the global community about a sometimes forgotten population so that we can ensure that we remember our responsibility to aid those whose spirits have not broken and optimism has never wavered. Let us recognize World Refugee Day and honor the millions of refugees worldwide who must daily persevere through hardship and adversity.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, we have the highest number of long-term unemployed Americans ever on record, so you'd think we'd be overwhelmed by bipartisan cooperation to help us with these 7 million people who have been out of work for more than 6 months. Instead, every single House Republican but one voted against the legislation 3 weeks ago to continue emergency Federal unemployment benefits. And now, in the other body, every Republican has refused to support an extension of unemployment benefits. So a growing number of jobless workers are now losing their benefits. By the end of this week, more than 900,000 Americans will lose their unemployment benefits unless the other body acts. We hear their rumblings over there, but I'll believe it when I see it. By the end of the month, the number will grow to 1.2 million. My colleagues from Florida should know an estimated 80,000 Floridians will lose their benefits; California, 180,000; Ohio, 66,000; Georgia, 57,000. And the list goes on and on. The last lifeline for these workers and their families is being severed, leaving them adrift with no job, no savings, and no support. Even some from my own party seem to be saying now is the time to start cutting back on help for the unemployed. In fact, it will take about 5 years of consistent, month-after-month job growth to make up for all the ground we have lost in this recession. That's how big the jobs hole is that unemployed workers are trying to climb out of. You only have to hear from a few unemployed workers to know how hard they're looking for work and to feel their sheer sense of desperation. They're losing their homes, their health, and their faith in the American Dream. Are we really prepared to just stand by and watch them sink into abject poverty? Opponents of helping the unemployed like to talk about budget deficits. Of course, they don't seem to care about deficits when it comes to two wars that have cost a trillion dollars and two tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, which cost $1.7 trillion. None of that seems to matter. But now the stingy other body says we might pass this if we can take away $25 a week from all the unemployed. Of course, we couldn't take the money from the hedge fund people. That would be too tough on them. When it comes to helping the unemployed, they just say, We can't afford it. But I wonder if they have truly considered the real cost of abandoning these families. Ending assistance to the unemployed will reduce consumer demand right at the point when the economy is struggling to rebound after the worst recession in 70 years. It would surely increase the number of homes that would go into foreclosure. And it would drive some individuals permanently out of the labor force if we don't do something. All these outcomes will increase our Nation's budget deficit. But even worse, they'll bring about a crippling deficit of hope--hope for the future. Helping those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own is the right thing to do for families, for the economy, and, ultimately, for the Federal budget. Our failure to get this bill passed has very real and very immediate consequences. Tonight, thousands of people in every corner of this country will suffer because we have chosen to quibble and stonewall instead of act. These benefits help millions of people put bread on the table while they look for work. I sincerely hope the other body will take pity on the unemployed of this country and pass a bill today.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we have a huge problem in our country that we haven't come to terms with, long-term unemployment. The number of Americans who have been jobless for over 6 months has hit the highest level ever recorded. I recently read an article that highlighted one of the long-term unemployed Americans. Her name is Cindy Paoletti. For 23 years she worked in the corporate accounting division of J.P. Morgan Chase in upstate New York. In December 2007, Ms. Paoletti was let go in a wave of layoffs that eventually shuttered the entire Syracuse operations center. Her job went to India. She started collecting unemployment benefits and severance while searching for a job. In her own words, Cindy says, ``I apply for everything out there.'' Now that she's about to run out of benefits, she has started taking money out of her IRA. She doesn't have health insurance, and she faces the daily fear of losing her home. I hear similar stories from all over the country. Jobless Americans are desperately looking for work, but there just aren't enough jobs to go around yet. Last week, I conducted a hearing in my subcommittee to discuss long- term unemployment problems. Here are a few of the facts highlighted at the hearing: nearly 50 percent of the unemployed haven't been able to find a job for more than 6 months, the highest number ever recorded, which goes back to 1948. More than 10 million jobs must be created to restore the labor market to its pre-recession level. This huge jobs hole, created by 8 years of gross economic mismanagement under the Bush administration, has left five unemployed workers competing for every available job. In responding to these record rates of long-term unemployment, our first priority must be to maintain the current emergency Federal unemployment programs that have lapsed 2 weeks ago. People have been waiting for 2 weeks. The House passed an extension on these programs a long time ago, but the Senate has yet to clear the legislation. If the Senate fails to continue Federal unemployment program, 5 million long-term unemployed Americans will lose their extended benefits before the end of this year, with 1.2 million of them losing their benefits by the end of this month, June. We need to face the fact that even with an extension of these Federal unemployment programs, more than 3 million people are projected to exhaust all benefits available before the end of the year. We need to provide more help for these long-term displaced workers, which could range from additional extended unemployment benefits in high unemployment States, to federally funded jobs programs, to better training employment services. A few months of employment gains, as welcome as they have been recently, have not suddenly eliminated the problem of long-term unemployment. We simply cannot abandon millions of Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules, and now find themselves with no jobs, no savings, and no support. We cannot let a huge section of the middle class go with nothing but food stamps. At the end of the article, I mentioned earlier Cindy Paoletti said, ``Out of all the people I know that got laid off the same time as me, I think only three have found jobs. The rest . . . have exhausted unemployment or they're getting close to the end of it. Someone's got to do something.'' The Congress is faced with this. The Senate is dawdling. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that they act and we then move on to the next level while we deal with long-term unemployment in this country. We cannot close our eyes and believe it's going to go away. It will not go away. We have to help the process.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 337, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, you have just heard the Republicans say to unemployed workers whose benefits are expiring: We don't care. Forty billion dollars, the biggest unpaid part of this bill, is for unemployment benefits to the 1.2 million people whose benefits are going to expire by the end of June. Now, you just heard a Member of the other side say: We don't care what happens to them. Well, they also don't care about the small businesses because, for those of you who have never been unemployed, when you get that check and when you have no money, you take it out and spend it. You pay for rent. You go to stores and buy things. There are all of those store owners, and nobody is coming in to buy because nobody has any money. If you think starving the children of unemployed people by saying, We're not going to give you money to go to the store and get food for your kids, is going to somehow make them go out and find work in a time when we have six people looking for every job in this country, you simply don't understand the human condition. Now, The Wall Street Journal can't understand. They said, We can't understand why unemployment benefits have anything to do with jobs. If you don't have money in people's pockets while they're looking for jobs, you'll have more businesses collapsing. You can go through strip malls all over this country where little businesses have closed because nobody has any money to buy anything. There is no reason for us to be inhumane. If we can spend billions and billions of dollars on a war in Iraq, worrying about their bridges and all of their infrastructure, and if we can't worry about people in Ohio and in Pennsylvania and in Michigan and in New York and in California, there is something really wrong in this body. Unemployment insurance is the essence of being human and of being American.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this morning I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that criticizes the unemployment program, saying, ``let's lay off everybody, pay them for not working, and watch the economy really boom.'' To criticize the system that's keeping millions of Americans afloat during this recession is appalling. Cutting benefits will drastically reduce their ability to buy goods and pay their mortgage. Does anybody really think that would be good for the economy? When those workers' unemployment insurance benefits run out, they have no other support. We can't just tell millions of Americans that we don't care what happens to them. Maybe the Wall Street Journal thinks that only tax breaks for the superrich can help the economy, but most of you will remember the previous administration tried that, and the only thing it brought us was the worst economy since the Great Depression. If we don't pass this jobs bill tomorrow, 1.2 million Americans will lose their benefits by June. Is that good for anybody? I say not. Vote ``yes'' tomorrow.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, as we approach the passage of the Jobs for America Bill in the next few days, we need to talk about a subject that is at the heart of the debate, hypocrisy. The definition of a hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to his stated belief. In other words, he says one thing and does another. For example, a hypocrite would deplore our Nation's deficit in a floor speech today, even after helping President Bush turn the biggest budget surplus in our Nation's history into the biggest deficit ever. A hypocrite would vote for two wars with a price tag of over $1 trillion, two tax cuts for the wealthy, and a new entitlement program, all without ever thinking about how to pay one thin dime of their cost, and then turn around and say they voted to cut off unemployment benefits out of concern for the budget deficit. That's what people will argue in the next couple of days. A hypocrite would complain that there are not enough budget offsets, that is, pay-fors, in the jobs bill before us while, at the very same time, try to eliminate the over $50 billion in offsets that are contained in the legislation. Closing loopholes is against the philosophy of a hypocrite. I think it's safe to say that all of us have not lived up to every pronouncement that we've made in our lives. No one is perfect, but rarely has hypocrisy been as constantly and blatantly displayed as it has been by the opponents of this bill. The same people, the same people who spent like drunken sailors when they were in charge, now say we cannot afford to help our fellow citizens who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Here is the bottom line: if we don't pass this bill, 1.2 million Americans who were following the rules and working and paying their taxes will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of June. Moving forward, a total of 2 million will be off by mid-July and 5 million Americans will lose their benefits by the end of this year. Thanks to the hypocrites who say, oh, I can't, I'm worried about the deficit; I can't worry about these people who have no way to pay for their home or their food or their mortgage or their children, Americans will face these cuts of their unemployment benefits because people will not follow what they say they believe. They were unable to deal with the spending on wars and tax cuts and all the rest; but when it comes time to pay the benefits to somebody who lost their job, their message to them is, well, you know, tell your children that they're just going to have to tighten their belts a little, and we're not going to have three meals today. We're only going to have two because your dad or your mom or both haven't been able to find work. There are six people in this country looking for every job that's out there. The chances of people getting a job today are very low, and people are giving up because, with 8 million jobs lost in the last 2 years, they are simply unable to find work to take care of their families. Now, to take away their last lifeline because you're saying you're being a budget hawk and you're against deficits, when you spent like that in the last 8 years, is pure and unadulterated hypocrisy.