Jim McDermott

Mr. Speaker, due to a policy oversight, 1 million adults who are looking for work but are unsuccessful at risk to lose their eligibility for Supplement Nutrition Assistance Benefits in 2016. My Colleague Representative Suzan DelBene and I are introducing simple legislation today that would address this issue, and ensure no one falls through the cracks. Our bill is called the SNAP Work Opportunity Act.

The SNAP work requirement was established on the assumption that anyone who couldn't find work would take part in a job training or workfare program in order to continue receiving SNAP benefits. Unfortunately, as former President Clinton highlighted when he signed the bill into law, there is not also a requirement for states to offer their unemployed citizens an opportunity to participate in

a job training or workfare program. While many states may have qualifying programs, only five states guarantee a spot to those adults subject to the work requirement. As a result, even if someone is actively looking for work but can't find it, they can lose their eligibility for SNAP benefits.

Recently, this issue hasn't been at the forefront. The economic downturn has made states eligible for waivers to the work requirement because of high and sustained in-state unemployment. Almost all states--42--are eligible for and using a waiver in 2015. However, the economy's continued growth is expected to prevent most states from qualifying for the waivers in 2016. While economic growth is a great thing, it doesn't mean that everyone has a job nor does it mean that everyone looking for a job is able to get one. As a result of the loss of waivers, the CBPP predicts more than 1 million adults who are unable to find jobs and aren't offered an opportunity to take part in a job training or workfare program could lose their eligibility for SNAP benefits in 2016.

The SNAP Work Opportunity Act would make the 3 month limit for eligibility only apply if a person was offered a job training or workfare opportunity. With this fix, those who are looking for work aren't penalized because their state doesn't have the resources to offer a job training or work program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation to put a price on harmful carbon emissions.

Tackling climate change is not merely a warm, fuzzy idea championed by tree huggers. It is a growing crisis with global implications that environmentalists, business leaders, political leaders, and military strategists alike cannot ignore. Earlier this year, the White House included climate change among its ``top strategic risks,'' citing ``increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water.'' Even the Pentagon has been sounding the alarm on climate change.

In reintroducing this legislation, I call continued attention to an issue of which I have long been a champion. I first introduced legislation to impose a carbon tax in 2009, recognizing the scientific consensus and anticipating the growing call to action precipitated by the increasingly drastic weather events and their growing human, environmental and fiscal cost.

My legislation, the Managed Carbon Price Act of 2015, places a price on carbon emissions that would increase over time. The proceeds from this legislation go into a newly-created Energy and Economic Security Trust Fund where 100 percent of the revenue goes back to the public to offset any price increases. This bill is good for the environment and good for business.

While Seattleites have long recognized the need to act on climate change, I am pleased to see President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency take bold actions to confront this growing threat. With our international partners moving forward, multinational and American businesses already accounting for future prices on carbon, and former Republican officials acknowledging the urgency of this growing threat, it is past time for Congressional Republicans to accept the science and work together with Democrats to combat climate change. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am telling a story told to children. The story to the children is this:

When President Obama became President, most people didn't live in the house of health. There were 30 million people who were out in the street who had nothing. So President Obama built them a house and said everybody can live in the house of health and have health care.

Their next-door neighbor didn't like the house, complained about the house, said there was everything wrong with the house, and has tried 55 times to blow the house down, just like the Big Bad Wolf in the ``Three Little Pigs.'' This time, they have come with a bulldozer, and they want to knock the house down and put everybody out in the street again.

Now, this would be not so silly if it wasn't for the fact that they have no plans to build anything for the people to live in. They have talked for 5 years: We have plans. We have a committee. We are going to have plans here any day now.

The fact is they have no plan for the people. They simply say to the American people: We want to knock down your house of health. Your preexisting condition will now keep you from health care. Your kids are off before 26. All of this is going to happen because we don't think you should have a house of health in this country.

They have no plan, and they know it, and they are ashamed of it. But they can't stand the fact that Mr. Obama

built a house that covered everybody. It is a glorious creation.

Is it perfect? No.

Did they come over with a hammer or paint or something to change it? No.

It was always: Knock that house down.

Folks, vote ``no.'' Keep the house up.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to conceive of a democratic society in which everyone does not have health security. When you look across the face of the Earth, every industrialized society on the face of the Earth has given health security to their people. They have had their own plan. The Germans had their plan, the Japanese had their plan, the British had their plan, and the Canadians--everybody has had their own plans.

Now, what we are arguing about here today is the President brought a plan to the Congress and tried to work with the other side, but they said: No, no, no, no.

So we passed a bill. Now, there isn't anybody in this business who has done any work in any legislative body who believes that you can write a perfect piece of legislation. You always have to make changes in it. You find things in it that need to be changed, and we have had no help whatsoever of bringing out the kind of changes that would make sense to make this bill work for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, when you get sick, you are not a Democrat. When you get sick, you are not a Republican. You are not in the Tea Party, and you are not on the left. You are just sick, and you want some help. That is why this bill is way beyond partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with Bill Frist. About a year and a half ago, he wrote an editorial in which he said: Don't repeal, fix.

I called him up and said: You and I ought to work together and see if we can't work with the Republican caucus. Maybe you can get into them. They won't talk to me about working together.

He said: Well, I will do what I can.

But we never got there. Everybody knows that you do not want to have a situation tomorrow where you have a preexisting condition and you have no health insurance. That is the kind of thing you are creating by repeal. It is just a bad bill. Just put it aside, and let's work on it.