Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month.

It is my pleasure to stand up in support of this resolution in support of Women's History Month. It is important to note that here, in 2010, that insurance companies very often charge women exponentially more money to get health insurance than they do for men. Now why do they do that? Because health insurance companies have been empowered by the present system--not because they're venal or bad--but because it's their job, their business model, to take in as much money as they can and to give as little service as they can. That's their business model. It's their business model to try not to provide any insurance at all for the toughest to ensure, so they drop people who have any preexisting conditions or start to rack up needs, meaning people who get sick. They don't cover anyone who's over 65, because we, the Federal Government, decided 44 years ago, over the objections of many of my Republican friends, to create the Medicare system.

But let's talk for a moment about this notion of jobs for women, jobs for men, jobs for the next generation. The idea that we can continue this way, putting 20 percent of every single dollar we produce in this country into health care is why, my friends, our wages have been stagnant for the last 8 years. Because when an employer gets any additional money, it's got to go into keeping up with the high cost of health care. And you don't have to look in a book. You can go look in Michigan.

Take a look at the difference, with the exact same union contract, to build a Chevy Impala on the Michigan side of the Canadian border or on the Canadian side of the Michigan border. The same exact automobile. General Motors did what any sound-minded company might do. They said, Wait a minute. I'm paying an extra $7.25 per hour per worker on the New York side of the border, on the Michigan side of the Canadian border. I'm going to stop doing that and move them overseas.

We simply are less competitive with the status quo in every instance except one: the health insurance industry. They're doing well. They're doing remarkably well. And you know what? I am at a place, as I think the previous speaker said, where I would have preferred to say, You know what? Let's take the Medicare system. People understand it. Let's extend it to people 55. Let's get younger people on. Let's try to do this right. Let's take an organization that has an overhead rate of 1.05 percent--1.05 percent--and let's take away the ones that have 30 percent, 25 percent. That's what I would have done.

Now my Republican friends have their own proposal. Let me tell you exactly what it is. It says that anyone over the age of 55, who's not 55 today, will not have Medicare the way it's structured today. They will essentially get some type of a voucher and say, Good luck. You will not have Social Security under the Republican plan because they would invest it in the stock market. Yeah. It's not a joke. This is their proposal--not from 10 years ago. This is the ranking minority member. They don't talk about it much, God bless them. But that's their proposal.

There's an expression down South--and I'm not very far south in Brooklyn--but it says that it takes a great man or a great woman to build a barn, but any jackass can kick it down. What that means is, yeah, writing bills is complicated. To say it was rushed, I've got to tell you, a year, plus 2 years talking about it in campaign, plus 30 years festering as a problem, and now I heard one of my colleagues say, Wait until Thursday. Have you got a Final Four you're watching or what? Honestly. Wait until Thursday. Twenty percent of the economy. I'm busy. Wait until Thursday. I want to see if Siena makes two rounds. Let's wait until Thursday. Sayonara.

Look, the minority party had an opportunity for 8 years and the trend went like this for health insurance. Costs went like this for incomes. That's what happened. We're not going to let it happen anymore. So there was a decision made that had to be made: Are you going to try to solve the problem, or are you going to stand up for the insurance industry? On this side, we chose to try to solve the problem. It ain't perfect, but it sure beats what we're hearing over there.

I would ask the American people to listen to the following exchange:

Will the gentleman from New Jersey kindly inform the House the source of the memo that he just read from?

That silence that you hear is the gentleman from New Jersey read from a fake memo, a fraudulent memo. He has been zoomed. It wouldn't be the first time, but that is the case. That memo that he just read from has no source. He will not return to the microphone and tell us what it was because he took something that was created by opponents of health care, and there are a lot of them, mostly paid for by the health insurance industry, and came to the rostrum with a fake document.

I don't yield for that purpose.

The fact of the matter is there is an enormous amount of money being socked in by the health

insurance industry. They are doing everything. They are creating ads. They are making contributions. But what they are also doing is producing fake memos that say, ``from the Democrats,'' with something crossed out on top.

But the fact remains here that there is no reluctance to talk about the real CBO score: $1.2 trillion of savings for the American people. That is the fact. That is nothing we are hiding from.

I will yield if only for the purpose of telling the source of the document.

I asked the gentleman a direct question. Ladies and gentlemen----

Ladies and gentlemen, what you saw just now is a microcosm for this debate, a real piece of legislation that for a year we have been working on and a fake document that they won't even give the source for. We are going past that, and we are going to wait until Thursday, I say to my colleague, or Wednesday. We are going to do it when the bill is ready to be passed because we have debated this thing for a long time. We are here to solve the problems of the American people, not quote from fake memos.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1174) supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1174, a bill supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month.

This resolution was introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lynn Woolsey, on March 11, 2010. It was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which ordered it reported by unanimous consent on March 18 of this year. It enjoys wide support from over 120 Members of the House, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, as recently as the 1970s, women's history was rarely covered in the kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum. Since the late 1970s, the concerted efforts of education commissions, historical societies, and others have increased recognition of the roles and accomplishments of women in history of the United States of America.

These efforts included the establishment of Women's History Week back in 1978, which this body formally acknowledged in 1981. In 1987, the national celebration was expanded to the entire month of March. These celebrations have initiated new interests in highlighting the history of women in America, and it is most appropriate that we recognize Women's History Month here today with this resolution of appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, women make history in this country every day, from our very own Speaker Pelosi and the Members of the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle, to the Supreme Court justices, to women scientists, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, Olympians, teachers, writers, doctors, and leaders in every profession.

In November of 2008, voters in New Hampshire elected 13 women, a majority, to their State Senate, making it the country's first State- level legislative body with more women than men.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking a moment to recognize Women's History Month by supporting this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms.

Woolsey), the author of this resolution, such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time we have left, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman who just spoke, I cannot understand how anyone seated in this Chamber today cannot appreciate the fact that the language from the Senate version of the bill already expands the Hyde language. Under the Senate version of the bill, a woman in the exchange paying for her insurance totally on her own is going to be required now to make out two checks: one for her insurance contribution and one for her abortion services should she ever need them.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for the American people to appreciate that the Hyde amendment is alive and well in this bill. In fact, it is extended in this bill. Many of us who are concerned about making sure that women have access to the services they need recognize that many of them are not going to access these services now because they are not going to have insurance to cover it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution recognizing Women's History Month. Let me also suggest that we are all going to go down in history this weekend for the kinds of votes we take. If there ever was an issue on health care that must be addressed and is addressed in this bill, it is gender discrimination. And the dirty little secret in health care is that women have been discriminated against for decades in health insurance.

In fact, a 22-year-old woman, a healthy 22-year-old woman is going to pay 150 percent more for her health insurance than a 22-year-old healthy man. A 40-year-old nonsmoking woman is going to pay more for her health insurance than a 40-year-old male smoker. Those are the kinds of discrimination that continue to exist in health care today that will not exist once we have health care reform.

One in five women over 50 is not getting mammograms today. That will not be the case anymore because every woman in America will have access to those kinds of screenings.

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

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

I thank my friend from North Carolina, and I rise in support of Women's History Month. And I am proud to call Congresswoman Woolsey my friend. We don't agree on many issues, but we agree on many history issues. We worked together on Angel Island. I appreciate her leadership here. She's been a passionate advocate for women's rights in this House. But I want to talk more in depth about what most of America is looking at right now--and that's the foot in the door for the takeover of health care. There are several parts that directly relate to Medicare and retirement.

First off, I was not here when they passed Medicare, nor was I here when they passed Social Security. What other people did is other people's business. But what I see in this bill is 13 percent of Americans now say they're confident of their retirement. But without anything in committee, in some kind of magical formula in the last few years, they've raised the taxes to 3.8 percent on unearned income, which is a direct attack on those who've saved for annuities in America. We have spent years trying to encourage people to save. Now, at the last minute, we're going to dump an additional tax on them, already concerned about whether they're going to be able to survive as they hit their older age.

I'm happy to represent Lincoln Financial, which has 1,900 jobs in the annuity industry in my district. You just wonder: How many jobs is this bill going to kill? It is incredible what is being done in this bill. Not only are they punishing people who've saved, who planned to save, and discouraged savings, but they're going to eliminate or at least restrict the growth and lead to a decline in industries like that.

Furthermore, I represent three of the four biggest orthopedic companies in the world. Here's an area where we bought the biggest companies in Germany and Switzerland and around the world. We've become the technology leaders. So what are we going to do? We're going to tax them. They have two choices. The tax is equivalent to half of their R&D. They can either move the jobs and all the parts jobs that go with it, tens of thousands of jobs overseas, or they can eliminate R&D, and our senior citizens in the future won't know what they're missing in hip replacement, they won't know whether we would have had new spinal equipment, they won't know what other types of things they'll miss because this administration proposes to put a tax on that will kill, most likely, future development. And then there's this whole thing about the very people who claim to be the founders and the protectors of Medicare are trying to come up and pay for this bill with reductions in Medicare.

Now they talk about the insurance companies and Medicare Advantage. But what does it mean when it says, ``increased utilization of equipment''? Well, I found out from the cardiologist in my district. What it means is they have to get at least 80 percent utilization on the equipment. That means that the only hospitals in Indiana that will have heart equipment are in Indianapolis. Everything in Fort Wayne, South Bend, all over the State, is going to have to close. In oncology, because they're getting close to 40 percent utilization--the administration is claiming 80--they're going to consolidate in just the biggest cities for oncology.

In category after category, on the backs of senior citizens, saying just like they too often do for veterans, that you have to get in a car and go 200 miles if you want to have something treated on your heart. You have to go 200 miles if you want to do oncology. You have to go 200 miles if you're going to use equipment, because small-town, mid-size cities, and even the second-biggest city in the State of Indiana isn't good enough to have utilization of this type of equipment. We didn't have this debate. That's why you don't go fast on bills.

One of the things we do in the United States is we have driven our health care out to the second tier, the third tier, to small cities and towns, hospitals at 13,000 to 15,000, and things like outpatient clinics. What this does is reconsolidate--it provides jobs for government employees--but reconsolidates in the bigger cities, just like it does in Canada and in England. That's why they have waits. That's why small towns and people out in the countryside in those areas in the other countries have long waits, because if you

try and get high utilization on fewer pieces of equipment, it means your health care is less dispersed around the United States. So in one bill, somehow we're managing to kill the motive to save by taxing it more; to kill the one category that we are leading the world in, in orthopedics; and to destroy health care for seniors. We're not a big city like New York.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it ironic that Women's History Month is at the same time, in the same week that this article in The New York Times comes out about how this poor woman in Michigan on Medicaid, there is such inadequate Medicaid reimbursement that she cannot get treated for her cancer.

Now, I have actually listened to these arguments. I have gone to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and asked them--and I frankly feel a little bit disadvantaged--my colleague from New York, he has been in Congress as a staffer or as a Member, I guess, for 20 or 30 years. I have just been a practicing physician. I still teach in a teaching hospital, a safety net hospital where I actually work with the uninsured. So I don't have the legislative experience, but I do actually have the experience of teaching and treating patients who otherwise would not have care.

I just wish that my colleagues could join me. I actually wish they could come with me and see the reality of what is happening. So when my friend says, Oh, my gosh, I think government programs are better than private insurance--ah, I wish he would join me on my telephone town hall where the guy with the Crohn's disease is calling in to say that he has got Medicare and Medicaid and would my office please help him navigate the system.

They should be with me when I am with my Medicaid patient who only gets--oh, can I get a referral to a specialist because they won't take Medicaid because it pays so far below their cost. And cost is actually the simple issue. I know it sounds hard-hearted, but the fact is, if you don't control cost, you can't provide access to quality care.

Now, there are so many examples of this. For example, Medi-Cal, the Medicaid program in California, did a huge expansion because of Medicaid's budget--one, California's gone bankrupt, and two, Medi-Cal is now decreasing eligibility. They tried to make everybody eligible. They did not control cost, and now they are decreasing eligibility. Massachusetts--expanded care, did not control cost, and now they are disenrolling people who formerly were enrolled.

If you don't control cost, you cannot provide access to quality care. I say that not as someone who has been here for 30 years. You know more about that than I do. I say it as someone who has been in the trenches, treating the uninsured for 20 years.

Now, by the way, Medicare, having such a wonderful low overhead, come join my world. Twenty percent of Medicare in south Florida is fraud. Only 1 percent of that goes to administration. Maybe a little bit more should, because 20 percent is going to fraud. Do we want another program based upon Medicare which expands fraud?

Now, we also said earlier in the debate that we're going to expand payment for primary care physicians, but it's not going to cost the States anything. Come to my world. Leave these Chambers. Walk with me in a hospital for the uninsured where you realize that the extra payments from the Federal Government are only for those newly eligible. And if we mandate here that the States raise those fees, that increases the burden for those who are already eligible.

If you don't control cost, you can't give access. Now Republicans have been proposing things. I was so pleased the President said we're the party of no and then he embraces our idea of HSAs, high- risk pools, and other things. So that's good. The party of no is suddenly the fountain of ideas for things which will be immediately beneficial.

I come back to one more thing that we have in common. We are all Representatives. We can agree on this: I actually don't think the American people would mind if we delay just two more days, fly home to our districts. We are Representatives. We are not dictators. We are here not for what we think is best, but to represent the people we represent. Join me in that bipartisan initiative.

I thank the gentlewoman from California. I rise in support of honoring Women's History Month.

Women were once considered second-class citizens whose rights were restricted from voting to property ownership. But today, women serve in the Senate. They serve in the House of Representatives; as members of the President's Cabinet, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

It's important that we honor the key role women have played in shaping our country. However, it wasn't until the late 1970s that women's history was taught in our schools, and it was almost completely absent in media coverage and cultural celebrations. That's why the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women, of which I was Chair, initiated a ``Women's History Week.'' That was a celebration in 1978 centered around International Women's History Day.

The National Women's History Project, later located in my district, was founded in 1980 by many of the same dedicated women who started Women's History Day. These women poured their hearts and their ideas into promoting and expanding a weeklong celebration for women and of women. Because several dedicated women, including Molly Murphy MacGregor, the late Mary Ruthsdotter, Maria Cuevas, Paula Hammett, and Bette Morgan decided to write women back into history, thousands of schools and communities now commemorate Women's History Month by bringing lessons on women's achievements into the classroom, staging parades, and engaging neighborhoods in the celebration of the contributions of women. The hard work and dedication of these wonderful women and the support of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women paid off. They started a national movement and, in 1981, Congress responded to the growing popularity of Women's History Week by making it a national observance, and eventually, in 1987, expanding the week to a month.

Mary Ruthsdotter, one of the founders of the National Women's History Project, passed away in January of this year. She should have been written into history a long time ago. She will be written into history from now on. Mary was a leader in the effort to ensure the inclusion of women's accomplishments in the Nation's history. She traveled around the country making presentations, training teachers, and lobbying for the inclusion of women's accomplishments in the Nation's history. Imagine what American history lessons would be today without teaching about Harriet Tubman's Underground Railroad; the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the many women who fought for women's suffrage; or Dr. Sally K. Ride, who was the first woman in space and has worked to get more girls interested in science.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in reaffirming our commitment to the celebration of women's history by supporting H. Res. 1174, to ensure that our grandchildren and great grandchildren learn about women like Amelia Earhart, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, eventually the first woman President. This week, Mr. Speaker, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will make history by leading this Congress into passing a monumental health care bill that in itself will be making history. One of the parts of history that this bill will be ensuring is that women will no longer be considered a preexisting condition.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, and Congresswoman Jackie Speier for allowing me to speak today, for supporting this resolution, and letting us reflect on the contributions of women and their place in history, with the hope that the day will come when it's impossible to study American history without remembering the contributions of women.