Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are at an important crossroad in the history of the AIDS epidemic. Although dramatic new treatments and improvements in care for people living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, have offered new hope in the AIDS fight, the number of new infections continues to rise among adolescents, women, and minority communities. In fact, about half of new HIV infections occur in young people age 15-24--our future generation. It is clear that the only way to halt the continued spread of this disease is by developing an AIDS vaccine. ``Only a truly effective, preventive HIV vaccine can limit and eventually eliminate the threat of AIDS . . . let us commit ourselves to developing an AIDS vaccine within the next decade,'' President Clinton stated one year ago today. We are closer now than ever before to developing a vaccine that prevents people from becoming infected with HIV. Recent scientific advances coupled with the dedication of thousands of volunteers suggests that the development of a vaccine is feasible. The anniversary of President Clinton's commitment to this goal will be marked by the first HIV/AIDS Vaccine Awareness Day, a national day dedicated to informing people about the vaccine initiative and its role in the fight against the AIDS epidemic in our communities. Enormous challenges remain in our effort to develop a safe and effective HIV/AIDS vaccine, and we, as a community must seize this opportunity to meet these challenges. Seattle has played an integral role in the development of an AIDS vaccine. The AIDS Vaccine Evaluation Unit (AVEU) at the University of Washington is one of only six centers in the U.S. funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct AIDS vaccine testing. Established 10 years ago, the AIDS Vaccine Evaluation Unit has benefited immeasurably from the dedicated participation of more than 650 community volunteers. The AVEU volunteers are critical to the pursuit of an AIDS vaccine for many reasons, most notably the scientific and social challenges this vaccine presents. Volunteers are between the ages of 18 and 60, HIV-negative, and in good health. These community volunteers have made a very personal commitment to the pursuit of the AIDS vaccine by donating a great deal more than just their time. Although the vaccine does not infect the volunteers with HIV, there is some risk. We are grateful to them, for they test the vaccine to determine whether or not it is safe for you and me. The community participants in AVEU have volunteered despite adverse social forces and scientific obstacles. Vaccine development has been influenced by the expectations of the public, media attention, and the interests of pharmaceutical companies. With the publicity surrounding the new treatments available for HIV, such as the triple drug combination, attention to HIV infection has waned. Such drugs are indeed promising for people living with the AIDS virus, but a vaccine is the only effective way to prevent new cases of HIV/AIDS. Thankfully, last year, the National Institute of Health's AIDS vaccine research budget was increased by 17.5 percent, to a total of $153 million. This year, the President has asked Congress for another 17.5 percent increase to $180 million. That means there has been an 80 percent increase in AIDS vaccine funding since 1995. According to the National Infectious and Allergy Disease Institute, there are currently 23 vaccine candidates and 49 clinical trials in the works. Nationwide, nearly 3,000 volunteers already have participated in studies. An AIDS vaccine is possible in our lifetime. What we truly need is aggressive pursuit by federal, state, and local governments with the committed support of the public. President Clinton's AIDS vaccine initiative proclamation was a good first step, but much more is needed. We must make the development of an AIDS vaccine a national and an international priority. Making the AIDS vaccine a reality will take the continued commitment of the dedicated volunteers, researchers, government, and the public. The President said it best when, on this day a year ago, he pledged, ``If America commits to find an AIDS vaccine and we enlist others in our cause, we will do it.'' I would like to join Governor Locke, Mayor Schell, and the Seattle City Council in dedicating this day to the numerous vaccine volunteers in our community, and thank them for what they have allowed us to accomplish thus far. Let us mobilize here in the community, as well as in the government, to push for what is on the horizon--an end to AIDS as we know it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton). He stated the case about as well as one can. The problem that this bill creates for me is that it pits individuals one side on the other, as though some Members are in favor of religious persecution and do not want to do anything about it and other Members really care and they want to do this. The problem with that argument is that it is not clear what automatic kinds of sanctions really do. We are presently in the midst of automatic sanctions under the nuclear explosions in India. We are very likely to have automatic sanctions against Pakistan. And the question is, how many, what is the ramification of that when we give the President no flexibility to tailor or to craft a response to an event that all of us deplore? There is nobody on this floor that thinks India should have exploded nuclear devices, absolutely none. The question is whether or not the President has the ability to craft. The bill before us says, on page 21, the President shall instruct the United States executive director of each multilateral development bank and the International Monetary Fund to vote against and use his or her best efforts to deny any loan or other utilization of funds of their respective institutions. It also talks about the Eximbank. Now, what we are talking about here? Let us just take Indonesia. We have the largest Muslim country in the world in tremendous chaos. Their currency is in real problems, and the International Monetary Fund has been working with them under our leadership to gradually give them money when they make changes. We have pushed on the issue of corruption. We have pushed on a number of issues. And what we are saying is, we are going to back out of Indonesia and leave it, leave the President no way to deal with that. I think this is wrong to put the President of the United States in that position. Therefore, I will vote against it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and extend my best wishes to President Lee Teng-hui and Vice President Lien Chin of the Republic of China on Taiwan on their second anniversary in office on May 20, 1998. In the last few years, Taiwan has continued to prosper, having survived the latest financial crisis. As the world's fourteenth largest economic entity, Taiwan plays a significant part in global trade and Asian economies. Taiwan's per capita income of $13,000 U.S. dollars, one of the highest in Asia, provides a rich market for U.S. consumer goods. Alongside its economic success, Taiwan has embarked upon a course of full democratization, including the free and direct election of the president, political pluralism, press liberalization, island-wide elections and a full constitutional reform. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a showcase of free enterprise and democracy at work. Much of Taiwan's success is directly attributable to its leadership. Congratulations to our friends in Taiwan.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is whether or not we are going to make decisions on the basis of science, or are we going to have the politics of gesture. Now, there is clear evidence that the program that has been operating in the Northwest for the last few years has been very effective. And, in fact, the article by the authors from British Columbia that is widely quoted as saying the needle exchange does not work contains the sentence that says, ``The authors must point out that the officials who have used this information have misrepresented our research.'' The fact is that in the Northwest, it is operating in nine counties. The AIDS infection rate in Seattle and Tacoma is 3 percent among drug addicts; whereas, in the South and in the East, in New York City and in other places, it is between 20 and 30 percent. There is clear evidence that this is effective in reducing the infection rate. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article that appeared in the New York Times today called ``The Politics of Needles and AIDS'' and also an article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Judith Billings: [From the New York Times, Apr. 9, 1998] The Politics of Needles and AIDS (By Julie Bruneau and Martin T. Schechter) Debate has started up again in Washington about whether the Government should renew its ban on subsidies for needle- exchange programs, which advocates say can help stop the spread of AIDS. In a letter to Congress, Barry McCaffrey, who is in charge of national drug policy, cited two Canadian studies to show that needle-exchange plans have failed to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and may even have worsened the problem. Congressional leaders have cited these studies to make the same argument. As the authors of the Canadian studies, we must point out that these officials have misinterpreted our research. True, we found that addicts who took part in needle exchange programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher H.I.V. infection rates than addicts who did not. That's not surprising. Because these programs are in inner-city neighborhoods, they serve users who are at greatest risk of infection. Those who didn't accept free needles often didn't need them since they could afford to buy syringes in drugstores. They also were less likely to engage in the riskiest activities. Also, needle-exchange programs must be tailored to local conditions. For example, in Montreal and Vancouver, cocaine injection is a major source of H.I.V. transmission. Some users inject the drug up to 40 times a day. At that rate, we have calculated that the two cities we studied would each need 10 million clean needles a year to prevent the re-use of syringes. Currently, the Vancouver program exchanges two million syringes annually, and Montreal, half a million. A study conducted last year and published in The Lancet, the British medical journal, found that in 29 cities worldwide where programs are in place, H.I.V. infection dropped by an average of 5.8 percent a year among drug users. In 51 cities that had no needle-exchange plans, drug-related infection rose by 5.9 percent a year. Clearly these efforts can work. But clean needles are only part of the solution. A comprehensive approach that includes needle exchange, health care, treatment, social support and counseling is also needed. In Canada, local governments acted on our research by expanding needle exchanges and adding related services. We hope the Clinton Administration and Congress will provide the same kind of leadership in the United States.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are having this debate is clearly because the Republicans cannot get a budget together. We have not had one single minute of debate in the Committee on the Budget on a budget for this country and not a single minute out here on the budget, but we have 2 hours on this issue, which is basically a matter of science. Now, there is very clear and convincing evidence that this is a matter of saving lives through a program that some people want to make it, people are either for needle exchange and therefore they are soft on drugs or people are against needle exchange and they are strong against drugs. There could not be anything further from the truth. The fact is, these programs have been used in the Northwest. They have reduced the infection rate from 30 percent in New York and the South to 3 percent in the Northwest among HIV-infected people. Now people say it encourages drug use. The Secretary of HHS, Donna Shalala, convened a panel of experts at the National Institutes of Health. They came back with the fact that needle exchange programs do not increase and, in fact, may decrease the use of drugs. The fact is, if we just want to be money-wise, one case of prevented HIV infection is estimated to save $119,000. Now how do these programs work? In Tacoma and Seattle, they have a table where somebody sits and somebody has to bring a needle and they get a clean needle. Now I do not know how that is going to encourage the use of drugs. Are my colleagues suggesting that high school kids are going to come and say, well, I got a needle; give me a clean one so I can go find some drugs to use? We are talking about a population that is infecting 33 people per day in this country with HIV, and 85 percent of the new cases in this country are among heterosexual people, and 66 percent of the cases among women are linked to drug use. Every single case of a child today being infected by HIV is linked to drugs and drug usage. Now if my colleagues want to prevent those cases, if they are worried about kids, if they are worried about women getting the disease, then they want to have the needle exchange program. It has worked in the Northwest for a bill like the one that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has put out here on the floor that has a broad, sweeping nature to it. Any direct or indirect; does that mean that Seattle and Tacoma cannot have their program? Do we have to continue a program or discontinue a program because of that? I say that is wrong. My colleagues ought to vote against this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, ``We Should Pass the Africa Bill,'' an editorial written by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana was printed in the Wednesday, April 22, 1998, edition of the Washington Post. In the article Mr. Lugar describes the broad support for the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which included: House leadership, the Clinton administration, the business community and the African diplomatic corps, and led to the passage of this historic legislation by the House of Representatives on March 11, 1998. Mr. Speaker, I am entering for the Record the editorial written by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. We Should Pass the Africa Bill (By Richard Lugar) Last month the House of Representatives approved the African Growth and Opportunity Act on a bipartisan vote of 233 to 186. The bill commanded support from the House leadership, the Clinton administration, the business community, the African diplomatic corps and representatives from all sides of the political spectrum. Action on the bill now shifts to the Senate, where the Finance Committee has jurisdiction. Enactment of this bill will signal a dramatic and constructive turning point in U.S.-African relations and mark a historic moment in our ties with the states of sub- Saharan Africa. Last year I introduced S. 778, the Senate version of the original House bill. I took that initiative because I believed the United States must seize the opportunity presented by the end of the Cold War and the fundamental changes already underway in Africa. We should reinforce efforts to promote economic growth and stability and to provide new opportunities for American investors and trade. The bill seeks to promote economic growth in Africa through enhanced private-sector activity and trade incentives for countries making serious and verifiable economic and political reforms. It seeks to reorient U.S. Africa policy from being based largely on foreign assistance to being based on increased trade, investment, self-help and serious engagement. It is a modest bill that requires no new public appropriations, but it could provide substantial economic opportunities for the United States and African societies. Two years ago, as I campaigned in the Republican presidential primaries, I spoke on the need for a positive and coherent American policy toward Africa. These remarks came as surprise to many; some responded with bewilderment. They asked why a Republican presidential candidate would talk about Africa. The answer lies, in part, with the underlying rationale behind the African Growth and Opportunity Act, namely that the United States should elevate its policy toward Africa to a level commensurate with Africa's growing importance. Sub-Saharan Africa can be a new frontier for American trade, investment and economic development. It can be a frontier for the expansion of democracy and market-based economies. It can be a frontier for cooperation in dealing with strategic global problems relating to narcotics, international crime, terrorism, infectious diseases and the environment. Success on each of these foreign policy priorities is important to the United States and to African societies, and it can best be achieved in an Africa that is economically open and politically more accountable and transparent. But this will not happen soon or without tremendous cooperative effort. Beyond the promise of more prosperity and more stability on the continent, the Africa bill encourages African countries to undertake fundamental political and economic reforms in order to qualify for the trade and investment incentives. It places the burden on African leaders to take initiatives to help themselves. Many have already done so. Those countries that engage in gross violations of human rights, fail to eliminate trade and investment barriers or to improve fiscal policies, or that reject good governance and rule-of-law standards, would not be eligible for duty-free treatment of products under the Generalized System of Preferences, participation in debt reduction programs, projects managed by the Overseas Private Investment Corp., or other trade and investment programs in the bill. No one can argue that this legislation will transform Africa overnight. But as Africa develops economically, we will benefit by assisting in that growth as new markets develop and mature. Indeed, U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa have increased by some 14 percent over the past two years, and bilateral trade now exceeds trade with all the states of the former Soviet Union. The Africa bill is one of those rare pieces of legislation that has not been inspired by dire crisis, imminent threat or strong domestic pressure. It emerged from the realization that Africa has long been a neglected region of the world and that this neglect does not serve U.S. interests. The bill is visionary in that it acknowledges that Africa is changing, that the United States wants to be a partner in that change, and that we wish to share in Africa's better future. If the United States is a major player in Africa's economic and political transition, we will also be a major beneficiary.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling with the President in Africa Friday, March 27, 1998, and was unable to vote. I would have voted in favor of the Boehlert amendment to H.R. 2515 (Rollcall No. 79). I would have voted against H.R. 2515 (Rollcall No. 80).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling with the President in Africa yesterday, March 25, 1998, and was unable to vote. I would have voted in favor of the McCollum-Conyers amendment to H.R. 2589 (Rollcall No. 68). I would have voted against the Sensenbrenner amendment to H.R. 2589 (Rollcall No. 69). I would have voted in favor of the Pombo amendment to H.R. 2578 (Rollcall No. 70). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2578 (Rollcall No. 71).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling with the President in Africa yesterday, March 26, 1998, and was unable to vote. I would have voted in favor of the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 3310 (Rollcall No. 72). I would have voted against the McIntosh amendment to H.R. 3310 (Rollcall No. 73). I would have voted against H.R. 3310 (Rollcall No. 74). I would have voted against the Solomon amendment H. Res. 385 (Rollcall No. 75). I would have voted against the Dreier resolution H. Res. 393 (Rollcall No. 76). I would have voted against the Goodling amendment to H.R. 3246 (Rollcall No. 77). I would voted against H.R. 3246 (Rollcall No. 78).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling with the President in Africa yesterday, March 24, 1998, and was unable to vote. I would have voted in favor of approving the journal (Rollcall No. 64). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 3211 (Rollcall No. 65). I would have vote in favor of H.R. 3412 (Rollcall No. 66). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 3096 (Rollcall No. 67).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Kleczka and I are introducing legislation to reduce the marriage tax penalty for most Americans. The marriage penalty reduction legislation I am introducing with Representative Kleczka (D-WI) simply would increase the standard deduction for joint filers so that it equals twice that of single filers. The standard deduction in tax year 1997 is $6,900 for joint returns and $4,150 for single returns. Two singles get a combined standard deduction of $8,300 compared to $6,900 for a couple--thus penalizing the couple for getting married. In my view, increasing the standard deduction for joint filers is the simplest, fairest, easiest, and most fiscally responsible way in which to address the structural marriage tax penalties within the code. As you can see from the attached charts to be inserted into the record, the fix I proposed last Congress would have eliminated virtually all marriage penalties, and, it even provides a modest bonus for one- earner families. The McDermott-Kleczka plan is progressive: Since most high-income taxpayers do not use the standard deduction, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that only 36% of the benefits from this type of change goes to taxpayers earning $50,000 or more--meaning--64% of the benefits go to couples earning less than $50,000/year. CBO found that other leading repeal proposals direct at least 65% of the benefits to those taxpayers earning more than $50,000/year. The McDermott-Kleczka plan is affordable: CBO estimates that increasing the standard deduction for joint filers costs roughly $4 billion/year. Estimates prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation verify this finding. Meanwhile, CBO found other leading repeal proposals cost as much as $29 billion/year. The McDermott-Kleczka plan is family friendly: In addition to eliminating the marriage penalty, the standard deduction fix slightly increases the marriage bonus (see charts)--making it more affordable for the spouses of single earners who prefer to have a parent stay at home to care for their child or children. This bonus provides a small incentive without creating a new program and is not excessive so that it overly penalizes individuals for being unmarried. The McDermott-Kleczka plan is simple compared to the problems raised by other repeal proposals which will force taxpayers to do their taxes twice in order to figure out which is the best choice for their family. In 1997, repeal of the marriage penalty was pushed aside by the Republican Majority. Inexplicably, in the W&M Committee, where roughly 20 members signed the Contract with America my amendment failed. Most likely, the Majority preferred cutting taxes for corporations (not mentioned in their contract). In my view, a tactical decision was made that it was more important to provide tax cuts preferred by the business community (such as reducing the corporate AMT and corporate capital gains tax cuts) than it was to address the marriage penalty. In fact, no legislation was introduced during the 105th Congress to repeal the marriage penalty until after the Budget Agreement passed Congress last August. Now that repeal of the marriage penalty is finally being addressed and if it sincerely is a priority of this Congress, I would urge my colleagues to take a second look at the McDermott-Kleczka proposal before they rush to advocate an alternative.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, the most important thing about the U.S. trade policy towards sub-Saharan Africa is that there isn't one. Congress has an opportunity to change that situation by passing HR 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a widely supported bipartisan bill, that creates the framework for qualified African countries to move from aid to trade. For the first time since the end of the colonial era, the United States is proposing to engage the countries of sub-Saharan Africa on the same basis as we do the rest of the world, as trading partners. The old donor and recipient paradigm, that has historically defined U.S. relations with Africa, is being replaced by a new and more dynamic paradigm that states that: . . . it is in the mutual economic interest of the United States and the countries of Africa to promote programs, policies and strategies that reduce poverty through economic growth, self reliance, and commerce. Traditional aid, while still necessary in some countries, is not sufficient to bring about fundamental change in Africa. Economic growth, self reliance, and commerce are not only vital for raising living standards on a broad basis, but also for addressing the critical social and health needs that plague Africa. Without a strong commitment to economic growth, self reliance, and commerce, no social programs, no schedule expenditures, no amount of aid will make a sustained improvement in the quality of life of Africa's citizens. Africa needs economic growth to make its social objectives feasible. HR 1432 is the beginning of a process that will change our negative bureaucratic culture towards Africa. HR 1432 is strongly supported by all of Africa's political and economic leaders. The response from Africa had been clear, Africans want to be trading partners with the U.S. and the world, not perpetual recipients of donor assistance. HR 1432 explicitly states that the U.S. should continue to provide traditional development assistance to those countries attempting to build civil societies. In fact, the bill also states that economic growth depends on establishing a receptive environment for trade and investment, and that to achieve this objective USAID should continue to pursue programs in Africa. The Clinton Administration, including USAID, have strongly endorsed this legislation. Many of the countries of Africa are moving in the right direction. Political and economic reform are beginning to take hold and a new generation of leaders have assumed power through elections. Things are much better, albeit not perfect, but better. Many countries in Africa have experienced positive growth rates over the last five years. Africa currently has 14 stock markets and the number is growing. Trade between the U.S. is growing, it is currently larger than trade between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. The American corporate community has developed a renewed interest in Africa. Now is the time to seize the initiative and work to solidify the positive developments that are taking place in Africa. HR 1432 gives the world's largest economy a plan to help the smallest economies to grow and prosper without harming U.S. consumes, manufacturers, or workers. In addition to establishing a trade policy towards Africa, HR 1432 is composed of three primary cornerstones and several key initiatives. The first cornerstone is the negotiation of U.S.-Africa free trade agreements. The negotiation of the free trade agreements gives us the opportunity to begin the process of bilateral and multilateral discussion that, over a number of years, will lead to the type of economic and trade relations that are mutually beneficial to Africa and the U.S. HR 1432 is not a free trade agreement--it promotes free trade with African countries as a goal for the future. The second cornerstone is the creation of a U.S.-African Economic Cooperation Forum, loosely modeled on APEC. The forum will begin to change the perception of Africa as anything other than a recipient of donor aid, or as a humanitarian basket case. The forum will be the place where trade and investment issues and concerns will be discussed at by Cabinet level officials and will demonstrate to the international community that the United States takes Africa seriously. The forum will also send a signal to our business community that the U.S. government is committed to making it easier to do business in Africa. The third cornerstone is the U.S.-Africa investment partnership. OPIC will be directed to establish a privately managed equity fund and an infrastructure fund that will leverage private financing for small and moderate sized U.S. and African businesses, and expand opportunities for infrastructure development throughout Africa. The demand for infrastructure in Africa is enormous but, the response from the international finance community has not been promising. It is clear that Africa's future competitiveness depends on reliable telecommunications, roads, railways, and power plants. The principal goal of our three cornerstones is to attract international project financing to Africa, and to make it financially feasible for U.S. investors to participate in profitable business opportunities in Africa. If successful, there will be substantial job growth, increase in per capita incomes, and expanded trade between the U.S. and Africa. While the three cornerstone programs will take time to implement, there is one initiative that could have an immediate impact on Africa countries. African textile and clothing exports to the U.S. represent less than 1% (about $383 million) of the total import market of $46 billion. HR 1432 contains a provision that could be implemented immediately and would not compete with U.S. products or cost U.S. jobs. In fact, when the World Bank analyzed HR 1432, it reported that the impact on U.S. manufacturers would be negligible. The provision eliminates the existing quotas on textiles and clothing exports from the countries of Africa as long as a cost effective and efficient visa system to guard against transshipment is in place. This provision represents a major opportunity to expand Africa's exports to the U.S. and generates more than 200,000 jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue for Africa. Moreover, African and American products would not compete with each other. HR 1432 is a commitment to a major shift in emphasis towards a private sector and market incentives approach to stimulating economic growth and reducing poverty in Africa. To participate, a country will have to meet eligibility requirements based on a strong commitment to economic, political, and trade liberalization. Some think this initiative is naive, overly optimistic, or just completely unrealistic. I think that it is time that the U.S. becomes actively involved in building an economic partnership with the countries of Africa. That's what HR 1432 intends to do. Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House of Representatives, we often hear of days which are declared ``historic''. However, with the passage of HR 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, today is truly a historic day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Hazel Wolf. On Saturday, March 21, 1998, hundreds of her friends will gather in Seattle celebrating her 100th birthday and giving thanks for her lifetime of dedication to the environment and human rights. Born in Victoria, British Columbia on March 10, 1898, Hazel emigrated to the United States in 1923 as a single mother seeking work to support her young daughter, eventually becoming a legal secretary. Hazel officially became a citizen in 1976 after devoting more than 50 years to making our country a better place to live. Through the years Hazel championed issues of importance for women, working people, human rights, and the environment. A true citizen of the world, her work has been recognized with awards by numerous international, state, and local organizations. On Saturday the Seattle Audubon Society will acknowledge the ``rare bird'' by announcing the creation of the Hazel Wolf Kids for the Environment Endowment. This fund will be dedicated to helping urban youth experience and appreciate nature, a lasting tribute to a woman who cherishes our nation's young people and loves the beauty of our natural world. Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Hazel for demonstrating to us the value of a simple life adorned with the riches of a lifetime of service to humanity and nature. We wish her continuing vigor in pursuit of future endeavors.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is in the nature of a public service announcement. If you are a woman in this society who gets your health insurance through your husband and who is younger than your husband, you should be listening to what President Clinton is offering to the American people. He says that if you are going to have no health insurance when your husband gets to 65, you can buy into the Medicare program at cost, no additional cost to the program. I sit on the Medicare Commission. This will not destroy Medicare for anybody else because it is a pay-as-you-go plan. But if you see your future as a place where you are not going to have health insurance, you are like hundreds of thousands of people in this society today between the age of 55 and 65 who have been offered a program by the President. The leadership of the House of Representatives refuses to take that up. They do not care about your health insurance. Pick up the phone and give them a call.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is not a textile bill. This is a bill that gives Africa the same opportunities to enter the world economy that Asia had. We gave it to them 35 or 40 years ago. When I was in Africa in 1961 in Ghana, Ghana and Korea were exactly in the same place. Today, Korea has risen to the 11th largest economy in the world, and Ghana is down from where they were in 1961. This bill has been endorsed by the President and Prime Minister of every Asian and African country. Andrew Young, a former United Nations Ambassador, C. Payne Lewis of Africare, the Urban Institute, the National Conference of Mayors, Mayor Dinkins of New York, and the Constituency for Africa, all these groups have looked at this and said this gives Africa an opportunity to play the game. The amendment that was being discussed here could have been offered in the Committee on Ways and Means. It was not. We went out of there without that being discussed, because people knew that it was not, in the long run, a good amendment. It is not a textile amendment. It sets the bar so high that no one could start a textile industry in Africa. If we say that every piece of cloth that is going to be worked in Africa has to be shipped from the United States, cut, and only can be sold in Africa, and then shipped back, it would not work fiscally, even. It is not a good amendment. I support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the President and Secretary of State to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as well as an editorial from the Washington Post.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a very important day. I suppose that gets said a lot of times here in the well. But yesterday, the American people, in the form of the California delegation, elected Lois Capps to the House of Representatives. It was a campaign filled with millions of dollars of advertisement about abortion and about term limits and about a lot of other irrelevant issues. But the American people voted for a candidate who said she wanted to come back here and work on education, who wanted to come back here and work on a patients' bill of rights, who wanted to come back here and do the things that affect the American people. People of her district listened to all these television ads. I mean, they cannot get away from it. The air was filled with it. She spent $1,600,000. And this House has never yet brought out on this floor for debate a campaign finance reform bill. The people said we want somebody who is going to work on our problems.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I rise with mixed feelings about this, because when I started in this process some years ago, it was with a concern for the fact that many people were talking about we had to end aid toward Africa, and I strongly oppose ending aid for Africa. There are many countries for whom it is an integral part of their ability to respond and grow and become democracies and participate in the other provisions of this bill. So in no way do I want aid to Africa to be cut at this point. It was really with that in mind I started to talking to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). This amendment does something I think which is, while laudable in intent, I think not good public policy, and that is it sets in law an entitlement for Africa which I do not think makes good sense. We meet here every 2 years. We vote on budgets. We go over these issues. And the appropriation or the authorization committee, which is the Committee on International Relations, sets a level for foreign aid and then the Committee on Appropriations considers that authorization and decides what is an appropriate amount. I think that that is the appropriate way that we ought to do that. I think that to say to put a number amount in here and say that that is how much ought to go to Africa, putting it out for 9 years into the future, is a little bit more crystal-balling than I think makes sense. I really think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has been a very good supporter of this bill and of this whole process of aid for Africa. And I do not think there is any reason to put this kind of thing in this bill. I think, if anything, it makes people unwilling to vote for it. I do not want to lose the support of many who are supporting aid and trade. I do not want to split them off and say they just want to go for trade, and they want to get rid of aid. I want to keep them in the tent. And I think that the important thing, then, is not to take this particular issue, and put it in this bill at this time. For that reason, I would have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we are seeing today the end of a process that began 4 years ago. When I came to the Congress, I had just been working for the State Department and traveled all over Africa. I had been in 21 of the countries of Africa. I knew what the conditions were there. When I saw the GATT legislation, I asked my staff, what does this do for Africa? They said nothing. We have no policy toward Africa. So we put an amendment in the GATT legislation in 1994 saying that the United States should have a policy toward Africa. That is really where this started. It would not have happened just with me. Without the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who took the idea and embellished it, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a whole group of people, including the Speaker, have played an important role in putting this policy together. I saw Africa in 1961 for the first time when everybody was excited about how it was going to go. Africa, Ghana where I was, and Korea were exactly in the same place. Thirty years later, the 11th largest economy in the world is Korea, and Ghana is right where it was then. That, to me, said it was American policy about what we were going to do for Asia that we could do for Africa. That is really what this bill does. Everyone says there is a free trade agreement in this. There is no free trade agreement. There is no free trade with Asia. We have no free trade agreement negotiated with Asia. We are working toward that. This bill sets us on a transitional path to work toward that with Africa. But it is not something that is going to happen within 1 year. There are other things in this bill that people do not talk about. The United States Government, when they put their stamp of approval on something, all kinds of good things start to happen. For instance, we have the Eximbank. The Eximbank loans 99.8 percent of its money somewhere else in the world, two-tenths percent for Africa. This bill changes things like that. It changes our government toward Africa and says we want to be trading partners with you. It is a good bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 39 I was unavoidably detained at the White House meeting with the President on the Medicare Commission. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, you have been quoted in the paper as saying that until you have a vision, you will not allow a bill to come out here to guarantee patients a bill of rights in the health care industry. Mr. Speaker, I suggest you go see the movie ``As Good as it Gets.'' When that pediatrician talks to that waitress about the asthma which her kid has, the whole audience claps because they are furious with the way they are being treated by HMOs. As a physician, I have had the experience in Seattle of seeing a patient and having to get on the phone and call some health care bureaucrat in Omaha, Nebraska, and argue about whether my patient can stay another day in the hospital. Now that is not in the best interest of the patient nor of the physician. And this is the almost universal experience by physicians in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is why they are so upset and why the bill offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), though not a perfect bill, is certainly a bill that ought to be scheduled for floor debate so that we can bring this issue that the President has called for before the American people. There is no excuse for us never being in session and allowing this issue to sit unresolved. Schedule a debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, last month, the World Wildlife Fund conducted a national survey regarding the attitude of Americans toward global warming. One interesting result was that voters overwhelmingly support proposals which encourage consumer access to clean energy options. In particular, 81 percent of Americans responded that tax incentives should be made available to encourage the sale of clean energy. Since coming to Congress, I've worked on several initiatives to support wind turbine investment. Today I introduced a bill which will provide a 30-percent tax credit toward the purchase of small wind turbines, 50 kw or less. Similar legislation already has been introduced by Senators Charles Grassley and James Jeffords. I hope a majority of my House colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. At a time when U.S. energy consumers are under international pressure to reduce CO2 emissions, passage of the small wind turbine investment credit will, in my view, encourage alternative energy use for small users, increase the international competitiveness of U.S. alternative technology industries, and help rural communities that lack access to utility grids.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when Abraham Lincoln formed the Republican Party, one of the groups that he had to deal with in putting his coalition together was the nativist movement in this country called the ``Know Nothing Party.'' They hated two groups: The Irish, who spoke Gaelic and were Catholic; and the Germans, who spoke German and were Catholic. That root has been in the Republican Party from the very start. It is what drove millions of immigrants into the Democratic Party. All the southern Europeans who came to this country became Democrats because they knew the Republicans did not want them. And now we are after the Asians and the Hispanics. A prime example of that is the harassment of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, on behalf of their party and this country, that they take the leadership in ending this harassment of a Member of this House, who was duly elected, certified by the State of California, and has been forced to spend $300,000 or more defending that seat. End it, Mr. Speaker. You can lead us.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two to Mrs. Capps and the kids. This is a remarkable hour. Not many people could spend 1 year here and have this many Members say what they are saying. Most of us, we are here 10 years, 20 years, not this kind of thing would occur for them. He aimed well. He succeeded. God bless you.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.