Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I rise in support of H.R. 6331, along with the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Radiology and the American College of Surgeons. All the medical organizations are supportive of this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time, and urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), not a member of the committee but a staunch advocate for foster kids.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here today on behalf of young people like Anthony Reeves, a former foster child in Georgia who wrote something that defines our call to action. ``Life is tough enough when transitioning out of care, but it's even tougher if you don't have the support that you need from people who care about you or if you don't have resources and skills packed along with the rest of our belongings as you are shown out the door.'' Anthony's words should remind us that government, and ultimately society, acts as the legal guardian of foster children. These are our children, and the fact is we are failing too many of them. There is no shortage of problems to confronting foster care-- insufficient services for at-risk families, too few qualified case workers, and an outdated Federal eligibility standard, to name a few. We'll have to confront these issues in order to provide the comprehensive reform that is so urgently needed. Today we are focused on the shortcomings in the existing system that can disconnect foster children from the things they need most--family, support and school. Sometimes children have to be removed from their homes to protect them from abuse and neglect. That is a sad, but undeniable fact. But the foster system unnecessarily disrupts other connections to home, family and school for these vulnerable children at a time when they're most in need. One glaring example of this is when foster children are literally pushed out into the streets when they turn 18 years of age. No parent I know of severs all ties and abandons their kids at age 18, yet that is Federal policy for foster care. We displace them from their homes, support them, and then tell them to go it alone. Rather than provide a glide path to success, we subject foster children to a crash landing. Another example is the inconsistent effort to help foster children stay connected to family. Today, we deny grandparents assistance if they become the legal guardians to a foster child. This is contrary to the growing base of research illustrating that children do better living with relative guardians than they do living in traditional foster homes. Additionally, siblings are too often separated during foster care placement just when a foster child most needs a brother or a sister. Ensuring school stability is yet another area where we too often come up short. Not enough is done to ensure children that they can stay in their current schools when they are placed in foster care, thus depriving them of the one place where they may feel secure. We also hear too many stories about foster children not receiving adequate health care services, especially for mental health. Furthermore, we have a special duty to ensure that prescription medications foster children are receiving are effective and appropriate instead of quick and easy. And finally, we don't provide adequate assistance for Native American children who are removed from their homes and then cared for by tribal communities. For Anthony Reeves and every foster child, we can and must do better. And that is why we are here today. The Fostering Connections Success Act addresses many of these issues. The legislation would allow States to extend foster care assistance up to age 21, giving young men and women more time to get an education and become truly self-sufficient. Recognizing that many grandparents and other relatives want to provide loving, permanent homes for children in foster care, the bill would provide Federal payments to relatives who become legal guardians of children for whom they have cared for as foster parents. It also requires improved efforts to keep siblings together when they are removed from their homes. The measure would require increased oversight of the health care needs of foster kids. And there is a renewed attention paid to ensuring educational stability for foster children in foster care, including avoiding frequent school changes. Additionally, the bill gives tribes equal and fair access to Federal resources dedicated to keeping vulnerable children safe. For the first time, tribal child welfare programs could directly receive Federal foster care financing. The legislation also provides new resources to ensure all child welfare workers have access to training, which ultimately results in better care for kids. And, finally, this bill extends and improves incentives for States that increase the number of children adopted out of the foster care system. The legislation includes two provisions outside of the foster care system which save money and thereby ensure that the bill is budget neutral. The first provision reduces Federal tax refunds for individuals who have fraudulently collected unemployment insurance. The same policy has already passed the House once. The second provision will allow the Treasury Department to improve the management of the government's short-term operating cash to achieve a better rate of return. While this bill doesn't do all that's needed, it does meet many of the critical challenges in our foster care system. We received a letter today from the American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000 professionals, urging passage. The academy said: ``Our Nation has a moral and legal obligation to provide the best possible care to these most vulnerable children.'' I couldn't agree more. The legislation is bipartisan, budget neutral, and good for children, and deserves every Member's support. Before I yield to my ranking member on the subcommittee and the co- author of this bill, let me first thank him for his dedication to foster children and his willingness to find common ground. Jerry Weller has been a true partner in doing what is right for our most vulnerable children. He's retiring from Congress this year, and I can think of no better parting gift than passing a bipartisan bill he worked on to improve the lives of foster children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Fattah), who has been the chairman of the Forum on Children, which the Speaker created.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6307) to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to assist children in foster care in developing or maintaining connections to family, community, support, health care, and school, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, we've just been treated to a lecture to a third grade class about what pollution we ought to worry about. Apparently, my colleague from Texas doesn't understand that the problem is that, when you burn oil, you pollute the atmosphere, and that's where the real problem is and why finding more oil is not the answer to the world's problems. The American people have had a few days to consider the President's call to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. The New York Times calls it ``The Big Pander to Big Oil,'' saying, ``This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then, the benefits will be years away.'' The Los Angeles Times was even blunter in its characterization of this proposal by our President. It said, ``It's nonsense for them to use the run-up in gas prices as an excuse to advocate offshore drilling.'' Continuing, ``What's really needed, though, is a moratorium on worthless suggestions from politicians for lowering gas prices.'' The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's editorial, up north from Los Angeles, said, ``Offshore drilling: This well is dry.'' They said, ``But drilling/plundering our coasts for about 19 billion barrels of oil--that's really all that's available--is akin to placing a Band-Aid on the hemorrhaging wound that is our oil-dependent, wasteful lifestyle.'' The Seattle Times called it Bush's last gasp on oil, and their editorial said, ``Longing for a higher mileage vehicle in the face of gasoline at $4.30 a gallon? The President's response has been ANWR, not CAFE. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)--drilling in a wildlife refuge, not fuel efficiency.'' There's a pattern here from coast to coast. The American people are tired of rhetoric that fails to meet the reality test. The oil industry already has access to 68 million acres of Federal oil reserves, but they are only pumping out press releases. The President already has access to mountains of data on the urgent need to dramatically change our energy policy to focus on renewable resources, conservation and efficiency. Instead, the President gives us political expediency that will not fill a gas tank, that will not lower gas prices and that will not help our addiction to oil. For the first time, Congress will have to go it alone to shape energy policy for the 21st century. Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, has shown that the people's House is up to the task. This week, the House will consider several bills from Democratic leadership that builds upon our existing record for bold, new energy legislation. We are going to take up legislation that holds oil companies accountable, but the fact is we may not get it all done, and we may have to wait for a new President. As long as the oil dynasty occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we're not going to get any serious changes in this country. So hang onto your hats, folks. You're going to have a lot of trouble with oil prices and with gas prices over the next few months.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, as a child psychiatrist, I have seen lots of these kids. I have seen them both in detention centers and in mental health facilities and in a variety of settings in which youngsters with really severe problems, people try to handle them. And it is with that in mind, that is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs For Teens Act of 2008. It was introduced by my friend, George Miller, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of what is a very important piece of legislation that will help protect America's kids. In answer to the remarks of one of my colleagues just a moment ago about whether or not maybe we ought to let California deal with their problems, this is a problem nationwide. This is not a California problem. There are parents all over this country who have severely disturbed youngsters who try to find a place to place a kid in hopes that the program that is offered will in some way help their child get back on the track to being a successful adult. There are thousands of these youngsters every year that look for a place, some in their States, some outside their State. Parents know what they know. They may not know what the rules are in various States, and in some ways it is almost inevitable something like this, because of the transfer across State lines, that we have a national standard by which we require programs to operate. They go to these programs for help in facing behavior and emotional problems, substance abuse and sometimes elements of building self- confidence that are known as bootstrap programs or wilderness camps or self-help boarding schools, and they operate across the country. Now the teenagers who come into these programs receive help.

Mr. McDERMOTT. But tragically, Madam Chairman, they sometimes become the victims of child abuse and neglect. And you have heard about the GAO study, and I think there are plenty of examples about why this is necessary. The bill would stop any program from restraining kids for any reason other than safety. It would stop a program from withholding essential food and water, clothing and shelter. It would mandate education and training for workers. It would require operators to disclose everything from the roles and responsibilities of their employees to confirmed cases of abuse. Now to ensure compliance, the department will be empowered to carry out unannounced inspections and enforcement. And above all, this bill places the safety and well-being of the child above marketing hype and unscrupulous operators. In some cases, people have closed a program in one State and moved to another State. These programs that truly help children with a positive, uplifting experience will only benefit from this legislation. There is no place in America for a program that hurts kids who are there trying to get help. This is not a bootstrap program, it is a dangerous program that should be changed or shut down, and I urge my colleagues to support this. To allow children who are unable to control their own emotions and their own well-being to be in the hands of people who aren't thinking about them from their safety first is really a misguided program, and this bill will correct that.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I am really very proud to rise in support of a resolution put forward by my friend and colleague, John Lewis. This is a man who has risked his own life fighting for civil rights, helping to bridge a racial divide during one of America's worst times. This was a time when it took real courage to go out in the streets and do things. John walked with Martin and with John and with Bobby as they dealt with the threats of racial violence. There was clearly fear in everyone. Anybody who went out was fearful; if they didn't, they didn't know what they were doing. John Lewis is a towering figure who, in his own right, has left his mark in this country. And it is fitting and proper that he should bring a resolution honoring these three civil rights workers whose lives ended 44 years ago in Mississippi at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan. Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner were killed in that Freedom Summer of 1964. The widow of one of them is now a distinguished lawyer and a good friend in Seattle. She lives on in the memory of her husband. Their deaths sparked a national firestorm of anger and awareness that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Honoring them honors everyone who fought for civil rights and those who suffered great personal sacrifice during times when justice was neither blind nor fair in America. It reminds me of the injustice America is only beginning to correct for a group of African American soldiers stationed in Fort Lawton in Seattle. Because of the color of their skin, they were denied equal justice and they were wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit, were sent to prison, and were given bad conduct discharges. We must never forget the lessons of history or we risk repeating them. The resolution Mr. Lewis of Georgia offers will help us remain vigilant in defending civil rights and civil liberties, and help us protect the Nation these people died to defend. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the resolution offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it says something about tensions in the world today when the first thing I want to enter into the Record is a reminder of my strong and long-standing commitment to the defense of Israel, the safety and security of the Jewish people, and the absolute right of Israel to exist. I offer this preamble because I also want to say I am deeply troubled by the news reports around the world today that Israel recently conducted a major military exercise in what many military analysts see as training for a possible strike against Iran. The United States supplies Israel with billions of dollars in military hardware, training and intelligence, and I believe it is both appropriate and urgent for the U.S. to raise questions about their intentions and to aggressively pursue diplomacy in this region. We have made such a mess of things in Iraq that it's hard to believe that any nation can think war can achieve peace. News reports say Israel conducted a massive military exercise in plain sight to send signals to the United States, Europe, and Iran that Israel is prepared to launch a massive military strike against targets in Iran if diplomatic efforts to halt or delay its nuclear program fail. Almost immediately, Iran retaliated in the press saying any attack against its proud nation with a strong military capability would be met with an equally massive counteroffensive. The media reminds us that Iran has just taken delivery of accurate Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. We are edging perilously close to a hair-trigger moment when someone, somewhere, will do something that turns saber rattling into a provocative military confrontation, and we will be at war again on another front. I am deeply worried by that. There are those who would have us believe that U.S. military superiority ultimately trumps any nation, any force. We are the most powerful military Nation on Earth, but with power comes responsibility, accountability and leadership. For all the bombs and guns and missiles we have at our disposal, history is replete with failed policies and missions and dubious figureheads we propped up against the will of the people, and any rational approach to U.S. foreign policy. This includes the history of our U.S. secret involvement in Iran in the 1950s when we and the British worked to overthrow and replace the Iran elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the Shah of Iran. We kept him in office because we wanted a direct pipeline to Iran's oil well. As the most powerful Nation on Earth, you would think that we could do a lot more to prevent war than simply wringing our hands while we read the newspapers. And I think we can. First, we have to abandon the notion that all U.S. policy begins and ends behind the butt of a gun. Now some will stand up and say, Well, that is just Jim McDermott, the doctor, who believes we don't have to use guns to fight for peace. Well, I have some company. I would like to enter into the Record a story carried earlier this week in the Asia Times. It reports on the first conference held by the Center for New American Security. Ambassador James Dobbins, who was special envoy to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo under President Clinton and special envoy to Afghanistan under the current President Bush said that this was about U.S. policy in Iran: ``I reject the theory that the implicit threat of force is a necessary prerequisite to successful diplomacy.'' Let me read the news story: ``Looking back on 40 years of U.S. diplomacy, Dobbins, now director of the Rand International Security and Defense Policy Center, concluded that the conventional wisdom about the need to back up diplomacy with your adversaries with force is wrong. ``'I can say that most of it was not conducted against a background of threat of force,' said Dobbins, `and when the threat of force was introduced, diplomacy failed.' ``In a line that got applause from the more than 750 people attending the conference, Dobbins said his solution was to `deal with Iran.' '' I urge everyone to read this story and I urge the administration and the Congress to start asking tough questions and demanding straight answers while there is still time. We have seen what strikes in Iraq did back in the 1980s. We saw a strike in Syria a few months ago, and we are going to wake up one morning with another problem on our hands if we don't start asking serious, tough questions of this administration. [From the Asia Times, Jun. 17, 2008] Deal, Deal, Deal With Iran (By Gareth Porter) Washington--The assumption that the United States should exploit its military dominance to exert pressure on adversaries has long dominated the thinking of the US national security and political elite. But this central tenet of conventional security doctrine was sharply rejected last week by a senior practitioner of crisis diplomacy at the debut of a major new centrist foreign policy think-tank. At the first conference of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), ambassador James Dobbins, who was former president Bill Clinton's special envoy for Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo and the George W Bush administration's first special envoy to Afghanistan, sharply rejected the well-established concept of coercive diplomacy. Dobbins declared in a panel on Iran policy, ``I reject the theory that the implicit threat of force is a necessary prerequisite to successful diplomacy.'' Looking back on 40 years of US diplomacy, Dobbins, now director of the Rand International Security and Defense Policy Center, concluded that the conventional wisdom about the need to back up diplomacy with adversaries with force is wrong. ``I can say that most of it was not conducted against a background of threat of force,'' said Dobbins, and when the threat of force was introduced, ``diplomacy failed''. In diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Union, however, Dobbins said, ``We never threatened to use force.'' Dobbins complained that the debate over diplomacy with regard to Iran has been between those who are ready to use military force now and those who ``say we should talk with them first''. Advocates of diplomacy, he said, have to ``meet a high threshold--they have to offer the reversal of all Iranian positions''. In effect, they have to deliver Iranian ``capitulation'', said Dobbins. Although very different from the Soviet Union as a threat, Dobbins observed, Iran is similar in that ``we can't afford to ignore it and we can't overrun it''. Real diplomacy in regard to Iran, he argued, would result in ``better information and better options''. In a line that got applause from the more than 750 people attending the conference, Dobbins said his solution was to ``deal with Iran''. The Dobbins argument represents the first high-profile challenge by a veteran of the US national security community to a central tenet of national security officials and the US political elite ever since the end of the Cold War. The recently established CNAS has strong connections with former Clinton administration national security officials and the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. CNAS president Michele A. Flournoy and chief executive officer Kurt M. Campbell both held positions in the Clinton Defense Department. William J. Perry and Madeleine K. Albright, Clinton's secretaries of defense and state, respectively, gave opening remarks at the conference. The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and of the national security elite has long associated itself with the idea that the threat of military force--and even force itself--should be at the center of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Key figures from the Clinton administration, including Perry, Albright, former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke, former assistant secretary of state James P. Rubin and former deputy national security adviser James Steinberg, lined up in support of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Flournoy and Campbell have already made it clear that CNAS' orientation will be to hew the common ground uniting the national security professionals who have served administrations of both parties. Flournoy co-authored an op- ed with former Bush administration deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage two days before the NCAS conference, and Armitage also introduced the conference. A paper by Flournoy and two junior co-authors ostensibly calling for a new U.S. ``grand strategy'' is notable for its reluctance to go too far in criticizing the Bush administration's policies. It argues that the current US positions in Iraq pose the ``real threat of strategic exhaustion'' and calls for ``rebalancing risk'', but offers no real alternative to indefinite continuation of the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it urged the ``rearticulation'' of goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan by replacing the ``maximalist language used in past years'' with ``pragmatism''. But the choice of Dobbins to anchor a panel on Iran indicates that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and of the national security community now has serious doubts about the coercive diplomacy approach to Iran that has dominated policy thinking since the beginning of the Clinton administration. A paper on Iran policy co-authored by Campbell and released at the conference reflects a new skepticism toward the threat of an attack on Iran as a way of obtaining Iranian cooperation. It argues that U.S. military threats against Iran ``have had the opposite effect'' from what was desired, hardening the resolve of Iranian leaders to enrich uranium and giving the Islamic regime greater credibility with the Iran people. The paper also reflected an unwillingness to dispense entirely with the military option, however, proposing that the United States ``de-emphasize, but not forswear, the possibility of military action against Iran''. The paper advised against even taking the military threat off the table in return for Iran's stopping its nuclear program, on the ground that Washington must be able to use that threat to bargain with Iran over ``stopping its support for terrorism''. The principal author of the paper, James N. Miller, who is senior vice president and director of studies at CNAS, explained in an interview after the conference that he believes Dobbins' assessment of the problem is ``about right''. Miller said the threat to use force against Iran to coerce it on its nuclear program ``is not useful or credible now''. But Miller said he would not give up that threat, because the next president might enter into serious negotiations with Iran, and Iran might refuse to ``play ball'' and go ahead with plans to acquire nuclear weapons. If the president had a strong coalition behind him, he said, ``The use of force is an option that one should consider.'' The idea that diplomatic negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program must be backed by the threat of war is so deeply entrenched in Washington that endorsement of it seems to have become a criteria for any candidate being taken seriously by the national security community. Thus all three top Democratic hopefuls supported it during their primary fight for the Democratic nomination. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention in early 2007, Hillary Clinton said that, in dealing with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear capability, ``no option can be taken off the table''. Barack Obama and John Edwards also explicitly refused to rule out the use of force against Iran if it refused to accept U.S. demands to end its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I think I have walked into a meeting of the Republican drilling caucus. If they would remember a little history, they would remember that Mr. Cheney had a meeting down at the White House back in 2001 and all of the oil company executives came in, and it was a secret meeting. We have yet to find out who was there, what the agenda was, or whoever. But we can now, 8 years later, see the agenda, create chaos in the Middle East, attack Iraq, destabilize the oil fields, threaten Iran. Let's drive up the price of oil. Gasoline was $1.47 when George Bush took control, and here we are, it's $4. They have absolutely succeeded. Now at the end of that meeting they said, and, really, the best part of this is, we are going to get the right to drill in ANWR. Let's blame the environmentalists. They won't let us build refineries. The reason we don't build refineries is because oil companies don't want to follow the rules. The only thing they drill the hole in is the bottom of the economic boat in this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, I've spent the last 6 months fighting for passage of the emergency unemployment extension. The American people needed a helping hand back in January when I introduced the legislation, and they need it now more than ever. Just the other day, my home State of Washington reported the largest 1-month increase in unemployment in 28 years. The unemployment rate spiked in just 1 month from 4.7 to 5.3 percent. We saw much the same happen at the national level. Yet for all the evidence, all the objective data, we saw the White House order Senate Republicans to drag their feet until the President got his way. Last week, the House voted overwhelmingly to pass emergency unemployment on its own merits. We achieved a two-thirds vote in here, veto-proof. So what did the President do? He ordered the Senate Republicans to withhold help from the Americans until he could force Congress to cut out the extra help needed in badly hit States like Michigan, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, California and the District of Columbia. Today we're going to get the best that we can get from a lame duck President and the Senate Republicans. John Mccain must have written off Michigan and California. But the American people have been hit hard by economic calamity, rooted in the disastrous policies of this administration, and they deserve better than this. When Americans can't find jobs because this President and Senate Republicans have tanked the economy, I submit the wrong people are standing in the unemployment line. And I trust the American people will remember in November who fought for them and who fought against them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you for yielding. If you read the history of the enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act, the last issue argued in the United States Congress was an amendment by the Republicans trying to take out unemployment benefits because they said it weakened the will of people to search for work. It is a long, distinguished record.

Mr. McDERMOTT. This was put into the law in 1981 when the workforce was entirely different. Women were not such a big part of the workforce, we did not have part-time jobs. When you have this provision in the law you are denying extended benefits to about 10 percent of the people who have exhausted their benefits. Because they did not work full time, they don't get anything, and these objections are simply a reflection of the Republicans, the fact they do not want to give unemployment benefits. Vote for the rule. Vote for the bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Bible says, ``By their deeds, you shall know them.'' The Republicans do not want to help unemployed workers in this country. It is as simple as that. If you go back to the debate in 1935 and come forward, the Republicans have always resisted the idea of unemployment benefits because the argument is that people will sit at home and wait for a check and that they will then not go out and look for work. Now, it's clear that's not true and now, today, what they are hanging their hat on is some mythical worker out there who has worked 2 weeks and is going to get full benefits. That simply is misleading in the very plainest form. Madam Speaker, I have a letter which I ask to enter into the Record from the Oregon Unemployment Department, signed by Tom Byerley. State of Oregon, Employment Department, Salem, OR, June 11, 2008. Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Professional Staff, House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: In the deliberations by Congress relating to a proposal to extend unemployment insurance benefits, it has come to my attention that Oregon has been held up as an example as a state where a worker could work only three weeks during the base period upon which the claim was filed and qualify for 26 weeks of regular state benefits and an additional 13 weeks, or 26 depending on the unemployment rate, of benefits under the bill to extend claims. That is not true. In Oregon a worker must have a minimum of $1,000 in earnings for the entire base year. In addition, he must have total base year wages in an amount equal to or in excess of one and one half times the wages in the highest quarter. Oregon Revised Statute 657.150(2)(a)(A). With only three weeks of work, the only way this worker could qualify would be to work in two separate quarters. As an example, when an individual worked only three weeks in the base year, we'll place one week of work in one quarter and two in the subsequent quarter. In this scenario, let's say the second quarter where the claimant worked two weeks would be the highest quarter since he worked two weeks and only one week in the prior quarter. In simplest terms, he earns $333 for one week in the first quarter and $667 for two weeks of work in the second quarter. That gives him the minimum required wage threshold of $ 1,000 total earnings to qualify and gives him wages of one and one half times in the highest quarter in total base year wages. This worker would qualify for $108 per week for 3.08 weeks. $108 for three weeks and the last payment would be $9. This worker would not receive the full 26 weeks. Our law provides that if total base year wages are between $1,000 and $8,423.99, the maximum award will always be 1/3 of the total base year wages or in this case, $333. I cannot speculate how our law could be misconstrued to say that someone with the minimum wages to qualify for a claim would be able to claim the maximum award or 26 weeks. The information I have reviewed that I understand has been referenced in the ``Highlights of State Unemployment Compensation Laws, January 2007'' published by the National Foundation for Unemployment and Worker's Compensation (UWC) on pages 53 through 56 entitled ``Qualifying Requirements'' (copy attached) is accurate. In fact, we provide that data on an annual basis. To read this to say you only have to work three weeks to qualify for a maximum claim of 26 weeks is simply reading something into our qualifying requirements that isn't there. I hope this information is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 947-1707 if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Tom Byerley, UI Director. This letter says, ``In the deliberations by Congress relating to a proposal to extend unemployment insurance benefits, it has come to my attention that Oregon has been held up as an example as a State where a worker could work only 3 weeks during the base period and receive 26 weeks of benefits and an additional 13 weeks. That is not true.'' He goes on to say, ``I cannot speculate how our law could be misconstrued to say that someone with the minimum wages to qualify for a claim would be able to claim the maximum award'' or benefit. Now, what Members have to understand is the qualification for unemployment is decided by State legislatures. They make the decision. Many of them do not start the quarter that you are in. If you lost your job today, they would not count back to the 1st of April, they will not count to the first of the year, they would start counting last year in 2007. So he gives an example, suppose somebody worked one week in September and two weeks in October, and they made $1,000. They would be eligible in Oregon for a check of $108 for three weeks and $9 in the fourth week. Now, if you want to hold up benefits for 1.5 million people in the United States for one lone Oregon duck who got $108 for three weeks and $9 in the fourth week, you go ahead. Your decision will be from the voters in your districts in this election. This is a red herring. It has been.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have trouble following the logic that you would vote ``no'' because it isn't going to become law. Why don't you vote ``yes'' and put it over there, and maybe the Senate this time will come to their senses and do something with this proposal? It's been over there since May 15. And I think that it really is an issue that we ought to give them one more chance to come to their senses. Now, when you compare the unemployment rate of today with 1996, I really appreciate that because during the Clinton administration there were 20 million new jobs created, and in 1996, they were creating hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. In this administration, over the last 5 months we've lost a quarter of a million jobs. This is a totally different time. There are huge problems out there, and they're not getting any better. And they're not going to get solved here today by, ``let's open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.'' Even if we did that, the oil wouldn't be here for about 4 years, and a lot of people on unemployment would be pretty hungry waiting for that job in the oil industry 4 years from now. Mr. Speaker, the American people should only have one question in their minds today: How bad does it have to get before the President and the Republican leadership decide to join the Democrats in extending a helping hand for unemployment benefits? The revised data released by the Labor Department today shows things are even worse than we thought. Now the decision is up to us. I introduced this legislation and invited my friend and colleague, Republican Representative Phil English, to join me because helping the American people to survive during tough economic times should not be a partisan issue. People say it has become a partisan issue here. Well, yeah, the White House has made it a partisan issue. They've said there's no problem, and they will not sign a bill that we craft. They've made their mind up before they even have a chance to look at it. But too many others on the other side have made it just that. The American people woke up this morning to some bad economic news, and our efforts to help them were derailed by the Republican obstructionists. Those headlines, ``Republicans kill extended unemployment benefits,'' you're going to have another set if you're not careful. We talked a lot yesterday and today about unemployment rates exceeding 6 or 7 percent in several parts of the country, and the devastating impact of those rates. Now, I confess I'm not an economist--I know that's no surprise--but let me predict that the unemployment rate among House Republican Members will go a whole lot higher than 7 percent if they continue to refuse to help the American people in this growing economic crisis. It's called the Emergency Extended Unemployment Insurance Act of 2008 because it is an emergency, and the time to act is right now. A vote for H.R. 5749 is a vote to help the American people and the American economy.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. I love to hear the Republican talking points said over and over again. I have counted now the phrase ``8 weeks'' since we passed this bill out of the committee. I have heard it 19 times so far and I expect we will hear it at least nineteen-hundred times before we pass the bill. But the fact is that the ranking member knows he could have voted ``yes'' when it came out of committee. He could have voted ``yes'' when it was on the floor on the 15th of May which is when we voted on this. We already have taken action on it once; and he had a chance yesterday to vote ``yes'' on it, but he said ``no'' again. And I suspect today-- well, we'll see what he does. Maybe he will change his mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume because it is a new day and we woke up with some bad news about the U.S. economy. The Washington Post has the story, ``A new report from the Federal Reserve paints a portrait of the U.S. economy under pressure from almost every sector. Across the board, the U.S. economy is deteriorating, including jobs.'' And here we are again today trying to help the American people by passing the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008. Yesterday, 144 Republican Members ignored the will of the people and instead followed the whim of a lame duck President. If three votes had switched, we would have had enough votes to pass this bill and give the American people the help they need. They didn't, so we're back here today because we're going to make it happen. The economic data paint a compelling case for immediate action. But my Republican colleague stood at the podium yesterday, and did it again today, waving a veto threat from the White House. This is the President who's given us this war that's put us in a terrible mess. He's given us bank problems and every other thing that's going on, gas prices. And now he waves a letter and says, we don't want to do anything for the unemployed who've exhausted their benefits. They hid behind rhetoric that pretends to contend itself with people qualifying for benefits. They served up a real cold red herring for dinner last night for those people that exhausted their benefits, because they simply want to deny American workers unemployment benefits. Remember, this money didn't come out of the tax base. It came from their employers who paid it into a trust fund for exactly this purpose; when they lose their job, they should have access to it. Now, let me be clear. This 20-week rule that we hear yelled about here, that many Republicans want included in the bill, would mean that workers could work for over 10 straight months and be denied extended benefits, depending on the vagaries of the various laws in States across this country. The Department of Labor has estimated that around 10 percent of those who've exhausted their benefits might be excluded from extended benefits if we were to include this 20-week rule. These workers are disproportionately low-wage, part-time, minority and women. In other words, the Republicans propose to solve a problem by creating one. Instead of helping people, the Republicans' alternative is to penalize workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Very typical. Look at the tax cuts. The American people need solutions, and that's what H.R. 5749 is about. It would immediately provide 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers in every State who've exhausted their benefits. It provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits in States with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher. This bill is targeted. You hear them say we want a targeted bill. Of course it's targeted. It's targeted to do one thing, to help those people who need it the most. Here's how it works. Anyone a State qualifies for unemployment benefits, and who has exhausted what the State has provided them, would be eligible for extended benefits of the same amount for half as long as the State provided them. So, if you received 26 weeks in your State from the State, and you run out, you get 13 more weeks of extended benefits. If you get 10 weeks from your State, you will get 5 weeks more of extended benefits. The Federal Reserve outlook wasn't the only piece of information we received yesterday. A little while ago the Labor Department announced that initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped more than expected last week. The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last week increased 384,000 people, in 1 week. And all the Republicans want to do is wave a veto letter from the White House. Helping the American people should not be a partisan issue; but the Republicans and the president are trying to make it just that. Yesterday we had a bipartisan bill. Almost 50 Republicans voted for it. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow their conscience and not their caucus and vote with the Democrats to help the American people. The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 is the least we can do for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. We have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Levin from Michigan will have 3 minutes. I yield to the gentleman. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.