Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, once again, to highlight the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military.

As I said last week, the Department of Defense, by its own calculations, estimates that over 19,000 servicemembers, mostly women but some men, are raped or sexually assaulted every single year; and, furthermore, only 13 percent report these rapes or sexual assaults. Why is that? Because the system of justice designed to adjudicate cases of rape in the military is in complete shambles. Victims are blamed. Assailants are promoted. Unit commanders, whose promotions are dependent on the conduct and performance of the soldiers they supervise, have an incentive to see that allegations are few and convictions are fewer.

Meanwhile, what are we doing here in Congress? Over the last 16 years, there have been reports and there have been hearings, 18 of them, and we make lots of noise; but then nothing is done about it. As a result of this code of silence, the overwhelming majority of cases get swept under the proverbial rug.

Last week I told the story of Technical Sergeant Mary Gallagher. The feedback I've gotten is considerable. A woman named Katie wrote on my Facebook page: ``I am one of those victim soldiers. Jackie, thank you for fighting for a basic right. I have no idea why this is still not being handled properly. I dream that soon women and men will be able to serve our country without the threat of rape that will go unpunished.''

But stopping military rape should be more than just a dream; it must be a reality. We owe our servicemembers the same protection that they provide to all Americans.

Today I want to share the story of Seaman Panayiota Bertzikis. Seaman Bertzikis served in the Coast Guard from November 2005 to May of 2007. Her allegation is as follows:

On May 30, 2006, Seaman Bertzikis was raped by a shipmate when she stationed in Burlington, Vermont. During a hike, her rapist threw her onto the ground, punched her in the face, and raped her.

She reported the rape to command, who told her to cease speaking about it or she would be charged with the military equivalent of slander. She later obtained photographs and admissions made by her rapist through the Freedom of Information Act, but command failed to bring him to justice in any way. Instead, they forced Seaman Bertzikis to live on the same floor with her rapist, where he would remain a constant threat. Command also told the seaman to work with her rapist and use the time together to ``work out their differences.''

Command was well aware, but did not stop, further assaults and harassment of Seaman Bertzikis. Instead, she was transferred to Boston where Coast Guard personnel called her a ``liar'' and a ``whore.''

When she was on base performing her duties, a group of Coast Guard personnel cornered Seaman Bertzikis and tried to rip off her uniform. They called her a ``crazy lying whore'' and said she would ``pay for snitching'' on their friend. They threatened to rape her again.

When she reported this harassment, the Coast Guard's ``victim advocate'' told her not to pursue disciplinary action because she would be seen as ``difficult.'' In addition, her appointed attorney said if her rapist did not have a history of sexual assault, ``why would he assault anyone now?'' Seaman Bertzikis was denied rank because of the pending investigation, despite the fact that she had met all the necessary requirements.

She described her horrific ordeal this way: ``If I told them that my house was broken into, not one person would question me, blame me, or say that I was lying. But when I say that my body was broken into, people automatically feel that they have the right to judge me, to doubt me, and to blame me.''

What a profound statement by Seaman Bertzikis. She has now started the Military Rape Crisis Center to help her fellow colleagues and victims. Turning pain into purpose, she is truly an American shero.

Seaman Bertzikis's story shows the urgent need to protect servicemembers from abuse.

Mr. Speaker, the Kabuki dance is almost over, and like many of you, I'm wondering if we have lost our senses. By all reports by Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner, they are very close. It's not about money. Do you know what it's about? It's about contraceptive pills. I can't believe that we are sitting here today, about to shut down the government, over contraceptive pills--because that's what it's all about.

It's all about defunding one organization, Planned Parenthood, that provides explicitly and only services around contraceptive pills, breast cancer screenings, STD screenings, and cervical cancer screenings. Not one dime goes for abortion services. In fact, the services provided under family planning have to be excluded completely. Different locations, different service providers, different staff. And on top of it, it's all audited. So not one dime for abortions. This is only for family planning services.

So in the end we're going to go to the American people and say, yes, we shut down the government, we told all our men and women serving in faraway places, trying to keep the world free, and keep it free for us, and keep terrorists at bay, we are going to tell them, no, you are not going to get paid for a while because we didn't want to fund contraceptive pills for women who are poor in this country.

The women who access Planned Parenthood, and one in five women accesses Planned Parenthood at some time in her life, the average income is $33,000 a year. These are women who can't access health care for reproductive services because they're working in jobs where they don't have health insurance. And we're saying shut down the government. Shut down the government. Don't pay our men and women serving overseas. Close down the national parks. Make sure none of our exports get to their destinations. Don't let any more small business loans be offered. Just shut it down, because we don't want to make contraceptive pills available to women in this country. It's absolutely shameful.

This is a message to Speaker Boehner. Mr. Speaker, this is your opportunity for a profile in courage. This is your opportunity to say to your caucus and to the American people, I am not going to allow this country to be shut down over contraceptive pills.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an abomination, and I vow to speak about it every week until this Congress and this administration does something more than offer lip service.

Read my lips: The military must end rape in this country, and those who commit such crimes must be brought to justice. The fact that women in the military are being raped and our government is turning a blind eye is disturbing enough. Even worse, it is not our enemies abroad who are committing these horrific crimes. It's American soldiers abusing many of our own, often with nothing more than a slap on the wrist and sometimes with an unbelievable promotion.

We have a military culture that condones, and in some cases rewards, this type of abusive and violent behavior against female soldiers, who are now more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than killed by enemy fire. This is a national disgrace, and the longer it goes unaddressed, Congress becomes an accomplice in these crimes.

You know, we in Congress do something really well--we hold hearings, and then we do nothing. Congress has held 18 hearings in the last 16 years on this issue, and nothing has changed. The Department of Defense estimates that over 19,000 servicemembers were raped or sexually assaulted in 2010; but due to fear of retribution and a failure to prosecute these crimes, only 13.5 percent are reported. These are Department of Defense figures: 19,000 soldiers raped in the military every year.

So beginning today, I am going to tell these women's stories on the House floor, and I'm going to keep telling them and keep telling them until something is done about it.

Earlier this year, 17 servicemembers, 15 of them women, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government accusing the Pentagon of ignoring their own cases of sexual assault. Today, I want to tell you about one of those, Technical Sergeant Mary Gallagher. She deployed to Iraq in 2009 as a member of the Air National Guard. Her allegations are as follows. Now I'm warning you, some of the language is graphic.

On November 5, 2009, while she was deployed in Iraq, a coworker offered her a ride home to her living quarters. When she accepted, instead of driving her home, he drove her to a remote area and tried to kiss her. Technical Sergeant Gallagher threatened to report him. He became angry and verbally assaulted her. She reported the incident to command, but they claimed that they could do nothing about it.

On November 7, the coworker began to stalk Technical Sergeant Gallagher. He tried to break into her room, claiming she didn't know what she was missing. He telephoned her repeatedly. She again reported her coworker's threatening behavior to command but was

advised that they could do nothing because it was a ``he said, she said'' situation.

Five days later, on November 12, the coworker sexually assaulted her in the restroom. He pushed her up against the left side of the wall, took his right hand and pulled her pants and underwear down and then used his hand to rub her vagina. He simultaneously ground his penis against her and talked about how much he was enjoying the assault.

Technical Sergeant Gallagher described the incident this way to NBC: ``I thought he was going to kill me that night. I felt completely isolated and alone and really scared. Here I was in the middle of a foreign country in the middle of a war.''

Sergeant Gallagher did not report the violent assault immediately because command had advised her that nothing could be done after she had reported the coworker's threatening behavior before. Two weeks later, when she was asked for more details of the events on November 5 and 7, at that point she reported the violent assault. Command's only response was to reassign the assailant and order him to refrain from any contact with her. She was then lectured by the base chaplain, who claimed that 96 percent of sexual assaults on women occur when drinking is involved. Technical Sergeant Gallagher had not been drinking during any of the assaults.

This is a harrowing story, and it's one of 19,000 that must be heard. Technical Sergeant Gallagher fought for us. It's now time for us to fight for her.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House will consider a misguided and dangerous bill to repeal the Clean Air Act standards that protect Americans from big polluters.

Republicans are calling this bill the Energy Tax Prevention Act, except there is nothing to do with preventing taxes in the bill. Instead, this Dirty Air Act is a giveaway to any company who wants to dump pollution into the air free of charge and is a big gimme to all the Members of Congress hoping to collect their share of dirty campaign contributions.

If my Republican colleagues want to write a bill to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court, turn science on its head, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and put the interests of big polluters above taxpayers, they should at least come up with a catchier title, like the ``Make Smog in America Act'' or the ``National Hot Air Distribution Act.''

If my Republican colleagues want to write a bill to guarantee that more American children get sick with asthma, maybe they could call it the ``Take Your Child to the Emergency Room Act.''

Really, anything else would do.

Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately unable to cast votes on the evening of March 29, 2011.

On rollcall 194, I would have voted no.

On rollcall 195 I would have voted aye.

On rollcall 196 I would have voted aye.

On rollcall 197, the motion to recommit, I would have voted aye.

On rollcall 198, final passage, I would have voted aye.

The Making Home Affordable Program simply has not protected homeowners from foreclosure, or ensured that mortgage servicers work with homeowners in good faith to achieve loss mitigation that works for homeowners, investors and our communities. Despite clear and repeated calls for reform of the program from the Congressional Oversight Panel, the Special Inspector General for the TARP, and the GAO, changes to the program have been too little and too late. While my constituents and homeowners across the country continue to struggle through good faith efforts to keep their homes, banks are again making record profits and paying large bonuses to their executives and employees.

Despite well documented abuses of homeowners by mortgage servicers participating in the HAMP, no servicers have been sanctioned or fined for violations of HAMP program requirements, despite clear authority to do so. I do not take this position lightly, particularly in light of the fact that no alternative program to help homeowners is offered. However I simply cannot continue to offer support for a program that has protected banks and servicers at the expense of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Police Commander Marc Catalano for 31 years of service to the City of San Bruno.

He joined the San Bruno Police Department on June 1, 1979 and spent his first two years as a community service officer. He served as a patrol officer from 1981 to 1984, a detective from 1984 to 1985, a field training officer from 1985 to 1997, an acting sergeant from 1990 to 1991 and again a detective from 1991 to 1994. In 1994 he became involved with D.A.R.E., the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, and was instrumental in expanding that program from elementary schools to middle schools and high schools.

In 1997 Mr. Catalano was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and four years later to the rank of Lieutenant Sergeant. In 2001 he received his final promotion to Commander.

Marc Catalano is a true Bay Area native, born in San Francisco and raised in San Bruno and Burlingame. He graduated from Mills High School and received an Associate Degree from the College of San Mateo. At Notre Dame de Namur University he earned his Baccalaureate Degree in Human Services.

Commander Catalano is anything but complacent; he always thrives to learn more and better himself. He attained advanced supervisory and management certificates from the State of California, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and awards from the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association and from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

In addition to a law enforcement career, Marc Catalano is the loving husband to his wife Laurie, his wife of 26 years. The couple has two daughters Danielle and Lindsay.

Mr. Speaker, it is right to honor Commander Catalano for his 31 years of service to the San Bruno Police Department on December 27, 2010, the day of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an epidemic that is flying too far under the radar: the bullying of children with special needs.

Bullying has gotten a fair amount of attention in recent years. Our Nation was shocked by the story of Tyler Clementi, a gay Rutgers student who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after being bullied by his peers. Earlier this month, Dateline NBC ran a special called ``My Kid Would Never Bully.'' In it, hidden cameras were used so parents could watch their children react to several different bullying situations set up by Dateline. The results were not great. Last week, the President and the First Lady held a White House conference on bullying.

What we haven't focused on is who gets bullied the most. You might be surprised by this: It's children with special needs. In fact, two times as many children with special needs are

taunted every day in schools as children who we say are ``normal.''

Tomorrow, I will be cohosting a briefing with Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers, herself a parent of a special needs child, to discuss the heartbreaking issue. We will be joined by Lauren Potter, an actress on the hit show ``Glee,'' who has Down syndrome and who will share her personal stories as well. We will be highlighting a report by AbilityPath.org, Best Buddies, and the Special Olympics. This report shines a bright light on this epidemic.

Here in Congress it seems there are as many reports as minutes in the day, but too often they end up collecting dust instead of inspiring action. In this case, we cannot allow that to happen. Bullying and harassment foster a climate of fear and disrespect that can seriously impair the physical and psychological health of its victims, and create conditions that negatively affect their learning.

For special needs children who already face tremendous challenges, adding this extra burden is simply unacceptable. Those with special needs are more likely to be targets, either because their differences single them out in the classroom or because they have difficulty in communicating and in reading social cues.

Let me share with you a story from the report. These are the words of a mother of an 11-year-old girl with Down syndrome:

``My daughter is a wonderful, adorable, sweet child with Down syndrome. The bullying she encountered started in elementary school and has followed her to middle school. Everyone makes a big deal about their children being bullied at school, and it is a big deal. However, it is always the `normal' children that you hear about. Who stands up for the children who are like my daughter?''

It was this sense of helplessness that led James Jones, whose daughter suffers from cerebral palsy, to confront her school bullies on a Florida school bus in 2008. The video was unforgettable and shocking. The numbers are just as disturbing.

A study in the British Journal of Learning Support found that 60 percent of students with special needs reported being bullied compared to 25 percent of the general student population.

Researchers have discovered that students with disabilities are more worried about school safety and about being injured or harassed by other peers compared to students without disabilities.

The National Autistic Society reports that 40 percent of children with autism and 60 percent of those with Asperger's syndrome have experienced bullying.

It is time for Congress to stand up and to speak up for these children and their families. In the coming weeks, I will be introducing legislation to tackle this issue head-on. Under this legislation, schools that receive Federal funds will be required to report the number of incidents of bullying and whether the victims have special needs. In addition, Federal funds used for bullying programs will be required to include content that specifically addresses the bullying of those with special needs.

I hope we can begin a national conversation to ensure this epidemic remains silent no more.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing that will actually have the potential to make our Nation less safe. The title of the hearing is ``The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community,'' but what's truly radical is using committee time and resources to profile and demonize whole communities of people based on their faith. American Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and many have cooperated with the U.S. authorities to help prevent terrorist attacks. We should target terrorists based on actions, not religion.

When law enforcement agencies were asked to identify terrorist groups within their States, Muslim extremist groups ranked 11th out of 18. Neo-Nazis, environmental extremists, and anti-tax groups were all more prevalent. Radicalization and homegrown terrorism are serious and legitimate concerns and deserve thoughtful examination, not an ideologically motivated charade.

We must continue efforts to defeat al Qaeda wherever they exist, but one key to combating extremism is winning the hearts and minds of the next generation of Muslims.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Joe Burns, a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman from San Bruno who will celebrate his 20th birthday on March 5, 2011. This is an extraordinary birthday for Joe, not only because he is entering the second decade of his life, but because it's a miracle that he is alive.

Joe's job was to provide medical care for Marines with Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Division in Afghanistan. On February 17, 2011 he and three Marines were in an armored vehicle in Helmand Province, when they struck an Improvised Explosive Device. The IED literally blew up underneath Joe's feet. The vehicle went up in the air and was propelled forward. Joe broke five bones in his heel and suffered a concussion. One Marine also suffered a heel injury, the other two were not hurt.

It is absolutely miraculous that everyone survived the ambush. The vehicle was Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP. Joe's mother Lori Burns is convinced that it was that technology that saved her son's life. She recalls how she first learned about the incident. The hospital corpsman treating Joe handed him a phone and he said: ``Mom, I'm ok, I broke my heel, they blew me up. I got to fly in a helo and I think I'm getting a Purple Heart.''

Joe was treated in hospitals in Afghanistan, Germany and San Diego and received a cast on his foot in each place. This young man did not want to leave Afghanistan; he wanted to continue serving his country despite his injury. I want to thank Joe for his service. He represents the courage and bravery of our troops.

Joe grew up in San Bruno, California and went to St. Roberts Elementary School. After he graduated from Burlingame High School in June 2009, he was enlisted in the Navy in October of the same year.

On January 1, 2011, Joe was deployed on his first tour to Afghanistan--not exactly what he expected. When you enlist in the Navy, his mother quotes Joe as saying, you think you are going to be on water, not sand. It was on day 47 of his deployment that the IED blew up underneath him and sent him back home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to rise with me to celebrate the life and 20th birthday of Joe Burns on this day, March 5, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Rosenberg Foundation on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary.

For three quarters of a century, the Rosenberg Foundation has committed itself to achieving social and economic justice for the people of California.

The Rosenberg Foundation was established in 1935 by a group of relatives and business associates who were designated as trustees in the will of Max L. Rosenberg, a San Francisco businessman and philanthropist.

Throughout its history, the Foundation has set forth on a mission of expanding opportunity to all Californians. It has distributed more than 2,800 grants totaling nearly $80 million to regional, statewide and national organizations advocating for social, economic and civic justice in the state.

These grants have focused on California's most vulnerable communities, from those in rural areas to women to minorities to children. Today, the Foundation is spearheading innovative solutions for tackling issues such as immigrant rights, justice for farm workers, sentencing reform and economic disparity.

For these efforts, the Rosenberg Foundation has been recognized with many prestigious awards. In 1997, it won the Outstanding Foundation Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals. In 2003, it was one of three foundations to receive the Paul Ylvisaker Award for Public Policy Engagement by the Council on Foundations.

As our nation emerges from this historic recession and inequality continues to rise, groups like the Rosenberg Foundation will play a critical role in helping all Californians realize their share of the American Dream. The Foundation understands that people aren't looking for a handout, but a hand up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rosenberg Foundation and its dedicated staff for their extraordinary contributions to the people of California during the last 75 years. I have no doubt we will be celebrating many more anniversaries in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the 23rd anniversary of the vicious attacks against Armenians in Sumgait, Azerbaijan.

Dozens of Armenians were killed. Hundreds were injured. Women, including young girls, were raped.

Apartments were robbed, cars were burned, and local businesses were destroyed.

According to testimony reviewed by the Supreme Court of the USSR: ``Tenants were dragged from their apartments. If they tried to run and escape, the mob attacked them. The mob used metal rods, knives and hatchets, after which bodies were thrown into the fire.''

But shockingly most of the Azeris who committed these horrific acts and their accomplices in government were not brought to justice.

The Sumgait Massacres are part of a long and disgraceful history of violence against the Armenian people.

It is long past time for the United States to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. This anniversary should serve as a reminder that we can stay silent no more.

Let's take this moment to remember all those who lost their lives at Sumgait and pledge to prevent ethnic cleansing from occurring anywhere in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I recently surveyed my constituents and asked them what they thought I should spend my time on in 2011. No surprise, they said jobs; create jobs.

Fifteen million Americans without work today, and what does the Republican continuing resolution do? It is going to add another 700,000 jobs lost in America, by Mark Zandi, the fine economist who was the adviser to John McCain when he was running for President, 700,000 jobs.

So why would they do this? You've got to scratch your head. The reason why they want to do this is because they only win if the economy is down, if there are more jobs lost. So their whole approach is not to be Americans but to be Republicans.

I say: Republicans, join us in being Americans first. Let's create a job-seeking engine. Let's create jobs in this country, not take them away.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity this evening to talk about something that we're not talking much about right now. We talk about the loss of jobs, the unemployment. But what really caused it?

You know, a few weeks ago the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission actually submitted its report to Congress. The good news is that it's on the best seller list. The bad news is that I am fearful that it's going to be gathering dust in the Chamber here and throughout this building because in this document it speaks volumes about why we are sitting where we are today; why our economy has tanked; why there are 15 million people unemployed in this country; and why there are 4 million people who now have been foreclosed on, and another 4 million who are underwater relative to their mortgages.

So this evening I am joined by the distinguished member from the Financial Services Committee, my good friend from the State of North Carolina, who is a powerful voice on consumer protection and the financial crisis that we've endured. And we're going to spend the next half hour just talking about it.

Well, first and foremost, what was this commission? This commission was a bipartisan, independent 10-member committee composed of private citizens with experience in economics, finance, housing, market regulation. They held 19 public hearings in affected communities across this country including Washington, New York, Miami, Sacramento, Las Vegas, and Bakersfield; 115 witnesses appeared before the

commission in sworn public hearings, including leading figures in the crisis.

In addition, the commission interviewed over 300 people, virtually all of the key players in the financial collapse, including Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide, Richard Fuld of Lehman, and Joe Cassano of AIG Financial Products Division, and examined thousands of documents--all of which are posted on the Web. A totally transparent process.

And the single most important statement they made was this crisis could have been avoided.

Now, they gave just a few examples. The Securities and Exchange Commission could have required more capital and halted risky practices at the big investment banks, but they did not. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other regulators could have clamped down on CitiGroup's excesses in the run-up to the crisis. They did not. Policymakers and regulators could have stopped the runaway mortgage securitization train. And they did not.

So this document has line and verse of what went wrong. But one of the most telling parts deals with the mortgage fraud, and I would like to just put this up.

How many executives have been held accountable for their actions in this financial crisis?

As you can see, two have been criminally charged. There have been zero convictions, zero sent to prison.

Well, what happened when the savings and loan crisis occurred in this country decades ago?

The results there were much different: 1,188 were criminally charged, 915 were convicted, and 582 went to prison. Convictions included more than 260 thrift CEOs and senior executives including, of course, the famous Mr. Keating.

So it is very important for us tonight and through the next year or two to not only study this document but to put it to paper. By ``put it to paper,'' I mean legislate around it.

Now the Dodd bill is an incredible effort in that regard. The Dodd- Frank effort was one that we were successful in moving through; but as this report points out, there were powers that many of these regulators already had but chose not to use.

Now, the second poster talks about mortgage fraud; and the compelling information in the report that I think is important to point out is that, again, there were people that were looking at the problem and saying, Wait a minute, we need to do something about this. One in particular was the Deputy Director of the FBI who began to look at this issue and thought something is wrong here.

According to the FBI, 80 percent of the cases of fraud involves insiders. So if there was fraud being exercised in the mortgage industry, it was coming from the inside. FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker began noticing a rise in mortgage fraud back in 1999 and in 2002 led a successful criminal prosecution against the owner of Beneficial Mortgage in your State, my dear friend from North Carolina, for selling fraudulent loans to Fannie Mae.

First Beneficial repurchased the fraudulent loans from Fannie but then proceeded to resell them to Ginnie Mae without any interference from Fannie. Fannie later paid $7.5 million in restitution to the government for allowing the sale.

Assistant Director Swecker told a congressional committee in 2004 that if fraudulent mortgage practices became unrestrained and systematic, it would ultimately place financial institutions at risk and have adverse effects on the stock market. Boy, was he prescient or what?

So here is an interesting chart that shows how we've seen an increase in fraud reports at financial institutions.

Now, these are really undervalued. They're probably five times higher because many institutions do not actually report like they should. But what is even more disturbing is that while the number of mortgage frauds have increased, the number of actual prosecutions have slowed down. So as we are trying to kind of somehow come to some understanding of why this all happened and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again, if we don't have enforcement tools, if we don't have those who have the enforcement tools seeking to go after the mortgage fraud, then in all likelihood it will continue to happen.

So I know that my good friend from North Carolina is interested in weighing in on this issue. I think that as we discuss this issue, it's important to know, one, that there are enforcement tools, but they have to be used.

I yield to my good friend.

I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you know, you had said earlier that our friends on the other side of the aisle were bemoaning the big government; and yet if any of the records that have been established by this commission are really studied, without the kind of government to do the kind of investigation and enforcement, then we are setting ourselves up for another financial crisis.

You know, you are absolutely right, and so is Will Rogers. I think that it's important for us to communicate to the American people that while we don't want bloated government, we want to make sure that there is a government that has the cop on the street.

Look at the savings and loan crisis and those who were criminally charged and those who were convicted and those who went to prison. The FBI deputy director at the time, John Pistole, testified before Congress and said that there were a thousand people working on the S&L crisis at its height within the FBI, a thousand people.

That compares to about 240 agents working on the mortgage fraud cases last year. So, you see, no numbers in terms of convictions, and you can see that if you don't have cops on the beat, then you are going to have people that are going to take advantage, that are not going to follow the rules, and that, frankly, will not be charged nor convicted for their crimes.

I am reminded, too, that during much of this review by the commission they talked about the action that some regulators did take in 2005 where they weren't willing to actually take action against the banks, but they did issue what they called was a nonbinding guidance. The guidance was to recommend the banks consider a borrower's ability to make the loan payment when the rate adjusted.

What a lightbulb going off. I mean, why wouldn't that be naturally part of the process when you were going to assess whether someone could carry the loan, to see whether or not they could carry the loan after the rate adjusted? But as you pointed out, they were all interested in the yield spread. They were all interested in churning. They were all interested in securitizing these loans and making more and more money. So it wasn't about making sure people could actually pay for the loans moving forward.

I see we have been joined by another colleague. Welcome. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

The gentleman from North Carolina.

It offends me as well.

As we conclude this half hour, I just want to say to our colleagues that this commission report must not gather dust. This commission report has got to be read by everyone, particularly our colleagues on the other side, and that we have got to take it to heart.

One of the points they make in this report was that $2.7 billion was spent by the financial services industry over 10 years to lobby all of us, and another $1 billion was given out in contributions to Members of Congress.

So, it's no surprise that the enforcement hasn't been as strong as it should be. Thank you for sharing this half hour with me, and let's hope that we can continue to shed light on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, our budget is a serious document and a statement of our values as a Union. Americans are depending on us to reduce the deficit in a responsible manner while growing our economy and putting people back to work. But as their ``so be it, let them eat cake'' approach to jobs and the economy shows, our Republican colleagues have chosen to abandon the responsibility for recklessness.

Now the Republicans are proposing to wipe out the California salmon industry and the thousands of jobs that depend on it. California's fishermen just made it through 3 years of unprecedented slowdown in the salmon industry. An estimated 23,000 jobs and $2.8 billion have been lost in just the last 3 years. These latest proposals threaten water supplies for millions, including both fishermen and farmers.

Mr. Speaker, salmon means jobs. I have met the people who make their living with salmon, and they are proud of their jobs. According to recent studies, restoring the California bay-delta could provide 94,000 new jobs and $5.7 billion in economic activity.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I had really planned to speak about something else, but the gentleman from New Jersey has just put my stomach in knots, because I'm one of those women he spoke about just now.

I had a procedure at 17 weeks, pregnant with a child that had moved from the vagina into the cervix, and that procedure that you just talked about was a procedure that I endured. I lost the baby. But for you to stand on this floor and to suggest as you have that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous. To think that we are here tonight debating this issue, when the American people if they are listening are scratching their heads and wondering: What does this have to do with me getting a job? What does this have to do with reducing the deficit? And the answer is: Nothing at all.

There is a vendetta against Planned Parenthood and it was played out in this room tonight. Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide services for family planning. Planned Parenthood has a right to offer abortions. The last time I checked, abortions were legal in this country.

Now, you may not like Planned Parenthood. So be it. There are many on our side of the aisle that don't like Halliburton, and Halliburton is responsible for extortion, for bribery, for 10 cases of misconduct in the Federal database for a $7 billion sole source contract. But do you see us over here filing amendments to wipe out funding for Halliburton? No. Because, frankly, that would be irresponsible.

I would suggest to you that it would serve us all very well if we moved on with this process and started focusing on creating jobs for the Americans who desperately want them.

I yield back the balance of my time.