Jim McDermott

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. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We've waited for 6 weeks for the Senate to dither around on this bill. The decisions made in it could have been made in a week if they really were thinking about the half million people who have lost their benefits over the last 6 weeks. Since the House acted, that's happened. There have been no jobs, no benefits, and no hope. Now, today, we can restore that by the bill that's before us, and also perhaps give them some hope that this won't happen in the future. This legislation returned from the Senate will provide an additional 14 weeks of unemployment benefits in every State and a total of 20 weeks in high unemployment States. I welcome the additional weeks in the bill compared to the legislation we sent over. It seems the least we can do after we've made them wait for 6 weeks. However, I heard concerns that the complexity of the Senate amendment may present some administrative challenges for State government, so I hope every State is actively planning on how to deliver these benefits in the quickest possible time frame. This is a wake-up call to State unemployment insurance programs. I would ask my colleagues to keep in mind that Congress must act again before the end of this year to continue the extended unemployment benefits that we are now improving. The cost of this extension of unemployment benefits is completely offset by an 18-month continuation of a tax called the FUTA surtax, which has been in place for over 30 years. In addition to helping unemployed workers, this bill now includes the extension and expansion of two other relief provisions. One helps and encourages those buying homes and another helps struggling businesses. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has lost 8 million jobs since the great recession started in December of 2007. Even as we see signs of economic recovery, such as last week's announcement that the GDP rose substantially for the first time in over a year, we know it will take considerable time to restore those lost jobs. There are predictions that it will rise above 10 percent nationally and will not come down until late in 2010. We must continue to provide the lifeline for the unemployed workers who have lost their jobs from no fault of their own and who are searching for new employment. Sending this bill to President Obama today will accomplish that goal for over 1 million of our fellow citizens before the end of the year. Additionally, it would help keep families in their homes and prevent foreclosures. This is the right thing to do, and we shouldn't have waited so long to do it.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Indiana, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am now going to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a public servant, Seattle Police Officer Tim Brenton. Officer Brenton was killed in the line of duty last week on October 31, 2009. Officer Brenton lost his life in an apparent deliberate murder that has shocked Seattle and frozen our hearts. Officer Brenton leaves behind his wife and two children and the rest of his family, including a father and an uncle who also served the public as police officers and a brother who is a firefighter. He leaves behind a partner, Officer Britt Sweeney, who was also wounded that night. He leaves behind a police department in mourning, and he leaves behind a community in shock because of this brutal and senseless crime. But more than that, he leaves behind a legacy of selflessness, of caring, and of commitment to service. We all owe a great debt to Officer Brenton and to the many public servants who place their lives on the line to protect us. The Seattle Times newspaper noted that a neighbor called the Brentons ``just a regular American family, going to work, making a living.'' But the Brentons are no regular family. They have been doubly marked by valor and by sacrifice. The perpetrators of this tragic crime have marked all of us as we mourn the effects of this violence on the family and friends of Officer Brenton. I ask you all to join me in bowing your heads in remembrance of Officer Brenton.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Angela Merkel was in this Hall just a few hours ago. She represents a country where they have had health care security for 126 years. Americans have been waiting for 100 years; and when the Republicans took over the last time, they knocked out Mrs. Clinton's plan and they bragged about it. And for 12 years, they made not one single proposal that they would bring to the floor for a vote. They want the status quo. They like what is going on. And if folks back home like what is going on, stick with them, because they are never going to change anything. What they say about this is, Not so fast. One hundred years is too fast? Well, they say, But we have something we're just about to bring out here on Thursday. Not so fast, right. Wait until the last minute after all of the debate, and then say, Not so fast. The American people want it done now.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for bringing this resolution to the floor. This is an issue that deserves our unanimous support, and I'm sure it will have it. H. Res. 831 really expresses the ideals and the goals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month. Every child deserves to be raised in a home that is safe, loving and is permanent. Unfortunately, this basic principle is not a reality for the 129,000 children who are currently in our Nation's foster care system waiting for a permanent home to call their own. Last year, the Congress passed bipartisan, bicameral legislation that dramatically reformed our Nation's foster care and adoption program. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act was designed to improve the outcomes of children's lives in the foster care system as well as increase the number of children who find permanency through placement with a grandparent or other relative or through adoption. The new law helps States provide greater financial assistance to relative caregivers who choose to become the legal guardian of a foster child and also promotes the adoption of children with special needs and improves the Adoption Incentive Program. While my colleagues and I were able to accomplish a great deal last year in improving foster care and adoption programs, our work is far from over. We must ensure that families are given the postadoption support they need when they welcome an adopted child into their home. Any of us who have raised a child know that it's difficult to do, but it is an immensely rewarding endeavor, and when the Federal Government has an ability to encourage these connections, we ought to do so. There are a wealth of families interested in adopting a child out of foster care. A study last year showed that there are 600,000 women in the United States seeking to adopt. The majority of these women said they would consider adopting older youth, siblings, or children with special needs. We can and must do a better job of connecting these would-be parents to kids growing up in foster care. It's my hope that this bill and the resolution connected to it will lead to an overall increase in the awareness of National Adoption Day and will help us close the gap so that it is possible to imagine a Nation where every child, indeed, lives in a safe and secure home. We must also do a better job of keeping kids out of the foster care system to begin with. Today, we provide some or more financial assistance to States to remove children from homes and place them in care than we do in providing support to children in at-risk homes where they are living in their homes. At this time last week, I delivered remarks in front of a group of current and former foster youth, and the topic of discussion was: How can we better address the stresses of crises in the home that bring families to the door of the system in the first place? The point I heard over and over again from these young adults was, My parents weren't bad people. They just needed some extra help and guidance to keep our family together. Keeping children safely with their biological parents is almost always in the child's best interest. In an effort to move us in that direction, I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Representative Danny Davis and Todd Platts to provide States with mandatory grant funding to support an evidence-based voluntary home visitation program. The President took Representative Davis' idea and put it in his budget. We put it in H.R. 3200, which is the health care bill that is now about to be considered in this body. The home visitation program provides services to pregnant women and families with preschool-aged children that are designed to enhance the child's health, well-being, and development. I am pleased that the proposal was introduced and that it made its way into the health care bill. We expect it will pass out of here in a few days. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 831 and to recommit ourselves to working on legislation that improves the lives of all children and families and improves our child welfare system. The 129,000 children who are awaiting a permanent family deserve nothing less from this Congress.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the people may be wondering what is going on here today. Well, you are watching the charge of the light brigade. The Republicans believe that they can just throw themselves into it and they will stop it. But they are not going to stop it. The other night, Tuesday night, New York City, a friend of mine had a problem. He called a doctor's office and got the first question, which is always, What kind of insurance do you have? He said, Well, I don't have any insurance. I am from out of the country. They said, Oh, well, you can come in and see the doctor, but you have to bring $250 in cash or the doctor will not see you. He said, I don't have that kind of cash. They said, Well, tough luck. Go to the emergency room. Now, that is the health care system that my colleagues in the light brigade want to protect. Keep trying to protect it, guys. It ain't going to work. The American people want a change, and they are going to get one.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, exactly one month ago today the House cast aside partisanship to work together and overwhelmingly pass legislation to extend unemployment benefits, which are running out for an average of 7,000 Americans every day. While my Republican colleagues in the House recognize that unemployment is an American issue that transcends politics, Senate Republicans are oblivious to the urgent need to pass legislation because people are hanging on by their fingernails. Instead, the Senate Republicans have a choke hold on legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits, and Americans who need the help the House passed a month ago aren't going to get helped until Senate Republicans stop playing partisan games. There are positive signs the economy has turned the corner, but the Senate Republicans know what everyone else knows, that unemployment always takes longer to recover. But they still have a choke hold on the bill, which is a choke hold on nurturing the economic recovery. A caller to my office this morning put it best: There is one reason you may not be able to buy food for your family next week, and it is called the Senate Republicans. Maybe they are the ones who ought to be out of work. Maybe then the Republicans in the Senate would understand what it means to look to Washington for leadership but see petty partisanship instead. Release the choke hold and pass the bill to extend unemployment benefits. Thousands of Americans can wait no longer.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to my constituent and friend, Roberto Maestas, as he steps into a new role after serving as the executive director of El Centro de la Raza for the past 37 years. For more than 40 years, Mr. Maestas has been intimately involved in the ongoing struggle for civil rights and social justice, not only for Latinos, but for all disadvantaged people. He is among Seattle's most respected figures, esteemed for his effectiveness, his political savvy, and his legendary persuasive powers. Mr. Maestas recently has become Senior Advisor and Chair of Historical Resources at El Centro de la Raza. El Centro de la Raza's board of directors has asked Mr. Maestas to lead a program to chronicle, collect, record and preserve El Centro de la Raza's historical contributions to the local, national, and international community and to the social justice movement. We are so fortunate to have this opportunity to capture an accurate, vibrant history of a tumultuous, formative era with someone who not only lived through it but actually helped to make that history. Roberto Maestas was born in New Mexico, but he has called Seattle, Washington, his home since the early 1950s. As a young man, Mr. Maestas taught at Franklin High School before pursuing a graduate degree at the University of Washington in 1968, where he became one of the University's first Chicano graduates. In the early 1970s, as part of the United States War on Poverty, Mr. Maestas helped form an Adult Basic Education and English as a Second Language (ESL) program at South Seattle Community College to serve the city's growing Latino community. But, in 1972, funding was abruptly cut, and the program needed a new home. Mr. Maestas, along with fellow teachers, students, and a number of community activists, peaceably occupied the abandoned Beacon Hill School, and negotiated its conversion into a new community center, El Centro de la Raza. Under his leadership, El Centro has become a voice and hub for Latinos seeking services, advocacy, and social justice. It has grown from a provider of ESL classes to a multimillion dollar Community Action Agency offering a wide array of services to thousands of low- income people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Its programs include a bilingual child care center, a Basic Healthcare enrollment program, a food bank, senior services, and a home ownership program. In addition, Mr. Maestas and El Centro de la Raza have been at the forefront of multicultural and international initiatives. El Centro played a prominent role in local solidarity campaigns with Central American social justice activists, and it continues to host art exhibitions, cross-cultural exchanges, and international speakers. Mr. Maestas, along with Bernie Whitebear, Larry Gossett, and Bob Santos co- founded the Minority Executive Directors' Coalition; his extraordinary work over three decades to build the strongest municipal multi-racial coalition in the United States is widely acknowledged and justly acclaimed. Although the founding of El Centro de la Raza was sparked by Latinos and distinguished with a Spanish name, that name translates in English to: ``The Center for the People of All Races.'' Through the years, Mr. Maestas has worked with diligence and determination to ensure that El Centro is ``home'' for all people interested in advancing the struggle for a better world by serving, educating, defending, and organizing each other to build the ``beloved community'' envisioned by Martin Luther King, Jr. Appropriately, El Centro de la Raza and Mr. Maestas have received countless international, national, state, and local awards, including the ``Thousand Points of Light'' award in 1991 from the President George Bush, Sr. Madam Speaker, Roberto Maestas is an invaluable asset to the Seattle community. His contributions and his commitment to better the lives of all people deserve our gratitude, our deep respect, and our keen approbation. The people of Seattle, including the thousands who have been served at El Centro de la Raza and the countless students, volunteers, and staff whom he has touched, are grateful for his kind guidance and his visionary leadership. I join them in thanking Mr. Maestas for his service, and in wishing him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H. Res. 627, legislation I co-sponsored honoring the citizen soldiers of the National Guard of the State of Washington, including the 81st Brigade Combat Team of the Washington Army National Guard. The National Guard plays a vital role in the defense of our communities and country. When we need them, they are always there, whether it be responding to a natural disaster at home or deploying to a combat zone overseas. The men and women of the Washington National Guard are our friends and neighbors, and their dedication and patriotism make us all very proud every time they put on the uniform. More than 11,000 Washington State citizen soldiers have answered the call to duty since 9/11, including the 81st Brigade Combat Team that recently returned home from a mission in Iraq. Tragically, Specialist Samuel Stone, of Port Orchard, Washington, was killed during the deployment. Outside my office in the Longworth House Office Building I have placed pictures of all the soldiers from the State of Washington who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every day, visitors coming to or passing by the 7th Congressional District Office stop and look at the faces of the fallen. In so doing, we honor those who have died in service to their country and consider the consequences of sending soldiers off to war. We are proud of the men and women of the Washington National Guard who willingly place themselves in harm's way to protect our lives, property and country. They deserve public recognition and our heartfelt thanks. I think of H. Res. 627 as a medal awarded to every citizen soldier for service above and beyond the call of duty. Thank you on behalf of a grateful State and Nation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, I think that is what is really troublesome about this debate, is that people on the other side who argue that there doesn't need to be change--you say to them, Well, what are you offering? They say, Well, let's give tax credits to people so they can buy their own health insurance. Now, let's just think about that for a minute. The average income in this country is about $45,000. So you're making a little less than $4,000 a month. You can easily spend $1,000 a month on a premium. So each month you've got to take $1,000 of your $4,000 out and go down and buy your health insurance. Now, the Republican solution to that is, Give them a tax credit. Let them wait a whole year to the end of the year, and then you give them back their money at the end of the year. Most people don't have that kind of ability to wait for 12 months to get their money back. Rich people can. I mean, they can wait for a tax credit someplace down the road. But ordinary people who are living from paycheck to paycheck to paycheck do not have the ability to spend a thousand dollars a month on a health care premium and wait 12 months to get credit for it on their income tax. So their proposals sound like they have something in mind. Yes, they have something in mind, but it simply won't work.

Mr. McDERMOTT. You're tough out of luck. If you go into the individual market, you'll pay even more. So if you're in a big group, you know, working for Ford Motor Company or for Delco Battery or something, that way you get the risk spread over everybody. But if they're just looking at you or me or the next guy, they're going to charge you a much higher premium for anything that you have, any kind of preexisting condition. So it's worse when you leave one of those groups. People stay in, and they scramble to try to make it. But every company in the country has been shifting more and more cost onto the individual. They used to pay in some companies 100 percent. Now they pay 60 percent, and 40 percent has to be paid by the employee. Their deductibles are going up, and the copays are going up. That's why the President has said we have to find a way to control costs. We can't let this go on.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, my hometown newspaper, The Seattle Times, published a front page story the other day under the headline, ``First-time Buyers Ignite Home Sales.'' The bottom line is that the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers is working and should, at a minimum, be extended before it expires at the end of November. Some experts even suggest expanding the program to anyone buying a home. And that's worth considering. The tax credit was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that the President signed into law in February. It had an almost immediate and positive impact on the U.S. housing market, and the data proves it. This chart shows that in March, the housing was still in free fall. But in April, when the tax credit began to take hold, we see the beginning of a steady increase in home sales through August, the last month for which figures are available. The tax credit has made homeownership a reality for thousands of decent, hardworking Americans. Extending it makes financial sense, economic sense, and it especially makes middle class sense. Across America, prices are stabilizing, and the inventory of homes for sale is trending downward toward a point where market forces do not favor either the buyer or the seller. When people buy homes, they purchase appliances and curtains and a whole list of durable goods, so the positive impact of the local economy is more than just the actual purchase. It supports other jobs. The program is working for America's families and for America. During the Congressional debate last winter the National Association of Realtors forecast that the first-time homebuyer tax credit would generate a half a million homes. The actual number is 1.4 million homes. And that benefits local governments too because of real estate and other local taxes that help pay for vital community services like police and fire. If the program is extended and possibly expanded, there is new forecast of the impact, and it's very impressive. The second chart shows what can happen if we keep going a little longer and jobs and wages across the country, including my State, and the congressional district, the U.S. would expect 347,000 jobs with wages of $16 billion; Washington State, 8,000 jobs, with $375 million in wages. The first-time homebuyer credit has nurtured a fragile housing market to better health in just 6 months. Even if you're not buying a house, you benefit because the housing market is one of the underpinnings of our entire economy and is the largest asset for families. So rebuilding the housing market helps us rebuild the economy. As you can see, there are pending home sales. In this last chart you can clearly see that the tax credit is taking the housing market and America in the right direction. But this positive news will be threatened if we don't take action now. If it takes 60 days for a mortgage application to be processed, we are nearing the end by November 30. The tax credit is the foundation of the fragile housing market recovery that we are expecting to see across this country. Now is not the time to mess with success. The homebuyer tax credit works, and it keeps it working by extending the program into the next year. The Congress should act immediately on this because the slow-down is just around the corner if we don't keep the tax credit there.