Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's review this week. When I got on the plane from Seattle, we were supposed to be here on Friday. By the time I landed at Dulles Airport, they had already given away Friday. We weren't going to have any votes on Friday. So now the week is 1 day short. They continued to ineptly manage this place in such a way, Mr. Speaker, that they are now giving away Thursday. Now they want to hurry out of here. They want to get out of here. They don't want the American people to see what they are really doing. If you look at this transportation issue, what is making us uncompetitive in the rest of the world is that everywhere else they are spending money on infrastructure. People know you have to have roads, you have to have high-speed stuff in the ground that will carry a little bit of a message here and there. All that wiring, all that stuff that we could be doing, we should be doing. We should be planning. But there isn't any State that can plan with this kind of a highway bill. Now, why aren't we doing the thing today that is right? Well, because the Senate has come up with a great proposal. They have a 6-year authorization, but they come up with 3 years of money. How does a State plan with that? We are authorized for 6 years out to whatever that would be, and we are going to wind up only getting money for 3 years. How do we do bond issues in the State when we don't know what the Feds are going to do? This kind of planning makes government fail. And it is what the Republicans want: a Federal Government that fails. Now, there was a guy named Eisenhower. When he became President, he came in and said: You know something? This country needs roads. And he created the entire system. He was a Republican from Kansas, of all places, and he understood what the country needed to move forward. People said in the last election what we need to do is elect Republicans. By God, if we get Republicans, we will get what we need in this country. Well, I don't know if they knew what they were voting for, but what they got is a Senate and House that can't come up with a highway bill. They have been here for 8 months. Everybody knows we need it. The sources of revenue are not mysteries. Russell Long used to say about taxation: ``Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.'' We know there is nobody behind the tree. We are going to have to raise some taxes to do what is necessary. Well, there are those guys that have that money overseas. Maybe we can get those guys who have got that overseas money and bring it back and fund this. I guess they are behind the tree. But they also live here, so they are not really behind the tree. This argument is going to go on in December or whenever this thing ends. It doesn't really make any difference. We will come back here, and we will get out our toothpaste tube and we will squeeze a little bit more out of it just to see if we can brush our teeth one more time. That is what this is about. We have done it on issue after issue here, and somebody has to call the Republican Party on this. The American people should understand, they are not serious about running government for the things that affect ordinary human beings. A transit system in a State is absolutely important. As cities get more crowded and more crowded and there is no parking, if you don't have a transit system that works, you can't have development. Everybody wants development. Where the heck are you going to put the development? Out in the bushes? No. You are going to put it in the city where the people live. But if they can't move around and get to the jobs, you have got terrible problems. In every city and everybody's district, if you have got a city with over 50,000, you have got problems with traffic, and yet we can't get a transportation bill out of here that goes for more than 3 months. Now, that is pathetic. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will give states the tools they need to guarantee the health security of their citizens. The State-Based Universal Health Care Act of 2015 establishes a new procedure through which states may apply for a waiver of federal law in order to design and implement single-payer health care systems. This will allow states to achieve universal coverage and control costs by removing greed and inefficiency from the system. One of the many achievements of the Affordable Care Act is its provisions that grant states the authority to innovate in their health care systems. Under Section 1332 of the law, a state may apply for a State Innovation Waiver that will provide it with control of federal dollars that otherwise would have been spent on premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions for its residents. Through this waiver, a state may design a system to cover its residents, so long as benefits are at least as comprehensive and affordable as those offered by Qualified Health Plans available on the Exchanges. However, even with this flexibility, numerous barriers limit states' ability to design true single-payer systems. Existing waivers are narrow in scope, requiring states to seek out imperfect and convoluted solutions to circumvent federal limitations. A sweeping preemption provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) denies states authority to regulate employer-sponsored health plans. And, due to the complexities of our existing federal health programs, it is essentially impossible for a state to design a single benefit package that can be administered simply and efficiently on behalf of all of its residents. The State-Based Universal Health Care Act removes these barriers. It builds upon the ACA's State Innovation Waiver by offering states new tools that will allow them to truly innovate in health care. Under this legislation, a state may apply for a Universal Health Care Waiver that will grant it authority over federal health care dollars that otherwise would have been spent on the state's residents. To the extent necessary to design a universal system, a state may waive provisions of federal law relating to the following: The rules governing premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, as provided for in existing waiver authority under Section 1332 of the ACA. Provisions necessary for states to pool funds that otherwise would be spent on behalf of residents enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE, and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. ERISA's preemption clause, which currently forbids states from enacting legislation relating to employee health benefit programs. Any state seeking a Universal Health Care Waiver must design a system that covers substantially all of its residents. The benefits that each citizen receives must be at least as comprehensive and no less affordable than what would have been provided under any federal health programs for which its residents otherwise would have been eligible. Once enacted, the state plan must be publicly administered, and it may not add to the federal deficit. The Affordable Care Act was a landmark achievement and a strong first step toward achieving health security in this country. However, we still have a tremendous amount of work left to do. The United States spends by far the most per capita on health care, yet we fail to achieve superior outcomes or even guarantee coverage as a basic human right. Insurance companies are a powerful force in our economy, enjoying billions in profits and growing power in the marketplace. Meanwhile, hospitals are consolidating at an astonishing rate, raising new questions about the quality of patient care and the future of medicine. What's more, we have failed to make meaningful efforts to combat the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, threatening patient access to treatments and the financial sustainability of the entire system. As we explore ways to build upon the successes of the ACA, it is critical that we look for creative solutions to the challenges that still exist. Granting states tools to design single-payer systems will help spur necessary innovation, achieve universal coverage, and control costs. It is time to take this next step as we continue to move forward in our historic effort to guarantee the health security of every American.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Student Tax Relief Act of 2015. This bill is meant to help the students who attended Corinthian Colleges, Inc. The legislation is designed to help students affected by the sale of 53 Corinthian College Inc., campuses to Zenith Education Group, a subsidiary of Education Credit Management Corporation (ECMC). It will also help students who get debt relief as a result of a successful in asserting in defense against repayments. My bill, at the time of introduction, has 23 original cosponsors and has the support of nine outside organizations--American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFL-CIO, Campaign for America's Future, Consumers Union, National Education Association (NEA), New York Students Rising (NYSR), One Wisconsin Now (OWN), Young Invincibles, Student Debt Crisis. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. was the parent of several private, for- profit institutions of higher education, the Everest Institute, Everest Colleges, Heald Colleges, and Wyotech Technical Schools. The Zenith formed for the purpose of buying 53 campuses form Corinthian Colleges, Inc, and completed the purchase in 2015. As part of the final agreement Zenith agreed to provide $480 million in debt relief on Genesis loans advanced by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. As part of the agreement Zenith forgave 40% of the principal balance on the Genesis loans. The servicers who are servicing these loans will write down the loans without a borrower needing to take any action. As many as 170,000 individuals may qualify for this reduction. Under the tax code, generally, discharged income becomes taxable income to the taxpayer. Therefore, the amount that is discharged from the Genesis loans will result in the borrowers having to pay increased taxes. However, this bill specifically prevents the amount discharged under the agreement between the Education Department and the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau from being included in gross income. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``Borrowers who attended a Corinthian Colleges, Inc. school that was purchased by Zenith and borrowers who attended a Corinthian Colleges, Inc. school that closed but who are ineligible for closed school loan discharge may seek debt relief on their Federal Family Education Loan or Direct Loan program loans by asserting certain defenses against repayment. In certain circumstances, borrowers of Direct Loan program loans may be able to assert as a defense against repayment of their loan `acts or omissions of an institution of higher education,' as specified in regulation. ED has determined in regulation that such acts and omissions are those that would `give rise to a cause of action against the school under applicable State law.' '' ``If the borrower's defense is successful, Education Department will determine the amount of debt relief to which the borrower is entitled, which can include relief from repaying all or part of the outstanding loan balance and reimbursement for previous amounts paid toward the loan.'' It is unknown how many individuals will ultimately end up using the Defense to Repayment provision, but the bill will provide tax relief for taxpayers who get their loans discharged under the Defense to Repayment provision. The bill will ensure that amounts discharged due to Defense to Repayment claims will not be considered gross income to the taxpayer. It is important that the students who attended Corinthian College Inc. schools and have suffered already not have to suffer anymore by paying extra taxes on loans that get discharged.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 454, 455, and 456. I was detained doing a TV appearance with Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC, Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 454, 455, and 456.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 984, the Steve Gleason Act. This legislation is named after Steve Gleason, a former professional football player for the New Orleans Saints and a native of Washington State. The bill will increase access to speech-generating devices that help patients living with ALS and other neurological disorders. ALS is what is commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. Under current law, speech-generating devices are treated as capped rental items by Medicare, requiring beneficiaries to rent their devices for 13 months before they are able to own them. This cap has made it difficult for many beneficiaries to have access to these devices. In a recent national coverage determination, CMS has already begun providing payment for speech-generating devices. This is a good step, but it does not necessarily ensure continued payment for the devices if a beneficiary moves from a post-acute facility, such as a nursing home. This legislation makes a simple fix that will eliminate the rental cap and clarify that beneficiaries may purchase speech-generating devices immediately. It will ensure payment for these devices even if a beneficiary is admitted into a facility for which payment is bundled into a post-acute facility payment. It will improve the Medicare program, and it will make a meaningful difference in the lives of beneficiaries who are living with ALS. I am pleased to see the chairman out here pushing this, and I am glad to join with him. I hope someday I will join with him to provide hearing aids to senior citizens who are having trouble paying for them today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 971, the Medicare Independence at Home Extension Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act of 2015. This bill provides for a 2-year extension of an interesting program intended to help beneficiaries living with multiple chronic conditions. The Affordable Care Act, which has been reviled extensively, established the Medicare independence at home demonstration. The purpose of this project is to test a new service delivery and payment incentive model that utilizes primary care teams directed by doctors and nurse practitioners to provide care to patients in their home. Practices that successfully reduce costs and meet quality measures will be rewarded with incentive payments. If this is successful, this model would provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to home-based primary care and avoid costly and unnecessary trips to the hospital. In 2012, 15 practices launched IAH practices, but the authority to continue these practices will expire in 2015. S. 971 extends this authority by 2 years. This will provide CMS with additional time to evaluate the results of the demonstration and to determine whether this is a sustainable model to pursue moving forward. This will give policymakers the additional information we need to inform our decisionmaking as we look for innovative ways to coordinate care and reduce costs in the healthcare system. It is noteworthy to note that this was instituted by the ACA. There are good things in that bill. As they have tried again and again out here to repeal it, we never thought about things like independent health practices. I think that it is important for us, as a Congress, to look individually at the programs before we make sweeping generalizations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge Members to vote for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this morning to welcome our guest chaplain, Dr. Chandra Bhanu Satpathy. Dr. Satpathy deserves great credit for his earnest and humble leadership of the global Sai movement, which celebrates the teachings and ideals of Shirdi Sai Baba, the most respected of the Indian Perfect Masters and renowned for his teachings of compassion and acceptance. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the global Sai movement, and I can't think of a time when the values of peace, respect, and compassion are needed more here in our own country and in other parts of the world. Dr. Satpathy's moving invocation this morning serves as a motivation to each of us gathered here to always remember what ultimately unites us far outweighs what divides us, regardless of language, culture, or creed. Thank you, Dr. Satpathy, for being here today. Thank you for your exemplary leadership in the spirit of Sai Baba's teachings, and thank you for sharing your vision for a peaceful future.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This legislation is a ghost hunt. It doesn't exist. There is no IPAB. There is nobody that has been appointed. Nothing is going to happen until 2024. So the question you have to ask yourself is: Why are we out here? Well, we are out here because some people think that trying to control costs in health care is a bad idea. If you go back and read the Medicare legislation when it was put in, the AMA extracted from this Congress the right to charge their usual and customary fees. They have been driving the costs, and we have been trying to control it with all kinds of mechanisms all the way through it. Only with the incidence of the ACA have we seen the curve come down. We have actually extended the life of Medicare to 2030. Right now, we are spending 17 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. When I came to this Congress, it was about 12 or 13 percent. It has only gone up. We have not been able to do it ourselves. So the creators of this bill said: Let's put something in on the outside that can give us some suggestions. Now, when we had Simpson-Bowles--and I know the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee thought the Simpson-Bowles idea was a good idea-- what happened after it was brought out in public? Nothing. We ignored it. The reason for IPAB is to put pressure on the Congress to act to control costs. I guess Republicans don't care about costs because they don't understand that there are 10,000 people signing up for Social Security every single day. That is 3.5 million people. The numbers are going up. The costs are going to go up. People are going to run around here saying we have got to cut benefits; we have got to shift the costs to the old people; we have got to do all this. The IPAB was a way to force the Congress to face the consequences of their own inaction. Dr. Roe is correct; we spent 16 years kicking the can down the road on this issue of SGR. That was, again, an attempt to control costs. It never worked. It was ill-conceived in the beginning. This is an issue where there is some real muscle in it, and people are afraid of that. They are afraid of it 9 years out because they know how the Congress does. This is just another way to try to undercut and make Medicare and the ACA not work. Mr. Levin pointed out the other thing that is important, and that is the place they look for the money is to go to community health, health departments. Nobody needs health departments. Why do you need people looking at restaurants to see if they are safe to go into, or to look at the water supply or look at what is happening in sewage? You don't need that stuff. This $7 billion they are going to grab here is straight out of the health departments of our country. Every one of your counties is going to be facing the impact of this.

Mr. McDERMOTT. The only thing that I think one can say is that it is a bad idea to get rid of some muscle to force us to look at costs, but it is worse to pay for it by taking money away from health departments. They are the ones that always get cut. Who wants inspectors? The other side says: We don't like regulations. It is regulations that are ruining America. We have got to get those regulations out. You don't want regulations enforced in restaurants? Then take $7 billion away from it and see what kind of restaurant problems you start to have. Milwaukee had the cryptosporidium organism in the water supply. That is a health problem that is dealt with by the actual health department in the county. We are taking $7 billion to pay for this badly constructed idea.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levin was correct. When we were designing the Affordable Care Act, everyone was expected to share in the cost as we work for the American people. The medical device industry initially opposed 5 percent. They said: How about 2.3 percent? We will go for that. They agreed to it. Here they are today asking for us to give them nothing, no taxes; they don't have to pay anything no matter how they benefit from it. Now, repealing this tax, which the nonpartisan analysts have shown has no negative effect on jobs, will add $24.4 billion to the deficit. It would eliminate an important source of revenue simply to appease an industry that has benefited directly and greatly from the expansion of the coverage of ACA. On top of that, the bill is a distraction from a more important issue that the Congress needs to address in the context of medical devices. They would not let us vote on an amendment in the committee to bring up the institution of unique device identifiers. An essential tool of improving patient safety is the UDI. A UDI is a number associated with a medical device right on the device. They contain important information about where, when, and by whom the device was made. They provide for post-market surveillance to identify problems and notify patients when objects that they put in their bodies are faulty or dangerous. This has dramatic impacts for safety. In 2010, a massive recall of breast implants in France impacted tens of thousands of women. Many cancer patients undergo reconstructive surgery following mastectomy, and their lives are threatened when faulty implants leak dangerous contaminants into their bodies. In situations like this, it is essential that we know who has given the faulty device so that recall efforts can save as many lives as possible. Unfortunately, even when the FDA finishes its new UDI regulations in the coming years, we will lack important tools, including devices, in the agency's postmarket safety checking system, the Sentinel Initiative. The primary source of information for the Sentinel is insurance claims forms, yet, unlike pharmaceuticals, CMS does not currently require UDIs to be listed on Medicare claims. That makes it all but impossible to apply the Sentinel Initiative to the device context. Furthermore, additional gaps exist in the FDA's rulemaking on UDIs. For example, there is no requirement that UDIs be affixed directly to the implantable devices. As we look forward, I encourage my colleagues to look beyond efforts to undermine the ACA and to look for opportunities to enhance safety and improve the system for patients, not just the device industry. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this and come back with a bill--if you want to take the tax off, that is one thing, but at least make them identify the name and the place and the number of where it came from so, if somebody you know gets impacted by one of these devices going bad, we will have a way to trace it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today and to congratulate Charlie. Most people don't remember 1995. That is when we did a bill called NAFTA, and tucked away in NAFTA was the beginning, the seeds of this particular bill. It didn't pass until 2000 when Newt Gingrich was Speaker. Newt Gingrich ought to get at least a little bit of an acknowledgment for his part in all of this. Our goal then was to set up a proposal in trade that would allow for sustainable development in Africa. The last 15 years we have really achieved that goal, and that is why we are reauthorizing it today. This 10-year extension gives businesses an opportunity to actually plan. What we have done over the last few years have been very short extensions, which has been very hard for the business community to make plans when they don't know whether it is going to be here at the next session. One company in particular came in and told me that they want to create a vertically integrated process for producing clothing in Africa, everything from growing the seeds to spinning the yarn to producing the fabric. Now, this will require a major investment on their part. This long-term renewal of AGOA will provide that business with the certainty needed to make investments. When they go to the bank, the question is: How long is this actually going to last? They now can say ``10 years'' when they go to get the money to do this. Once again, I am very proud and pleased to have been a part of this, and I think it shows that we can work together on things like trade.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have generally admired President Obama's bold foreign policy decisions. However, the administration's latest announcement to send an additional 450 U.S. military advisers to Iraq and to arm the Sunni tribes, the Shia forces, and the Kurdish Peshmerga, alike, is a grave misjudgment. Arming the Sunni tribes could undermine Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi and the central government the U.S. is trying desperately to prop up. Sunni assistance may, in turn, push Iran to more aggressively arm their Shia militias in Iraq. Worse still, arming the Shia fighters will further inflame Iraq's deep sectarian divide, which ISIS has exploited so skillfully. The Kurdish Peshmerga is perhaps the only reliable and ready force deserving of U.S. military assistance, but no amount of heavy weaponry will defeat ISIS without a concerted political settlement both in Baghdad and Damascus. All of this comes just days after President Obama has said, yet again, we do not have a complete strategy to defeat ISIS in Iraq or Syria. The U.S. has few palpable options when it comes to untangling the region's current chaos. However, the administration's current strategy ``to arm everyone and let God sort them out'' is a serious miscalculation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Accuracy in Medicare Physician Payment Act, legislation that will provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with important tools that will strengthen primary care in this country. For too long, Medicare has relied upon a flawed process to set payment rates for services on the physician fee schedule. Since 1991, CMS has outsourced the process of valuing physician services to the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), a secretive 31-member panel of doctors. The RUC's composition is shaped by the American Medical Association, and specialty societies are grossly overrepresented in its membership. As a private entity, the RUC is exempt from transparency laws, and the justifications for the committee's recommendations are opaque. The RUC is extremely influential. From 1994 to 2010, CMS accepted approximately 90 percent of the committee's recommendations, and-- although that rate has declined in recent years--the RUC continues to exert tremendous power over Medicare. This has far reaching implications for the entire American healthcare system, as Medicare's rates strongly influence the reimbursement rates of private insurers. Meanwhile, our country faces a growing crisis in its primary care workforce. The Health Resources and Services Administration estimates that there will be a nationwide shortage of over 20,000 primary care doctors by 2020. Primary care providers--particularly those who practice in low-income and rural areas--are compensated at much lower rates than specialists. Recent medical graduates, who on average are saddled with about $170,000 in educational debt, are steered away from lower-paying work in primary care toward lucrative specialties. This leaves millions of Americans without access to the care they need, threatening their health security and ultimately driving up healthcare costs for the entire country. By distorting payment rates in favor of specialty services, the RUC has had a direct role in creating this crisis. Calls to reform its processes are growing. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office has called into question the accuracy of the RUC's recommendations due to weaknesses in its data collection methods and conflicts of interest by its members. The Accuracy in Medicare Physician Payment Act will reform this flawed system. It will give CMS the tools it needs to ensure that payment rates serve the needs of the American people, not the needs of highly-compensated specialists. This legislation will establish an independent panel of experts within CMS that will identify distortions in payment rates and help Medicare develop evidenced-based updates to the fee schedule. Its processes will be highly transparent and it will be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory bodies to hold open meetings and publish minutes. If necessary, CMS may still seek input from the RUC, but all recommendations would be carefully scrutinized by the expert panel. This legislation will ensure that the process of setting physician payment rates is subject to rigorous oversight, independent analysis by experts, and meaningful transparency. It will put an end to a flawed process that has contributed to a healthcare system that drives thousands of young doctors away from where they are needed most.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Student Loan Debt Relief Act. This legislation relieves a potential tax burden that may be imposed on student loan borrowers that use income-based repayment and income-contingent repayment programs. This bill eliminates a tax penalty on student loan borrowers. After 20-25 years of payments on the income-based repayment or income- contingent repayment plans, student loan borrowers can have their outstanding debt balance forgiven. However, under current law, the amount forgiven is considered income payable immediately. Programs such as the income based repayment program have helped in a small way to ensure that students can continue to pursue their dreams and get on with their lives while they responsibly pay off their student debt. It also makes students the promise that if they hold up their end of the bargain for twenty to twenty-five years they will have their remaining debt forgiven. Slamming students and families with a massive tax bill after they have played by the rules is just wrong. This bill is yet another step toward leveling the playing field for a generation students being devastated by the growing student loan crisis in this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, none of us want nuclear weapons in Iran; and while the White House may regard this bill as the least harmful option offered by a persistently intractable Congress--a Congress that has sought to derail all of his efforts in the past--I cannot and will not support this particular piece of legislation. Of all of President Obama's foreign policy objectives, this is the boldest and the one that could have a meaningful impact on regional and global stability. The option of war or of increasing the sanctions simply has run its course. The time has come for diplomacy. The framework that the administration has presented to us is fair and smart. It is a good deal, one that guarantees a world safe from the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. We all await the details. All of this argument out here is about people who are sure of what the details are going to be. That is why this is not the time to be passing this legislation. President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our partners--and don't forget that this is an historic thing in that we have partners of the P5+1. They deserve immense credit in their determination and commitment to a diplomatic solution to, arguably, the most dangerous and complex foreign policy challenge of our time. We need to give the President and the negotiators the time they need. The time for us to make decisions about what happens about the sanctions will come to this floor. There is no question about it. We don't need to pass a bill saying we don't like what the President is doing. We ought to be grateful for the tenacity with which he has persisted in this diplomatic effort.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote No. 211 because I was answering a question on the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to David Yama, a South Seattle College student from the great state of Washington. Mr. Yama received national attention for his exemplary character in and out of the classroom. As a member of the All-Washington Academic team, David was named a ``New Century Scholar'' which is given to the top-community college scholar in each state. From there, David landed the top spot on the All-USA academic team, made up of the top-20 community college students from across the country. On April 20, 2015 the National Honor Society, Phi Theta Kappa, held a celebration to recognize David and his All-USA teammates in San Antonio, Texas. Of the top 20 in the nation, David was selected as the sole recipient of PTK's David R. Pierce Scholarship and served as the speaker at the event where he shared his story of tragedy and triumph. Days later, his success was further recognized with a Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Scholarship--awarded to the nation's top community college students to complete their bachelor's degree at a four-year college or university. Growing up in Ocean Shores, a small coastal city in Washington, David and his family--which includes his four siblings--lived in a one- bedroom hotel. David struggled in school and his parents were told that he needed behavioral drugs. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, his parents could not afford that type of medication for David. After receiving straight F's, David dropped out of high school at the age of 14. One year later, David set sail--quite literally. After convincing his mother and the captain of the Lady Washington, he volunteered on a sailing trip to California. From there he worked on other ships and as David put it, jumped from ``one dead-end job to another.'' At the age of 27, David came to the realization that an education was the key to a life of stability and greener pastures. As a West Seattle resident, David started taking prep classes to receive his GED at his local community college, South Seattle College. With the encouragement of his GED instructor, Jane Harness, David quickly began to rebuild his confidence and his scores improved. As Jane put it, ``this little switch turned on for him, and he became really determined.'' So determined, in fact, that after David earned his GED he continued his academic pursuits and will be earning an associate degree this spring. From there, David will continue his studies earning a bachelor's degree and ultimately a Ph.D. in bio engineering. In addition to holding a 3.96 GPA, David volunteers his time as a tutor and an environmentalist cleaning up West Seattle's Duwamish River. He is quick to give credit to South Seattle College as the key to his success as he told the Seattle Times: ``Once I started here--the environment was right, it was a 180 from what I thought I was capable of,'' Yama said. His academic achievements have been recognized in USA Today, Seattle's NBC Affiliate (KING 5) and on the front page of the Seattle Times. David's story is one of inspiration and determination. He is just one of many students who have had to overcome seemingly impossible odds but met those challenges head-on and came out on top. He is living proof that the power of hope, determination and the human spirit are alive and well in this country. I'm proud that South Seattle College and David Yama are from the District that I represent. Please join me in recognizing their success.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reintroduce the Duwamish Tribal Recognition Act. This legislation addresses a longstanding issue that affects the indigenous people of Seattle's metropolitan area. This year marks the 160th year since the Duwamish Tribe signed the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855. In exchange for the reservation and other benefits including hunting and fishing rights promised in the Point Elliott Treaty by the United States government, the Duwamish Tribe ceded 54,000 acres of their homeland. Today, those 54,000 acres include the cities of Bellevue, Mercer Island Renton, Seattle, Tukwila, and much of King County. The Duwamish people's struggle for federal recognition continues. It was granted to them in 2001, but then denied under dubious circumstances after just eight months. On September 2001, George W. Bush's Interior Department's administration officials denied the recognition of the Duwamish Tribe. U.S. District Judge Coughenour vacated the administration's denial through statements expressing concern on how ``plaintiffs should not be left to wonder why one administration thought their petition should be considered under both sets of rules, but a second one did not.'' I agree with Judge Coughenour. It has been a long fight for federal recognition of the Duwamish people. During that time the Interior Department's rules for federal recognition of tribes have changed from the original regulations set in 1978 to those that were revised in 1994. There is significant evidence to support Duwamish recognition that is not included in the current record filed over twenty years ago. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, to look into this matter as I believe this bill will provide the federal recognition to which the Duwamish Tribe has long been entitled. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I hope you would remind the gentleman that the country is already divided into rich and poor. There is no question about that. In Pennsylvania, 144 households will get the benefit, and 1.57 million people in Pennsylvania live in poverty. So there is already a bit of a division here. It might be more acceptable if this bill recouped all the money that we spent in farm subsidies over time. Maybe when people die, they ought to give their farm subsidy back to the government. When my grandfather died, the State of Illinois came back to get the public assistance money that had been given to him during his life, his last years. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It appears that the bipartisan, good feelings of the last few weeks are gone. After reaching across the aisle to pass important legislation like the doc fix, my Republican colleagues are back to their old tricks of handing out tax breaks to the few at the expense of the many. Today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the Republicans' last attempt to tilt the U.S. Tax Code in favor of their ultrawealthy campaign donors. This week's target is the estate tax--a tax, I would mention, that was dreamed up by and championed by Teddy Roosevelt, who is the same guy the Republicans like to hold up as one of the greatest the party ever produced. Their crusade to help the rich has gone too far. This proposed repeal of the estate tax is nothing more than a massive, unfunded tax break for a small sliver of America's wealthiest families, and, as is usually the case with Republican tax policies, this repeal would do nothing to help hard-working, middle class families. In Nebraska, 52 households would benefit while there are 202,000 people living in poverty. The fact of the matter is that the estate tax is only paid by about 5,400 families, or the top 0.2 percent of estates in the country. Estates worth less than $5.4 million pay nothing. What is the cost of providing a tax break to the top 5,000 families? It is a quarter of a trillion dollars--$269 billion. Now, these are the deficit hawks who were talking last week about ``we have got to worry about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit.'' Yet they are standing here with a straight face, putting $269 billion more on the deficit. Instead, we should be using the money to extend the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which are tax credits that would actually help Main Street America--the real drivers of the American economy. Or we could fund universal pre-K or build new bridges and roads or provide free community college to 9 million people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try and tell you that the estate tax hurts family farmers. My colleague who began this debate was talking about that, Mr. Speaker. They will tell you the estate tax forces farmers to liquidate in order to pay the estate tax. When pressed to provide examples, as we did, of family farms being forced to liquidate, my Republican colleagues pointed to a 15,000-acre farm they say had to be broken up for the estate tax. Let me put that into context, as most people who live in the cities don't know how big that is: 15,000 acres is the equivalent of 23.5 square miles. That is a 5-by-5 square mile farm. That is more than the island of Manhattan. Manhattan isn't that big, and it is home to a million people. I think most people who work hard would be hard pressed to believe that 23 square miles is a family farm. As families at the very top of the income scale experience unprecedented wealth and prosperity--some may call it the second Gilded Age--Republicans are helping the rich get richer. They want to talk about ``We are going to help the middle class,'' but what are they doing? They are shoveling a quarter of a trillion dollars out the door to the richest. Repealing the estate tax will surely sow the seeds of a permanent aristocracy in this country. We learned from Britain what a permanent aristocracy gets you. As we prepare to take this vote, I would ask my colleagues: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of working families and communities across this country who are struggling to pay the bills, or are you on the side of the ultrawealthy heirs who don't feel they need to pay taxes on the millions and billions that they were handed by their ancestors? Wealth has never been taxed. That land and the accumulation of the wealth in it has never been taxed. I vote for the working middle class, and I hope that you will all vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.