Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. What is the administrative cost under Social Security? Do you know?

Mr. McDERMOTT. And the administrative costs in an investment house, Wall Street Journal kind of private investment account, what would that be?

Mr. McDERMOTT. A group, right?

Mr. McDERMOTT. What is a cohort?

Mr. McDERMOTT. The actual quote, if the gentlewoman will yield for a second, ``My first preference,'' he said, ``is to allow the surpluses to run for a while and unwind a good deal of the debt to the public which we have accumulated over the years.'' Here is the man that has brought in large measure the present economy to its present state. He is saying, pay off the debt. I do not see how anybody can be against this. It is going to be interesting to hear the debate that will go on while they try and justify, ``Well, since we've got the money, rather than pay it off, we'll just give it back.'' It is the people are the ones who are going to benefit from stabilizing Social Security and Medicare. There is a tie between these two. Because when we talk about these older women, there are about 6 million women in this country living on $8,000 of Social Security, and it is those people that we are talking about raising the premiums on Medicare.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I think one of the things that we need to talk about a little bit so people really understand it, because sometimes I know that I think I understand about something until I really begin to feel about or actually look at it. This Social Security issue really, if you want to take a point when it got acute was in 1983. We in the Congress, not any of us, but the Congress decided they were going to save Social Security, so they raised the contribution rate so that people were putting more money into the pot that was being paid out in that year, the so-called pay-as-you-go idea. You put in as much as you have to pay out. Well, we were putting in more than we had to pay out, so a surplus developed in there. During the 1980s, under Mr. Reagan, for the Cold War reasons and a lot of reasons, we borrowed all of that. We borrowed that money out of the Social Security and we have been paying--we meaning the government borrowed it--and we have been paying interest. Every year, one dollar out of seven in the Federal budget goes to pay interest to the Social Security system. It is almost our biggest expenditure outside of Social Security itself, just a little less than we spend on defense, we are spending in interest on this money. The President's proposal in his State of the Union message was absolutely a stroke of genius, because he is not only paying off the national deficit but he is also strengthening the Social Security system by putting 62 percent of the surplus until the year 2014, and the amount of national debt will be markedly reduced. I personally think that it is inconceivable that if you have any conservative bones anyplace in your body that you would, having received this benefit, say, well, let us spend it on a tax break rather than pay this enormous debt that faces this country. I think the people have to understand, the Congress created the debt, and it is now when we have surplus the time to pay it off. It is like your credit card. If you get a Christmas bonus and you say, well, let us just buy some more rather than paying down your credit card, you would say that person was irresponsible. The Congress will be irresponsible in my view if it does not use this money to pay down that debt.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Anybody who looks at this with an open mind realizes that women will suffer if we go to privatization and do not have this generalized program we have today. That reason alone ought to be enough to make us keep this program together, if we care about our mothers and our sisters and our aunts and all the rest.

Mr. McDERMOTT. And then women live longer. So they have less money as income, they have worked less number of years and then they live longer, so that they are impoverished or they will be impoverished by this kind of system.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Before you walk away, I would like to ask you a question. You quote that Galveston study. What were the reasons why people who choose not to go into Social Security but to do their own investing, why did they come out worse off? I mean, my son has given that argument to me. He said, dad, we do not need Social Security. Just give me my money, and I will invest it, and I will be just fine. I would like to hear what happened to them.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I think Earl really put his finger on it. It is there and we know it is there, and our job has got to be to stabilize it and make it so that there is no question that it will be there for our kids. I think all of us my age or around my age have kids who say, well, I heard that this is not going to be there when I get to be old. The first thing we have to get out to them is the message that if we did nothing, if we did nothing, there would be three-quarters of the benefits in social security forever. There is no question that we can do that. The question is whether we are going to have to reduce the benefits if we do not do something about it. I think that the mythology of those people who want to privatize it and get rid of the Federal program has been to say to our kids in an advertising campaign over and over again, social security is not going to be there when you get there, so why are you paying for it? You are paying in, but you are not going to get anything out of it, you know. That has begun to take effect among young people in this country, when in fact it is not true. It is a lie that is being pushed by people who want to destroy the social security system as we have come to know it. I personally think our biggest job will be, and if we fail in educating the public about this, at some point they may buy this kind of mythology, about if they had their own money. But the thing we have to remember about the United States is that we are not a country which has done things individually. We do not put out fires individually. We do not build highways individually. We do not build schools individually. A social security system, some may be able to build one, but for everybody who can, there is going to be somebody who cannot. Our problem here is to make sure that everybody has something. Otherwise we will be back in the thirties.

Mr. McDERMOTT. How do people get that report? Where is that report?

Mr. McDERMOTT. May I ask a question?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, I think that, first of all, anybody who would try and separate them and say one is important and the other is not simply is not old, because if you are old, you think about two things: How you are going to pay for your house and your food and how you are going to pay for your doctor bills. And when Medicare started, 1965, less than 50 percent of people had health insurance above the age of 65. Now 100 percent are covered. It is the second leg of the economic security for senior citizens in this country, and you have to stabilize that plan. Otherwise, the Social Security check is going to go simply to pay for more health care benefits. Seniors already spend $2,500 on average in this country out of pocket on Medicare for medical things that are not covered by Medicare. So the Social Security and the Medicare are linked very tightly, but it is absolutely crucial that people have an income to live on. If you do not have that one stabilized and you start making that one unstable and then make their health care unstable, you will have taken away all the emotional security that senior citizens feel in this country because of these two programs.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would fix an inequity in the current reimbursement rates for low-income Native Americans who receive health care through the Indian Health Service (IHS). Under current law, a 100 percent federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) applies for the cost of services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries by a hospital clinic, or other IHS facility, as long as they are run by the IHS, tribe, or tribal organization. While IHS facilities (usually in rural areas) are eligible to receive the 100 percent FMAP, similar services provided through IHS programs (usually in urban areas) receive only 50-80 percent reimbursement depending on the service. My legislation would fix this inequity by raising the IHS program FMAP to 100 percent as well. Equalizing the FMAP for health care received through IHS programs is especially important given that roughly half of the nation's Native Americans now live in urban areas. Furthermore, many urban IHS programs are run through Federally Qualified Health Centers whose state funding have been threatened by repeal of the Boren Amendment. Passing this legislation would benefit IHS programs in over 35 cities throughout the country and would have little impact on the federal budget. Informal estimates illustrate that equalizing the FMAP for IHS programs would cost $17 million over the next 5 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Indian Health Equity Act.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 7, H.R. 68, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that the citizens of the 7th congressional district and the American people are being treated unfairly. They are being denied the opportunity for their representatives to vote for censure which will allow the country to move on and begin a healing process which we all believe is necessary. Unfortunately, this unfairness is not new. It is typical of the whole process. It is so unfair that we can only speculate at the reason a surrogate is the presiding officer for this momentous procedure, a vote second only in importance to a declaration of war. The fact that neither the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) nor the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is presiding today speaks volumes about the leadership of the House at this historic moment. The lack of leadership reminds me of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands at the crucifixion. Make no mistake, the President's acts should be condemned by the House, but they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The impeachment of the President without the support of the public will be extremely devisive. History has shown us that the wounds of the 1864 impeachment took decades to heal. It took 100 years before we had the Civil Rights Voting Act in this House. I think it is clear the people want justice but not the kind of justice you are eager to vote for. I urge you to reconsider your ill-advised actions and allow the House to have a fair vote that includes censure. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: Seattle, WA, December 15, 1998. Hon. Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. Dear Representative McDermott: Thank you so much for declaring your intention to vote no on impeachment. At one level I understand this to just be ``following the party line'', but (and I have also written the Washington state Republican representatives), more broadly I hope that you share my internal conviction that, legalese aside, the entire affair(!) simply doesn't rise to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors''. There has been no threat to the government, no clandestine arrangements with foes or allies on the part of the President. No one (including Mr. Clinton) argues that his behavior was proper, but only zealots seem to think it's an impeachable offense. The same can not be said for the activities of the House Leadership, which seems to me to have brazenly used political power to choreograph the entire process, frame the discussion and now (so we read) threaten ``dire consequences'' for anyone who votes against the Party Line. From the vantage point of Seattle, this black-and-white, do-as-we-tell-you approach doesn't seem much different from stories we used to hear about ``rubber stamp'' governments in the former Soviet Union. I realize that there is a clash of cultures here--Professor George Lakoff at Berkeley has uncovered a relationship between people who vote Republican and those who prefer Democrats, based on their perception of ``family values''. Republicans favor the ``strong father/single decision-maker'' model of the family, while Democrats think of the family in terms of all its members. Hillary's ``It Takes a Village'' view thus resonates with her supporters. Since these images are formed in our early years they tend to be inseparable from what we ``instinctively'' feel is True in later life, and thus, just as Deborah Tannen has shown that men and women live in different cultures, so too do Republicans and Democrats. One would think that Mr. Livingston might have learned something from the last election, but perhaps he continues to believe that constituents like myself are the exception. If my facts are correct, I believe that nationally 60% of the public wants Congress to vote for censure and ``move on''. Your mail ratio may be somewhat different--certainly the Religious Right and the Clinton Haters see this as a chance to advance their causes. But I know from having just talked to four of my friends that all of us have exactly the same opinion, yet 80% of this group felt that The Republicans were going to do whatever they liked, and that it was just a waste of time to even write. From my perspective, this attitude of hopelessness is a far deeper stain on our country than the one on the dress. I'm not a political activist, but I do feel strongly about my responsibility as an American citizen to raise my hand and say ``Stop'' when I see such a blatant, run-away abuse of power. I'm not saying that the President has done no wrong-- even he admits his errors. But is covering up an extra- marital affair truly the kind of ``high crime and misdemeanor'' the Constitution had in mind? You know the historical facts--Clinton is not the first president to engage in such activity. ``Ah, but it's not the act, it's the perjury'' they say. Obviously lying is not a good thing, so I'm willing to let any Congressman who has never told a lie vote accordingly. But to me there is an enormous difference between lying about diverting funds for Iran-Contra fighters (which might have involved us in a war) and lying about having sex in the Oval Office. It doesn't take a PhD from Harvard to sort this out. Neither am I a Biblical scholar (I don't even go to church), but the vote on Thursday seems to come right out of the Old and New Testaments: there are the self-righteous Pharisees, couching their actions in the letter of the law, and, I hope, a larger number of those who remember ``do unto others as you would have them do unto you''. This is the struggle. Four hundred some people get to ``play God'' with the fate of our Nation's highest elected leader. I hope they think long and hard about that, and seek God's guidance, not Mr. Livingston's, before they assume the role of Jack Ruby and pull the trigger. The House has the reins of history in its hands; it simply blows my mind to see this `Ultimate Constitutional Weapon' deployed in such a partisan, lock-step manner. This is the behavior that cults and unions are always accused of--not how reasonable people expect members of our highest Assembly to behave. Is there a sense of ``Well, it doesn't really matter--this is just a procedural vote--it's up to the Senate''? I would hope not--what an irresponsible example to set for our citizens. Yet I understand the enormous pressure that has been unfairly placed on the collective Republican shoulders, so if you can think of anything to do to encourage them, I would hope you would do so. Perhaps you can point out the opportunity to rise to the level of Statesman that few people ever attain, or to recall whom it is that History remembers from the Andrew Johnson impeachment proceedings. Then again, what we tell our children when they have to deal with peer- pressure situations is to ``just say No.'' That is my appeal as well: Just say No. Sincerely, James A. van Zee.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Stark and I introduced legislation that will dramatically improve the Medicare program for its low-income beneficiaries. If passed, our legislation will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries eligible for existing income protections actually receive the benefits they deserve. The current Medicare program places many beneficiaries at risk due to the inadequacy of its benefit package. Specifically, Medicare's high out-of-pocket costs for ``covered services'' and its failure to cover the cost of prescription drugs and long-term care can seriously erode a beneficiary's total family income. Additionally, as Congress continues to push all beneficiaries into Medicare managed care, many more low- and moderate-income beneficiaries will face increased financial risks. In 1995, 12.2% of Medicare's 35 million beneficiaries were at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 6.2% were between 100% and 120% FPL, and 4.9% had incomes between 120% and 135% FPL. Despite their dual eligibility for both Medicare and Medicaid, health care spending averaged roughly 30% of their total family income. The programs that Congress designed to protect low-income beneficiaries from unreasonable out-of-pocket costs--the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB), Specified Low-Income Beneficiary (SLMB), and Qualified Individuals (QI-1 and QI-2) programs--are notorious for having poor enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. A recent report by Families USA found that nationwide, roughly 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for QMB, SLMB & QI-1 benefits but are not receiving them. The report highlighted that Washington State was the 10th worst state at enrollment with roughly 100,000 eligible beneficiaries not covered--costing WA low-income beneficiaries $55 million alone in lost Social Security benefits. The lost Social Security benefits are attributable to eligible seniors having their part B premiums automatically deducted by Medicare from their Social Security checks each month even though they are eligible for one of the existing income protection programs. The loss of $43.80 month/$525.60 year is tremendous to a Medicare beneficiary whose income hovers around $8,000 to $9,000 a year. The reasons for poor enrollment vary, so rather than dwell on our collective failure, we propose action to fix the problem. Our legislative solution simply would presumptively enroll eligible Medicare beneficiaries in the appropriate QMB or SLMB protection program--enrolling as close to 100 percent of eligibles as possible. As Congress and the National Commission on the Future of Medicare struggle to reform the Medicare program, we need to keep an open mind about how we can do more to improve, rather than harm, the program. Presumptively enrolling current Medicare eligibles for existing low- income protections would be a good start. My hope is that in addition to making this necessary improvement, the next Congress and the Commission also will consider other options to enhance the low-income protections such as simplification through federalization and modernizing its eligibility, income, and asset test criteria. Medicaid Protections for Low-income Medicare Beneficiaries QMB: Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries eligible for financial assistance covering Medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments for singles/couples at or below 100% of poverty--$8,292/$11,100 year. SLMB: Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries eligible for Part B premium assistance for singles/couples between 100 & 120% of poverty--$9,900/$13,260 year. QI-1: BBA '97 allows Qualified Individuals to apply for block grant assistance to pay for Part B premiums if the single/couple's income is between 120 and 135% of poverty-- $11,112/$14,892 year. QI-2: BBA '97 allows Qualified Individuals to apply for assistance to pay for the portion of the Part B premium increase caused by transfer of Home Health Services from Part A to Part B if the single/couple's income is between 135 and 175% of poverty. This benefit is estimated to be worth $1.07/ month per beneficiary. Part B premiums cost $43.80/month equaling $525.60/year.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the American public may wonder why we are focusing on education in the Democratic Party. In the Plains Indians in the central part of this country, there is a well-known bit of wisdom that says that they can tell a tribe that is going to die when they eat the seed corn, when you eat the corn that has to be saved for the spring and plant for the new crop. Education is the seed corn of this society. Our determination to make this session end by an investment in education, both in the classrooms in terms of reducing class size and in rebuilding the buildings, is the seed corn of this society. If we fail to do that, we will come out here, as we do every year, and pass a bill for H-1B visas so that we can go worldwide and gather the brains that we need to run this economy. That is wrong. That is not investing in the seed corn. We need to stay and do education.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting over in my office looking at my clips from the newspaper, and I come across one here I thought I would mention to my colleagues. This is the Washington Post, October 6, in their editorial section: A do-nothing Congress whose year has been spent deflecting good bills while barely pretending to legislate is now down to the task it cannot avoid. It has yet to pass 9 of its 13; well, really it is 7 of its 13; regular appropriation bills, and they go on and say on most of this stuff the President would be wrong to yield, he should veto the Republicans. Now the Republicans are out here today saying that we are trying to pick a fight, and so the paper says the Republicans say the President is trying to pick a fight on these issues, even to the point of shutting down the government to divert attention from their own failures. They seek thereby to disarm him. In fact, it is they who seek to divert attention from their own record which for most of the year consists of thwarting legislation that deserves to pass and now consists, in too many cases, of trying to sneak into law provisions that ought to fail. The President should swat them on it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who is doing a real public service in coming out here and organizing this effort to talk about education. As I listen to this education business about loans, I think about my own circumstance, my own family. My sister told me that she will be 54 years old when she gets through paying off her loans. These are loans that were for a PhD at the University of Chicago in the 1970s. She is going to be paying until another 6 or 7 years. When interest rates have fallen, all of us who have a house, we go out and we refinance our loan. We drop our interest rate. I bought a house at 8 percent. I am now down at 6 percent. And I save myself all kinds of money. A student cannot do that. You cannot refinance a student loan. If they really cared about children in the middle class, they would make it possible for you to refinance the loan. You can do it if you have a house. You go in and you get a home improvement loan and you use that home improvement money to pay off your college loan. Then you pay at 6 percent and you get tax deductibility. That is how they make people work around the law and put the students out there and let the banks squeeze them endlessly. As I was sitting here thinking about this whole education thing, I was thinking about what is a democracy based on? A democracy is based on an educated electorate. If you do not have people who are educated and can understand and participate, you lose the democracy. And we have done some things here in this last couple weeks which are, if you think about them in that context, are very destructive. We had a big debate out here about how many H-1B visas we are going to give. Now, most people do not what an H-1B visa is because our grandparents or our great grandparents came and they just kind of walked in here. But now if you come to the United States, you have to have some kind of a visa, and it either has to be a work visa or you are coming here because your family has been here and you are unifying the family or maybe there is so many could come in from each country. But we have a special category. It is called an H-1B visa. This is a visa that we give to people who have a special skill somewhere in the world. We say, we need that skill in the United States, so we will give you one of those visas, come on in and work here. You can't stay, but we will use you, we can pay you as little as possible, give you no benefit, but if you are willing to come here, we will take you in on that basis. Last year we passed the bill and we said we need 60,000 of those people in the United States next year. Lo and behold, industry in this country was so desperate for trained people that we had used those 60,000 visas by the 1st of July. So in come the Republicans and say, we need 150,000 more. We have to go out into Poland and Czechoslovakia and Germany and India and Cambodia and we have got to find these 150,000 people and let them come in here. If you think about that, what that says is we are not training enough people in this country to fill the jobs that are available. These are not $5 an hour jobs flipping hamburgers in some fast food joint. These are in my district at Microsoft where we pay 30, 40, 50, $60,000 to these people, and they cannot find an American who qualifies for that job, so they have to go to India, or the Ukraine, or Uganda or somewhere and find them. So when the President says that the focus of this country and this Congress ought to be developing an educational system that prepares our kids for the jobs of the 21st century, he is talking about making Americans available for those H-1B visas. The problem in politics is that a lot of times we always think in 2-year terms or maybe 4. We do not think about the fact that we are really sewing the seeds for 20 years from now if we don't educate our kids, if in those first 3 years we do not learn to read. Then they are not going to know how to read a computer, ma'am, when they get an opportunity to work as a computer operator, or as a programmer. If they do not learn basic math--my daughter teaches in the Seattle schools. She teaches sophomore remedial math. She said to me, dad, you can't believe how many kids don't know how to use a ruler. She has to take them out in the parking lot and say, all right, now here is what a ruler is about. How big a parking space, so they measure out the parking space. Then she says to them, why is that parking space this size. The kids finally say oh, so the car will fit in. So they measure the car. Lo and behold, a parking space is a little bit larger than an automobile, a standard automobile. Now when you are taking 15 and 16-year-old kids who come through our system and they do not have the capacity to make the logical connections between a ruler and a parking space, you have got serious difficulties in our educational system. So when the President says we need 100,000 new teachers to get those kids in the first 3 years where they learn to add and subtract and do fractions and they learn to read and write. That is what that is all about. It is not about somehow the Federal Government taking over education. It is supplementing those school districts in this country, and Seattle has not got a bad school system. But we still have kids who are not making it, who are not getting it, because the schools are too big or too whatever, and we need to add this kind of thing. Now, the other thing is this whole business about school buildings. My daughter is in a school building that was built before the Second World War. When they try and wire for computers, God help you. You have to have Rube Goldberg come in to put together the wiring to work inside a building that was built 50 years ago. That is not the oldest building in Seattle. There are a lot of buildings, and all over this country, and we say to our kids, well, we want to get you ready for a job. But we do not give them the opportunity to deal with the very things that they are going to have to do when they go out into the world. To me, it is a tragedy. There was an editorial in this morning's newspaper which I think is the one that just stops me sort of sometimes. When we look at what we have spent our time and energy in here, Bob Herbert in the New York Times said, having been handed the gift of Monica Lewinsky, the Republicans are running with her. She conceals their real agenda. If they can parlay the Monica madness into substantial increased majorities in the House and Senate, they can renew their conservative assault on government and on their subversion of the interests of ordinary working people and the poor. You cannot say it any clearer. If the poor, if the lower classes in our country, in the middle class in our country, if we do not come up with ways to give them an education, this democracy will lead to fascism. You will have to have the government with a soldier on every corner like they do in half the countries of the world. The reason we have a democracy is because people are educated. If we do not educate them, we will have turmoil in this country that we are not prepared for. That is why what the President is saying is that this is a long- term plan in the best interests of all Americans. I congratulate the two of you for putting this together.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Some of us are really worried that the H-1B visa is a way around taking your existing workforce and raising them up to the level that you need them, rather, go get somebody somewhere else who you can hire for $10,000, $20,000 less, do not have to pay for a pension, do not have to pay for health care or anything else and put them in the job rather than taking an existing worker. There is a lot of concern among many people who look at the workforce and say that the issue of retraining is one of the most fundamental issues to labor peace in this country. You cannot go and get somebody from somewhere else and stick them in a job when there is somebody standing there that could be trained to do that.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to be here on a Sunday afternoon after watching the talking heads on television this morning. I listened to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma who cannot understand the gentleman from Connecticut's outrage at what has happened in the medical system. I am a physician and you are a physician. I have spent time on telephones calling Omaha, Nebraska trying to get additional time for my patients in hospitals. I understand. It does take a persistent doctor. But it should not be necessary for you and I and all our colleagues in the medical profession to spend their time arguing with some bureaucrat who has never seen the patient making a decision about how long you can keep a patient in the hospital. I think the American people understand that. They understand that doctors have somebody between them and the patient. It is always an insurance company person. The failure of this Congress, even if you want to take your bill, your patient protection bill, you could not get it through the Senate. You guys did not come around here enough. The majority party cannot work with the majority party in the Senate to get something done. It is an absolute failure. There is an article here in the newspaper today. It is an analysis, it is on the editorial page of the New York Times. I will enter it in the Record. It is by Mr. Herbert. It is called the GOP Cover Story. He talks about the impeachment the other day. He says, It was, frankly, chilling. To watch Newt Gingrich presiding over the possible impeachment of a Democratic President, even one as spectacularly vulnerable as Bill Clinton, is insane. He said, This is the same Newt Gingrich who several years ago told a group of young Republicans: ``I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal, faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but lousy in politics.'' And then he says, The Republican Party, refashioned by Mr. Gingrich and his right-wing cronies, no longer has that problem. Since winning control of Congress in 1994, it has consistently pursued a mean-spirited extremist agenda and is now determined to turn the self-inflicted wounds of the President into an even larger majority. Now, he says and this is what the American people should be thinking about: Try to imagine the implications of a bigger, more powerful, more aggressive, more right-wing regime of Republicans in Congress. This is a party that is not content with trying to roll back abortion rights. It is fighting on several fronts against contraception. Just last week the Republican leadership in the House, under pressure from the right, killed a measure that would have required Federal health plans that cover prescription drugs to cover the cost of contraceptives. No one seemed to think it was crazy to have abortion foes opposing a measure that would reduce the need for abortions. They could not grasp that. He goes on to talk about the party that fought a meat inspection system designed to protect the people from the deadly E. coli. Members from my State, where we had children die, lingering deaths of E. coli infection voted against increasing meat inspections. I know we do not want big government. But there are some things the government should do. It should inspect the meat. Children should not die in fast food restaurants or in children's hospitals after a month of hospitalization of something contracted in a fast food restaurant. There is no question. He also says, Of course, you can't expect much from the Republicans because their whip denounced the Environmental Protection Agency as the Gestapo of the government. The Gestapo of the government. This is the kind of talk we get. He goes on to talk about the leadership's ethics and talks about a whole bunch of things, including one of the leadership who comes out on the floor and delivers tobacco checks on the floor to Members of Congress. I mean, this is right here on the floor. We talk about why we need campaign finance reform. We got Members and the leadership of the majority party walking around handing out checks right here on the floor, while we are fighting about whether we should do something about tobacco. There is lots more but the people ought to be worried about what is going on in this Congress. G.O.P. Cover Story Throughout Thursday's impeachment debate in the House you could hear the uncharacteristally low-keyed voice of the G.O.P.'s chief inquisitor. ``The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for three minutes,'' Newt Gingrich would say. Or he would rap his Speaker's gavel for quiet and ask, oh so formally and respectfully, ``Does the gentleman move the previous question?'' Every now and then he would smile hideously, reminding us that hypocrisy is as abundant in Washington as fertilizer on the farm. It was, frankly, chilling. Newt Gingrich presiding over the possible impeachment of a Democratic President, even one as spectacularly vulnerable as Bill Clinton, is insane. This is the same Newt Gingrich who several years ago told a group of young Republicans: ``I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.'' The Republican Party, refashioned by Mr. Gingrich and his right-wing cronies, no longer has that problem. Since winning control of Congress in 1994, it has consistently pursued a mean-spirited extremist agenda and is now determined to turn the self-inflicted wounds of Bill Clinton into an even larger majority. Try to imagine the implications of a bigger, more powerful, more aggressive, more right-wing regime of Republicans in Congress. This is a party that is not content with trying to roll back abortion rights. It is fighting on several fronts against contraception. Just last week the Republican leadership in the House, under pressure from the right, killed a measure that would have required Federal health plans that cover prescription drugs to cover the cost of contraceptives. No one seemed to think it was crazy to have abortion foes opposing a measure that would reduce the need for abortions. This is a party that tried to eliminate Federal nutrition standards for school meals and fought hard against a meat inspection system designed to protect the public from the deadly E. coli bacteria. It's a party that attacked Medicare and Medicaid and went out of its way to trash the environment. Clean air? Clean water? Forget about it. Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip and a sharp critic of Mr. Clinton, denounced the Environmental Protection Agency as the ``Gestapo of the Government.'' You want ethics? Pull the clips on Mr. Gingrich and learn how not to behave. Or check out John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Republican Conference. I wrote a column in 1996 describing how he took money from tobacco lobbyists and handed it out to certain of his colleagues on the floor of the House, while the House was in session. These are men who couldn't find the high road if they approached it by parachute. There is no doubt that Bill Clinton brought his problems on himself. He destroyed his own Presidency. But there are consequences to be paid if the Republicans are allowed to feast too ravenously on the political spoils. Democrats have already lost the opportunity to control the campaign season with discussions of such issues as the rights of patients in the era of managed care, the need to move boldly to rebuild the public school system, the concerns of working Americans in a chaotic economic environment and the outlook for Social Security. Having been handed the gift of Monica Lewinsky, the Republicans are running with her. She conceals their real agenda. If they can parlay the Monica madness into substantially increased majorities in the House and Senate, they can renew their conservative assault on government and their submersion of the interests of ordinary working Americans and the poor. Keep in mind that this is a party that crafted extraordinary tax breaks for billionaires while claiming the sky would fall if the minimum wage was raised to $5.25 an hour. Bill Clinton and the Democrats fended off the most extreme aspects of the so-called Republican revolution of the mid- 90s'. Now Mr. Clinton has given the right-wingers the opportunity to take care of their unfinished business. Only the voters stand in the way.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that targets a trade and investment initiative toward Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Irish Republic. My view is that using existing trade and investment tools to stimulate economic hope and opportunity in the Irish region is the best chance we have for ensuring the Good Friday Peace Agreement is fully implemented. Over the past few months, my thoughts, hopes, and concerns have fixed upon the Irish region. From the peaks of the Good Friday Peace Agreement and election of the first local government in Northern Ireland in over twenty five years, to the valleys of Drumcree, the arson deaths of three young brothers in Ballymoney, and the horrors of the Omagh bomb, my hopes for that troubled land have twisted and turned with events seemingly beyond our ability to impact or entirely understand. Northern Ireland needs our nation's support and assistance at one of its most critical stages along the path to lasting peace and consensual self government. On the very edge of undertaking their governmental duties and offices as set forth in the Good Friday Peace Agreement, the political leaders face one final fence--the decommissioning issue--that stands between them and the promise of a democratic and prosperous government for both communities. Time is short and a clear sign of support from Congress could help lift the parties over the last hurdle. As you know, Irish free trade legislation has been slowed by resistance from the European Union, which considers a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Northern Ireland and the Border counties as a threat to their customs union. As member states of the EU, both Ireland and Britain have viewed free trade legislation with some trepidation. Faced with continued resistance to the Irish free trade legislation, I concluded that a fresh attempt to fashion legislation that could address European reticence while quickly delivering meaningful trade and investment assistance to Northern Ireland was in order. I have developed legislation that targets existing trade and investment tools such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to assist Northern Ireland's exporters to grow their economy and job base. The legislation also ensures that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) generates private sector focus and interest in Northern Ireland and the Border area and makes sure that women entrepreneurs have meaningful access to that funding. I have additionally utilized the International Fund for Ireland as a channel to increase funding for projects that will create rapid job growth in the private sector. Finally, I have targeted five projects for funding and support that will provide both immediate and mid-term job generating growth. While there are few days left before adjournment, I am determined to advance this new bill as far as the legislative schedule and the leadership will allow. I ask for your help, assistance, and cosponsorship. A clear, serious and solid signal of support to the parties in Northern Ireland is crucial for their continued forward progress. For your information, I have attached an executive summary of the bill and some recent news items which illustrate the need for a reinvigorated effort on our part. Good Friday Trade and Investment Act (1) Statement of policy/findings: a. Economic growth and stabilization of Northern Ireland (NI) and Irish Republic Border Counties (IR) are key to full implementation of the Good Friday Peace Agreement. b. The Omagh bombing is a clear example of a small town that desperately needs immediate relief and assistance for reconstruction. The pace and scale of aid and investment in Omagh and other towns recently bombed--Banbridge, Markethill, and Newtownhamilton--could determine whether the Agreement holds. c. The International Community, including the European Union and the World Trade Organization (WTO), has a strong record of responding to historic political and economic circumstances. It has fought for and approved WTO waivers, such as transitional measures to take account of German Unification and the Treaty of Lome, that allow necessary international flexibility and cooperation to enhance trade and investment and stabilize economically deprived and politically revitalized regions. d. The U.S. can continue its crucial role in the peace process by creating and promoting economic growth through trade and investment in the region's severely economically deprived areas. In addition to promoting trade and investment in NI and IR, the U.S. should consider grant assistance to aid communities suffering terrorist attacks. e. Fair employment practices in Northern Ireland are an essential element for an expanding full employment economy. Congress notes with approval the constant efforts undertaken by the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission and Employment Tribunal to achieve this end. Congress is also aware that the Good Friday Peace Agreement established an Anti-discrimination Committee to augment the work done by the Committee and Tribunal. Congress believes their continuing efforts constitute persuasive evidence that economic justice principles contained herein are being effectively safeguarded, secured and promoted for all communities. (Assistance in legislation is contingent on MacBride principles as agreed to in H.R. 1757 conference report). f. The strengthening of a police force acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland is essential for the formation and success of a peaceful and prosperous civil society. The Congress notes the Independent Commission on Policing is to report on the policing problems in Northern Ireland. The President, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Commission, shall report to Congress on a bi-annual basis how the United States can assist in the establishment of an acceptable policing force in Northern Ireland with the highest level of professionalism. (2) OPIC directive: OPIC shall establish $300 million in equity funds for infrastructure and business development in NI and IR. Funds should emphasize investment in severely economically deprived counties in NI and IR as well as emphasize the role of women. a. Women into Business Fund: No less than 20% of the equity fund should be dedicated to encourage investment by women entrepreneurs and should be targeted to ventures headed or owned by women. b. New Technology Fund: No less than $10 million shall be dedicated to investment in projects emanating from new technologies. (3) Increased funding for the international fund for Ireland (IFI) by $30 million this year and that U.S. contribution to IFI shall not fall below $40 million/year through 2003. The President shall ensure that enhanced contribution is used for projects in severely economically deprived areas. a. 50% of annual U.S. contribution should go to projects that are most likely to produce jobs and economic expansion. The projects funded shall be selected by the Directors of the IFI in consultation with members of the Economic Development Committee of Northern Ireland Assembly, and members of the Cross Border Economic Committee from the Republic of Ireland. The President also shall report to Congress a list of suggested projects. For FY '99 the following projects shall be given first consideration. i. $8 million in financing for Omagh Memorial and other Science Parks. The UK plans to set aside $16 million to support the creation of Science Parks in Northern Ireland to bring to the marketplace the fruits of the scientific research undertaken in Northern Ireland's two universities. The IFI should consider leveraging this investment by allocating funds to establish 5 science parks in Belfast, Coleraine, Magee College, Armagh, and Omagh--each of which are located near existing research centers and campuses. It is the hope that these parks could attract additional private sector businesses and generate between 20 and 30 viable businesses over a 5-year period. ii. $5 million in co-financing to the $8 million Innovation Fund established by the UK to provide support for technology- transfer start-ups with commercial potential. iii. $250,000 over 2 years toward the strengthening of existing ties between Handmade in America and the Northern Ireland craft sectors. Enhancing the existing partnership would go a long way toward boosting the contribution of craft industry to employment and economic growth and deepen cultural, heritage, artistic, and commercial relations between the U.S. and Northern Ireland. iv. $250,000 for executive development. One of the key weaknesses in the Northern Ireland economy is the relatively low level of skills and competency at the middle management level in both the public and private sector. Closing the skills gap must include continuous executive development. An executive development program for up to 50 executives drawn from local government and private sector can be developed to meet these training needs. A 20-week program of workshops, peer learning, peer assessment and internships could be implemented between a university such as the Ulster Business School and a U.S. Business school. Local government and business could be encouraged to co-finance the project with the IFI. v. $13 million for Springvale Project to tackle twin problems of urban economic regeneration and the growth of further and higher education. Springvale would be a university campus in a very deprived area of West Belfast, the scene of much of the terrorist violence and community strife over the past 30 years. Springvale project would be supported by the Central Government, the University of Ulster and Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education. IFI support would represent a significant vote of confidence for this important initiative. (4) Department of Commerce initiatives for NI and IR shall emphasize the awareness of U.S. business opportunities and the creation of joint ventures in the region. DOC shall consolidate its current activities and focus on promoting awareness of regional business opportunities, encouraging joint ventures, and emphasizing the development of women- owned businesses. (5) Generalized system of preferences amended to allow NI & IR Border Counties to qualify as a ``beneficiary developing country'' through 2008 or 10 years after receipt of WTO waiver. (Requirements of eligibility--transhipment protections--based on 1985 U.S.-Gaza free trade agreement that includes Qualified Industrial Zones, territories of Egypt and Jordan.) Implementation of provision contingent on USTR receiving waiver from WTO. USTR must work with EU, UK, and IR to seek waiver from WTO and it must be sought within one year of enactment of this legislation. USTR must report on an annual basis to Congress on the progress of their waiver attempt and the status of US-IR-NI trade relations. USTR report must also include recommendations on how to effectively expand US-NI-IR trade. (6) Definitions of eligible counties and fair employment principles (MacBride principles of H.R. 1757 conference report).