Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, America's a great Nation, but it's a work in progress; and we still have work to do when it comes to protecting the rights of every American. No one understands that better than Representative Barney Frank, my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. With Barney's leadership, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last night. ENDA is a clear statement that we will protect and defend the rights of Americans in the workplace. As far as I'm concerned, the issue comes down to one simple declarative sentence: your sexual orientation and lifestyle is your own business, not your employer's business. No person or business in this country should have the right to discriminate against any American. I stand proudly shoulder to shoulder with Barney Frank and my constituents in Seattle in strong and unwavering support of ENDA. A chance at the American Dream should apply to every American. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, they all hope and care and wish like all the rest of us. They deserve nothing less than a full measure of justice and equality in this country. So do the transgender Americans, and we have more work to do to extend the protections to them. We made progress with ENDA and neither Barney Frank, nor I, nor my constituents will rest until we can declare with conviction that all Americans are created equal.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, unlucky or not, 13 is the number before us. That's how many predominantly Sunni nations in the Middle East have declared in the past year that they want nuclear power. We know that Iran is building a nuclear capacity which it claims will be used solely for power generation. Iran is predominantly a Shiite nation. While both are Muslim, Sunni and Shiite are different. At the grass-roots level, everyday people intermarry and get along just fine, until the governments in power decide they want religious ideology to govern everyone. Sunni-Shiite dominance was behind the Iran-Iraq war two decades ago when Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq to pledge U.S. support to Saddam Hussein. Today the Iraq war has inflamed Sunni-Shiite passions and U.S. forces are in the middle of it, fighting and dying in a fight that we shouldn't be in. There's been a lot in the news about Iran's nuclear program, including threats by the Vice President that Iran will never be permitted to acquire nuclear capacity. In other words, the administration's international diplomacy with Iran begins with an order from the U.S. military to lock and load. A military strike directly ordered by the administration, or indirectly sanctioned by the administration, is considered a foregone conclusion by many in the Middle East. Given this, let's renew the bidding, because 13 other nations in the Middle East are not being threatened by the administration. In fact, quite the opposite is true. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor lays out the fact. I submit it for the Record. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 1, 2007] Middle East Racing to Nuclear Power--Shiite Iran's Ambitions Have Spurred 13 Sunni States to Declare Atomic Energy Aims This Year (By Dan Murphy) Cairo.--This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran's nuclear agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover for a weapons program. Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are reactions to Shiite Iran's high-profile nuclear bid, seen as linked with Tehran's campaign for greater influence and prestige throughout the Middle East. ``To have 13 states in the region say they're interested in nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the eye,'' says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior nonproliferation official in the U.S. State Department who is now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. ``The Iranian angle is the reason.'' But economics are also behind this new push to explore nuclear power, at least for some of the aspirants. Egypt's oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived, it's conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option than traditional plants. But analysts say the driver is Iran, which appears to be moving ahead with its nuclear program despite sanctions and threats of possible military action by the U.S. The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Saudi Arabia and the five Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, reversed a longstanding opposition to nuclear power last year. As the closest U.S. allies in the region and sitting on vast oil wealth, these states had said they saw no need for nuclear energy. But Fitzpatrick, as well as other analysts, say these countries now see their own declarations of nuclear intent as a way to contain Iran's influence. At least, experts say, it signals to the U.S. how alarmed they are by a nuclear Iran. ``The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region,'' Jordan's King Abdullah, another U.S. ally, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper early this year. ``Where I think Jordan was saying, `We'd like to have a nuclear-free zone in the area,' . . . [now] everybody's going for nuclear programs.'' Though the U.S. has been vociferous in its opposition to Iran's nuclear bid, particularly since the country says it's determined to establish its own nuclear fuel cycle, which would dramatically increase its ability to build a nuclear bomb, it has generally been tolerant of the nuclear ambitions of its friends in the region. ``Those states that want to pursue peaceful nuclear energy . . . [are] not a problem for us,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in response to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement on Monday. Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington and a former Defense Department official focused on containing the spread of nuclear weapons, says he finds that hands-off approach of the Bush administration alarming. ``I think we're trying to put out a fire of proliferation with a bucket of kerosene,'' he says. He said he recently spoke with a senior administration official on the matter, who argued that it was better for the U.S. to cooperate with Egypt and other countries since, in the official's view, nuclear power in these countries is ``inevitable'' and it's better to be in a position to influence their choices and monitor the process. Egypt has had an on-again, off-again nuclear program since the 1950s. In the 1960s, Egypt threatened to develop a bomb largely out of anger over Israel's nuclear pursuit. Under Mr. Mubarak, who has ruled since 1981, the country has been consistent in saying it does not want nuclear weapons, and Egypt has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to declare the region a nuclear-weapons-free zone--a strategy it uses to target Israel's nuclear weapons. Today, the country has a 22-megawatt research reactor north of Cairo that was built by an Argentine company and completed in 1997. A drive to develop a power plant in the 1980s stalled after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia. In a nationally televised speech Monday, Mubarak said nuclear power is an ``integral part of Egypt's national security'' while also promising that the country would not seek the bomb. Other Egyptian officials say the country is planning on having a working reactor within a decade, though analysts say that's an optimistic time line. Egypt's nuclear plans have been reinvigorated in recent years, with Mubarak's son, Gamal, widely seen in Egypt as his father's favored successor, calling for the building of a reactor. Mubarak discussed nuclear power cooperation on state visits to Russia and China last year. ``They feel politically threatened by Iran's nuclear program, they've pointed out rightly that Israel [hasn't been] a member of [nonproliferation] treaties for many years,'' says Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``Of course there is economic logic: If they can sell whatever oil they have for $93 a barrel instead of using it, that's attractive . . . but it shouldn't be assumed that it's all benign.'' For Egypt, the allure of nuclear power is apparent. Its oil consumption is growing and electricity demand is growing at about 7 percent a year. ``Egypt can absolutely make a legitimate case for nuclear energy,'' says Mr. Fitzpatrick. ``Its reserves are dwindling, it needs the oil and gas for export, and it needs to diversify its energy resources.'' Even major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia are, along with Iran, arguing that they need nuclear power. They say it's better to sell their oil than to burn it at home. But some analysts argue that nuclear power remains an economic loser. Mr. Sokolski says that when state subsidies to nuclear power are removed, nuclear plants are not economically viable. ``If it was, private banks would be financing nuclear plants without loan guarantees. They can't do it and make money yet.'' Of course whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up, particularly in the Middle East, concerns about the possible spread of nuclear weapons are not far behind. Experts who follow the nuclear weapons question say assurances of only pursuing peaceful objectives, as have been given by all the countries pursuing nuclear power, Iran included, shouldn't be taken at face value. ``Although Egypt does not feel directly threatened by Iran, it does feel its own power and influence in the region threatened by a resurgent nuclear armed Iran,'' says Fitzpatrick. ``There are a lot of countries in the region who have expressed interest in nuclear power, and I think there are good reasons to be concerned about this interest and the timing of this interest,'' says Mr. Wolfsthal. ``Nuclear power has had economic arguments in its favor for a decade, but the fact is these programs are only coming to a head in light of the Iranian program.'' Wolfsthal says the key issues in the coming years will be whether Egypt contracts a turn-key plant from a foreign company--which would minimize the amount of skill and technology transferred to Egyptian engineers--or if it will pursue nuclear partnerships that broaden its knowledge and skills bases. Will they pursue their own nuclear fuel cycle, which, he says, would make little economic sense and would be a clear ``red flag'' of intent to develop a weapon, or will they buy nuclear fuel from abroad? ``If you are interested in having the capability of building a nuclear weapon, the best way to start is by building up your nuclear power infrastructure,'' he says. ``The same people that help you design and build nuclear reactors have many of the skill sets you will need if you are going to build a nuclear weapon.'' Fitzpatrick agrees that if Egypt promises not to develop a nuclear fuel cycle and would agree to more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there would be little reason for concern, though he doubts those commitments will be made. ``Egypt won't take those steps because it says its hands can't be bound anymore while Israel's hands are unbound. They already resent the nuclear asymmetry with Israel, and a nuclear armed Iran on top of that adds too much for them.'' The conclusion is clear: a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, but a nuclear Israel, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear India, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear Yemen, a nuclear Saudi Arabia and nuclear all the others, well, that's a different story. There was a time when world leaders hoped for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Instead, while we try to shoot our way to peace in Iraq, other world leaders are watching the creation of a nuclear excess zone in the Middle East. We threaten Iran, while we encourage the others. The President has used two terms to implement a nuclear double standard. Today's U.S. friends can have nuclear power because they really only intend to use it for power generation. But today's U.S. foes must be stopped from acquiring nuclear power because they might use it in a bad way. Today's friend is the President's standard for supporting the proliferation of nuclear capacity in the world. Timing is everything. Not many years ago, Iran was our friend. Under the Shah of Iran, maybe they should have started their nuclear work sooner because that would have met the President's definition for a nation deserving of nuclear power. But let's not forget Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam. He may not have been our friend that day, but we sure acted like it. Today Pakistan is in political crisis. And we know they have nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power. What will the President do about it? His State Department spokesman said the other day the administration doesn't have a problem with nations developing peaceful nuclear energy. That's diplomatic-speak for today's U.S. friends get to develop nuclear energy, while today's U.S. foes get threatened with bunker-buster bombs. The administration has been drumbeating for months against Iran, but how much have we heard about the other 13 nations who intend to develop nuclear capacity? A double standard is no standard at all. And history shows that in the Middle East, today's friend can be tomorrow's foe. What kind of policy is that? The President has destroyed the philosophy, the practicality, and the prudence of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Instead he has embarked on a new policy that will guarantee, that will guarantee, that we live in a much more dangerous world. So much for security from this administration.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, Martin Luther King said, ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love.'' Those that volunteer to serve our country deserve our thanks and our support. Members of our Armed Forces make tremendous sacrifices as they honorably perform their duties and deserve so much in return for their service. The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act is an important piece of legislation that would eliminate many inequities that presently exist in Federal statutes affecting those performing service to our country. The bill makes several improvements in the Tax Code for servicemembers and their families. It includes a provision to remove obstacles for Americans who wish to serve our Nation overseas through the Peace Corps by providing relief from capital gains taxes on the sale of a home. Additionally, the bill makes several important changes to the Supplemental Security Income program, known as SSI. The SSI program provides critical benefits for servicemembers who are caring for a severely disabled spouse or child. This bill would change SSI's treatment of certain forms of military compensation when determining SSI eligibility and benefit amounts for military families. As a result, more military families will be able to benefit from this important safety net. This bill would remove penalties that presently exist for blind, disabled, and elderly veterans under the SSI program. And, finally, the bill would end the disparate treatment of compensation that is paid to some AmeriCorps volunteers but not to others under the SSI program. This modest change would enable disabled Americans to serve their country and their community despite their disability. For some Americans, AmeriCorps can provide a pathway for the disabled to gain the skills to reenter the workforce. At this time, I would like to enter into the Record the following documents. Stories of Americans With Disabilities in National Service People with disabilities volunteer for the same reasons that anyone else does--to give back to their communities, to improve their surroundings, and to be active and engaged in life. Some national service participants who have disabilities volunteer with organizations that serve other people with disabilities, while others focus their efforts on helping to meet a wide range of critical community needs. The individuals profiled here represent a small sampling of the many people with disabilities involved in the Corporation for National and Community Service's Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America programs. americorps*state and national Steve Hoad, AmeriCorps Alumnus 2001, AmeriCorps*VISTA Alumnus 2003 Augusta, Maine; disability: blind. Steve Hoad served with the Maine Conservation Corps in Augusta as a coordinator of volunteers on a statewide basis. The program, called SERVE--Maine (State Environmental Resource Volunteer Effort for Maine), identifies volunteers for outdoor or natural resource projects sponsored by government agencies or nonprofit groups. As a person who is blind, Steve thinks it's important for lots of organizations, including the Corporation for National and Community Service, to address inclusion. Steve feels his contributions are important for the additional reason that, in his opinion, ``. . . people with disabilities have been left on the sidelines and pushed into isolation by a couple of different ideas that people seem to have. One is that because maybe someone looks different or acts differently or speaks differently, that they're not as smart; and the other is that because someone is disabled, they can't contribute anything, they need to be helped. Those two ideas become very exclusionary.'' americorps*vista Dawn Facka, AmeriCorps*VISTA Alumna 2001, Anchorage, Alaska; current location: Charleston, South Carolina; disability: hearing impaired. Dawn Facka, a service-learning coordinator with AmeriCorps*VISTA, advocates for people with disabilities and serves as a role model for young men and women with disabilities that come to serve in AmeriCorps Programs. In addition, she teaches others about the importance of inclusion and facilitates disability awareness and diversity training to AmeriCorps*NCCC members. She strives to create a work environment that is welcoming and understanding to those individuals with disabilities by advocating for community involvement and supporting organizations that support and help individuals with disabilities. She says that ``If AmeriCorps, had not opened the doors of opportunity to me, I most likely would still be ashamed and embarrassed of who I am and [how] society has labeled me. I would still be apologizing to people who did not tolerate or accept my hearing loss. I can't begin to show my gratitude . . . to AmeriCorps for showing me another world.'' americorps*nccc Joe Tierney, AmeriCorps*NCCC Alumnus 2001 and 2002, Charleston, South Carolina; current location: Boston, Massachusetts; disability: traumatic brain injury. Joe Tierney dedicated two years of his life to service with Americorps*NCCC. During these years he tutored children, built houses, designed and built wheelchair ramps, surveyed and mapped a historical graveyard, blazed trails, worked at a camp for children and adults with disabilities, and much more. Of his time there he writes, ``Throughout my service I met some amazing individuals, traveled to some fascinating locations, and learned a variety of skills, but most importantly my service gave me the opportunity to recover, the ability to experience life with a smile. I made the decision to join AmeriCorps because I felt an obligation to give back, I understood that I was very fortunate to have recovered and that I would have never done it without the help of many thoughtful, committed, competent individuals.'' learn and serve america Jared (not his real name), Learn and Serve America Alumnus 2002, Hampshire, Massachusetts; current location: Hampshire, Massachusetts; disability: significant disabilities. Jared (not his real name), a high school student with significant disabilities, participated fully in a water quality testing initiative though a school-based service- learning project in Western Massachusetts. During the project, Jared spoke of all that he learned about water quality and the effects on the environment. His family and teachers were impressed with the project because it provided Jared with a meaningful experience to give back to his community as well as taught him vital life skills. His mother speaks of the project as being one of the few opportunities Jared has had to mingle with other students outside of special education. rsvp Dean Homerick, RSVP Volunteer, current location: Lexington, Ohio; disability: debilitating arthritis. Dean Homerick began service as an RSVP volunteer as soon as he became eligible--the day he turned 55. He is involved in environmental issues and emergency operations. He volunteers regularly at the Columbus Zoo, participating in education programs to teach children about animals, as well as volunteering at a local nature center and at the Ohio Bird Sanctuary, where he edits a monthly newsletter. He also volunteers for the American Red Cross and is the volunteer coordinator for the Richland County Emergency Operations Center, charged with alerting volunteers in the event of an emergency. corporation for national and community service The Corporation for National and Community Service provides opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and country through three programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. This year, more than 1.6 million individuals will participate in the Corporation's programs, helping thousands of nonprofit organizations, faith- based groups, schools, and government agencies build their capacity to meet critical local needs in education, the environment, public safety, disaster relief, and other areas. Together with the USA Freedom Corps, the Corporation is working to build a culture of citizenship, service, and responsibility in America.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Neal to handle the rest of the time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, it's not as hard as the President would like us to believe. Someone reminded me over the weekend of something. Here's what he said. When the Japanese Army subjected American prisoners of war to waterboarding, it was a crime, and those responsible were severely punished. After World War II, several Japanese soldiers were convicted for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, Lieutenant Chase Nielson, one of the 1942 Army Air Force officers who flew the Doolittle raid over Tokyo, was captured by the Japanese, said, ``I was given several types of torture. I was given what they call the water cure.'' He was asked what it felt like when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. ``Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,'' he replied. And yet we have an administration complete with Attorneys General and designees who aren't sure if waterboarding is a crime. They can check the record of war tribunals after World War II, because the rest of the world is sure. It was a crime then, and it is a crime today. Over the weekend I saw ``Rendition.'' It ought to be required viewing for this body.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I am enormously proud to rise in celebration of the 30th anniversary of one of Seattle's finest start- ups, one that is valued throughout the country today. You may initially think I am speaking of Boeing, or UPS, REI or Starbucks. Rather, I refer to the CASA movement--Court Appointed Special Advocates. Every year more than 800,000 children enter the court system after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care. They have not committed any crime, instead, they are simply child victims of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. It is up to a judge to decide their futures-- what healing services they will receive, where they should live and with whom, and if they can be safe. In order to reach such critical decisions, judges need to be fully informed about the child's situation. In 1977, King County Superior Court Judge David W. Soukup of Seattle, Washington believed that he was not getting all of the facts he needed to make well-informed decisions affecting the futures of children coming before him in child welfare cases. The judge convened a meeting of community representatives to discuss his idea for recruiting citizen volunteers to do the detailed research that judges could not. Judge Soukup envisioned trained volunteers who would speak to the children and their teachers, therapists, foster parents, and family members, then write reports for the court including the volunteer's recommendations for the child's best interests. This vision was the impetus for the first CASA program. Before coming to Congress, I sometimes had occasion to testify as an expert witness in Judge Soukup's courtroom. He was both a thorough and caring jurist. He explained that he founded the CASA movement because he wanted someone in his courtroom whose only job was to provide a voice for the children. Caseworkers are obligated to their agency, the parent, and others. An attorney appointed as the child's legal representative cannot testify about privileged, and potentially harmful, information that the child may have revealed. Attorney guardians ad litem simply could not afford the time to do a thorough investigation of all the facts, interview significant adults in the child's life, and advocate for the mental and social needs of the child. Judge Soukup's innovative vision has grown to become a strong and respected national program of advocacy for children. It is estimated that CASA volunteers serve 30 percent of children who are in foster care and court systems because of abuse and neglect. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the founding of that first CASA program in Seattle--it is also the year in which the two millionth child will be served by a CASA volunteer. Many of my colleagues are equally proud and supportive of the remarkable work that CASA volunteers perform within their districts to assure that a child's needs are recognized and addressed by the courts and social service systems. There are more than 900 CASA programs in 49 states. Nearly 60,000 CASA and volunteer guardians ad litem served 220,000 children in 2006 alone. Several studies demonstrate the effectiveness of CASA advocacy for children. Judges appoint CASA volunteers to their most difficult cases, in which children face an even higher-than-normal factor of risk. In spite of the difficulty of their cases, children with a CASA volunteer are substantially less likely to spend more than three years in foster care or ever to re-enter foster care. A greater number of targeted services are ordered for children and their families when the child has a volunteer. In four out of five cases, all or almost all of the CASA volunteers' recommendations are accepted by the court. Judges today identify a great need for more volunteers to be assigned to children's cases. I thank Judge Soukup for his inspiration. He must feel enormously rewarded by the knowledge that his idea has helped provide better outcomes for two million children today. Congratulations to the King County Dependency CASA Program on this 30th anniversary. I applaud the National CASA Association for its leadership in expanding that single program in Seattle to more than 900 offices in 49 states today. I salute Washington State CASA, also located in Seattle, for undertaking the largest expansion of CASA within the state. Finally, I congratulate and thank the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have served as CASA volunteers over these last 30 years for their steadfast advocacy to assure that the interests and needs of the children remain the focus of our child welfare and court systems.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Louisiana keeps worrying about the fact that we are mischaracterizing his amendment. I want to take a specific because the whole question of putting a cap on training benefits is a cut in benefits from what we presently have. The unworkable thing that was in the law before, when you cap at $4,000 the amount per year that a worker can get, a total of $8,000 over a 2-year period, in Minnesota and Maine, 50 percent of the workers spend $10,000. Thirty percent of the TAA workers in Pennsylvania spend more than $15,000 over 10 years. Twenty-five percent of the people in South Carolina spend over $15,000. Eighty percent of the workers in Nebraska spend more than $10,000. Now, when you put that cap on there, you are saying to a 45- or 50- year-old worker who used to make 35, 40, 45, 50, $55,000, we are not going to give you sufficient money to really retrain for a job that you had equivalent in pay before. You are saying whatever you can get for four grand, fine, that's it. But if it takes more than that, well, you're on your own. This bill is designed to try and help workers who were the middle class in this country, people who were making livable wages. Now, you also say in your bill that your wage insurance, it used to be in the present bill if you were over 50 and your job was making less than $50,000 a year, you could receive up to an additional $5,000 if you took a job that paid less than you were making before. Now, what you've done in this bill, in this amendment you offer, you say we will give you a minimum wage job, and if you don't make an additional $2.40 above that minimum wage in your State, then we will sort of give you a little cushion up to that $2.40. That is pushing people to low-wage jobs. You are taking those $50,000-a-year people who were working in auto factories and working in manufacturing jobs across this country and you are saying, go out and get yourself a minimum wage job and we'll give you an extra $2.40 an hour. My, aren't we generous. And you understand why we talk about you gutting what miserable program you put in place in the first place. This bill that we have put together here today is one that will allow States, and the reason why we put additional money in for training is no one could use it before. They will under our bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I wish you and I could have a debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Sestak, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Hodes of New Hampshire.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for proposing a substitute today. It's healthy for America to see two different views on how we should help dislocated workers. Democrats want to help more workers who lose their jobs because of trade, especially workers providing services. The Republican substitute says no to helping those workers. Democrats want to assure more dislocated workers have an opportunity to receive training. The Republican substitute would, instead, cap the amount of training any worker can receive, not to go on and finish a program. Democrats want to assure health care coverage is affordable for workers losing their jobs by paying 85 percent of their premium. The Republican substitute said, well, 65 wasn't enough, but we'll give you 70. So again, they cut the workers short. Democrats want a better wage insurance program to help trade-affected workers who are reemployed in jobs that pay less than their prior employment. The Republican substitute guts the program as it presently exists and instead only provides a benefit to those at the very lowest wage jobs. Republicans don't care if workers have a chance to get a living-wage job; they want to force people back to minimum-wage jobs. Democrats want to help States improve unemployment insurance for all workers who are denied unfairly their benefits, especially women. The Republican substitute goes in the opposite direction by allowing the administration to approve waivers from States that could deny more jobless workers unemployment insurance. In short, the Democrats want to help workers navigate the global economy. The Republican substitute, on the other hand, tells workers, well, you're still, more or less, on your own. After this substitute is defeated, I'm hopeful that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ultimately join us in passing a bill to assist America's workers when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what makes America work is America's workers. Today, America is going to work harder to protect its workers. We currently have a program that was put together in the middle of the night in 2002 in the midst of the fast track legislation, and it was never intended to work. This bill provides protection for almost double the number of workers covered by that program. This measure before us also improves a more basic protection for all jobless workers, unemployment insurance. Only one-third of America's unemployed now receive unemployment benefits, and coverage rates for low-wage and part-time workers are considerably lower. This bill provides up to $7 billion to States implementing specific policies designed to eliminate unnecessary barriers. We ask States to count a worker's most recent wages when determining their eligibility. We ask States to end discrimination against part-time workers. And we ask them not to disqualify workers who must leave work for compelling family reasons like domestic violence or taking care of a sick child or following a spouse whose job has moved. These are State options. We are not requiring them to do anything. If they don't want it, they don't have to have the money. But we are giving them the opportunity to take care of their unemployed workers. The improvements promise to provide unemployment benefits to over half a million jobless workers if adopted in every State. Women particularly stand to gain from this bill because they are more likely to work in part-time or low-wage jobs and are more likely to leave for family reasons. The cost of supporting these reforms is fully offset by extending an unemployment tax that has been on the books for 30 years, and that President Bush is specifically asking us to continue. Any talk about increasing taxes is simply empty rhetoric from the other side. They know it, because the last time it was extended, they did it on their watch. Mr. Speaker, a vote in favor of this bill should be the easiest vote that every Member of Congress takes this year.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McDERMOTT. We have the right to close?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time that we have to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. McDERMOTT. You will concede that the Department of Labor says that no State ran out of money, but that GAO said that nine States ran out of money, that there is an argument about how the States keep their books, will you not?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we've been here before. In the 1920s, America spied on its citizens and arrested thousands because they advocated for change. In the 1950s, America black-listed innocent Americans whose only crime was to run afoul of Senator Joe McCarthy. In the 1970s, America illegally spied on people in the civil rights and the Vietnam antiwar movements, including Dr. Martin Luther King. The transgressions were so egregious that a courageous Senator Frank Church from Idaho led a search for truth and affirmation of freedom. In the end, the Congress passed FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA provides a swift and certain means for America to meet any threat without threatening America's freedoms. But this administration seems it cannot defend America without demolishing America's freedoms. The President wants the Congress to undermine FISA with new legislation that would make it easy to spy on any American, just like the 1920s, the 1950s and the 1970s. These are not the good old days, and I oppose any attempt to use fear to subvert freedom. We can keep America safe without sacrificing America in the process. I urge my colleagues to remember why FISA was created and why we should not neuter it in the near future.