Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, as I appreciate his thoughtful leadership in this area of trade and balancing the commitments that we have.

The extension of the system of preferences was not merely related to trade but is reflective of a Nation's social values. It was in that context that we inaugurated our program of preferences in 1974.

It's more than a trade agreement; it's a statement about what policies we find valuable in our trading partners and which policies we feel drive the development of nations. For this reason, it's often referred to as a tool of foreign policy as well as trade.

We appropriately judge our trading partners on eligibility for this program on protection of American commercial interests, protection of intellectual property, preventing the seizure of property belonging to United States citizens or businesses, as well as protection of individual rights such as the protection of commonly accepted labor rights and the elimination of child labor.

Madam Speaker, the United States has, I think, at times fallen short in our dealing with tariff barriers for poor nations and agriculture. My friend from Washington referenced the difference between Cambodia and Great Britain.

I am hopeful that we will be able to work in the year ahead dealing with some outmoded tariff dealing with footwear and outerwear that's no longer even manufactured in the United States, and I am confident that we can work through in this approach.

But I would hope, as we move forward, that we would add to the list of the criteria by which we are going to judge the extension of these preferences environmental criteria. They are noticeably absent as we go through the list currently.

Making sure that agreements are required of our trading partners to enforce environmental laws already on the books and comply with various international environmental agreements, I think, is absolutely essential.

Concern for the environment is a core element of development. It reflects an appreciation of civil law for protection of individual and often indigenous people's rights and concern for the long-term sustainability of a state and society. Protection of the environment is not merely what rich nations do after they become wealthy, but it is what nations must do as they become wealthy.

Madam Speaker, at this moment the world is meeting in Copenhagen, and I am pleased the United States has not turned its back on these global climate negotiations. We are dealing with problems of energy demands and carbon pollution that may well be the most important for this century.

These may be the most important discussions that we are going to have on the survival of human habitation as we know it, for the economies of countries rich and poor.

Being able to deal meaningfully with environmental protections through trade negotiations is perhaps the single most effective way that we are going to be able to establish a basis, a criteria, moving forward.

I hope that we will be able to have a more robust conversation in this next year. I hope that we will be successful in moving the world and this country forward in Copenhagen. I hope that as we move forward we can work together to strengthen the role of environmental protections that will be found as we extend these preferences in the future and our overall approach to trade.

Madam Chair, like many pieces of major, ground- breaking legislation, today's product is a hybrid, combining some good with some questionable provisions. On balance, I think the product is positive and begins a step towards reorienting the protections in our financial system to deal with families, consumers, and the integrity of our institutions. The potential meltdown we faced last fall, the bursting of an unsustainable housing bubble, and radically flawed and abusive financial practices are among the many sources to blame. So, unfortunately, were a too lax financial regulatory system and Federal Reserve that in too many cases enabled reckless behavior.

There's plenty of blame for past administrations and Congresses that were too interested in the collection of special interests to appropriately protect the public interest. To be sure, some of this blame rests at the footsteps of American consumers, a few of whom actually abused the system themselves, too many of whom were simply uninformed or did not exercise their own due diligence. On balance, it was the system that failed and we are all paying the price and will for years to come.

This legislation, while the result of a number of compromises, is an important step towards rebalancing priorities and strengthening the protective institutions. I voted in favor of this as a symbol of support for a longer-term process of reform. This is the launch of an extensive process, and it represents a landmark.

Passing the most significant reform bill in decades is an accomplishment that I hope will lead to productive action from the Senate, legislation the President can sign, and, most important, a commitment to continue the process of protection and reform to strike the right balance--legislation and a regulatory process that protects citizens with a touch as light as possible while still being able to do the job. Hopefully, this will inspire everybody--in Congress, in the administration, in the regulatory agencies, in the industry, and in American homes--to play the roles that only they can assume so that the horrific abuses of the financial system become a distant memory.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Health Care Reality Check Act of 2009.

It has become clear that some of my colleagues in Congress lack proper perspective on the urgency of health reform because, ironically, as Members of Congress we enjoy some of the best health security in the world through our government-administered health care:

All Members of Congress are eligible--and most participate in--the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which provides all Federal employees with a Government-negotiated insurance exchange that is subsidized by their employer: the Federal Government;

Almost 150 Members of Congress qualify for Medicare, a single-payer Government insurance plan;

The 121 Senators and Representatives who served in our Armed Forces are eligible for the ``socialized'' health care we provide for all veterans; and

Members who aren't veterans can avail themselves to a similar ``socialized'' program--

the Attending Physician in the U.S. Capitol, for an annual fee of around $500.

These Government-run health programs have successfully provided countless Senators and Representatives with life-saving medical treatments, but as we all know, most Americans don't have this kind of protection.

Members of Congress should not have access to taxpayer-funded healthcare when they are actively denying these very people quality care of their own.

Congress needs a reality check.

In 2007, before the economy collapsed, 42 percent of all adult Americans under 65 were either uninsured or underinsured. Our dire unemployment rates and escalating health care costs have only made this situation worse. Today half of all American families delay seeking medical treatment because they have such a tenuous health insurance situation. Many of my colleagues do not fully appreciate the plight of 50 percent of our population, but we can help them understand.

Until health reform is enacted, Members of Congress should get to experience the tender mercies of our fragmented, complex, and exploitative health care system. My Health Care Reality Check Act terminates all government-administered health benefits for Members of Congress until comprehensive health reform is signed into law: no more Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, no Medicare, no VA, no attending physician in the Capitol.

Instead, Senators and Representatives may self-insure or they can rely on a spouse's company having employer-provided insurance, thus tying them--like millions of Americans--to the employment of a family member. Some will need to buy health insurance on the private market, exposing them to legal discrimination based on age and gender.

By personally dealing with rescissions, pre-existing condition exclusions, the fine-print of insurance contracts and the gaps in coverage from weak consumer protections maybe my colleagues can better grasp the urgency of our health care crisis.

If our own health security were linked to the success of health reform for all Americans, we will have a bill enacted within weeks, guaranteed.

Madam Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions where Congress can put everything together for a holiday gift for Americans. People in this city and across the country are obsessed with the concern to create jobs. It is appropriate and imperative that we do so. All the objective evidence suggested that the economic recovery package made a huge difference, but not enough.NOTICE

If the 111th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 23, 2009, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 111th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Thursday, December 31, 2009, to permit Members to insert statements. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-59 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Wednesday, December 30. The final issue will be dated Thursday, December 31, 2009, and will be delivered on Monday, January 4, 2010. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event, that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be formatted according to the instructions at http://webster/secretary/cong_record.pdf, and submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-59. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, Chairman.

As my friend and colleague Mr. DeFazio, from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has documented, the economic recovery package had only 4 percent of its funds dedicated for infrastructure, but it created 25 percent of the jobs. Mr. Oberstar, and Subcommittee Chair DeFazio, have been working for 3 years on the reauthorization of the biggest infrastructure package that we will look at--the Surface Transportation Act. The evidence is that they are, literally, just weeks away from the opportunity to bring this legislation to the floor.

At the same time, we see the consensus building, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle and with the administration, that it is time to revisit efforts to revitalize the economy, that the original economic recovery package simply wasn't big enough considering the problems that we were facing. There is an opportunity to take unused TARP money, part of the hundreds of billions of dollars that was set aside, to help the financial sector recover after it brought our economy to, literally, the brink of collapse.

Well, we've seen at least that area stabilize. Some of the money is being repaid, and the balance is not likely to be needed for an economic emergency like we saw last year. So we should be able to take a significant portion of that unused TARP money and, rather than sending it to Wall Street, sending it instead to Main Street, perhaps to your street to be able to front-load the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act to be able to have 6-year funding certainty.

This is a very important opportunity that we should not lose because, at a time when we are concerned about deficits in the Federal budget, there is a yawning deficit in the highway trust fund which simply is not going to be able to meet the current needs of America's highways and transit projects, let alone its future. At the same time, there is an opportunity for us to improve the Federal balance sheet. There is support for the concepts of having user fees that are available to be able to shore up those trust funds that fund infrastructure.

For instance, the administration has placed in its budget the reimposition of the Superfund tax--a tax on the polluters who created these toxic problems all across America, a tax that expired years ago. The previous folks who ran this place would not allow us even to consider its reenactment. Well, it's in the President's budget, which is one example of where a simple action--having polluters pay--will be able to have the economic activity of cleaning up Superfund sites while we are shoring up the Federal budget.

Madam Speaker, if we move forward with the reauthorization of the Transportation Act, if we deal with water infrastructure, if we beef up our economic recovery efforts, and reenact a Superfund tax, we will have an opportunity to invest in America's future and to put millions of Americans back to work. Unlike other areas of expenditure, this is truly an investment in America's future, which will generate other economic activities and will help the long-term fiscal health of our Nation while we strengthen our families and our communities.

I hope there is a green light for floor time for the Transportation bill. I hope there is a commitment to front-load the Transportation bill with TARP money and that we can get a Transportation bill passed next month and on its way to the Senate so we can put America back to work.

Mr. Speaker, as we listen to the debate in the other body, there are two missing factors that would create the momentum for reform and revitalization of our health care. There is a stunning disconnect between the two sides on the nature of the problem and the impact of government's involvement in health care.

Opponents argue, with apparent sincerity, that America has the best health care in the world and it would be ``destroyed by Federal involvement undermining the quality of existing care'', while supposed cost increases would make health care unaffordable for individuals purchasing insurance and ultimately for the taxpayer as well.

What opponents describe could not be more different from what my research, my constituents and my personal experience tells me. For many in Congress, there is no sense of urgency to compel action because Members of Congress are perhaps the most health care secure people in the world and all can enjoy the finest health coverage in the world.

No one in Congress is likely to go bankrupt this year, or the next, from their preexisting conditions. It doesn't matter because all are eligible for participation in the Federal employees health benefits program. They are able to access the House physician. When they travel overseas, they have military doctors. About a quarter of the House and Senate are eligible for Medicare and for veterans' programs. No wonder there's no sense of urgency, and Senators and Congresspeople can be sincere in their conviction that America has the best health care in the world.

The disconnect is my colleagues' failure to recognize the government's role in all that they enjoy. There is a simple solution to break this deadlock--support my bill to end government involvement in the health care of Members of Congress. I propose, until comprehensive health care reform is signed by the President, there be no Federal investment in health insurance for Members of Congress. No Federal involvement in negotiating their Federal Employees Health Benefits. They would not be eligible to be participating in the dreaded government single payer program--Medicare. There would be no veterans, no House physicians, no military doctors. Those, after all, are socialized medicine. Members of Congress would be in exactly the same position as over 200 million Americans who are currently underinsured, uninsured, or are relying on the good intentions of a spouse's employer, or their ability to negotiate insurance on the private market, contending with their preexisting conditions and the fine print.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely confident that within 6 months of Members of Congress experiencing the health care world of most of America, dealing with the fine print, the preexisting condition, the uncertainty, the bureaucracy, we would have the consensus necessary to be able to move forward with the comprehensive health insurance reform that Americans want, need and deserve.

I would urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to get government out of the health care of Members of the House and Senate until all Americans can enjoy such health security.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership on this issue.

This is the culmination of a 12-year example of how not to create tax policy. I listened with interest to my good friend from Texas say, you know, they can do better than this bill. Well, ladies and gentlemen, they had 12 years to do better. And what did the Republicans do? They didn't reform the inheritance tax. What they did is they established a 10-year gain where it was reduced a little bit each year until next year it disappears, and then they give it back to the American people at a $1 million level and 55 percent marginal rate. That is the best they could do.

And as my good friend from North Dakota pointed out, it's even worse than that because they would have 70,000, not 7,000, the top two-tenths of a percent, but 70,000 people who are the real small business, the entrepreneurs, be subject to a capital gains tax. And I will tell you that the tax itself is only the tip of the iceberg because it will be an accounting nightmare to go back and figure out what grandma paid or what Uncle Charlie paid for the asset. Some people will spend more time researching and on accountants than they will pay in the tax. That's the best that the Republicans could do.

What Mr. Pomeroy and our committee have done is to take generous levels, $3.5 million per person, and exempt below that the administrative nightmare of the capital gains tax. Is it a perfect solution? No.

But compared to the best that the Republicans could do for 12 years, it's night and day.

With all due respect, declaring one of my heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the inheritance tax, as being un-American is an insult to the Republican Party who knows that the vast wealth in this country, you don't get to be a billionaire on a W2. So a lot of this money was never even taxed once. Let's get a grip. Let's pass this bill and move on.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, as I appreciate his clarity in moving it forward. It is my privilege to represent part of Clackamas County in my congressional district. Now while I don't actually have the area in question, I have worked very hard with my colleague Congressman Schrader to make sure that the interests of this diverse county are, in fact, represented. And if one came from Mars and listened to the debate, they might be a little confused on this point.

First, the land in question is not O&C land. It is BLM land. There is no fiscal impact here. There is no timber that is involved. I worked very closely with this county and have for decades. The county commissioners now, as they have in the past, have been very careful to heed the balance of resource protection, economic development, the environment, and tourism in the broad range of areas. I have worked with them on wilderness legislation, in wild and scenic legislation, including the one signed into law by President Obama at the beginning of this year.

I have had times when they have been hesitant because they have had questions about whether the benefits of economic development of tourism, of wilderness protections, would offset potential loss of timber production. The county has gone through the process here yet again. It is their judgment, and one that I strongly support, that the resource protections to have this stretch of the Molalla River being granted Wild and Scenic protection is well worth it.

There is a minuscule amount of land that would not be removed from potential harvest, but it's not going to be harvested now. It's not going to be harvested in the future. If the gentleman would come with me to Clackamas County, Congressman Schrader and I would be pleased to show him this precious resource and why there was never any question that this would not be harvested.

So people can go on and confuse BLM land with O&C land. They can talk about their disputes with this administration and past administrations about timber practices. That's fair game. And they will battle that. Frankly, the American public supports wilderness protection. The American public wants the protection not just of Wild and Scenic Rivers but of our precious watersheds where half the people in my State get their water from national timberland. As my friend from California knows, this is a very sensitive issue these days.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this rule. I am proud to support this underlying legislation. It has been carefully crafted by my friend, the gentleman from Clackamas County. He lives in this county not very far from the river that would be so designated. It is a testament to his quick assimilation into the ways of the House of Representatives, to be able to move forward with significant wild and scenic legislation, to be able to work with the

local environmentalists, work with the county commission, to come forward with something that not only will protect a natural resource for years to come, but it is also going to enhance the local economy.

This will in fact deal with the future of the children of Clackamas County because the economic development potential that will be generated by people who use this waterway, you come year round and not just in high water times, people navigate these waters in Clackamas County. It is a growing and thriving area of economic development, of recreation for people young and old, and for the character of a unique county in our State and in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of the rule, the underlying legislation, and I look forward to passage of both.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy and the leadership of my friend from Arizona in permitting me to speak on this bill.

It is my honor to share the representation of Clackamas County, Oregon, with my friend and colleague, Congressman Schrader. While I don't represent this particular area, it is an area that is known to me and one that I am pleased that he has been able to assemble a broad coalition at home to have meaningful legislation literally within a few months of his joining this body.

This is an area that should never be logged. That is one of the reasons he has been able to assemble a broad coalition of interests in our community to make sure that it is given the wild and scenic designation.

I have worked for years with the Clackamas County Commission, a group of men and women that is very sensitive to the dynamics of forest resources, agriculture, and industry. Clackamas County is a very diverse area that represents Oregon itself. I have worked with them on a number of wilderness provisions, and I will tell you that the agreement of the Clackamas County Commission does not come easily. They want to make sure that they know what they are getting into. They want to make sure that they are protecting the economic resource base. They are well aware that some of the revenues that come from our national forest lands find their way into local communities, particularly education. That is why it took us years to work on legislation that President Obama signed into law in his first weeks in office with the National Wilderness Act.

The homework has been done here. This is an area, as the chairman mentioned, as the sponsor mentioned, that is not affecting any, any, land that will be harvested now or, frankly, into the future. You ask the people in that community whether they would like to, at some point, risk this precious resource and they will tell you no.

This is an area, however, that is going to generate a great deal of economic activity. The gentleman from Canby referenced the proximity to the metropolitan area, that people who are kayakers, hikers, fishermen, other recreationalists already flock to this year-round. The designation and the protection of the Wild and Scenic Act is going to enhance that.

Now ours is a State, unlike my friend from the State of Washington, that has protected far more of their forest resources. Oregon doesn't protect that much. In fact, that is why we are working to provide a greater array of protections for recreation, for water resources. This is an important step.

I would like to express my appreciation to the sponsor for zeroing in on this early, for assembling an unprecedented coalition in Clackamas County of people who understand this is important today and in the future. I appreciate his being clear that his county would not be at risk economically, raising the question and working with the committee and the administration to make sure that that is dealt with. And anybody who has watched the career of this gentleman over a decade in the State of Oregon knows that he is in tune with the district and their needs. He has a long record of working with the natural resource industries, most particularly the timber industry. Whether or not they happen to agree on any particular item, he has enjoyed the support and respect from the timber industry because he does his job right.

And the committee and the sponsor have done their job right with this piece of legislation. It's going to make a difference for the county that we both represent and the State of Oregon for generations to come.

I salute his leadership, and look forward to supporting it and hope that this is another signing ceremony that we can share at the White House.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This is a necessary budget adjustment, the consequence of the Republican gimmick that I voted against in 1993 because it was an artificial attempt that nobody had an expectation we were actually going to do. Indeed, every single year, except one, the Republicans blinked and kicked the can down the road.

We are facing up to the problem today in a comprehensive way, not holding doctors and their patients hostage. Health care reform actually moves us in the direction to be able to reduce costs in the long term, and I'm optimistic that what the House has already done will move us in that direction.

But whether or not reform is enacted, failure to pass this inflicts unacceptable damage on our constituents. This legislation gets us off the merry-go-round. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote with us, my Republican friends not to vote ``no,'' but

work with us with a strong, resounding vote of support, and then work with the Senate to adopt this reasonable long-term adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, it seems the issues that face Congress fall into two categories: the issues that are so great, so expensive, so contentious, so complex that they seem almost beyond our ability to influence--war and peace, the economy, climate change and, more recently, health care--too big and too controversial for effective, quick, meaningful congressional action. The other category seems to be the simple and the mundane, almost too routine--housekeeping, like renaming a post office.

The truth is, we pursue both because they're an important part of our job and are important to the American public. We're not going to give up on the big issues of the day no matter how complex, controversial and frustrating because, after all, they are the big issues of the day. That's why we're here when even modest impact can have a huge ripple effect on lives around the world, the safety of Americans, protecting the public Treasury and our soldiers. A post office may seem mundane and trivial to some, but to the family of that fallen hero and community, it's very important indeed, as it is to all Americans who honor and respect that sacrifice. There is a reason for these items, low cost but high impact. Then there are vast numbers of issues that are sort of in between. Animal welfare is often put in that category, seemingly at times unimportant or trivial, tangential--except, of course, when it has a devastating impact on human health, safety and environmental balance.

I was recently touring the Everglades with my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Part of the briefing materials dealt with the problem of up to 100,000 pythons that started out as pets or exotic curiosities and ended up in that environment. Pets, farm animals, even whole alligators have been attacked and ingested. Earlier this summer, an infant in its crib was strangled by a python. Too expensive? Secondary? What's the price of that baby's life? And how much are we going to try to spend to reclaim the Everglade habitat from tens of thousands of pythons that have been described as the most lethal killing machine ever?

Earlier this year, I had legislation that overwhelmingly passed this House to ban the interstate transport of primates. It had been derided by one of my colleagues as a ``monkey bite bill,'' ironically at just the same time a woman in Connecticut had her face ripped off by a neighbor's pet chimpanzee. I don't use that term metaphorically. Her face was literally ripped off. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the woman who was so horribly disfigured had the courage to take her story and her mangled face to the public on The Oprah Winfrey Show this week. I simply cannot bring myself to display the picture on the floor of the House, but millions of viewers saw the tragic evidence for themselves.

It's too late for this woman and her family, but it's not too late for the other body to act so that we can make events like this less likely. It's a symbol of the dysfunctionality of the other body that one Member--ironically a doctor, of all people--has put a hold on this legislation, refusing to allow the Senate to even consider it, and inexplicably, the other body goes along. The reason, we're told, is cost. The Senator is concerned about cost. Well, what is the cost to a woman whose eyes were torn out of her head so she couldn't see her daughter on prom night? What is the cost of the unbelievable reconstructive surgery, taking flesh from her leg to try to replace part of the missing face?

Mr. Speaker, animal welfare is about much more than concern for God's creatures. It's about human welfare. It's about environmental balance. And yes, to the good doctor from Oklahoma, it's about saving money.

The millions of Americans who watched The Oprah Winfrey Show saw the tragic case and its consequences. They should ask themselves why their Senators are not speaking out, why the other body is not passing this simple bill that can have such significant consequences. It may not change the world, but if it prevents just a few cases like this, it will be another example of simple legislation that we cannot afford not to pass.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1314) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to present Senate bill 1314 for consideration. This legislation would designate the United States postal facility located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland as the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office. Hopefully, today we will finish an effort I've been involved with for the last two Congresses to accomplish this honor for Dr. King, but more important, for our community. This legislation passed last Congress, but the Senate somehow didn't get around to acting upon it, and we passed it again this Congress, September 22, by a 411-0 margin. The legislation enjoys the unanimous support of the entire Oregon House and Senate delegation.

Senate bill 1314 was introduced by my friend and colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, last June, and passed the Senate this summer by unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I would thank the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform for their continued partnership in moving the legislation through the House and bringing us to this consideration. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Wyden to move his identical Senate version of the bill back to the House, as our legislation was held under a procedural hold in the Senate.

Regardless, we have an opportunity now to be able to put a final note on this chapter to make this important link to a postal service in our community. It is appropriate as we think about the United States Postal Service that has been voted for five consecutive years as the most trusted government agency. For Americans, the Postal Service provides a consistent and positive connection between the government and the people. And it's, I think, appropriate that the genesis of this legislation was the result of a community-led effort that was inspired by two local letter carriers from my district.

Back in 2007 Mr. Jamie Partridge and Mr. Isham Harris collected employees' signatures supporting the naming, as well as letters of support from all the surrounding neighborhood associations. These individuals brought the community together to honor not just Dr. King, but also Oregon's somewhat rocky path to racial equality and social justice. While our State ratified the 14th amendment expanding citizenship and providing equal protection under the law back in 1868, our State, sadly, continued to deny African Americans the right to vote under the terms of the original state constitution.

This was an area of great struggle in our community. Oregon had a sad chapter where it had a virulent, powerful, Ku Klux Klan presence, electing elected officials and inspiring some really unfortunate State legislation. In part, inspired by this struggle, in 1914, the NAACP opened a chapter in Portland which continues to this day as the oldest continually chartered chapter of the NAACP west of the Mississippi. They were part of the leadership that finally amended the Oregon Constitution in 1927 to remove the clause denying African Americans the right to vote. For the next 30 years they were involved in efforts with leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King not just to end segregation and racial discrimination, but to promote equality. It was a struggle that we faced continuously in our community in the 1950s, such as battles over open housing.

We are well familiar, all of us, with the remarkable life and legacy of Dr. King, who provided a face and a voice to the civil rights movement, one of the greatest orators in the history of the United States who provided national leadership and local inspiration in our community. I am pleased to honor this legacy with the full support of the Oregon congressional delegation. This post office will serve as a daily reminder of Dr. King's legacy and of the struggle in Oregon and around the country to reach our objective of individual dreams being fulfilled free of artificial barriers such as skin color, religious affiliation, gender, and sexual orientation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1314 and achieve that goal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Tennessee for his thoughtful words of support, for his concern and his adding historical perspective on how we're all in debt to Dr. King and how it has, in fact, inspired people north, east, west and south to be able to deal with the legacy of promoting a world hopefully free of discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would join us in approving this measure to honor not just Dr. King, but, as I mentioned, focus on the struggle in our community to reach these ideals, one that continues to this day. The designation of the post office in honor of Dr. King will be an ongoing reminder of what we have to do ahead as well as the progress we've made.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act marks the most important single step in 100 years in addressing the health care needs of American families. For the first time, the U.S. government has dealt comprehensively with the entire health care system.

Tonight I voted for every Oregonian who has faced bankruptcy when they've lost their care or has been denied coverage because of a pre- existing condition. Tonight, I voted to protect every Oregonian who has health insurance but sees their costs rising every year.

I'm pleased we were successful in the incorporation of major reforms, improving care for all Americans while strengthening the position of Oregon medical care providers.

This critical milestone, while historic, signals more hard work ahead to get the bill to the President's desk. I will work to strengthen the reforms while fighting to lower costs to make health care more affordable for families and the federal treasury.

We must then be prepared to keep working to implement this sweeping change. But tonight we should all pause to celebrate this moment in history.

Mr. Speaker, one of the strangest sights, and now a symbol of the health care debate, was the red-faced protesters, egged on by my GOP colleagues to ``keep government out of their Medicare''. These people are not ignorant; they are uninformed, and unfortunately, purposely misled by some on the other side of the aisle, by Republican talking points that deny government can have a constructive role in health care, even as they rely on government for health care for seniors, veterans, emergency services and, of course, for themselves.

When most Americans are given the facts, they are pleased that it is now time to take the next steps beyond our seniors, beyond our veterans, beyond emergency services and, of course, beyond Members of Congress.

Today we can extend those benefits to more Americans while we protect those with insurance from abuse and reform a Medicare system that is in trouble. Americans await Congress to take these next critical steps to give Americans the health care they need and deserve.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I hope every American examines the plan that has been offered to us by the Republicans.

Our citizens are outraged by practices of taking away insurance when you need it or denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Our bill fixes it. You won't find it in the Republican bill. Republicans strip out provisions so important to Oregon and other low-cost, high-quality States. Republicans do not deal with those vast regional disparities.

They ignore the extra costs faced by seniors caught in the prescription drug doughnut hole while Democrats provide financial relief within the next 2 months. If Republicans have their way, there will be more uninsured Americans in 10 years than there are today. Weaker protections ignore the needs of the most vulnerable, yet the CBO says the Republican plan will increase the deficit by $36 billion more than the Democratic plan.

Mr. Speaker, this is a colossal failure of imagination. The Republicans could have passed this package any time during the 6 years they and George Bush ran everything. They didn't bother because it wasn't worth it.

Last March, Republican Minority Leader Boehner famously said that his Members shouldn't legislate. With this package as the best they could do, the Republicans have met the challenge not to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country at 11.5%, which means that hundreds of thousands of Oregonians are without work. In the Portland region, roughly 140,000 residents are out of work.

The average weekly unemployment insurance benefit in Oregon is $310. Each week, I receive letters indicating how much of a lifeline these unemployment benefits are. Unfortunately, many families are nearing the end of these benefits.

Today, I voted to provide stability to American families hit hardest by the recession by extending unemployment benefits. The legislation will provide families with at least 14 weeks of additional benefits, and six more weeks to those living in the 27 states with the highest unemployment rates--states including Oregon. This means over 11,000 Oregonians will retain their insurance for an additional 20 weeks.

Also, this bill does not add to the deficit. Rather, it is paid for by extending a federal unemployment tax that has been in place for more than 30 years.

It is important to recognize that the losses from unemployment will last long after these workers--and the millions like them around the country--have again found work. Income losses for workers who are let go in a recession can persist for as long as two decades, and in some cases longer.

The economic crisis gripping the United States is one of the greatest economic challenges that the country has faced. It can be squarely traced to the ideology of economic deregulation, leaving the government with few tools to address the reckless actions of many financial institutions until it was too late.

It is time to rebuild the foundations of our economy and improve our fiscal fitness. I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a nation where every family is safe, healthy, and economically secure.