Floor Statements

Thank you. I thank the gentleman from the great State of California.

You know, today we had a hearing in the Financial Services Committee in which we looked at sort of an autopsy of Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers is particularly problematic for California, but also for many other States and local jurisdictions because so many of these local jurisdictions had money invested in what were investment-grade instruments at Lehman, and when Lehman went belly up, they lost everything. So in San Mateo County, for instance, $150 million just gone, even though it was prudently invested in investment-grade instruments at Lehman's. And many people lost their jobs, many classrooms weren't built, many developments that were supposed to take place didn't happen. It was interesting today because Mr. Fuld, who was the former CEO, said that Lehman Brothers was risk averse; ironic when a company had $20, $30 billion that basically just evaporated overnight.

I think it's really important as we discuss this issue, though, to take us back to how did we get to where we are today? How did we get to a place where everything came crashing down? I would like to just point to the cracks in Wall Street, which I think explains really well what actually happened. If you recall--this is way before our time, certainly--but in the thirties, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed by this very Congress after a horrendous meltdown on Wall Street when we were in the throes of the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall Act said never again is this going to happen because we are going to keep the banks and the insurance companies and the securities firms all separate, that there was going to be a wall that separated them. That worked perfectly for almost 60 years, and then all of a sudden, in 1996, Wall Street firms came a calling, and they came a calling with, oh, please, let us just get involved a little bit, let us just become financial supermarkets. And so in 1996, the Federal Reserve reinterpreted the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.

But you know what? Greed is something that is never enough. That

wasn't enough. So in 1999 they came a calling to Congress again. This time they said, take down those walls; take down those walls so that we can become these financial supermarkets so we can be able to compete in Europe and across the continents, so that we can be as effective as they are in making money. So in 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by Congress, signed by then-President Bill Clinton. It was promoted by the Chair of the Fed, Greenspan, by Treasury Secretary Rubin, and by Lawrence Summers. And what that bill did, very simply, was repeal the Glass-Steagall Act; all those 60 years of protection down the drain.

Then we move forward to 2000. We had a very smart person who was the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at the time. Her name was Brooksley Born. She had worked for a law firm here in Washington for many years and she knew all about derivatives. All of a sudden, she saw the derivative market just escalate. So she suggested that maybe we should just look at this, maybe there should be some basic form of regulation. Oh, no, Wall Street would have nothing to do with that. So she leaves the CFTC. And then immediately they come a calling again, and this time Congress passes a bill that becomes law that says, Congress is prohibited--do you believe this--Congress is prohibited from regulating derivatives. Still not enough.

Then, in 2004, it became obvious that Europe was getting a little nervous. And they basically said if these bank holding companies weren't going to be regulated by their countries, then they would be subject to European regulation. Well, our investment banks wanted none of that, so they came a calling this time to the SEC, and by regulation the SEC passed on their own accord--not with congressional support or evaluation--a voluntary regulation to which all of the investment banks would be subject for regulation purposes called the CSE, the Consolidated Supervised Entities Program. Besides giving them the benefit of having a regulator here in the United States so they wouldn't be subject to more scrutiny in Europe, it also did something that was quite frightening when we look back at it. It lifted the leverage cap that was 12-1. It didn't just lift it to 15-1 or 20-1, it raised it to whatever. It took away the leverage cap completely. So, no surprise that when all of these various investment banks became troubled--like Lehman, like Goldman Sachs--they were at 30-1 and even higher in terms of leverage. So there you have what I believe is a pretty clear crack, as you see, in Wall Street that shows precisely what happened.

Now, that crack actually got deeper because there was one more. It was a very simple one basically by the SEC and the courts that said that these investment banks were not fiduciaries, that even though they were selling all of these instruments, that since they were taking a percentage and not a fee, that they were not fiduciaries. And by doing that, they had no legal obligation, no legal obligation to say to anyone that they were shorting the very products they were selling, that they had side deals, that they did the very things that now we look at and we think, oh, my God, how did we allow this to happen?

So I think that as we bring back this bill--and hopefully that it doesn't get diluted in what was actually passed by the House--we're going to have something we can show the American people that is going to close all those cracks on Wall Street, that we're going to pave it over so that indeed the American people do have the kinds of protections they deserve.

That's correct.

So you have your broker at any one of the brokerage firms, and you think he is actually there, trying to find good deals for you to invest in. What you don't know is that many of them are captive, much like in the insurance industry, where they only sell certain products so you're not getting the panoply of opportunities that you deserve. Furthermore, you don't know what fees they're getting. They might be getting more fees if they sell this particular product, so they promote that product and not other ones that may be safer and that may be more inclined to provide you with the kind of security that you're looking for.

There ought to be a law. You are absolutely right.

If the gentleman will yield, in many respects, it's worse because, 10 years ago, there were probably 60 big banks. Today, there are only five. Because of this financial meltdown and because of the purchase by many of these banks of other banks, they are now too big to fail unless we take steps to make sure that they are contributing to a resolution trust fund and that there is a basis by which, if a systemically risky enterprise is deemed to be so by a council of advisers, that that particular entity can, in fact, be made smaller. Right now, we can't say that nothing is too big to fail for they are all too big to fail right now.

Well, I guess the best way to give you a little history is to tell you that the financial services industry is spending $1.4 million a day, right here in Congress, trying to convince Members not to support the regulation reform measure.

That's correct.

So, to answer your question ``are they supportive of it?'' you bet they're not, because they want the status quo to continue as they continue to reap the benefits of the status quo with billions of dollars in bonuses and salaries that they get to take home.

Follow the money.

I know where you are.

If the gentleman would yield, in the discussion today in the Financial Services Committee on Lehman's--now, mind you, this is an examiner who has been appointed by the court to go through 5 million e- mails and documents, and his report has been presented to the court and to Congress. It was just unbelievable.

Repo 105s are short for what Lehman was doing. At the end of a quarter, they were selling off their liabilities to a third party, paying interest on it so that it looked like they were not leveraged as highly. Then, after the quarter was over, they were buying back those liabilities. Those are called repo 105s. Now, believe it or not, they did that over and over again, and the SEC knew about it and took no action.

It happened in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. It was during the time that the SEC had reduced the number of enforcement actions in this country by 80 percent--now, I said 80 percent--and the number of disgorgement actions by some 60 percent. The SEC was asleep at the switch.

Well, if the gentleman would yield, those statistics make the case better than anything we could say or do.

Under Christopher Cox, who was then the SEC Chairman and a former Member of this very body who was appointed during the Bush administration, during those years of 2003-2007, to have that kind of reduction in their actions, whether they're disgorgement or enforcement actions, and furthermore to only have 24 employees in that division responsible for the CSEs that were created in 2004, you can understand they were overworked and that, clearly, there was no intention to provide the kinds of safeguards that we needed.

If the American people speak up, it will happen, much like anything else in this country, but we've got to make sure that the American people are educated about what is really at stake here. I mean it is our kids' futures. It is whether or not there is going to be the kinds of funds in California that are going to allow our kids to go to college because now there has been such a shrinkage in the number of slots available because there is just no money. With a $60 billion shortfall in the State, with so many people unemployed and with the revenues not coming in to States, I mean it becomes a death spiral, and we cannot allow that to happen again.

Who was protecting whom? Would you yield?

If you go back to the student aid issue, what we had was an opportunity to take the $60 billion that was being given, for all intents and purposes, to middlemen, the banks, and say, you know, We don't need to spend that anymore. We're going to spend that kind of money on loans to students and not have those middlemen and just have the banks servicing these loans, and you would have thought that everyone would have been supportive of that. Not true.

Thank you for yielding. I think the important message that we are trying to drive home tonight is if you really want to see reform, then follow the money. Follow the $1.4 million a day that's being spent by Wall Street trying to lobby to keep the status quo. Follow the bonuses and the salaries. Follow how the money was moved from one account to another. Follow the shorting that went on in the industry, where they were selling the same products that they were shorting because it was all about making money. We want to make sure that the average American is protected. And that's why it's important to reform the system.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 244) expressing support for the designation of March 20 as a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians, as amended.

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

I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 244, a bill recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care physicians. Millions of Americans with disabilities or chronic illnesses require long-term medical care. The medical professionals who provide this care commonly address multiple chronic conditions and develop strong, compassionate, and trusting relationships with their patients. Long- term care is often required by Americans in advanced age; and as this population increases, the demands for these services will obviously be increasing as well. However, all of us of any age are susceptible to illnesses, injuries, and conditions that require long-term care, so we all have a stake in this. All Americans should be grateful for the hard work of these dedicated professionals.

In particular, H. Con. Res. 244 recognizes the work of the American Medical Directors Association, the professional association for long- term care physicians officially chartered in 1978.

H. Con. Res. 244 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Phil Gingrey, on March 2, 2010. The measure was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which reported it favorably by unanimous consent on March 18, 2010. The bill enjoys the support of over 50 Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

And I would like to just say to the gentleman from Georgia, as much as we are talking about the great work of long-term care physicians, it is important to note, as he expresses his disdain for the health care reform measure, that the American Medical Association, made up of thousands upon thousands of physicians across this country, stands in strong support of the health care reform measure.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we again debate this health care reform measure, which is not the measure that is before us presently, but a resolution to promote long-term care physicians, I would just like to point out that while the bishops may not support the language in the Senate bill, the network which is comprised of tens of thousands of Catholic nuns across the country does support the language. So maybe it's the nuns versus the priests, and I would side with the nuns.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we discuss this resolution on recognizing the long-term care physicians, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep wanting to debate the health care reform measure, so I feel it is incumbent on me to at least shed some light from our perspective on why this is so very important to the American people. And as we look at the health care professionals who are supporting the health care reform measure, I would like to just list a few of them.

The American Medical Association, the AARP, the Catholic Health Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the American College of Physicians, the National Hispanic Medical Association, and the list goes on and on. All of these health care professionals can't be wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) such time as she may consume.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Madam Speaker, I find this discussion somewhat hypocritical, to say the very least. We are here discussing the long- term care physicians and elevating them and talking about how necessary they are for the aging population in this country, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle took the opportunity to start talking about the health care reform measure. Well, guess what, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? The long-term care physicians of America have endorsed health care reform. So don't use them as some means by which you can debate health care reform when they're the very physicians that support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, you know, there's something very ironic about the fact that when we are honoring long-term care physicians, that they have become the pawn by the Republicans to have a discussion on health care reform and--oh, by the way, the long-term physicians that they want to applaud are endorsing the health care reform legislation.

I have a story I want to share with my colleagues. It's about a constituent who has two children, a family of four. Their health insurance premium was $560 a month 4 years ago. Their health insurance premium today is $2,008 a month. The irony of this particular story is that the father is an emergency room doctor, and he gets his health insurance from Anthem Blue Cross. And, oh, by the way, Anthem Blue Cross negotiated a contract with him as an emergency room doctor where they require that he take a 60 percent discount in the fees that he was charging.

So what that should say to all of us is that the Anthem Blue Crosses of the world aren't spending the money on health care. They're spending the money on CEOs' salaries and bonuses and Wall Street; and that's why health care reform is so critical today. So I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care physicians who endorse health care reform by supporting this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1040) honoring the life and accomplishments of Donald Harington for his contributions to literature in the United States.

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

I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1040, recognizing the life and work of Donald Harington. This resolution was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, Representative Vic Snyder, on January 26, 2010. The measure was reported to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which reported it out favorably by unanimous consent on March 18, 2010, and the measure enjoys support from over 50 Members of the House.

Mr. Harington was born December 22, 1935, in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he spent much of his childhood. It was there as well as in the town of Drakes Creek that he drew inspiration for his novel, set in the fictional town of Stay More. Though he lost most of his hearing at the age of 12, he had a strong memory of the local voices, accents and intonations he had heard as a boy and incorporated them to great effect in his works.

Mr. Harington's daring experiments with literary styles made him hard to pigeonhole in the world of literature.

But his stories attracted legions of fans and high praise from critics, particularly his 1975 novel ``The Architecture of the Arkansas Ozarks,'' and the 1972 autobiography ``Some Other Place. The Right Place.''

Donald Harington's talents were not limited to the written word. He also taught art history at Bennett College in Millbrook, New York, from 1960 to 1962; at Windham College in Putney, Vermont, from 1964 to 1978; and at the University of Arkansas from 1986 until he retired in 2008. In addition, he shared his talent and wisdom with students at the University of Missouri Rolla, the University of Pittsburgh, and South Dakota State University.

Mr. Harington passed away in Springdale, Arkansas, on November 7, 2009, at the age of 73. He is survived by his wife, Kim, along with three daughters from his first marriage, a stepson, a sister, and four grandchildren. Madam Speaker, let us take time to remember and honor Donald Harington for his great contributions to American literature. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas, and the author of this resolution, Mr. Snyder.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) just spoke rationally about the

bill. He spoke about wanting to make sure that insurance would be available across State lines. I think he referenced, or someone else on the other side referenced having high risk pools available, that we should address preexisting conditions, and we should offer coverage to children of families up to the age of 26. What is so interesting is that all of those proposals, each and every one of those proposals, are included in the health care reform measure that we will all have the opportunity to vote on this weekend.

Mr. Lance, if he has the courage to vote with the Democrats, would be improving coverage for over 500,000 residents in his district. He would be giving tax credits to 74,000 families and 18,000 small businesses. He would be improving Medicare for 96,000 people in his district. Those are the kinds of figures that speak to the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish that the gentleman from Tennessee would have returned to the resolution that is before us in concluding his comments. We are here, as you know, to recognize the life and work of Donald Harington. And while we were trying to recognize the great work of an American novelist, we find ourselves drifting into a discussion of health care. But in any case, we are going to conclude this particular discussion by urging our colleagues to recognize the life and work of Donald Harington by supporting this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4840) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office''.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4840, a bill designating the United States Postal facility located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office. H.R. 4840 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) on March 12, 2010. It was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which reported it by unanimous consent on March 18, 2010. It has bipartisan support from 17 Members of the Ohio delegation.

Mr. Clarence Lumpkin was born in 1925 and spent years as a community activist in Columbus, Ohio. He is often affectionately referred to as the mayor of Linden, a neighborhood in the northeastern part of the city. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Lumpkin has helped the Community Development Block Grant task force, persuaded the city to separate storm and sanitation sewers to stop basement flooding, led anti-drug marches throughout Columbus, made Linden the first inner city community with lights on every residential street, and improved the Linden area by including the Point of Pride concept that was first shared with city leaders in a speech given in 1974. Before moving to Linden, Mr. Lumpkin served in the United States Army, and he is a veteran of World War II.

Madam Speaker, Clarence Lumpkin has spent his life serving his community and his country, doing everything he could to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this great American by supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) as much time as he may consume.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

I yield the gentleman 25 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I find that we are incapable of doing what we were here to do, which was to pass a number of suspension measures, this one for Clarence Lumpkin. God bless him for having to listen to this debate, but we are, in fact, very supportive of this resolution.

I just want to remind my colleagues that government-run programs are not bad, because Medicare is a government-run program, Medicaid is a government-run program. The veterans in this country embrace a health care program that is among the best in this country; again, a government-run program. Being government-run is a good thing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Congresswoman Woolsey for her impassioned and principled leadership not only on this issue but so many issues facing Americans. To loosely paraphrase Judy Collins, We have looked at health insurance reform from both sides now--from insurance companies and consumers, from Wall Street and families, from Republicans and Democrats. But there has been something missing from the debate.

This evening I would like to ask the question: What's a woman worth? Just how important is it to make sure that quality, affordable health care is affordable to the grandmothers, the mothers, the daughters, and sisters who are responsible for 80 percent of a family's health care decisions; 64 percent of a families' budgets; who represent 79 percent of the health care providers in this country.

What is a woman worth? Is a woman worth as much as a man? One would think so, unless, of course, one was considering our current health care system, a system where women pay higher health care costs than men. Now, believe it or not, in 60 percent of the most popular health care plans in this country, a 40-year-old woman who has never smoked will pay more for health insurance than a 40-year-old man who has smoked. A lower percentage of working women receive employer-based health care. It is a system where health situations that affect only women, such as maternity care and mammograms, are less likely to be covered than common male procedures.

In fact, 90 percent of individual policies available to 30-year-old women don't cover maternity care. Now, believe it or not, that is true. Ninety percent of the health insurance policies in this country available to women 30 years of age don't cover maternity care.

Now think about this: this Chamber is filled with Members who claim to be pro-family and yet defend a system where women have to pay out of pocket to have a baby. Many more women are denied coverage due to preexisting conditions than men. Why are they denied? They're denied because they are women. If you are the one in three women in America who has had a C-section, that becomes a preexisting condition, and you're not going to get health insurance again.

If being one in eight of the American women who is diagnosed with breast cancer, that becomes a preexisting condition, and God help it if you have to go into the individual market and get health insurance, because you just won't; or even being the one in four American mothers, daughters, and sisters who is a victim of domestic violence. Imagine having been declined health insurance because your spouse or significant other has beaten you--and may do it again. And because that significant other or spouse may do it again, you can't get health insurance. As a result of these and other factors, women are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured. And more than half of the women have delayed or skipped needed medical care due to the high cost of treatment.

So I ask again: What is a woman worth? Is a woman worth a health care system that encourages preventative care by eliminating copays for recommended services such as mammograms and maternity care? Is a woman worth a health care system that bans annual and lifetime caps? Is a woman worth a health care system that prohibits insurers from charging us more than men? Is a women worth a health care system that covers maternity services, outlaws preexisting conditions, and dropping patients who become ill, and limits out-of-pocket expenses to prevent the 62 percent of bankruptcies caused by medical bills?

I think women are worth that and much, much more. As a matter of fact, women are worth their elected officials showing some backbone to stand up to the multimillion-dollar misinformation campaigns to do what's right and reform a health care system that is unfair, inefficient, and unavailable to far too many American women.

I just want to say how proud I am to be associated with all of you tonight, because this is one issue that has gotten very little attention in this health care debate--the bald-faced discrimination against women in health care--and it's been going on forever.

I just want to share a couple of stories that happened when I was serving in the California Legislature, trying to improve reproductive health for women. And it's all about our organs. It's all about our plumbing.

The first issue dealt with contraceptive pills and prescription drug benefits in California. Basically, the bill said that if you were offering a prescription drug benefit, you can't discriminate against one class of drugs, and only one class of drugs was discriminated against. It was contraceptive bills. I carried the bill 1 year. It got to the Governor's desk, and he said, Oh, it's too costly. And then by the insurance industry's own estimates, they found that it was $1 per month per employee. Then we rounded a second year and a third year, and finally in the fourth year, we were successful in getting contraceptive coverage included in prescription drug benefits.

But I can't take any credit for it. You know who I give credit to? Pfizer Pharmaceutical. Because in that year, they introduced VIAGRA. And guess what? Instantly VIAGRA was covered in prescription drug benefits in California, even though it was twice as costly or, depending on how many times a month you had to use it, far more costly. It was a lifestyle drug; yet that was covered immediately, and contraceptive pills, we had to fight for 4 years to get it into California law.

So there has consistently been discrimination against women in health care, and it's high time that we opened women's eyes wide so they see that, for the first time ever in this country, we're going to stop that form of discrimination.

I just want to applaud you for what you're doing here tonight.

Madam Speaker, it's time for us to stop talking in generalities and gibberish. It's time to start talking about real people and their real experiences. One thing all of us can agree on is that we trust our doctors. I just received a letter from a doctor in my district, Michael Bresler, who is an ER doc. Four years ago, his insurance premium to Anthem Blue Cross for his family of four was $539 a month. This year that same policy will cost him $2,008 a month, a 373 percent increase since 2006. What makes this especially hard to take is that in 2005, Dr. Bresler and his practice were forced by Blue Cross to accept a contract with a 60 percent reduction in payments. Dr. Bresler calls Anthem Blue Cross ``robber barons.'' I assume he uses harsher language when he is not corresponding with Congress.

Madam Speaker, this is not a fight among Democrats and Republicans. This is a fight between robber barons, the insurance industry, and American doctors, families and working people.

Madam Speaker, every American can do something to address some of the most pressing issues facing our nation today--health care, energy independence, the obesity epidemic--simply by riding a bicycle or taking a walk.

That is why I commend the County of San Mateo and other cities in the 12th Congressional District of California for joining in the ``Streets Alive'' celebration as part of World Health Day festivities on April 11, 2010. This worthwhile endeavor is part of ``1000 Cities, 1000 Lives,'' an international project to enlist 1000 local governments around the globe to open streets and public spaces to pedestrians and bicyclists as a worldwide message of cooperation and commitment to healthy and active living.

I have the extreme privilege of representing one of the most beautiful areas in our nation, yet too many of us only see it while stuck in traffic. This is an excellent opportunity to slow down, get some exercise, visit with neighbors and soak in the local treasures that attract so many to the Peninsula in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I commend the forward-thinking leaders of San Mateo County for participating in such a worthwhile event and urge my constituents and all Americans to celebrate World Health Day on April 11 by biking or walking through their community. They and the world will be healthier for it.

Mr. Speaker, my mother, Nancy Kanchelian, was born in 1915 in Fresno, California, the same year the Ottoman Empire began its systematic killing and deportation of millions of her fellow Armenians and members of her own family.

A year ago this week, my mother passed away at the age of 93. And for her entire life on Earth, her country, the United States of America, refused to officially acknowledge what we know to be true. Our own Ambassador to Armenia at the time, Henry Morgenthau, informed the Secretary of State: `` . . . excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing, and it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress.''

Mr. Speaker, the facts here are not in dispute. The one thing left to question is not whether the Armenian genocide took place but, rather, if we in this Chamber have the moral and political backbone to stand for truth. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will have the opportunity this week to pass H. Res. 252 and stand up for truth.

Mr. Speaker, Anthem Blue Cross should be ashamed of itself for raising premiums in California by 39 percent. People in my district have complained of increases as much as $2,400 a year. How can anyone afford that kind of an increase? This at a time when the insurance lobby has spent millions of dollars to defeat health care reform in America. This at a time when Anthem passed $4.2 billion to the parent company, WellPoint, in profits alone. It's beyond my comprehension how any Members of the people's House can continue to defend this behavior.

It's time to demand an answer to a question asked many years ago by Pete Seeger, ``Whose side are you on?'' You're either with the American people or you're with the insurance lobby. You either stand up for those who want affordable health insurance, or you lay down with the corporate titans who continue to care less about the American people.

Whose side are you on?

Mr. Speaker, in Bob Marley's iconic anthem he describes the plight of the Buffalo Soldiers as ``fighting on arrival, fighting for survival.'' No troops in American history have given more and received less in return than the African American regiments known as the Buffalo Soldiers.

They also played a pivotal role in the creation of our national parks. Each spring, these sons of slaves hiked hundreds of miles from San Francisco and Monterey to Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon, serving, in effect, as our country's first park rangers.

Regrettably, I have lived my entire life within walking distance of the Buffalo Soldiers Trail and until recently never knew this part of our history. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4491, which directs the National Park Service to study and promote the Buffalo Soldiers.

Madam Speaker, it is with an abundance of appreciation and admiration that I pay tribute to the life's work of Dr. Sarah D. ``Sally'' Stewart, who recently retired--after 26 years--from the Sequoia Union High School District Board of Trustees. She leaves the district having served longer than any other trustee in the district's history and, prior to her service there, served eight years on the Board of the Portola Valley School District.

During her impressive tenure, Sally became known as a thoughtful and energetic board member who always saw the big picture. Educational opportunities, principles and challenges have evolved quite a bit over the past three-plus decades and Sally always kept one step ahead, urging her colleagues to embrace new ideas and ever striving to serve the myriad needs of students, parents, educators and the community.

Sally distinguished herself through her passionate contributions to the underserved youth of East Palo Alto. She provided leadership and guidance to the Youth Court and was instrumental in the founding of two nonprofit organizations, including what eventually became EdSource, a foundation dedicated to providing access to quality education for all children and encouraging an informed and involved citizenry to strengthen California's schools.

Dr. Stewart's commitment to education transcended the boundaries of her own community. She served on the San Mateo County School Boards Association, where she instituted the J. Russell Kent Awards to recognize the work of area teachers. She served as President of the California School Boards Association and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and has given her time, energy and intellect to numerous charities, causes and campaigns that benefit children and education at all levels.

Next month, Sally will be duly honored with her induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Sally was born in Albany, New York in 1932 and received her Bachelor of Arts from New York's Smith College. She also received a Ph.D. in Medical Microbiology from Stanford University.

Madam Speaker, Sally Stewart is one of those rare public servants whose quiet and competent leadership gives others something to aspire to. For decades I have stood in awe of her capacity to understand the intricacies of school finance and the subtleties of achieving district- wide academic excellence. While I regret to see her go, she has certainly earned her retirement. No doubt she will spend her newly- found free time doing more reading, walking her beloved dog and continually pushing for reforms that improve California's educational system.

Our nation owes Sally Stewart a debt of gratitude. I would also like to extend my thanks to her sons--Ed and Willie--and her two grandchildren--Teddy and Sam--for sharing this remarkable woman with the greater community for so many years.

Imagine how much better our nation's schools would be if every community had a Sally Stewart. But since there is only one, I am selfishly grateful that she chose the San Francisco Peninsula to call home.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Jack Crist, who recently retired from his post as City Manager of Belmont, California.

Jack has served his Nation and his community in many ways. In 1965, he joined the United States Army, earning his Army Aviator wings a year later. He went on to fly 375 combat missions in Vietnam, resupplying Special Forces units along the treacherous border between Vietnam and Cambodia. Upon returning home, Jack trained pilots at Fort Ord before being discharged in 1969.

He graduated from San Jose State University with a degree in Economics and upon earning his CPA license, joined the City of Sacramento as Chief Accountant. His excellent work in that rapidly growing city inspired the local leaders to promote him to the post of Director of Finance, a job he held for ten years before being named Deputy City Manager. After a long run in that post, Jack moved to Modesto to become City Manager, finally landing in the post for which I honor him tonight: City Manager of Belmont.

During Jack's tenure, he oversaw the reorganization of the fire department through the establishment of a Joint Partnership Agreement with neighboring San Carlos. He also helped the City Council draft and implement the Nation's strictest no-smoking ordinance.

Jack and Margaret, his wife of more than forty years, are tireless travelers and no doubt, Jack's retirement will afford them time for more adventures. A consummate family-man who spends his free time plotting the Crist genealogy, he will surely be able to spend more time in Ohio--with daughter Patricia, her husband Roger and grandkids Kyle and Jack--and Texas, where daughter Jacklyn lives with her husband Michael and baby Nicolas.

Madam Speaker, City Manager Jack Crist has served his fellow citizens to the utmost of his ability, whether in municipal government or wearing the uniform of the Unites States Army. For these reasons and so many more, I commend him and wish him a long, healthy and fascinating retirement.

Mr. Speaker, Americans' thirst for real change did not end with the election in 2008. Across this country, people are mad, mad that the rampant speculation in our financial markets which led to the current economic meltdown and the double-digit unemployment have not yet been addressed.

I want to thank President Obama for his announcement this morning acknowledging what former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker has been saying for months: It's time to reinstate the institutional protections that safeguarded our country for more than half a century, the Glass- Steagall Act, ironically repealed in 1999 at the behest of the financial services industry.

The only thing in America that can ever be deemed too big to fail is America itself. It is time for those of us in Congress to grow a backbone, to have the courage of our convictions and stand up to the big banks. No longer can we allow the greed of a few to put the entire Nation at risk.

Just as we are united in our effort to combat threats from abroad, we must be vigilant to those very real threats from within. We were sent here by the voters to take care of them, the taxpayers and the consumers. The banks can take care of themselves.