Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I urge the passage of S. 2949, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, the largest earthquake ever recorded in Haiti wreaked havoc throughout the country. Some of those affected by the devastation in Haiti are U.S. citizens who are now being evacuated back to the United States. We need to act today to continue a program that helps these Americans get back home. The Repatriation Program provides assistance to U.S. citizens evacuating foreign countries due to a crisis by helping them secure and pay for connecting flights, temporary lodging, food, and medical assistance. Recipients of this assistance are expected to reimburse the government for such aid, unless repayment poses a significant hardship. This program has an annual funding cap of only $1 million, which is far short of the funding needed to help all the U.S. citizens returning home. There were roughly 45,000 Americans living in Haiti when the earthquake hit, and over 14,000 have already been evacuated. The bill before us increases the program's funding cap to $25 million for this year so that it can continue to serve U.S. citizens returning from Haiti. It is worth noting that we have raised this program's annual funding cap in response to past international crises. Most recently, in 2006, Congress responded to a request from the Bush administration to increase the program's funding to help Americans evacuating Lebanon. As sent over by the Senate, this bill also continues funding for another group of needy Americans, low-income senior citizens. A program known as QI that now helps Medicare beneficiaries with their part B premiums if their income is only slightly above the poverty line requires additional funding in order to continue to provide assistance to every State throughout the rest of the year. This legislation provides the necessary funding to address this shortfall and to ensure the program continues to operate. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the cost of both of these provisions is fully offset by a reduction in the Medicaid Improvement Fund, which provides additional funding to HHS for program management. In short, this bill helps people in great need of assistance without raising the deficit. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to help Americans evacuating from Haiti and to continue assistance to Medicare beneficiaries. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time for debate on this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2949) to amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority for increased fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to United States citizens returned from foreign countries, to provide necessary funding to avoid shortfalls in the Medicare cost- sharing program for low-income qualifying individuals, and for other purposes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2949.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1024) expressing support for designation of January as Poverty in America Awareness Month.

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

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.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, tonight I am introducing a resolution to urge the Senate to change its filibuster rule. The filibuster has in effect created minority rule. It wasn't the intent of the framers of the Constitution to allow any one person the power to bring the legislative process to a halt, which is exactly what the filibuster has given each Senator the ability to do. The framers very clearly outlined the five instances when they believed a supermajority was needed. The day-to-day business of Congress was not one of them. But the use of the filibuster has become such common practice that it now requires a supermajority in the Senate to pass virtually every piece of legislation, no matter how mundane. The filibuster has begun to erode the integrity of our democratic process. My colleague, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, who has been a leader on this issue since 1995, recently announced he will introduce legislation to change the filibuster rule, and I am offering a resolution urging the Senate to do the same. The filibuster was not intended by the framers of the Constitution, and it is certainly not good for the country when we try to solve the difficult problems that face us today. The time has come for the Senate to change its rules.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 4284 to extend the general system of preferences and the Andean trade preference program for 1 year. I have called for an extension to our preference programs in the past. We need to make these programs long and stable. This extension is only for a year, and that's okay in this instance, because we need to force more action on broader preference reform. In difficult economic times like today, developed countries sometimes decide to pull back. But I think that in a globalized economy we need to push forward on improving trade with poorer countries of the world. Our preference programs have done enormous good for the poor of the world and for American business. Now we need to make them even better. For development to really accelerate, we need to get more countries involved in trading more products. I have introduced a bill with the support of Chairman Rangel and Congressman Levin that will go far in modernizing our preference programs for American businesses and the poor of the world. Now, while there are details to work out, there is broad agreement that our trade programs need to be stable, they need to be simplified, they need to be more effective, and they need to help more people. I think we agree that the stability of our programs is essential to them being effective. No one who has ever run a business would want to invest in a climate that is so unstable, that goes year by year, you are never sure can you plan on it next year. That simply is very difficult for businesses to deal with, and our programs, therefore, need to be long term. Second, our programs are too complicated and too hard to use. Simplifying our programs and doing more to help our partners meet the important standards we set are keys to their success. An interesting fact sort of clarifies it in your mind. Cambodia pays as much tariff on $1.5 billion worth of exports in the United States as does Great Britain on $50 billion. Now, if you are trying to help Cambodia, you ought to think about those kinds of numbers. We need to address the capacity building. We all know that the wisdom of trade, not aid, is obvious. Preferences help our trading partners quite a bit. But without thoughtful capacity building, we can only help them so much. We need to pool these efforts together to help poor countries grow and to give American businesses more customers. Finally, we need to find a way to strengthen the programs we have while at the same time helping more people. Trade is not a zero-sum game. We can strengthen our current programs while also helping other desperately poor countries who right now get no benefits. We can help different countries like Lesotho, the Philippines, and Cambodia at the same time. I think this is a good start, and the House ought to pass this bill, and next year we will deal with a larger bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to Seattle's Downtown Emergency Service Center, DESC, on its thirtieth anniversary. For three decades, this non-profit organization has committed itself to serve the most vulnerable homeless populations of Seattle with shelter, services, advocacy, and housing. DESC began as a partnership among the City of Seattle, the Greater Seattle Council of Churches, and Washington Advocates for the Mentally Ill to address the shortage of shelter and services for a growing population of homeless persons in the Seattle area. On November 19, 1979, with fourteen staff, DESC opened its doors to nearly 200 homeless adults as an overnight emergency shelter in the ballroom of the Morrison Hotel, in Seattle's historic Pioneer Square. A year later, DESC became a Mental Health Care licensed agency. Since its early years, DESC has been a leader in developing programs that provide a full continuum of care to address the root causes of homelessness. In 1985, DESC was selected as a pilot location for the national ``Health Care for the Homeless'' program to integrate chemical dependency, mental health, and nursing with shelter services. In 1989, DESC enhanced its local outreach program by sending clinically trained staff to the streets to seek out and establish first contact with Seattle's most vulnerable homeless men and women. That novel practice has become the standard outreach strategy used in most major U.S. cities today. In addition, DESC began developing permanent supportive housing for the hardest-to-serve homeless men and women. In 1997, it opened the Lyon Building with 64 apartments for homeless adults affected by HIV/ AIDS, mental illness and/or addiction, implementing a ``Harm Reduction'' model. That same year, it also introduced the ``Housing First'' model to Seattle with the opening of the Kerner Scott House: 40 apartments for formerly homeless, mentally ill, and/or addiction- challenged adults. In 2005, DESC expanded its ``Housing First'' model with the opening of the 1811 Eastlake, a 75-unit building for late- stage chronic inebriates, typically high users of public services. Over the years, DESC has received dozens of awards and widespread recognition for its innovative housing projects and intensive services. In 2004 and in 2005, it received the Metlife Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing, making it the only organization to win the award in two successive years. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded its ``Best Practice Award'' to DESC for innovation in developing services that later became industry standards. Most recently, DESC won the 2007 Maxwell Award of Excellence for its 1811 Eastlake project. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009 revealed that the 1811 Eastlake program has saved taxpayers $4 million dollars annually. Madam Speaker, for more than thirty years, DESC has served disabled and vulnerable homeless adults through a continuum of care model that not only helps people survive but breaks the vicious cycle of homelessness. Today, it has become one of the largest multiservice centers for homeless adults in the Pacific Northwest, employing more than 300 employees who provide permanent supportive housing, clinical and emergency services, and overnight shelter. DESC is an invaluable asset to our community, to the Seattle-King County Coalition to End Homelessness, and to our nationwide efforts to address homelessness. I extend my best wishes and commend DESC's Executive Director Bill Hobson, its Board of Directors, its staff, and its clients on ``30 years of opening doors to end homelessness.'' I know DESC will continue to lead the way with thoughtful, innovative answers to our most challenging social issues.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to raise my voice in strong support for H. Res. 890, a resolution introduced to welcome Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the United States. As co-Chair of the caucus on Indian and Indian Americans, I extend our hand in friendship to our close friend and strategic ally in South Central Asia. I've known Prime Minister Manmohan Singh since he was the finance minister in 1990 who really brought about the Indian miracle. The President has chosen to recognize the close ties between our nations by honoring India with its first official State dinner at the White House next week, and I look forward to participating. In the 21st century, the world's oldest and largest democracies have much to share and learn from each other. Over the years, I visited India 22 times, but perhaps the most memorable visit came this year as a part of the congressional delegation with John Lewis. We were there to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the historic visit to India by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his wife. At the end of the visit, Dr. King said, ``The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or nonexistence.'' That truth is self-evident today. Both India and the United States must deepen our ties--even if we respect different cultures--if we are to make this a safer and better world. And we are up to the challenge. The Prime Minister has made significant economic progress for the people of India and that has resulted in new business opportunities for American companies and U.S. jobs. In Seattle, the heart of my congressional district, Boeing builds airplanes for a major customer, Air India. That is just one of the examples of the business ties that bind us together. We also cooperate in science, technology, trade, and education. All of this draws us together in countless ways. Recently, I joined Her Excellency, Meera Shankar, the Ambassador of India, for the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi at the King County Public Library. And last weekend in Seattle, we celebrated the festival of Diwali. In the 21st century, the Internet has removed the borders that separated nations, but it will take people to unite us into one world. That is what makes a State visit like this so important. Leaders working in good faith on behalf of the people can bridge any divide no matter how wide and deep. As Nelson Mandela in South Africa once said, ``It always seems impossible until it's done.'' This resolution is a down payment on the future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican health plan and proposal has been in effect since 1995. A friend of mine came to New York, had some problems, got on the phone to call a doctor, and the first question that is always asked is what kind of insurance do you have. When he said he didn't have any, they said, Well, we can't take care of you unless you come to the office with $250 in cash. We'll see you if you do that. He said, I don't have that kind of money. They said, Then go to the emergency room. That's where 50 million people in this country are today. Go to the emergency room if you can't come with the cash to hand it to the doctor. My office phone today has been ringing off the hook with people demanding that we have health care now. The Republican alternative doesn't help anyone, except protects the insurance companies. The bankruptcy of this plan is pretty clear to everybody. Health analysts, the media, The New York Times, the CBO all agree that the Republican plan would leave 42 million people with nothing. Now, the Republican plan does nothing to help the seniors. It really isn't a plan. It's just a bunch of stuff they scraped up off the floor that they had laying around for 12 years and did nothing. Now, why don't they put forward a plan? Well, I will tell you. I've cracked the code. This plan they brought out here, they either haven't read their own bill--because you couldn't keep a straight face and come out here and say it was a plan--or they would rather spend more time hating government than helping people. Remember what they did in New Orleans. That's what their attitude about government is. Don't make it work for the people. Just let people understand, You're on your own, folks. That's our plan. We believe in freedom; you're free to be on your own. But most people can't take care of their health care problems on their own. They're lucky if they can. Vote against this proposal, and vote for the bill. The phones in my office have been ringing off the hook because my constituents want secure quality affordable healthcare now. Meanwhile the Republicans have put forward an alternative that doesn't help anyone but protect insurance companies. The bankruptcy of the Republican plan is not just my opinion-- analysts, the media, and the Congressional Budget Office all agree the Republican plan will leave 42 million out in the cold. The Republican plan does nothing to help people with pre-existing conditions or to help seniors. The Republican plan is no plan. How could they have put forward a plan that doesn't solve any of the healthcare problems Americans face? Well, I may have cracked the code. Either they haven't read their own bill or they'd rather spend more time hating government than helping people. The Republican approach is just a continuation of the status quo while the Democratic plan covers 96% of Americans. My constituents have demanded action. The time is now.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, one can't help but feel grief and anger and desperation in all of what went on at Fort Hood. But the larger issue here, and I think the one we must not lose sight of, is what Dr. Hasan was dealing with was posttraumatic stress disorder. I sat for 2 years at the Long Beach Naval Station and listened to these stories from young men and women coming back from Vietnam day after day after day, and I can tell you the impact is huge. The biggest loss from this event will be if we do not deal with the fact that stigma about going to see mental health professionals prevents many of our people from getting the help they need. I had dinner the other night with the Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Chiarelli, who has made it his goal to deal with posttraumatic stress disorder for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This issue, because we sort of say, well, you're supposed to be tough and pull yourself together and never admit you've got a problem, is with all kinds of people in the military. A military psychiatrist is as vulnerable to it as is a grunt out on the field dealing with war at every corner. And as we talk about this today, I don't want people to draw conclusions and make decisions about why this happened and all the rest. It's human breakdown. It happens to people all the time in the military. When you put people in the kind of stress that we put those people in and send them back again and again and again, leave their families, see the awful things of it, you cannot expect everybody to be able to keep it together. We need to be sympathetic and put the money up for the help that these people need.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, here's what you are hearing from opponents to health care reform: Nothing scares Members of Congress more than freedom-loving Americans. We should surround the Capitol Building until they give us freedom. This bill is legislative malpractice. Now these are all catchy phrases. They are catchy phrases that are purposely designed to hide the fact that the Republicans have no viable alternative health care plan. Critics have panned the plan that they have offered. Headlines in The New York Times screamed, ``Budget monitor says GOP bill leaves many uninsured.'' Headlines from The Washington Post booms, ``Congressional Budget Office thrashes the Republican health care plan.'' The verdict is in: The Republican plan is woefully inadequate. It is not a cheap alternative. It would cover only three million uninsured. It maintains the status quo for insurance companies. It has no serious reforms to eliminate the perverse incentives in our present payment system. So the Republican are left with catchy phrases. The American people see through it. That is why they are still supporting this bill. The American people know that the time to enact quality health care is now. Tomorrow is the day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for 10 months for the Republican health care plan. All we hear is the Party of No--no, no, no; go slow; don't do anything. That's all we've heard. But, finally, they came out with a plan, and I thought we ought to take it seriously and read it, so I did. Sadly, the proposal from my Republican colleagues was not worth the wait, and CBO agrees. The Congressional Budget Office indicated that the Republican bill will not--will not--significantly decrease the ranks of the uninsured. Instead, under the Republican proposal, the ranks of the uninsured will decrease by only 3 million people, leaving 52 million people without coverage. Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which covers 96 percent of all Americans. The Republican proposal would not address the ability of insurance companies to exclude individuals based upon preexisting conditions. According to the Republican leadership, they purposely failed to address this issue because it supposedly cost too much. The Democratic proposal would prohibit insurers from excluding individuals from purchasing health insurance based on preexisting conditions by 2013. The Republican proposal would allow insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines. Sounds like a good idea. But most experts agree that that would create a ``race to the bottom,'' where insurers will set up shops in States with the fewest consumer protections. Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which will allow insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines so long as the States involved have set up interstate compacts. Under these interstate compacts, participating States would ensure consumer protections would be followed and monitored at all times. Now, the Republicans got this one pretty close to right. They will allow dependents to remain on their parents' insurance until they are age 26. Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which keeps them on until age 27. So they copied us at least on that point. The Republican proposal will cut the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years. Sounds great, right? Contrast this with the Democratic proposal, which will cut the deficit by $104 billion over the next 10 years. For the Republicans who sound off about fiscal responsibility all the time, the Democratic proposal is clearly the more responsible for deficit reduction. The Republican plan purports to end ``junk lawsuits.'' However, the focus is solely on capping certain damages for pain and suffering. This is an old approach, and it will help insurance companies flaunt State consumer protection laws. The Democratic proposal, on the other hand, would ensure providers are accountable for providing quality care by developing payment policies that have quality as a central tenet of reimbursement. The Democratic proposal seeks to recognize the autonomy of States. The CBO found that the Republican plan would have virtually no effect on reducing premiums in the large group market in which most Americans are involved, where most people purchase their health insurance. Contrast this with the Democratic proposal that seeks to increase transparency with regard to insurance premium increases and decrease the amount insurers can dedicate to profits. The Democratic proposal ends the antitrust exemption for insurers, which has caused a significant lack of competition in the insurance marketplace whereby one or two insurers provide virtually all of the coverage for enrollees in some markets. This is focused insurance reform rather than business as usual, which the Republicans seek to promote. The Republican plan was introduced to the world on November 4, 2009, after being slapped together because they realized that something was going to happen out here and they had no alternative to saying no. It has all the failures I have described relative to the Democratic proposal. Contrast this with what has been a deliberative, thoughtful process that has created a bill that has been reported out of three committees and is at the precipice of enacting the most far-reaching, consequential health reform in a century. The American people have been waiting for 100 years. They got the Republican proposal a day or so ago, and it is totally inadequate. Despite claims of my Republican colleagues to the contrary, in all aspects, the Democratic proposal is simply better. It will provide universal coverage, and I hope that the Republicans can see the wisdom of voting for it this Saturday. It provides nearly universal coverage, deficit reduction, and reforms designed to effectuate cost control over the next decade. My Republican colleagues have tunnel vision and are focused on what they believe to be the one positive about their bill: it costs less than the Democratic proposal. Well, it still costs $8 billion, and insures virtually no one according to multiple media outlets as well as the CBO. The Republican plan ensures that insurance companies maintain the status quo in the insurance market, and provides no consumer protections. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, may I have the time remaining?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Brady's work on bringing this bill to the floor, but I would say that in 1935 there was no unemployment insurance, there was no welfare, there were no jobs, and the Federal Government stepped in and acted to change all of that. Now, we clearly need to stimulate the economy; and if we don't stimulate the economy, we will continue to have businesses sitting back waiting forever and watching their health care costs go out of sight. The bill tomorrow on health care is really to help businesses get control over one cost item in their budget, and in my view, that is the kind of thing we should be doing to help create more jobs. If we sit here, we can build this bridge of unemployment insurance, but it is a bridge to nowhere if the economy does not start to turn around, and that means dealing with the things that are destroying this economy. The health care costs of every single business are rising totally out of control, and you can't expect them to invest if we haven't done something about getting control of health care costs. So this is only one part of the issue. We have many other issues we are going to have to deal with on the floor, but I am grateful today for your help in passing this piece of it.