Jim McDermott

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 don't know if I walked into the wrong place or not. I thought we were talking about unemployment, but all I hear is a lot of talk about energy. Now, I don't know if the Members on the other side have forgotten what the subject is today or exactly what the problem is, but the fact is that we didn't wait 8 weeks. My ranking member, Mr. Weller, knows better than that. We voted on May 15 on this issue, and it's sitting over in the Senate. The Senate Republicans have got their foot on it. And the White House hasn't said ``boo'' to them. So the Republicans are killing this proposal over there in the Senate. We're going to send it back to them another way. And I think they will have a second chance to think about it. The closer we get to the election, I think the more interested they will get in this issue. But there's one issue here that I think somehow with the straw man that keeps getting put up here for everybody to look at, this person out there somewhere in Oregon or Illinois that worked for two weeks and is going to get unemployment benefits. We're not talking about somebody on welfare here. We're talking about somebody who worked. Now, my opponents on the other side keep sounding like we're talking about the dregs of the earth, people who are just stealing or somehow sneaking in and maneuvering and somehow getting something they're not entitled to. When they worked, their employer put money into the unemployment trust for their benefit. Some people on the other side believe that we ought to have States' rights. States ought to be able to do stuff. Okay. States write the unemployment laws for their State. And in Illinois, it is true that if you work for two weeks, one week in one quarter and one week in another quarter, and your total wages are $1,600, so that means you worked one week and got $800; and then, just lucky, your next week of work was in another quarter, you got $800, you would be eligible in Illinois for $51 a week for 26 weeks for a grand total of $1,326. That comes from a letter from the Department of Employment Security signed by Joseph Mueller, which I will now insert into the Record. Illinois, Department of Employment Security, Chicago, IL, June 12, 2008. Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta, House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: With regard to the hypothetical you pose, if worker X worked three weeks in IL, he or she might well not be entitled to any unemployment benefits. To qualify for unemployment benefits in IL, an individual must have been paid at least $1600 during his/her ``base period,'' receiving at least $440 outside the base period quarter in which his/her wages were the highest. Consequently, to qualify, worker X's three weeks of wages would have had to straddle two base period quarters, with at least $440 being paid in the ``low quarter.'' Assuming he/she did qualify, worker X's benefit amount would depend upon the amount of wages he/she was paid during his/her base period. A claimant's weekly benefit amount in IL can range from $51 to $376. If worker X just met the $1,600/$440 requirement, he/she would be entitled to $51/wk for up to 26 weeks (a total of $1,326). To qualify for what is the current average weekly benefit payment in IL, worker X would have had to receive over $4700/ wk. As an aside, three weeks' worth of wages would not qualify an individual receiving IL's current minimum wage of $7.75/ hr, even if the payments did straddle two base period quarters. In conclusion, it would be theoretically possible for an individual with three weeks' worth of base period wages--and 49 weeks with no wages for employment--to qualify for benefits in IL. However, the three weeks would have to fall ``just right'' and average over $500/wk. IDES's system does not track the number of weeks individuals work. However, based on anecdotal feedback from program staff, it does not seem this theoretical possibility has been a common occurrence, if it has ever occurred. You also pose a hypothetical in which worker X works just two weeks. It would be theoretically possible to qualify for benefits with just two weeks' worth of wages. Again, however, the wages would have to straddle two base period quarters and, in that scenario, average $800/wk. It seems this has not been a common occurrence either. Sincerely, Jospeh P. Mueller, Legal Counsel. I don't know. Maybe Illinois is a lot easier to live in than Washington State, but getting $1,326 for 6 months is not exactly a living wage. I mean, anybody who sits at home and waits for their $51 check and says, Oh great, I'm going to live on $51 this week. I don't know where they live in Illinois. I don't believe it is in Chicago. Must be way down somewhere in the south end of the State or somewhere. I don't know how you could live on that. To think that that person is a slug who's just sitting there and saying, Well, I have got this $51 check coming, I don't believe I'm going to go look for work, is implying that that person is not a responsible human being who's been trying to get work and has worked in the past and is getting benefits that they earned to which they are entitled. Now, if that's the reason the Republicans want to hang it up and not vote for this bill and say we're not going to give those extended benefits because there's one person in Illinois somewhere who worked for 2 weeks and made the minimum benefit and gets 26 weeks of $51 a week, if that's what you're going to go home and explain on the campaign trail why you didn't extend unemployment benefits to people who had exhausted their benefits, that's going to be real interesting to watch because I don't think the people of Illinois or any other State are going to buy this kind of an argument. When we asked this question in Oregon, they said it isn't true. There isn't anybody getting benefits like that. Now, it seems to me that it just comes back to the point that you really don't want to vote for unemployment benefits. I understand it's been the party's policy since 1935. You have never liked it because you thought it weakened people's resolve. That is the talk of somebody who has never been unemployed. If you have lived in a house where somebody has been unemployed and have seen what it does to the family when the father or the mother can't bring home a paycheck, you don't look at those people and say, Well, they're taking something that isn't theirs, when they paid for this benefit into the unemployment trust. They are entitled to this. It would be the same as saying to old people, Well, you're taking that Social Security that was paid into the trust for you, and somehow you're not entitled to it. We don't do that. America looks after the weakest. That's how you judge whether a society is really strong or not. I recognize the Speaker for 1 minute.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5749.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 5749.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Mr. Hoyer first, and then let you come, and then I will close. We got our wires crossed.

Mr. McDERMOTT. To Mr. Hoyer from Maryland I yield the remaining time. We have the right to close, however, I think.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what is the remaining time?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois says that he would go for this bill but for this one provision. If that one provision were there, he would go for it. But the fact is that you have 100 metropolitan areas in this country where people simply have run out of benefits. And it is over 6 percent in those metropolitan areas. The Governors have asked us for this, and the technical thing that my opponent uses is, you know, somewhere out there, there is somebody who paid $40 into the fund, and because of the way it is written, he gets $20 out, and so I can't vote for it. Well there are 1.6 million who already exhausted their benefits, and there are many more. And the national Governors sent this letter to us. They are not the only ones. State legislator, labor unions, everyone is asking for this. You can vote ``no'' if you want. You will have to face your constituency in November.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it's hard for me to understand why the gentleman from Illinois keeps bringing up his own State as an example of wasting money and he has never brought any legislation to fix what their stupid legislature has done. He is acting as though the people in his own State don't know what they're doing. Now, if somebody works, money is paid into the fund. If they work for a week in one quarter and a week in another quarter, it is possible that they might get $20 or some minimal benefit. To imply that working 2 weeks you get $400 a week, as you do in the State of Washington, for 26 weeks or 52 weeks is simply misleading, and he knows it. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on behalf of the American people. Every Member in the House is elected by the people, and today we're going to find out if Members remember who they work for. Before us is H.R. 5749, legislation I introduced because it's time the government work for the people and extend a helping hand to those who need a break. Contrary to what you have just heard, this bill was heard in the committee, was voted on in the committee, and three members of the Republican Party voted to move it out of the Ways and Means Committee. It was contained in the supplemental bill, and everybody in the House has had an opportunity to vote on it and discuss it. We are repassing it for the second time. Now, this legislation should pass without a single vote against it. And that's why it was put on the supplemental on the suspension calendar. No Member who's read a newspaper or spent any time in a congressional district talking to constituents lately could possibly miss the fact that the economy is in serious trouble and so are millions of Americans, and it will just keep getting worse until we act. Last Friday we saw the largest one-month jump in the unemployment rate in 22 years. Now does anyone doubt the gravity of that situation? Across America the unemployment rate is rising. It's over 7 percent in Michigan and above 6 percent in Alaska and a half a dozen other States. Eighteen percent of the unemployed in this country have not been able to find a job for at least 6 months. They have exhausted all of their benefits. And that is what this bill deals with. Everywhere you look, people are worried about their home and their family and their future. And no one feels safe no matter where they are. The economy has been claimed by the Iraq war. This wasteful, needless war has undermined our economy and put it on a deep, steep downward slide. Devastating energy and food prices have made the American people be up against the wall when businesses are shedding jobs to cope. It's been this way for months, and it's time for some relief. The White House has been fighting, and as Mr. Weller says, they've sent down from the administration a letter already saying they're going to veto it. Well, that's the administration. What do you expect out of that place? This bill would provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits to all States where people have exhausted their regular unemployment. It gives another 13 weeks in States where the unemployment rate is above 6 percent. The usual UI benefit is less than $300 a week. That's poverty level assistance for a family struggling in an economy when gasoline is $4 a gallon. There is not a congressional district in this country that isn't feeling the effects of this downturn. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents who need help, and they are the workers we are working for, presumably. This bill is a lifeboat to the American people to stay afloat during increasingly tough economic times. Anybody who votes against this bill is voting against reality. They are denying it. Now, sometimes the American people watch this session out of interest, but today, they're watching because there's an urgent need to receive some help. This issue of the 20 weeks is being held up as the reason why I'm going to vote against it. The Labor Department analyzed the fact that that unduly affects low-wage workers and women because they work part- time. We hear that if you work 2 weeks you can get a year's benefits. Are you saying that the Governor of Illinois or the Governor of Michigan or the Governor of Pennsylvania is stupid and he's just throwing money out the window? These are qualified by the State-level people, and you know you can't give me one example of any place--people say Oregon, if you work 2 weeks in Oregon, you somehow are going to get a year's benefits for 2 weeks. There is no State in the Union where that is true. Give me one example. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I would also like to enter into the Record a letter from the National Governors Association dated May 1, 2008, asking us to extend unemployment benefits to exhausted unemployment enrollees. National Governors Association, Washington, DC, May 1, 2008. Hon. Max Baucus, Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim McCrery, Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, Chairman Rangel and Representative McCrery: On behalf of the nation's governors, we write to express our support for an extension of unemployment benefits and to request federal assistance for states to serve a growing number of jobless individuals. In the last month, 36 states experienced an increase in the unemployment rate. The national unemployment rate increased to 5.1 percent in March 2008. Most notable, however, is the significant number of individuals that are unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, thus exhausting all unemployment benefits. Today, approximately 16.7 percent of jobless individuals are experiencing long-term unemployment compared to approximately 11 percent at the beginning of the last recession. Beginning in 1935, a federal-state partnership was formed to create an unemployment program that would provide a core stabilizing function during economic downturns through short- term income support for jobless individuals. In prior recessions including the economic downturn that began in 2001, Congress and the Administration utilized the program to extend unemployment benefits to jobless individuals. At the same time, any proposal to extend unemployment benefits must also address the reality that states need additional resources to administer unemployment claims for a larger number of individuals for a longer period of time. This year alone, states may have to administer an average of nearly 400,000 unemployment insurance claims without federal funding. Federal support is needed by state employment and workforce agencies to administer increased initial unemployment claims, to support weekly unemployment benefits, and to provide employment and training services. Given the current economic indicators and historical precedent, governors believe it is prudent and appropriate for Congress and the Administration to enact a temporary federally funded extension of unemployment insurance benefits and to provide a sufficient increase in funding for states to assist jobless individuals during this period of economic slowdown. We stand ready to work with you and thank you for your leadership on this issue of national importance. Sincerely, Governor Donald L. Carcieri, Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee. Governor Brad Henry, Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, to correct something that has just been said on the floor, I understand that someone may not have read the bill. There is no mandate in this bill that any State has to do anything. They can enter into an agreement with the Federal Government and take this money. They are not forced to do anything. And I'm sure every smart Governor will figure out what to do. I yield 1 minute to Ms. Berkley from Nevada.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on June 9, I was unable to vote on House Resolutions 1225, 1243, and 127. Had I been able, I would have voted in support of these resolutions.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are coming to a moment of truth in a few hours for every Member of the House of Representatives. The truth is that every congressional district across the country, individuals and groups of people are struggling to find jobs in an economy cut down by a senseless, wasteful war, overwhelming energy prices, rising food prices and just bad business fundamentals. People can't find jobs because there aren't enough of them. The truth is 4 million have exhausted their unemployment benefits already and things could get even worse unless we pass the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008. The truth is the American people elected us to serve them, and the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act will be a test of whether the Members remember who they really work for, the people or Big Oil. We are hours away from a moment of truth. Vote for this bill, H.R. 5749, because Americans who work every day and lose their job through no fault of their own are entitled to a helping hand from their government.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: What I Can Do (By Philmon Haile) First of all I would like to thank Kirstin Hayden and all of the One World Now folks for inviting me to speak here today; and for bringing me home from our nation's capitol. When I was a younger man I dreamt I could change the world. However, as I grew older and wiser I realized that the world was too big and immovable and would not change. Consequently, I decided to take on a narrower target and change my country. However, as I grew older and wiser, I realized my country was too big, too fixed in its way of doing things, immovable and would not change. I therefore decided to address my city and community. However, once again as I grew older and wiser I realized that my city and community were too large and immovable and would not change. So, I decided that one last time I would try and change those nearest to me: my friends and family. But, as I had learned so many times before, those nearest to me--my friends and family--would not change. The problems I saw in the world included violence, intolerance, and racism. Broken and divided schools and cities, racial slurs, being spoken and glorified through the media. Growing up I heard phrases like ``you're not black enough'', to any African-American who stepped outside the circle and made white friends and listened to any other music other than Rap, or played any other sports besides basketball. I think ``you're not black enough'' is just another way to say you don't have sufficient hate for others. If being black means to hate, then I would rather be green. Of course this isn't what it means to be black. I've heard of genocide and gang violence. When I was born, my home country Eritrea had just finished a thirty-year war for independence from Ethiopia. A war is still going on today between the two countries, with a tense border conflict plaguing the people. I am close to this war because both parents were involved in it, a facet of my personal and family history. These problems are so real to me I pray every night for the safety of grandparents, who--as I speak--continue to live in a war torn country run by a dictator. Because these issues are so real, I spend a lot of time thinking about why this happens. I found the problem. People hurt each other because they had no idea what it felt to be the other party. I knew the answer too, and I thought the best way to end all of this was through education; uniting people through education; giving them a chance to learn about each other so they can coexist peacefully. Now, as I stand here, old and tired at the ripe old age of 17, I finally get it. Perhaps if I abolished my own stereotypes, I could have impacted my friends and family. Their change in turn may have influenced more people and could have changed my city and community and--who knows-- maybe even my country and the world: a ripple effect like a pebble in the pond. Let's be honest with ourselves--anyone who grows in this world has certain established mind sets and we all need to tear them down before we can progress and accept people for who they are. In order to be a successful leader, one must be willing to give up certain ideas, decisions and a degree of popularity in order to negotiate, mediate and decide what is in the best interest of the whole. The persona you create around you is how people perceive you. Without a positive attitude I've learned the ability to lead others confidently and work together is greatly diminished. Qualities of tolerance, openness, and optimism are what One World Now represents and instills in all their students, qualities that will reside and resonate forever. When I came to Garfield High School, I never thought that I could take Chinese especially for free, or much less use those skills and afford to study abroad. You know, my brother studied abroad just as I hope to. I know my family couldn't afford to send both my brother and me abroad. I know this is the case for many other people traveling on a One World Now! Scholarship. After my older brother, Robel discovered One World Now! I wanted to do it. We have a ``typical'' older- younger brother relationship, so he tells me that only upper classmen can be involved, so being the gullible freshman I was, I believed him, only to learn my sophomore year that freshmen were enrolled in One World Now! classes. It is amazing what One World Now! is doing, offering high school students classes in the two most critical world languages: Arabic and Chinese. Believe me, in my position as a Congressional Page, I hear about the Middle East and China in debates almost every day. If our leaders knew Chinese and Arabic and understood their cultures, this world would be a much different place. If they could have been involved in One World Now, they would have a better understanding. One World Now is more than just Chinese and Arabic classes and the free food at Friday leadership meetings: it is a melting pot--a place where I was exposed to many different cultures, races, and religions; a place where I made many good friends. Every week that I went to One World Now classes, I grew a little bit. I sometimes got tired of them saying ``get out of your comfort zone'' and ``be passionate'', but that was what really happened, at every meeting I felt I was stripped of all the walls I put up and just showed the bare and true Philmon. That's how you really gain social skills and grow as a person. There are so many different types of people you don't know how to act, so just act like yourself. That's how you really build character. The change that has occurred in me is something I can't describe, something deep within has changed. I am now able to communicate my ideas better, more powerfully. The only thing I can't communicate is the change that has occurred because it so deep within me, but resonates and I can always feel it. This is all because of One World Now and the opportunities offered me from their influence. Through One World Now, I've really walked a thousand miles. I am a different person than when I was a sophomore. When I was invited to be a U.S. House of Representatives Page and I accepted, I felt both sad and happy. The sadness came when I realized I would not be able to take One World Now classes every other day. Before I accepted, I went to the One World Now office and asked how this would affect my membership at One World Now. They told me that I will always be a part of the One World Now family, and that I could even apply to go to China with them this summer. I came to DC sad that I wouldn't be able to take Chinese in a formal Chinese class setting provided by One World Now, but I was determined I would not give up. I found the Chinese Cultural Center, and learned I could take Chinese there. So I went over there and they asked questions like ``how long have you been taking Chinese?'' and I told them one year, so they gave their second year test because they only offered up to Chinese level the level I should have been at. I took the test and they told me that I was too advanced to take their classes, so Teacher Sun (find her in the audience) if you're in the room, you taught me well. So I decided to become a volunteer and asked if they could only speak to me in Chinese. While in DC I still called my old Chinese classmates and teacher, to make sure I was caught up to where I needed to be. I was now ready to reap the benefits of the Congressional Page program. In this program I am able watch the debates of our country's architects. I think it is a blessing to watch the people who serve our country pass legislation. I have a new-found respect for the Congress of this nation. This program is perfect for me. Young people are asked what they want to be when they grow up, and I always had no idea, so I would fabricate one of the many formulated answers and say something like a doctor or a lawyer, not really knowing exactly what I was saying. Now I think I know. Just like Members of Congress, I want to devote my life to service and make a difference in the world. I would to be an Ambassador and work with different institutions around the world to make a change. Change to bring my home country of Eritrea, and bring its people, my people out of the straggling choke-hold of poverty, to bring peace to the border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. People of these countries are the same: they share the same religion, culture, and values, divided only by politics. A quote from George Bernard Shaw describes exactly how I feel: ``This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one: the being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I can live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for harder I work the more I live, I rejoice in life for its sake''. All this would not be possible without One World Now. Ms. Kristin Hayden nominated me to Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat from the Seventh Congressional District of Washington State. When I was lucky enough to get into the program, I was then one of ten Pages selected to stay for a second semester to be a role model for the new Pages who were coming in for the Spring Session. While in DC, I have thought about my summer a great deal. I would like to travel to China on a One World Now scholarship. I know this will be a fantastic. I am truly excited about traveling this summer. I will never forget what One World Now scholarships have offered me. Opportunities like these don't come every day, and One World Now isn't just an every day occurrence. I can guarantee you that Kirstin Hayden is talented and passionate; able to speak Russian and being a great entrepreneur that started this extraordinary program from scratch. This program started five years ago at Ingram High School, with one language, Chinese, and twelve students. Now this program has extended itself to Garfield, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Rainier Beach, and Franklin High Schools--six different schools! I hope that it can continue to spread and impact many other high school students and make the difference in their lives as it has made in my life. This reminds me of an anecdote. It is about a young man who tries to make a difference in the world: It was high tide and there were thousands of Starfishes washed up ashore, and a man saw a young man throwing star fish back into the sea, and asked ``What are you doing?'' The young man paused, looked up and replied, ``Throwing Starfish back into the ocean.'' ``I guess I should have asked; why are you are throwing Starfish into the ocean?'' said the bystander. ``The sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don't throw them in they'll die.'' The young man said. ``But don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and Starfish all along it, you can't possibly make a difference!'' The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another Starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves. ``It made a difference for that one.'' One World Now is the young man making a difference in students' lives. I am an example of that difference being made. And guess what? I am going to make a difference in others lives also. One World Now makes its difference in a very unique way, I think this is why One World Now is so great! It empowers those, like me, who have found their commitment in life. One World Now is worth supporting. One World Now is worth attending. It's lasting legacy, it's gifts to Seattle and to the Nation, are the gifts of students like me. As I grow older and wiser, I realize that the more I serve my community, I change myself for the better, and I am also changing the world.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I will give you a reason why we ought to have this amendment. We know what happens when we give this President a blank check. It always goes badly. We get a banner, Mission Accomplished, and he gets to continue a failed war that has now claimed the U.S. economy as its latest casualty. That is why I urge my colleagues to approve this Lee amendment. This lame duck President must not be able to indenture the next President to carry on a disastrous war of security. This is a lame duck administration trying to rewrite history, and they will tie the hands of the Nation into a knot in the process if we let them. The next President and the next Congress are the only ones who should determine the future policy in Iraq. This amendment ensures this will happen. The President has had a blank check since 2001, and we see where we are. This amendment brings some balance to the process. It's time to close the blank check account for a lame duck President. We ought to approve the Lee amendment and preserve our chance in the future to get out of Iraq.