Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz). (Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, having the right to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. My prediction is correct. We are here to protect the oil companies, and we are glad to see that. I will just take one of your arguments, the American Wind Association. You said, this is no use. They say ``strengthening our Nation's energy security, revitalizing world economies and addressing climate change are the central goals of the 110th Congress.'' Wind energy is a large part of the answer. They are in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman from Missouri should stay and listen. The fact is that 36 of your Members voted for H.R. 6 because we were closing a loophole which was never designed for the oil companies. It was to deal with the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri says that we are taking money somehow and doing bad things with it. He forgets that this issue was to deal with FSC, and, lo and behold, the oil companies slipped in under the door. They were never eligible for FSC before, but the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee allowed them in in the last Congress. They have been taking their profits and just going hell-bent for leather. We are taking it back from them. I am sure they are upset about it. But it is more important that we use that money for alternative energy, both in production of new energy sources and in conservation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. At this moment, we haven't heard anything to respond to. All we have heard is a defense of the insurance companies.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking Mr. Rangel for his leadership in providing the energy legislation which is before us today and to applaud Speaker Pelosi for setting the agenda at the beginning of this session that will change this country's energy. We live in a Nation addicted to oil, and we simply can't afford it anymore. It's too expensive for the American pocketbook; it's too adverse for American security, and too perilous for the Earth's atmosphere. But the key to any and every part of the energy solution lies here in the Congress in its political will to change what we can change for the good of the American people and the Earth. Our energy legislation is bigger and bolder than a barrel of oil. It's a balance of support for alternative energy production and conservation. Every American has a stake and an ability to make a change, and our energy legislation unleashes America's ability to create, innovate and seek out and do that which has not been done. This is America's declaration of energy independence, and the first campaign plans to win what must be won. Our grandchildren, our children, our constituents, our country deserves no less. To those who say we cannot rise to meet the future and that we must embrace the past, I say America's boundless optimism has plenty of room to grow and shine. When it comes to energy policy, we have not risen to the occasion or to America's potential. That changes today with this legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And I would point out that the rhetoric we're going to hear from the other side is basically, we have to protect the oil companies; we can't touch their profits. Now, at a time when Americans are paying record prices at the pump and oil is at $70 a barrel, we have to change the status quo, and we're going to do it. It doesn't affect oil produced in this country, and it will be better for us in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just made some arguments. He said the country is like a supertanker and we are heading for the rocks and we shouldn't change the direction. No, no, no, we should keep going right straight into the rocks. Now if you want to criticize this bill for not doing enough, I will go along with you, and I think there are many other Members on our side. But our problem is we can't seem to get any help from the other side to turn the wheel even a half inch. They say oh, if you take money away from the oil industry; they don't want to pay for anything, Mr. Speaker. They simply want to run on the rocks and the Democrats are not going to run this country onto the rocks. We are going to change the direction we are going with energy. This bill is not the answer to everything. It is not as much as it should be or could be, but we are going in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm sorry, it seems like the gentleman from Texas has forgotten what happened in the early hours of this session. We passed H.R. 6; 36 of your Members voted for it, to close the tax, to set the money aside to be put into this bill when we decided what were reasonable uses of that money. It has never been used before. This funding source has not been used ever on this floor before, so you are incorrect in your assertion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, is closing the right of the majority?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to answer the arguments presented.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. No, I'll take my own time. I'm prepared to close.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is really a defining moment for the Congress, Mr. Speaker, and how we vote will define whether we embrace the future or cling to the past that is destroying us. Now, the last speaker talked about somehow, if we take back some of the obscene profits from the oil industry and use it to develop alternative energy and to invest in conservation measures around this country, that that will be the end of the Western World as we've known it. Between 2004 and 2006, oil companies experienced profit increases of an average of 62 percent, some of them as high as 117 percent. Now, oil profits, in the dictionary, that would be obscene, and anybody who thinks we're destroying the oil industry here simply is unwilling to look at the facts. Supporting this energy legislation is really a vote to move toward our national security because our addiction to oil makes us vulnerable to foreign countries and keeps our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. No one here in this House still believes that oil wasn't a major reason why we went into Iraq. Supporting this energy legislation is a vote to strengthen America's domestic economy because our addiction has made the American people vulnerable to punishing and unrelenting price shocks. We didn't start the increase in prices in energy. Gasoline prices weren't started in here by raising taxes. If you think that the oil companies, I don't know if there's anybody in this country who thinks that the Congress is what makes the oil prices go up, the gasoline prices. Now, supporting this energy legislation is also a vote to save our planet, because addiction to oil has placed us on a collision course with global warming. Every witness who came before the Ways and Means Committee, whether they were called by the Republicans or the Democrats, agreed that global warming is something we must deal with. The arguments I hear are not about whether there is global warming. The question is how should we deal with it how quickly, what's the best way. Now, you either turn back now and we will face economic calamity and planetary catastrophe, that's a choice you guys can make, or turn back now and we fail the American people in our global responsibility. The choice is very clear. The choice is really easy, and the need is urgent for our children, for our grandchildren, for the planet. I ask all the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to note, with great sadness, the passing of Kathy Cado, a Seattle activist of great compassion and uncompromising integrity. Kathy was a remarkable woman who lent her considerable organizing and fundraising skills to educational projects, environmental efforts, health care initiatives, community programs, and women's issues. She loved progressive politics, and brought to it verve uniquely hers. Kathy was that rarest of activists--a person of strong views who nonetheless could establish rapport with almost anyone. She brought humor and kindness to all of her endeavors, and she strove always to better her community. She was creative and witty, energizing countless campaigns and ballot efforts. Kathy was a mentor, and an inspiration, to so many; she leaves a legacy of public engagement matched by few others. Kathy was a kidney transplant patient who struggled for many years with the consequences of renal disease. Yet, she refused to allow her illness to diminish her activism or her commitment to others. Instead, she embraced a new arena of involvement, learning as much as she could about this challenging field of medicine, and working tirelessly to support more kidney disease research and patient service. And, perhaps most significantly, she was resolute that the excellent treatment she received must be available to all who need it, regardless of resources or circumstances. Kathy Cado was a very special human being who enriched the lives of everyone fortunate enough to know her. She was, in the very best sense, a public citizen.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the debate comes down to this: Do you favor big tobacco or children? Do you favor big tobacco and insurance company profits or seniors? We come down on the side of children and seniors, and that's what this bill is all about. You've heard over and over and over again there is no change of eligibility, but you insist on saying the same untruth because you want to make a point in the press. That is wrong. There are not any illegal aliens going to get in here. What we took out was what you put in. The fact is that we took out your requirement that people bring in papers when their kid is sick and dying, and you're saying to a parent, now you've got to prove you're a citizen before we'll take care of your kid. That's what you're doing. You've taken your clothes off in public. You don't want to take care of children. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, yesterday because my flight from Seattle was cancelled. As a result I missed several recorded votes. Were I able, I would have voted in support of H.R. 2750, H. Res. 580, and H. Res. 579.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a man from Kansas said, ``Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.'' Dwight David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953. I ask that the rest of my time be in silence for those who have died in Iraq, Americans and Iraqis.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall 744, final passage of H.R. 3093, the FY08 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I not been detained, I would have voted in favor of final passage.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, for years the administration has been rigging its case for war against Iran with posturing, finger-wagging and name calling. Those are not my words. One of my hometown daily newspapers, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, authored those words as the first sentence of an editorial they published this morning entitled: ``Iran: No, not again.'' I will insert the Seattle PI editorial into the Record at this point. [From the Seattle Post-Intelligener Editorial Board, July 17, 2007] Iran: No, Not Again For years, this administration has been rigging its case for war against Iran, with posturing, finger wagging and name-calling. And now, just as Iran has struck an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspection of its nuclear plants, and just as the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that country is slowing progress on one of those facilities, the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper reports that Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing for a military ``solution'' in Iran. Naturally, President Bush is backing him, going against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, both of whom favor diplomacy over military action (heck, it worked with North Korea). In May, Cheney paid a visit to the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf, 150 miles off Iran's coast, for no other reason than to deliver threats. The New York Times reported that while Cheney said nothing new, he ``stitched all of those warnings together, and the symbolism of sending the administration's most famous hawk to deliver the speech so close to Iran's coast was unmistakable.'' The U.S. rode roughshod over ElBaradei's insistence that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction (he was right). And look where we are now. More than 3,000 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in war that defies reason and sees no end. We fear the same might happen in Iran. The fact is, the mainstream newspapers at home and around the world are expressing grave concerns over what they fear may be the sequel to Iraq, namely, a military strike against Iran. One of the sources used by the PI editorial is the Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom which published a story yesterday with this headline: ``Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran.'' The Guardian reports that: ``The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favor of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months.'' Ominously, the story adds: ``Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said, `Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.' '' Thoughtful newspapers and other worldwide people believe the Vice President is pushing for a military strike against Iran. The Vice President's presence and speech aboard an aircraft carrier near Iran in mid-May sent an unmistakable message, says the New York Times. As the Guardian reports, The Vice President is winning the war for war inside the administration, and now the American people have to be brought along. That means the administration and its surrogates will make the data say what they need it to say. We're already beginning to see how a new national intelligence assessment released just today will be manipulated. The report makes a persuasive and fact-driven case for getting our soldiers out of Iraq, because the President shifted away from the real war against terrorism to pursue his own agenda in Iraq. But instead of a sober assessment of what's gone wrong in Iraq, we're hearing that terrorists have reconstituted their operations inside Iran. And the insinuation for military action is clear. Like many, I would like to know what's really going on in Iran and what Iranian leaders are thinking and doing. Well, where can we turn for an assessment we can trust? We know the Vice President wants to use deadly force in Iran. We know that there are credible media reports that say the Vice President is winning the war to go to war with Iran. So how are we going to get accurate and reliable information from this administration or anyone associated with it? Today, the State Department announced it wants a new meeting directly with Iran to talk face-to-face, government-to-government. Ordinarily, I would see this as a welcome, even positive, sign that the administration has finally begun to see the wisdom in diplomacy. Is that the case, or is an announcement that comes on the same day as the New Intelligence Estimate a sign that the Vice President is about to declare mission accomplished? We don't know the answer, and we don't know what happened in Iraq. But we do know what happened in Iraq. The PI editorial board reminds us how the administration ran over the International Atomic Energy Agency, its chief, to make a war in Iraq, quoting the PI. Look where we are now, more than 3,000 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in a war that defies reason and sees no end. We fear the same may happen in Iran. So do I. Tell the President not to go after Iran.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 527) recognizing the month of November as ``National Homeless Youth Awareness Month''.