Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Capps be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time allocated to me and be allowed to yield time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleagues. I think they wanted the 20 minutes to talk about the health care bill. They didn't really want to talk about this piece of legislation that's out here in front of us. This bill is here because the Republicans in the Senate continue to use the filibuster to stop any orderly process over there of dealing with the problems of this country. And I don't know whether it's ignorance or amnesia, but ``deeming'' is a process that comes out of something that some of the senior Members know about, maybe the junior Members don't know about. This is called the Jefferson's Manual, and it provides the rules for the House, and it's where ``deeming'' comes from and all of the rest of the things that happen in the House. In fact, just to remind you, Speaker Hastert, Speaker Gingrich used deeming on 202 occasions. Now, this is no big surprise. This is no surprise that fell out of the sky. And no, I won't yield. I think I've listened to you talk about deeming enough. I want to talk about deeming for a second. Deeming is rules of the House, and the reason you're doing that is so that we can get something done because people in the Senate are requiring, through the filibuster, that 60 votes be in the way of anything that happens. Now, if you insist on that when 50 votes is a majority, then you're going to get things like using arcane rules in this thousand-page rule book. And we will use it just like Speaker Gingrich used it, just like Speaker Hastert used it, to get around obstructionists. And now I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4851) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I would suggest that the gentleman has tried to create an issue, but it won't last. Nobody remembers any of the debate before Social Security. Nobody remembers any of the debate before Medicare. Of course, there were people saying all kinds of things out here. But when the bill is in, the people will take the benefits and be grateful for the Congress that acted on their behalf. I urge everyone to vote for this bill. The unemployed should not suffer again because of Senate filibusters.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This bill, Madam Speaker, provides another short-term extension for a number of programs that are expiring at the end of the month. If we fail to act on this bill, Americans around the country will begin running out of unemployment benefits by the beginning of the next month. We've been here before. By the end of April, over 1 million Americans will exhaust their unemployment benefits. This bill would merely continue the existing Federal unemployment programs for 1 month, as Congress works toward a longer extension. It does not increase the number of weeks of benefits provided by these programs. Now, I know many of my colleagues are as frustrated as I am that we have to keep extending these programs every month, as opposed to continuing them to the end of the year. Jobless Americans shouldn't have to wait until the last minute to know whether their economic lifeline will continue. We need a long-term extension of these programs, a goal I very much hope we will achieve before the end of the next month. In the meantime, I'm urging my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical stopgap legislation to extend unemployment benefits, as well as other critical assistance, including help for paying for continuing health coverage under COBRA. Before I close, let me say that I hope we don't see a repeat performance from last month when a single Republican Senator blocked these vital benefits for so many Americans. He complained about the cost of these benefits for unemployed workers. Where were those concerns when we embarked on two wars without paying for one cent of them? Where were the cries of outrage about the budget deficit when two tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens were enacted with no offsets whatsoever? Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when President Bush turned the biggest budget surplus in our Nation's history into the biggest deficit in our history and brought on the unemployment which is now facing us? When Republicans complain about the deficit, it's like an arsonist complaining about a fire. He lit the match, but takes no responsibility for the resulting blaze. The truth is, there is no better use of Federal resources than helping Americans who are struggling to find work. Workers today are facing a situation where there are six people looking for every available job in this country. It is a bad situation. So I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a physician out of concern for my Republican colleagues, many of whom seem to be suffering from chronic amnesia or chronic ignorance. When we started talking about the possibility of using this ``deem and pass'' procedure to finish the job on health care reform, Republicans couldn't run fast enough to find a television camera to complain. Fact check: This procedure has been widely used since the 1930s and was, in fact, used no fewer than 202 times under Speakers Gingrich and Hastert, amounting to 30 percent of the rules put forth by the committees under their leadership. All this hypocrisy is kind of galling. I hope my Republicans can recover from this amnesia in time to watch the Congress pass a bill that the American people need and want. They do not like the health care system that is in this country. They want reform, and we are going to give it to them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the great philosopher George Santayana said, Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Now the Republicans say we should scrap the bill and start all over again. In 1994, Newt Gingrich very proudly killed Mrs. Clinton's health care effort. We have waited 16 years. Twelve years we had Republicans in control of this House. We had 6 years with the Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a Republican President--and nothing was offered. What you're saying today is, Let's kill the Democratic bill, and we'll wait another 16 years to 2026 until we try again. The Americans are going into bankruptcy--two-thirds of them because of health care. We cannot wait any longer. The time has come for a vote, folks. Let's stand up and tell the American people you want to wait until 2026 to try again. That doesn't make sense.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating Canada and Vancouver, specifically, for putting on a great Olympics this winter. They are our neighbor in Seattle, and we welcome and were pleased with having our neighbor have such a good party. To compete in the Olympics is an enormous accomplishment, and I want to commend each and every one of the Olympians who participated. It's not a national team that goes; it's individuals. The spirit of the Olympics is that an individual strives to have his best or her best performance in whatever event he or she is involved in. And I want to take this time to recognize at least one athlete from my district, in particular, whose career I've followed since he was a young man in Seattle. Apolo Ohno exemplifies what it means to be an Olympian. He trained not in Seattle, but he went up to Canada, to Vancouver, and trained every week. And after winning his eighth medal in this Vancouver Olympics, he is now the most decorated American athlete to compete in the Winter Games. He has now appeared in three Winter Olympics and has both won and lost races, but he has always returned to compete against younger and sometimes even faster opponents. I also want to congratulate his father, Yuki Ohno, who has raised Apolo by himself, and helped him realize the dream of competing in the Olympics. When I think about Apolo's achievements and all he has overcome, I recall a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, who said, ``The credit belongs to the man or the woman who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his or her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'' To all the athletes, and to Apolo Ohno especially, I commend you for your performance in this Winter Games.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to debunk some of the health care myths we've heard from my friends across the aisle. Listening to my Republican colleagues, you'd think that lawyers were single handedly responsible for breaking our health care system. It's one of the major pillars of their health care proposal they recently unveiled and has long been one of their favorite talking points. They seem to have little else to talk about when it comes to health reform. I have always believed that you can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. For years, Republicans have claimed that because patients are able to sue doctors at whim for inordinate sums of money, doctors have been forced to buy expensive malpractice insurance. This system, they say, is one of the major causes of the nation's beleaguered health care system. But it seems Republicans have been very inventive with their facts. A new report from Public Citizen undercuts the Republican refrain that health care costs have skyrocketed because doctors have been forced to practice ``defensive medicine.'' The report found that the value of malpractice payments is actually at its lowest since 1999, and when adjusted for inflation, malpractice payments are at their lowest since 1992. The report goes on to show that for five consecutive years, the number of medical malpractice payments has fallen and for six straight years, the value of malpractice payments has fallen. Have we seen a corresponding decrease in health care costs for the last five years? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, in fact: health care spending rose a staggering 83 percent between 2000 and 2009, while malpractice payments actually fell 8 percent during the same period. Litigation costs were found to be less than one-half of one percent of health care costs. Blaming our health care crisis on litigation costs is just baloney. So instead of looking into how we can hold the insurance industry more accountable, my Republican colleagues have made a boogeyman out of devilish trial lawyers. But medical malpractice costs have been wholly stagnant and represent an inconsequential portion of our total health care spending. It's time the Republicans brought some new ideas to the table. The rest of us know the real reasons why our health care costs are spiraling out of control. Medical inflation continues to outpace general inflation. Insurance companies are making record profits and rewarding their executives with jaw-dropping salaries. The third quarter net income for Humana was almost $300 million, a 65 percent increase from the third quarter of 2008. The CEO of Aetna made almost $24 million last year while the CEO of WellPoint made nearly $10 million. In many areas of the country, people can only get health insurance from only one or two companies, and with such diminished market competition, those companies can charge whatever they want. And the list goes on and on. But my Republican colleagues have conveniently buried their head in the sand and have literally chosen to ignore 99.5 percent of the reasons for our nation's broken health care system. Sure, it is easy to demonize the trial lawyers. But if we fail to address the true reasons for rapidly escalating health care costs, we will never fix the real problems we're facing and health care costs will continue to skyrocket. To do otherwise would force prevent us from taking this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get reform right. While I know the final health reform bill will be far from perfect, it will still include meaningful and enduring reforms that will drive down costs and help millions of Americans. In the meantime, I hope my Republican colleagues will find themselves a new theme song.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, Republicans have talked so much about the need for tort reform, you would think that lawyers single-handedly were responsible for America's skyrocketing health care costs. But a new report from Public Citizen found that the value of malpractice settlements is actually the lowest it has been since 1999, and that for 5 consecutive years the number of malpractice settlements has actually dropped. And, of course, the health care costs have gone down; right? No, absolutely not. Health care spending increased 83 percent between 2000 and 2009, while malpractice payments fell 8 percent during the same period. Blaming our health care crisis on litigation costs is simply baloney. I hope my Republican friends can find another theme song for their attempt to derail what the American people want, and that is health care that is guaranteed and will not bankrupt America.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Kucinich's resolution to call our troops home from Afghanistan. When the President announced in December that he wanted 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan, I said that I was unconvinced his plan would work. And now that many of those troops are in place, I'm still not convinced. We recently watched the start of Operation Mushtarak, the largest coordinated offensive since 2001, which is intended to loosen the Taliban's grip in the Southern region of the country. It was originally supposed to take a few weeks, but now estimates say that it may take 12 to 18 months. I think this is a perfect example of the biggest obstacle we face: we are asking troops to fix problems that the military is not capable of solving. American soldiers have been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade and have been doing a magnificent job of what's been asked of them. But with every passing year, I grow more doubtful that we have the ability to build a stable democracy with the military alone. And I certainly do not believe that committing more troops will bring about the change necessary to stabilize the country, nor do I believe that it will hasten the process. But that's the course that many continue to advocate, including President Obama. And while I know that the President wants to get out of Afghanistan as fast as possible, I also believe that if we want to help the Afghani people form a stable democracy and functioning economy, we need to help them with even more aid and support, not an increase in troops. Over the last 30 years, Afghanistan has served as a battlefield in a series of devastating conflicts, first between the Soviet Union and the United States, and then between the United States and the Taliban. We hear a lot about the problems with poppy farming in the region, but we don't hear much about the cause. Before any of these incursions, Afghanistan was considered the orchard capital of central Asia, with nearly 80 percent of the population working on the land. But now it is estimated that more than 60 percent of the orchards and vineyards have been destroyed, which led many Afghanis into poppy production and the drug trade. This is in part due to the fact that the Soviets thought that orchards were too good a place to hide, so they cut them all down. The kinds of problems that Afghanistan faces are not the kinds of problems the U.S. military or NATO are equipped to solve. That is ultimately up to the Afghani government and its people, and we need to realize that our involvement can only do so much. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can make a strategically acceptable exit. I rise today to voice my support for Representative Kucinich's resolution to invoke the War Powers Act to call all of our troops home from Afghanistan within the next 30 days--or, as the legislation outlines, by the end of the year if 30 days is deemed too dangerous. I refuse to watch as we send soldier after soldier into a battle I do not believe the military can win.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize this week as National Peace Corp Week. In October of 1960, when then-Senator John F. Kennedy was campaigning for the Presidency, he visited the University of Michigan. At about 2:00 AM in front of the University of Michigan Union, he first outlined his plan to create a program that would send Americans to countries around the globe for 2 years of service. He said that night: ``. . . I think Americans are willing to contribute. But the effort must be far greater than we have ever made in the past. Therefore, I am delighted to come to Michigan, to this university, because unless we have those resources in this school, unless you comprehend the nature of what is being asked of you, this country can't possibly move through the next 10 years in a period of relative strength.'' Since that speech, more than 200,000 Americans have spent 2 years of their lives in parts of the world that many of us have never heard of. And right now, dozens of Peace Corp volunteers from the Seattle area alone are serving in countries as far as Mali, Turkmenistan and Cambodia. Participants have worked on everything from helping farmers produce more food to stave off hunger to teaching computer skills and helping governments bolster their technology infrastructure. While I've heard from many Peace Corp volunteers that their years of service are far from easy, they also tell me about the tremendous impact those years have on their education and how their time abroad helps build their character and self-esteem. But the program does far more than just provide services to communities in other countries and enrich the lives of its volunteers. It helps participants come back with a far better understanding of other cultures. I have long believed that America's ability to operate in the world depends on how well we understand what's going on in other nations. President Kennedy understood that our nation's strength depended on our level of engagement in the global community, and the Peace Corp each year provides thousands of emissaries to places that the U.S. might not otherwise touch. In many ways, the Peace Corp is like community-based diplomacy. And when participants return, many continue their service. Some, like my colleagues Senator Chris Dodd, and Representatives Honda, Garamendi, Farr, Driehaus and Petri, go on to serve in Congress. Other alums go on to serve in Foreign Service, including stints in USAID, the Organization of American States and the Department of State. Others serve in the non-profit sector in organizations like the Sierra Club and Catholic Relief Services. And many others join the National Peace Corp Association, an organization of some 30,000 former Peace Corp participants that helps keep them engaged in service and advocacy. The Peace Corp has done enormous good around the world, so let us recognize the thousands of Americans who sacrificed and served. Let us reaffirm this week as National Peace Corp Week.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This bill provides a short-term extension for a number of programs. When you have the other body basically operating on filibusters continuously on everything, it's not surprising that suddenly somebody wakes up over there and figures out that they're going to have to go to work and pass some legislation. By the end of March, 1.2 million people will run out of unemployment benefits, so we're extending unemployment benefits through the 8th of April, 2010. That is another month. The Senate likes to have a vote on unemployment about once a month. For whatever reason they want to come out here and do this when they can see the problem and they want to drag the American people through this process over and over again, I cannot understand. The Republicans over there using filibusters to stop the Senate from doing anything simply don't care about workers in this country. Now, there is also an extension of COBRA assistance. We're extending that until the 28th of March, 2010, so people have health insurance for another month. Thanks a lot. And we're extending surface transportation programs, which makes related expenditures for surface transportation until March 28, 2010. We're extending the Medicare physician update, which extends the increase in physicians' payments until March 28, 2010. We're extending the Medicare therapy cap exceptions until March 28, 2010. We're extending the poverty guidelines. And I could go on down this list. I have got a whole bunch more. The fact is, we passed, in December, out of this House, a 6-month extension in unemployment benefits, but somebody decided we had to have a filibuster in the Senate, so they stepped on the bill. And suddenly we come to 5:28 p.m. on the 25th of February and somebody says, oh, my God, there are going to be people in my district with no check. They have been calling my office for the last 2 weeks. Are they going to extend benefits? Will my benefits be extended? What's going to happen to us? Well, this is their answer. We will give them another month's reprieve, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) talk about the situation, it brings you almost beyond anger to realize that one person in the other body has stopped the unemployment extension for several months. We don't know, even as we pass this bill over there today, what will happen if that gentleman does not lift his restriction on the Senate bill. We may be into a cloture situation again. Now what they did before, they held up unemployment insurance, they held it up and held it up, and then, when it came to the end, everybody voted for it. It is clear, from the first words out of my colleague from California's mouth, that this is about trying to prove to the people that the Democrats can't run the Congress. They can't run the Congress with the filibuster in the Senate stopping issues like this that are going to go through here unanimously. Nobody in his right mind is going to vote against health care and unemployment benefits for people who are out there struggling, and nobody is going to vote against flood insurance for people and nobody is going to vote against small business loan guarantees and a lot of other things that are in this extension bill because of the filibuster in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for this, and I urge the other body to think about changing the filibuster.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard some pretty imaginative accusations from my Republican colleagues when they were talking about an amendment I offered to the Intelligence Authorization Act. While my amendment is being removed from the manager's amendment up in the Rules Committee, I want to take this opportunity to clear up a few things. When President Obama took office last year, one of his first Executive orders was to extend the Army field manual's guidelines on interrogation tactics. Those guidelines prohibit interrogators in all Federal agencies from using brutal interrogations in any circumstance. That is the law today. So to get the facts straight, brutal interrogations are illegal right now. But this Executive order doesn't completely solve the problem. The President can't include criminal penalties in Executive orders, and current U.S. law doesn't outline what constitutes a brutal interrogation. My amendment would have expanded upon the President's Executive order to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations. And to be clear, I didn't invent this concept myself. The amendment was based on the Army field manual definition of acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tactics, which, as Senator John McCain has said, is effective 99.9 percent of the time. One of the most important things to remember about these kinds of interrogations is that they simply don't work. Brutal interrogations are not an effective tool to collect information, and what's worse, they actually may produce unreliable information. As former CIA official Bob Baer has said, ``What happens when you torture people is they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you that.'' An endless string of studies have shown us that when people's minds or bodies are subjected to the kind of trauma these brutal interrogations entail, their brains don't function properly. For example, during training exercises, American special operative soldiers have had difficulty remembering information after they'd been put through food or sleep deprivation. Why are the Republicans defending a tactic we know doesn't work? Interrogations like those hurt our reputation abroad. The world was horrified when they saw what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, ``People are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards.'' Brutality like that hurts our credibility and undercuts our reputation in the global community. I'm a veteran. I wear my Vietnam pin well and proudly. I served in the Navy. I'm passionate about protecting this country and keeping our soldiers safe. More than anything, this amendment was designed to protect them. Several soldiers have done a far better job than I can in explaining why we need laws like this. Retired Colonel Stuart Herrington said that cruelty in interrogations ``endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.'' The golden rule, if you will. Retired admiral John Huston has said, ``Getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers who are captured.'' I couldn't agree more. Without clear laws that define acceptable and unacceptable interrogation practices, including criminal consequences for violating those laws, we are putting more Americans at risk of being treated with the same brutality. Just last week the two former Justice Department attorneys who crafted the legal justification for the use of brutal interrogations got off scot free. The Justice Department absolved them of their wrongdoing and only said they had ``exercised poor judgment'' and hadn't broken the law. They took advantage of a gap in our current law and provided legal cover for abuse during interrogations. My amendment would have ensured this kind of legal maneuvering never happens again. As the President said when he issued his Executive order last year, ``We are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, after more than 70 years of false starts on fixing health care, the Congress is on the brink of passing sensible, comprehensive reform legislation. We are extremely close to giving all Americans access to quality, affordable health care, while reducing the deficit. After a year of trying to instill fear in the American public about the Democratic approach to fixing our broken health care system, my Republican colleagues have really entered the debate. I commend my colleague from Wisconsin for putting forward the Republican plan. The sweeping Republican bill lets the public know where their party truly stands. Their bill would radically reorganize both the health care system and the Social Security system. Once again, they want to spend more time hating government than helping people. The Republicans want to give the seniors a voucher. A voucher government. If you qualify, you get a little check and then you are on your own to deal with the insurance companies and Wall Street. The Republicans wish the American people the best of luck. If you aren't lucky enough to outsmart Wall Street and the insurance executives with the rules stacked against you, well, that's too bad. Under the Republican plan, you will likely end up sick and poor, but they think you will love the free market choices you have had on the way down. Sadly, the Republican plan is filled with the same old policies to dismantle Medicare and Social Security that they have been putting forward for decades. To understand the clear difference between the different approaches, let's look at health care. Health care is big, and a complex part of our economy, and it needs thoughtful and commonsense approaches. Instead, the Republicans have put forward a plan that would put more Americans at risk, drive millions into bankruptcy, lock in the skyrocketing costs, and enrich the insurance companies. In the Republican plan, insurance companies could get richer while Americans get poorer and sicker. The Republican approach to health care has two parts. First, the Republicans would give American seniors a voucher for health care and do nothing to keep the insurance companies from taking them to the cleaners. The Republican plan would essentially do away with the Medicare program as we know it today, which many seniors rely on. The hypocrisy of the Republican plan is maddening. Their say one thing and do another approach is really reprehensible. The Republicans not only want to dismantle Medicare, but at the same time they denounce the Democratic plans to stop wasteful spending in the program. The second part of the Republican plan puts health savings accounts at the center of the program. Health savings accounts have existed for years. These accounts are small, and history shows that many Americans underfund them or can't use them. When illness strikes, any significant co-payment or deductible can wipe out a family's savings in a minute. Finally, the Republican plan does more to take our health care system down the road to ruin. It goes another step and privatizes Social Security. After the Wall Street meltdown, the crazy lesson the Republicans learned was to trust Wall Street with the future of our seniors. This week we learned that by 2019, national health care spending will be over 19 percent of our economy. That is $4.5 trillion. If we don't act to control those costs now, people will no longer be able to afford the essentials like housing and food. When the public has to deal with the market to satisfy basic needs, the government has to make sure the system is fair and that all Americans have access. When it comes to health care and retirement, we have to have commonsense rules. We must finish the job on health care, and we are going to do it beginning tomorrow at the White House. The Republicans have shown the public their plan, and it is not the solution. They are a rehash of old theories that make things much worse. Instead, we have to pass the commonsense health reform that is on the table and protect Social Security from crazy theories.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, like everyone last night, I was watching the Olympics and I was wondering who was the most famous person in Canada. Fame is a rather fleeting thing; 60 seconds down a hill or on an ice rink. The most famous person in Canada, by a vote on the CBC, was a politician, a Baptist minister, from Weyburn, Saskatchewan. His name is Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas, in 1947, brought universal health care to Saskatchewan. Nobody remembers the people who said that they would never have health insurance in Canada. Nobody remembers all the people that fought him. He was elected five times premier of Saskatchewan because the people remembered who brought them health care. Maybe that is why former Speaker Gingrich said, ``We can't let Mrs. Clinton succeed or the Democrats will be in forever.'' Well, that is what we are seeing again, folks. Maybe the Republicans are afraid that they will never get back in. Nobody remembers who didn't say ``yes.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to the Center for Career Alternatives (CCA), a presidential-award-winning non-profit agency in the Seventh Congressional District. CCA will celebrate three decades of success at its 30th Annual Community Awards and Appreciation Banquet on February 24, 2010. For thirty years, CCA has made good on its mission ``to provide the highest quality education, employment, training and career development services leading to individual self-sufficiency and self- worth for a culturally diverse population of disadvantaged youth and adults.'' The success of CCA is due in large part to the vision and leadership of its founder and current executive director, Alan Sugiyama. Mr. Sugiyama, a third generation Japanese-American, was born and raised in Seattle, and is a graduate of Garfield High School. In 1979, he observed that many immigrants and people of color were being left out of important career opportunities and living wage jobs because of a lack of education, training, and connections. He also saw prospective employers interested in hiring a diverse workforce frustrated that they had to go to a variety of isolated agencies to recruit. Mr. Sugiyama responded by creating a multiethnic organization, reflecting Seattle's diverse communities, dedicated to helping individuals with employment services. From CCA's humble beginnings in 1979 as a career counseling program with two staff, the Center for Career Alternatives now has 43 staff members, who speak more than 20 different languages, and offers 24 programs across five offices. Madam Speaker, annually, CCA serves approximately 1,600 low-income youth and young adults who have multiple barriers to education and employment. And since 1979, CCA has provided unparalleled comprehensive education, employment and training services to more than 28,000 individuals in King and Snohomish counties at no cost to the individual clients. In difficult economic times, like the ones we face today, the importance of the Center for Career Alternatives' critical services and programs can not be overstated. I extend my thanks and best wishes to CCA's Executive Director Al Sugiyama, the board of directors, staff, and clients on 30 years of changing lives and creating hope.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam 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 on H. Res. 1024.