Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker and Chairman Towns, thank you for bringing this important legislation before the House today.

Less than a year ago, Chairman Towns and his staff worked to convene an Oversight and Government Reform hearing that I requested about the dangers posed by inadvertent file-sharing over open-network peer-to- peer file sharing software. I think it's safe to say we were all shocked by what we heard and saw at that hearing: information on the United States Secret Service safe house for first lady Michelle Obama; the names, addresses, and, in some cases, private information like Social Security numbers for men and women deploying to Afghanistan; as well as tax information for countless individuals. All of this information was on display for the world to see and all of it had been leaked as a result of inadvertent file sharing or theft over open- network peer-to-peer file sharing software.

Passing this bill is an important step in enacting common sense information security protections. This legislation will prohibit the software that has facilitated inadvertent file sharing and information theft from computers that have access to sensitive government information.

Not only important, this legislation is also timely. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission released findings from their investigation into inadvertent file sharing. Their conclusion supports this legislation and reaffirms what many of us have learned as a result of the committee's work: peer-to-peer file sharing software subjects millions of users to identity theft and other serious hazards.

The FTC is fulfilling its important role of protecting consumers by alerting consumers about stolen information, but I am concerned that their report does not pursue the one thing that all of the victims of inadvertent peer-to-peer file sharing have in common: the software itself. I urge the FTC to continue its work in this area and to look specifically at the providers of peer-to-peer software. The FTC has gone after those who use the software for harm, but they haven't spent enough time addressing those who develop this software--replete with security risks--for material gain. I look forward to future FTC investigation and possible action to address this ongoing problem.

Chairman Towns, thank you for working so hard to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been long, but it is now complete. The arguments have been very contentious, but it is now time to decide. The bill before us is long, but the question that we face is really very simple.

Will Congress today choose on behalf of the American people who elected us to build a health care system where every American has access to health care and where every American shares in the responsibility of paying for it.

Will we today reinvigorate the American dream so that no parent with a sick child will wake up wondering if they are going to have access to a doctor, so no father who loses health care because he loses his job is going to wonder how his family is going to be provided for, so no mother who becomes sick will lose the health care she has because she is sick.

Will we today free ourselves from the shackles of a broken status quo, one that enriches health care companies but is punishing American families, punishing American employers, and punishing American taxpayers.

That's the question, Mr. Speaker, that we face today in this Congress.

And this Congress has a choice to act like the confident Nation we are that faces head-on the challenges that we face. We will do so today by voting ``yes'' to move us so that we have a health care system in this country where every American is covered and we all help pay.

With all the controversy about the health care bill, the content of it, the argument about what is in it, what is not in it, this really does boil down to a fundamental question that this Congress and this country has eluded and avoided for over 70 years, and, that is, will we have a health care system where every American is covered and where every American helps pay? Will we have a health care system where we have a common desire and need to control costs and to reform the delivery system? That is one side.

The other question is, will we have a health care system that embeds the status quo that for the past 70 years has served the interests of the insurance companies very well, increasing their profits, salaries to $24 million, where it is a fee-for-service, volume-driven system that is absolutely burying our employers and our families under a burden of costs that we can't keep up with? That is basically the question.

Will this health care bill allow Americans to have access to health care or ensure profits again for the insurance company?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 100th anniversary of the Long Trail in Vermont, and to honor the Green Mountain Club for creating, maintaining, and preserving this national treasure.

Founded March 11, 1910, by James P. Taylor, the Green Mountain Club has been dedicated to, in Taylor's words, ``making the Vermont mountains play a larger part in the life of the people.''

In the past century, Taylor's dream has become a reality as seasoned hikers have taken to the trail, traversing the peaks and valleys of Vermont. From Massachusetts to Canada, they have hiked the spine of the Green Mountains, some for a day and some for the length of the 237-mile beautiful trail. And in the process, they have gained an appreciation for the glory of Vermont and the importance of stewardship and conservation.

I commend members of the Green Mountain Club, and I wish them another 100 years of success.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about trying to get jobs to start going up along with the stock market.

You know, it was only 1 year ago in one week that Wall Street, the stock market was crashed to its lowest level in years. In that past year, it has recovered; but while it has recovered, unemployment is still hovering in the range of 10 percent, underemployment is in the range of 17 or 18 percent. There are over 27 million Americans who are seeking work or not working enough, and we are not going to have an economic recovery until those folks are back to work.

How did this happen? It happened, we know, because of the excessive lending, reckless lending largely engineered by Wall Street firms that stood to gain an awful lot of profit. What happened? We, the American taxpayer, had to bail out Wall Street, $750 billion. People didn't want to do it, but they had a gun to the head of the American economy, and the collateral damage of inaction would have been much more havoc to people's pensions, to unemployment, and to Main Street. But 1 year later, Wall Street is back, but lending by Wall Street to our small businesses has gone down, not up. If we are going to get jobs back, if we are going to get people back to work, we need our banks--and it tends to be our local banks--to start doing some lending. They have been doing the job, but Wall Street hasn't.

What they've been doing in the past year--and quite successfully, they're very good at it--is returning to the casino economy. They've made an enormous amount of money by buying and selling derivatives, commodities, and currencies. And how did they do it? With the help of the American taxpayer: one, the $750 billion TARP transfer; second, the open window at the Federal Reserve where those banks had access to 0 percent interest money. Now, they've been so successful that they have set aside this past year for their bonus pool $150 billion.

They had three choices as to what they could do with that money: one, they could have added it to their balance sheets, strengthened it in order to basically fight another day so that if there was a downturn, they would be able to absorb it themselves and not come hat in hand to the taxpayer. Second, they could have lent it out. If you're getting 0 percent interest money from the Fed, you've got a local small business or a young family trying to buy their first home and you lend it out at 5 or 6 percent, most people would say that's a pretty good return. They didn't do that.

The third thing that they could do--and unfortunately they did do--is decide to put that money in their pocket with a bonus. That's good for them, but it certainly hasn't been good for the American economy.

So our legislation, the Wall Street Bonus Act, is very simple. It says that all those bonuses on Wall Street that went to banks that received taxpayer assistance through the TARP program, those bonuses above $50,000 would be taxed at 50 percent. And every single dollar that was collected would then be made available to the Small Business Administration to work with our local banks that have been making loans to lend to our job-creating small businesses around the country. So we would be taking a dividend for and on behalf of the taxpayers who basically put that money up in the first place, and we would be specifically making that money available for lending with a partnership of the SBA and our small banks.

Now, this is important for a couple of reasons: number one, the money that was made on Wall Street, that $150 billion bonus pool, yes, it was smart people buying and selling and trading derivatives, but the question for us is, when we put taxpayer dollars to work, is it good for the American taxpayer? Is it good for the Main Street economy? And, obviously, if it just goes into the pockets of the Wall Street traders, it does a lot of good for them, but no good for our broad economy; and our fundamental responsibility is to help people get back to work.

The second is that the bonus culture really is very destructive because what it encourages is placing a big bet, bet red, bet black, if you win, you make a lot of money, if you lose, as we've seen, the banks can come to the taxpayer and get bailed out. And people are furious about that, rightly so. So it is time for us to make a basic statement here that will reward investment, will reward hard work, but we're not going to have the taxpayers be on the hook for people who want to gamble.

The final thing really is this: we face a question about what business model we want America to follow. Do we want a business model where you make money by financial engineering, by having the quickest computer trading program, by a lucky bet on a speculation? Or do we want a business model where folks make their money by showing up for work, by investing in their community, by hard work for the long term, by being satisfied with a steady and sustainable rate of return and profit--which we need in a capitalist economy--by treating their workers right and by paying our fair share? That's the question.

The Populist Caucus is very strongly united in the view that hard work should be rewarded, that entrepreneurs, job creators, people who make money because they invest in their economy, because they invest in their workers, that is to be rewarded and encouraged. In fact, we have to do it if we're going to have an economy that works and expands rather than an economy that is based on flipping trades, about speculation, and financial engineering.

So this Wall Street Bonus Act would put some money into lending and help our small entrepreneurs. And I am very grateful that we have the strong support of so many Members of Congress for this.

I yield back.

Well, I appreciate that. You know, really what it is about is whether banking is going to be an activity that is about lending money to businesses, small businesses, families, to buy their first home, or it is going to be a mechanism for financial speculation. And it is really two totally different models.

I want to just take up on what you were saying. We need a banking system. We need a strong banking system. We need local bankers who are actually engaged in their community, who can make judgments about who is good for a loan. I want to give you an example of the local bank and the Wall Street operation.

In St. Albans, Vermont, we have a small bank, People's Bank. The president of that bank, Rick Manahan, his desk is in the entry of the bank. If you walk in, you see all the teller windows. There is a big vestibule area, the public area. His desk is there. People do not have a hard time asking Rick what is going on. He knows the folks in his community.

His bank and his board of directors see a good day's work when, at the end of the day, they have been able to authorize a loan to a local business--it might be a retailer, it might be a construction company-- knowing that that business is going to use that money to help create a local job. Or it is a young family getting started. They have to make a tough underwriting decision. But they know that family, and they know they are going to do their level best to be good for it. At the end of the day, a house has been sold, a family has got a new place to live, and they go home and sleep pretty good at night, knowing that they have made a real contribution in the community.

The other model, just to give you an example, one of our most esteemed Wall Street banks, is Goldman Sachs.

They have the best and brightest of folks doing the work there. But here's one of the things that they did--and it was very successful for them making money. They bought a mortgage origination company in the South. They hired 26, 30-year-old young people to go out, knock on doors, and sell mortgages. Generally, subprime mortgages that people couldn't afford and didn't need. They then brought those mortgages back to New York, and they bundled them into products that they then sold.

But before they sold them, they got the best and brightest MBAs to knock on the doors of the rating agencies and persuade the rating agencies that these toxic instruments were AAA. Then they went to their sales department and had them contact trusted investors, pension funds, and said, We've got some AAA products here. You ought to buy them. It's going to be a good return for your pensioners. And they sold them. Then they went to their trading room and they said, You know what? These are junk. How do we know? We sold them. And they bet short against the instruments they'd just sold long.

That would not happen at People's Trust in St. Albans, Vermont. They couldn't even imagine doing that, selling something that wasn't worth investing in. They couldn't do it. And I know that every single one of us, Republican and Democrat, have local bankers who've met that standard, where the goal is to serve the community. And they know that their responsibility with this trust that they have of depositor money is to put it to good work to build the economy.

Wall Street has a different point of view. Not that they're not necessary; they obviously are. But when they are helpful, they see that the work that they do should be in service of the work that Main Street does. You know, that's why with the reforms that we must implement, whether it's a bonus tax, whether it's a Consumer Product Safety Commission, whether it's tightening up on the lending regulations and derivative trading, all of that, the bottom line is really very simple: Is the banking system going to be there to serve us, or are we going to be there to serve the financial engineering of the banking system? That's the question that this Congress faces and America wants an answer to. I yield back.

Madam Speaker, one of the qualities, of, I think, a great person is that they don't see themselves as great. They really see themselves as ordinary.

If they value something about themselves, it's that being ordinary allows them to do generous and good things for other people. Jack Murtha was a huge figure for those of us who were in my class, the class of 2006. People may remember that the big debate that year was about the war in Iraq.

I ran as a person who was opposed to that war, and I remember during the campaign being very dispirited wondering where we were going. Then a voice rose out of Washington, and it was a Vietnam veteran, it was a combat decorated marine, it was the chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, it was a man who had the highest credentials as an advocate for the military. That voice, of course, was Jack Murtha.

And he stood up and he said that this war was wrong. He said that his vote was a mistake.

What attracted me, I think my classmates, and all of my colleagues who have been speaking to this man, Jack Murtha, was his generosity--he was always wondering what could he do for you today--his integrity, but he also had a quality of incredible strength. You gravitated to Jack because he was a strong man, strong in his convictions, strong in his will to carry on, and yet with the strength of a person who had the strength of mind and was willing to experience and analyze what was going on. When he came to his conclusion about Iraq, it was through the eyes of the soldier on the ground in assessing what was going on and why.

Even as he changed his policy position on Iraq, no one was a stronger supporter of the troops getting what they needed to be safe and getting what they needed to be taken care of when they got home. And what he understood and he began to teach this Congress and this country was that if we respect the valor of these men and women who are willing to subordinate their own judgment to take an oath of allegiance to the flag of the Commander in Chief and to report for duty when and where ordered by the President, then Congress and he, Jack Murtha, had a solemn responsibility to do every single thing in his body, mind, heart, and soul to provide those soldiers with a policy that was worthy of the sacrifice they were willing to make.

Like I think everybody here in Congress, when Jack would ask what Jack could do for me, I oftentimes had an answer. But the first time he asked me that question was the first day of my experience here in Congress. I said to Jack, I understand that you go out and visit the troops often at Bethesda and at Walter Reed. And he told me he did. He usually went alone, almost always went alone, always quietly, never any press, never any entourage. I asked him if in the course of my 2 years in Congress sometime he would take me to go with him, and it turned out that the next day he did.

I will never forget going through the Bethesda Naval Hospital with Jack Murtha and seeing how, when he talked to our troops who suffered incredible injuries, he had that same directness, that same pride, that same confidence in engaging these soldiers--What happened? How did it happen? Was it an

IED? Was it trip wire? Was it pressure activated?

He knew everything about the experience of these soldiers. And he wasn't sentimental. He was direct. He was blunt. And in that strength he was warm and encouraging and respectful to the service of those soldiers. It is something only a person with Jack's strength of character could do.

We all know that Jack was endlessly challenged by the press for the so-called earmarks. I remember that he took the criticism as though it was a grain of salt, and when asked, he would hold up a document saying, this is my power. It is in the Constitution, and I take care of my people.

We lost a great man.

Two points. Number one, my question is, what is the other side afraid of? There are certain caricatures that they just want tax cuts, we just want spending. The bottom line is that whatever your intention, no matter how good and noble you think it is, you have to pay for it. The two wars, two tax cuts, and $2.3 trillion in deficits that we inherited and a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street requested by President George Bush and Henry Paulson have to be paid for. The stimulus that's being ridiculed is the only thing that conservative and liberal economists have acknowledged has diminished the decline in the economy.

Good intentions are not a substitute for fiscal responsibility. We are acknowledging that. We have different goals. We have to fight those out. But why, despite whether your goal is a tax cut or a spending program, won't you agree to pay for it? That's what this legislation is about.

I thank my colleagues, and appreciate the opportunity to participate with you in the freshman hour.

I want to speak about two things. One is how do we get lending going for small businesses. And two, what is a practical thing we can do to create 600,000 to 850,000 jobs. You have recited very well how we got here, why we needed the stimulus. But on lending, let's address that. What happened? Wall Street went on strike. After they made record profits and record bonuses by making record bets with taxpayer money, they put a gun to the head of the American economy and lost billions and billions of dollars. And it was so threatening to the American economy.

Henry Paulson, then the Treasury Secretary under a conservative President, George Bush, came to Congress hat in hand, acknowledged that he was embarrassed, and asked for a $750 billion bailout.

Now, I was on that conference call with Mr. Paulson, and many of us were shocked that this former Goldman Sachs head was acknowledging failure but saying, If you don't help us out on the bets we made, we will have an implosion that will have collateral consequences that are absolutely catastrophic for Main Street.

Congress gave him the money, but it was after an assurance on his part that Wall Street had learned its ways and they wouldn't do the same thing. It is 15 months later, and what has happened? Wall Street is back to its old ways. In this past year, Wall Street has made so much money that they have set aside a bonus pool of $140 billion to $160 billion.

Now, how did they make that money? They had the TARP money, the taxpayer bailout money, number one. Number two, they had zero interest rate money from the Federal open window, and they did what they did before to get us there: they went and started trading in currencies, derivatives, and commodities.

Now, with those profits they had three options. One, they could have lent that money out to our small businesses. And they need it. By the way, I have a lot of folks in Vermont, I am sure this is true in California, saying, If they are making so much money, how come they won't give me a loan?

Number two, they could have added it to their bottom line to have a stronger balance sheet in the event of a downturn later. Or, three, they could have put it in their pocket. And that is what they did. Fifteen months after they stuck a gun to the head of the American economy, they went back to their old ways and made a ton of money. They are very good at what they do. But what they do is not good for America, it is not good for building an economy and sustainable jobs, and they are going to rake that in.

So we have legislation, many of us are on it, that would say to Wall Street: look, if you are not going to lend that money out, we are going to tax those bonuses. Anything above $50,000, we are going to tax at 50 percent, and we are going to put it into lending for small businesses.

Second, we can create 600,000 to 850,000 jobs by engaging in energy home retrofit programs. In every single community, we have got carpenters, plumbers, masons, electricians out of work because we have got a stagnant home industry. But we have got homeowners who need to save money and need a little help doing it.

If we put $20 billion into that, we can create 600,000 to 850,000 jobs, all local. We can use materials that have to be made in the United States. Ninety percent of all the retrofit materials are manufactured right here. We can save $3.3 billion for homeowners by lowering their energy bills. And we can take 3 million cars, the equivalent of 3 million cars, off the road. These are the things we can do, get lending going, and get jobs created. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I want to address the question of Afghanistan.

The President was confronted with a very serious and difficult decision. The decision that he made, as America knows, is to increase troop strength by 30,000 troops and to also seek the support for an additional 10,000 troops from allies. The question which really confronts America as well as the President is this:

What is the best strategy to protect our homeland from another attack that would be perpetrated by and inspired by al Qaeda?

The question is also whether having a military force of occupation of now 100,000 troops, or soon to be 100,000 troops, from the United States of America in Afghanistan and doing nation-building is a sustainable strategy that will be the one that can protect America from a future attack. I believe that it is not, and there are a couple of reasons.

First of all, as we know, al Qaeda goes where our military is not. There are presently, according to General Jones, 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan and about 500 in Pakistan. Al Qaeda moves to areas of opportunity. It is not just there. It's in Yemen. It's in Somalia. It's in other parts of the world.

Also, as we know, the Internet is a tool, and some of the folks who have been plotting and planning to do destructive conduct and to hurt our American people live in the United States and in other parts of the world. It is not a threat that is confined to Afghanistan. It is a decentralized threat.

So where you have a threat which, by definition, is decentralized and not from a nation state, does it make sense to deploy the vast majority of our troops, 100,000, and the vast majority of our resources, $1 trillion minimum over the next 10 years, to a single country and to then take on the goal of nation-building, of institution building, in Afghanistan? I believe it does not. It is not an effective strategy that is sustainable militarily. It is not an effective strategy that is sustainable financially.

Secondly, the effect of a decision to nation-build in Afghanistan is that, by definition, our military and our government need a functional partner no matter what the shortcomings of that partner may be--hence, the embrace of the Karzai administration, which is, despite the fact that it is losing credibility among its own people, and despite the fact that the election was not only deeply flawed but it is documented that the Karzai Government stole 1 million votes in order to stay in power.

The more work that we do which requires us to line up, to cooperate, to conciliate, and to protect a Karzai Government that does not have the support of its people--and every day that we do that--it undercuts the support and the definition of the mission of the American soldier in Afghanistan.

As is well-known, a major problem is Pakistan. What we have seen is that we now have to have a significant alliance with the Pakistani military as the only institution that can provide some measure of security in Pakistan. Because they control the nuclear weapons, this is obviously of great importance to the American people, but the Pakistani military is notable for two things:

Number one, it has been an adversary of democratic development in Pakistan, something which is essential to build economic well-being in a country that is absolutely destitute, impoverished and getting poorer.

Number two, the Pakistani military, as reported in The New York Times as recently as today, made it clear that, however urgent it is for the United States to take out the Hakani network, which is in the tribal areas and is crossing into Afghanistan on a regular basis to attack our troops, the Pakistani military regards the Hakani network as its ally in geopolitics in the Afghanistan region. So it will not do what needs to be done to protect the American military and American security, and that is to attack the Hakani network--the Afghanistan Taliban. In fact, it has made it explicit that it sees the Hakani network as its ally to keep India at bay.

So what we have is a strategy that depends on nation-building, which has very doubtful prospects of success in an alliance with two ``friends'' who aren't there to help us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Norwich University and its inaugural Day of Service.

Located in the foothills of the Green Mountains in Northfield, Vermont, Norwich University is the oldest private military college in the Nation. The university's founder, Captain Alden Partridge, believed in the importance of service and experiential learning. On November 7, 2009, over 150 alumni, undergraduate and graduate students, staff, and friends of Norwich University exemplified these principles by joining together in the university's inaugural Day of Service. The date was chosen specifically to coincide with Veterans Day, with most of the volunteer opportunities focused on supporting our Nation's veterans and active duty military.

Here in the DC area, dozens of alumni and friends volunteered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Fisher Houses, which are non-profit homes where family members of injured soldiers can stay while their soldier recuperates from injury. Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Norwich alumni visited with veterans at the local Veterans' Community Living Center and sponsored an afternoon of pizza and bingo. Norwich community volunteers in Massachusetts, New York, and Florida collected hundreds of toys and books to be distributed through the Armed Forces Foundation and Operation Paperback. Elsewhere around the country volunteers assembled care packages that will be sent to Norwich University alumni currently serving in Iraq. In North Carolina, alumni rallied to support Wakefield High School's anti-drunk driving efforts, and in San Antonio over 20 alumni and friends spent the morning volunteering in the fruit and vegetable gardens of the San Antonio Food Bank. In my home State of Vermont, over 50 students and alumni helped with local river cleanup, volunteered at the Vermont Food Bank and Habitat for Humanity, and provided logistical support for the White River Junction Mobile Vet Center.

At a time when so many of the men and women of our armed forces are serving around the globe, the Norwich Day of Service is a praiseworthy example of how those of us at home can volunteer our time to thank our servicemembers and veterans for their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, we spend more on tax expenditures authorized by Congress and the Committee on Ways and Means than we do on the entire appropriations budget. It really matters. This is the third year I've served in Congress, the third year we've had tax extenders. And the question for many of us is the one that was raised by Chairman Rangel: Is it time to take a look at this, kick the tires of each one of these to see not just how it affects the particular beneficiary-- they always are in favor--but how it affects the overall economy for creating wealth in jobs and how it affects the burden of fairness that is our responsibility? So I applaud the chairman in his effort to do that.

Madam Speaker, America faces two very serious challenges today. The first is an economy that continues to struggle. Too many Americans who want to work are out of work. The second is an energy policy that is failing. It's not clean, it's not sustainable, and it's not affordable. We can address the jobs issue by taking on the challenge of a clean energy economy. We can create jobs. We can save homeowners money on their energy bills, and we can reduce our contribution to climate change. We can do that by investing in a national energy efficiency retrofit program.

Recently, 44 of my House colleagues and I wrote to President Obama, urging him to act now, to use his existing authority, to use already appropriated stimulus funds to build a national home retrofit program that will create jobs. Some call it Recovery Through Retrofit. Some call it Cash for Clunkers. I call it a sure-fire way to create jobs, and to create them now.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the question before Congress is neither new nor complicated: Will we do what it takes to make health care affordable and available to all Americans?

Our predecessors in Congress faced similar choices when they extended voting rights to all Americans, established Social Security and Medicare for all seniors. Mr. Speaker, Congress faced those challenges and we are the better for it. We did so not without conflict and controversy but with some bipartisan support.

Tonight is different, unique. Our Republican friends have assured us that not a single member of their caucus will vote for health care reform. Every single person will vote ``no.''

The Republicans' alternative says to Americans with a preexisting condition, you are on your own. To the 47 million Americans without insurance, you're on your own. To the millions of Americans who can't afford the coverage that they have, you're on your own.

Our health care bill has a different philosophy, the one that prevailed when Democrats, and some Republicans, passed Social Security, voting rights, and Medicare: We are in it together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Delahunt for working diligently to ensure the passage of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. As the U.S. slips further behind other countries in attracting international visitors, we must take a look at how we are promoting and marketing our country, and find innovative solutions to strengthen the travel industry. I am proud to be a sponsor of this legislation in House.

The Travel Promotion Act addresses some of the important strategies that will provide greater outreach to international tourists and find ways to bring them here--to visit, to spend, and to learn about our country.

In my state of Vermont, our tourism economy is one of the most precious and valuable economic development engines we have. From our small bed and breakfast sector, to our crafts, and our cultural festivals, to being the home of Ben & Jerry's and some of the best skiing in the country--Vermont is a tourist destination, and this legislation will help it grow.

However, I want to also point out the importance of supporting cultural tourism in this country. This legislation and its implementation should remember that not all states have a major theme park or world-class resorts. But all states have cultural and heritage resources that are valuable and critical to tourism. I hope

that when this legislation is implemented, cultural tourism will be strengthened through it.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, America knows that we live with a health care contradiction: some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world providing health care to those who have access to the best health care in the world, but a health care system that also shuts the door of access to 47 million Americans with exploding costs, putting a punishing financial burden on our middle class and on our businesses that are hanging on to their health care by their fingernails.

This system has worked very well for the insurance companies-- unregulated, unsupervised, and unapologetic--but they have plundered the wallets of families and the profits of businesses to record record profits. That, Mr. Speaker, is the status quo.

On Saturday, this House of Representatives will face a question that has eluded it for 60 years: Will we accept the status quo or turn the page and provide health care to all Americans?

Our health care legislation is going to do what needs to be done to take that first step, extend access to 36 million Americans, insurance reforms, and a public option.