Floor Statements

Let's talk about rates for a minute. We had testimony from customers of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is owned by Wellpoint. We also had the CEO of Wellpoint, a woman named Angela Braley, who I suppose it was somewhat rude for me to ask her how much money she made. But she was kind enough to answer, and said that she made $1.2 million a year, plus $8 million in stock options. That was how well she did. But then she went on, of course, to absolutely justify these rate increases for their private insurance market.

Three people had testified before she got up there about what these rate increases meant to them. An individual, middle-aged guy, tended toward younger man, who had a preexisting condition. He had seen his rates go up about 75 percent, not quite the 90; but it was too much for him.

A woman who, because her son had a preexisting condition, had such a high deductible they had never even made their deductible, and yet their rates were going to go up even higher.

And another woman who had a preexisting condition, who was unable to keep her policy. And Ms. Braley is making all this money. The company, overall, was making literally billions of dollars in profit.

Seventy-five percent of them already have health insurance. They're going bankrupt.

Let me comment on this gender discrimination. I think the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, put it really well today--some of the women had a meeting with her--when she said, being a woman is a preexisting condition.

And the truth of it is that pregnancy, in some cases, is considered a preexisting condition. A C-section, a cesarean section, being a victim of domestic violence is a preexisting condition that could make you ineligible.

If you go out on the private market right now, only about 12 percent of policies actually cover pregnancy.

Women overall are charged about 38 percent more for health care than men are. And in some cases it is as much as 70 percent more than men for health care just because we have slightly different--well, maybe extremely different parts to our bodies. That is so wrong. This bill ends gender discrimination.

But I do want to say one thing about rates that I don't want to forget to say.

Thank you.

And that is so important to every woman in America, that we will finally be on a par, which under current circumstances isn't good enough, because the insurance companies--why is it that adding 30 million more people isn't good for them? Because they don't want everybody. They want to pick and choose. They want to pick the healthiest people. It really shouldn't be called health insurance. Well, I guess it is, it is only for healthy people. That is accurate.

What we do is we start deciding whether or not rate increases are reasonable or unreasonable. We are not against profits here. We are still doing private insurance. But for heaven's sakes, when you start talking about 50, 60, 94 percent rate increases, they are going to have to justify that. I am proud to have introduced that amendment that says that we are finally going to get a handle on it.

I come from a State where there are no limits, there is no regulatory body that can say how high rates can go. And as you can see, right now--in fact the insurance companies are kind of helping us pass this bill because they are showing us if we do nothing, they are going to keep raising their rates double digits, or almost triple digits and charging people.

Right. Not our caucus.

I wanted to point out that our colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York, is head of the Joint Economic Committee, which just did a study, too, on the effects of health care, the current health care problems that women face. One of the things that she mentioned, which I hadn't really thought about, is that a number of men reach the age of 65 and retire and go onto Medicare while their wives, who are often younger than they are, are then left stranded. Because many of them have been on their husbands' policies, so the husbands go into retirement, they have the coverage, and women don't. So we have this period between 50 and 65 where men and women alike are left stranded.

One of the things our bill does is to create a $5 billion pool that would be available for people in those 50 to 65 years to get some help with their health care. So in addition to making sure that women can go onto the exchange.

The other point I wanted to make about women is many women--men too, but women--often work in small businesses. A big beneficiary of this legislation, and it starts right away, are small businesses who are going to get up to a 35 percent tax credit on their premiums. And that will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage to their employees. And a lot of those employees

are women. A lot of those business owners are women. So this is another way that our bill will help women and men alike.

Which is part of our bill.

First of all, it's no wonder that the insurance industry is fighting us tooth and nail and with millions upon millions of dollars in TV advertising because they are making so much money and they do that by raising their rates. And it's really astonishing to me that in this period when the Congress is discussing how we're going to change and make the health care system affordable for people that they have the utter audacity to show their true colors by raising their rates.

Let's look again at your chart.

Anthem Blue Cross customers. That's in California, right?

Ninety-four percent rate increases in the last 2 years. Something clearly needs to be done to get them under control. This bill does that. It says that they will have to justify, they'll have to open their books, they'll have to explain, and if they can't, that those rates can be modified, consumers can get a rebate. Enough of their taking such tremendous advantage of American consumers.

That's right.

And let me say I think truly this is one of the dividing lines between the Democratic majority that's about to pass this bill that stands with the American people versus the Republicans who persistently have stood on the side of the insurance companies that have raised our rates for decades, have cut people off, have canceled policies, have put in preexisting conditions. We want to stop those kinds of abusive practices. That's what they are. It's really abuse. And the Democrats are standing with the American people. It's a really, Which side are you on?

That is a better Republican program, because that's if

we do nothing, that's what would happen. But actually, the proposal that was laid out by Representative Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he laid out what he called the roadmap that would actually end Medicare for you as an individual.

Are you?

So let's say you're 54. Let's pretend. Are you? Okay. I believed you. I thought you were 54. Okay. So let's pretend you're 54 years old.

And what it means is, when you would get to 65 years old, rather than getting Medicare, you would get a voucher and be told, Go out and buy insurance. There is no more guaranteed Medicare for you. There is no more guaranteed package of benefits. You go out and buy insurance. And that is really privatizing Medicare and destroying it for every American that is currently under 55 years old. When they get to 65, they wouldn't have it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. And that it would also hurt Medicaid.

The do nothing deal is better than the plan that they say is good for Americans.

Those are the tragic stories that result from our health care system. But there are also enormous lost opportunities. One of the things that we know about our health care system is people get locked in jobs. They may dream about creating something, a really innovative product, or starting a new business or becoming a great artist, thinking of a new invention that will transform medicine or energy, but they are stuck in their job. A Canadian was telling me about the incredible freedom that people in Canada have to innovate, to experiment, to create, to do all the things that so many Americans, because of our health care system, are unable to do. If America, the United States of America, wants to be number one in innovation, we want to release that creative spirit and that spirit of innovation which is trapped in a job because of health care.

The utter hypocrisy of the debate about process is absolutely astonishing. I just learned that Speaker Hastert used the technique of a self-executing rule 113 times. Then we hear the Republicans attack reconciliation--which really means a majority of votes--and yet call for an up-or-down vote in the House.

News flash: People in the real world don't care about self-executing rules or reconciliation and don't even know what it is.

What they do care about process is the process of the insurance companies. Not the process of reconciliation, the process of rescission, which means canceling policies when you get cancer; the process of refusing a child who has asthma; the process of raising prices 39 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, for your insurance policy.

We each have the opportunity in the next few days to be on the right or wrong side of history. We can either stand with the American people or with the insurance companies. I hope that the vast majority of us stick with the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize a medical team from my district that recently traveled to the Dominican Republic to provide life-saving spinal surgery to victims of the Haiti earthquake.

In the immediate aftermath of January's devastating earthquake, Dr. Jesse Butler, an orthopedic spinal surgeon from Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, found a way to contribute his unique skills. In just a few short days, Dr. Butler was able to organize a medical team, collect medical equipment worth millions of dollars, and travel to the Dominican Republic.

Members of the team included anesthesiologist Dr. Howard Konowitz, from Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park; scrub nurse Teresa Dudic, from Gottlieb; registered nurse Maria Korbel, from the Illinois Bone & Joint Institute in Morton Grove; nurse Aimee Duque-Randolph; and physician's assistant Alicia Granger-Carlson.

Dr. Butler's team operated on 11 patients, ages 14 to 35, at Dario Contreras Hospital in Santo Domingo, where many earthquake victims were treated. Conditions were far from ideal: patients waited in crowded hallways, and surgeries were performed in rooms as hot as 85 degrees. Victims withstood the pain of their injuries without the aid of morphine.

Upon their return, members of the team recalled the fear and desperation of those they treated, but also the Haitians' will to live and persevere. And though they could only meet a fraction of Haiti's enormous medical needs, they said they hope that their work will inspire others to similarly volunteer their time and talents.

I would like to submit for my colleagues' interest the following article from the February 10th edition of the Chicago Tribune about the team's trip.

Life-Saving Trip for Earthquake Victims `Life-Changing' for Surgical

Team--Spinal Surgery Unit Inspired by Resolve of Haitians

(By Courtney Flynn)

When orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Jesse Butler saw images

of the lives shattered by the Haiti earthquake, he knew he

had to help the only way he knew how: by fixing broken backs.

Within 48 hours of the Jan. 12 quake, the physician from

Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge organized a

spinal surgery team, called in favors to collect millions of

dollars of medical equipment and boarded a plane to the

Dominican Republic.

``Instead of going the traditional route through a relief

agency, we thought it would be more successful if we took

charge of the logistics ourselves,'' Butler said. ``We put

together a team that could pretty much handle anything thrown

at them.''

In one week, the team operated on 11 patients, from 14 to

35, including a 25-year-old pregnant woman whose injuries had

left her a quadriplegic. Nine of the patients were Haitian

earthquake victims; two were injured in a motorcycle crash.

Despite the severity of the patients' injuries and the

tragedy they'd been through, members of the surgical team

said they were struck by the Haitians' resolve to live and

wait for help.

``When you looked into their eyes, you saw a terror and

fear that just burns into your soul,'' said Dr. Howard

Konowitz, an anesthesiologist from Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

in Melrose Park who was on the trip. ``There was no morphine

. . . but no one was moaning, no one was screaming.''

The team performed its work at Dario Contreras Hospital, a

public hospital in the Dominican capital of Santo Domingo

where many Haitians have sought medical attention since the

earthquake. Team members chose the hospital consulting with

the Ministry of Health on where their skills would be of most

help.

The team worked in grueling conditions, operating in rooms

where the heat reached 85 degrees. Some patients waited in

crowded hallways, others on thin mattresses atop rusted metal

frames.

``We were working long hours. The rooms were so hot, people

were dehydrated,'' said Teresa Dudic, a bilingual scrub nurse

from Gottlieb. ``And the patients, you could see the

desperation in their eyes, they were scared.''

Konowitz described the trip as ``life-changing.''

``All the other catastrophes that I can remember in my

lifetime, there was nothing medically like this that I can

remember,'' he said. ``It's haunting what we saw.''

And although it was gratifying to provide what help they

could, team members recognized it was a tiny fraction of the

need.

``We may have fixed their spine during the week, but we

only got to 11 (people),'' Butler said. ``There were another

20 we couldn't take care of.''

And the people they did treat need long-term care.

Maria Korbel, another member of the team who's bilingual

and a registered nurse at the Illinois Bone & Joint Institute

in Morton Grove, said she hopes their work will inspire

others.

``If we were able to start a chain reaction, I think that

would be fabulous,'' Korbel said. ``I hope we started

something good, something positive, something that will keep

going.''

Physician's assistant Alicia Granger-Carlson and nurse

Aimee Duque-Randolph also were members of the team.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize Cpl Chad Watson of the United States Marine Corps, a true American hero.

Corporal Watson gave up his final year of a wrestling scholarship at Indiana University to serve his country in Iraq with the Marine Corps in 2006. He was quickly assigned to be a team leader, and led his team on five ambushes and more than 60 combat patrols. Corporal Watson was popular with his team and was even voted as the one Marine his fellow Marines would most like to serve with in combat.

However, after serving a little more than three months in Fallujah, Corporal Watson's time in Iraq was cut short when he was severely injured by an IED while on a mission. He spent the next 17 months in various forms of recovery and rehabilitation.

Corporal Watson received the respect and praise of his colleagues while serving in the military, and was named Marine of the Quarter for his actions in Iraq. Despite his injuries and substantial recovery time, he continues to serve his country and his fellow servicemen through his work with the Wounded Warrior Project. This organization seeks to empower injured veterans by spreading awareness and enlisting the aid of the public to meet the needs of men and women who have been injured in service to their country. The Wounded Warrior project also helps severely injured service members aid and assist each other.

Corporal Watson's devotion to his country before, during, and after his time in Iraq is an example of true patriotism. I want to both recognize him and, on behalf of the United States Congress, thank him for his selfless service on the frontlines in Iraq and for his continued dedication to serving as a tireless advocate for our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 102, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, Monday marked the kickoff of Women's History Month, and in celebration, every day of this month the House will be opened by a woman Member. As co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am honored to be a part of the largest number of women ever to serve in the House of Representatives. It is 76; still too few.

It is a testament to the women's rights movement that my female colleagues represent the full political spectrum, bringing a diversity of thoughts, ideas, and opinions to the House.

Women have made great strides in the last decade. Fifty years ago, high school and college students across the country were not given support for their sports activities; and yet last week, women of Team USA, our Olympiads, brought home 13 medals from Vancouver.

It was not long ago that girls were discouraged from obtaining a degree in higher education. Today, 57 percent of graduating undergraduates in this country are women; and according to the Center for American Women in Politics, the number of women serving in State legislatures has more than quintupled since 1971. And this is not just a trend in the United States. Women across the globe are breaking barriers.

We have a long way to go, but we need to celebrate how far we have come.

Madam Chair, I am proud to support this legislation because it will provide the men and women of our intelligence community with the tools they need to protect the Nation while implementing vital provisions to promote accountability and oversight.

As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have worked to limit the intelligence community's dangerous overreliance on private contractors. To that end, I have worked hard to include section 338 in this bill, which requires the Director of National Intelligence to provide a comprehensive report to Congress on the intelligence community's use of personal service contracts. It is my hope that this report will finally give us a clear picture of how much our national security has been doled out to the lowest bidder.

I want to talk for a minute about the issue of torture. I think it is so important to underscore that the manager's amendment includes language originally proposed by Mr. McDermott that reiterates existing law on torture and that provides statutory criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

What I have been hearing from the Republicans is that somehow we are sacrificing our national security by not allowing the torture of our enemies. In fact, I think we are enhancing our national security by saying that we will eliminate provisions which allow for terrorists to be empowered and to recruit more people. If we stick to our values, we enhance our national security. These are already in law right now, and that is all this bill does is underscore the lawfulness of the new rules.

Madam Speaker. I rise tonight in support of H. Res. 44, a resolution expressing concern about the situation facing religious minorities in Iraq. I'd like to thank my colleague, Congressman Peters, for introducing this resolution, and for being a persistent champion on this important issue.

I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, which encourages the United States government, the Iraqi government, and the international community to take positive steps to protect Iraqi religious minorities.

Nearly seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq faces one of the largest displacement crises in the world. The country's religious minorities face a particularly desperate situation. Iraqi ethno- religious minorities, including Iraqi Jews as well as Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriac Christians, continue to face targeted killings, sexual assaults, abductions, and other forms of threats and violence. They comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the over 4 million Iraqis who have been displaced by the ongoing violence and instability.

Those who flee Iraq often encounter a life of crippling poverty. Many have great difficulty finding work in their new countries and often cannot support their families. They may bear physical and emotional scars as a result of years of trauma, tragedy, and abuse. Those who stay in Iraq, on the other hand, face a life of constant fear, intimidation, and outright violence.

I have a longstanding concern for Iraq's ethno-religious minorities. In particular, I have worked closely with Chicago's vibrant Assyrian community on efforts to protect Iraqi religious minorities and provide opportunities for refugees. In August of last year I wrote to Secretary Clinton, urging her to develop a comprehensive plan for protecting these groups. This critical issue is crying out for the attention it deserves.

That's why this resolution is so important. The protection of ethno- religious minorities must be a component of our overall strategy in Iraq, and the United States government must do more in partnership with the Iraqi government and the rest of the international community to ensure that all Iraqis, regardless of religious affiliation, can live free of fear and intimidation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Representative Towns on H.R. 1014 which recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of North American Inclusion Month. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution which demonstrates Congress' support for ensuring that all individuals are included in communities across the Nation. I would also like to commend Yachad and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America for their continued support of disabled Americans.

I recently introduced two bills that support the ideals and goals of North American Inclusion Month, H.R. 4533, the Technology Bill of Rights and H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act.

The Technology Bill of Rights would allow the blind and visually impaired equal access to rapidly advancing electronics, which millions of Americans use every day. Because the blind are currently not able to interact with many new technologies, they must overcome barriers of which other Americans may not even be aware.

The visually impaired are not able to use touch screens and visual displays, which have replaced knobs and buttons on many appliances. They face challenges in choosing new stoves, microwaves, fax machines, and cell phones. These technologies have become essential for many Americans, and inaccessibility has challenged the independence of and work opportunities of the blind. Even in good economic times, the blind face enormous barriers in their attempts to join the workforce, because of the inability to use many office technologies that require visual interaction. The recent economic downturn has amplified these hurdles to employment.

H.R 4533 would ensure blind and visually impaired Americans equal access to these new technologies. The bill would mandate that consumer electronics, home appliances, kiosks, and electronic office technology are designed with nonvisual access components so that they are usable by all people. There are already inexpensive mechanisms that have been created which manufacturers can use to ensure equal access. This includes text-to-speech technology that has unfortunately not seen widespread implementation. This bill would increase the implementation of existing technologies and create new jobs as new technologies are developed to ensure that products are accessible for the visually impaired.

The Inclusive Home Design Act would mandate that all new homes built with the assistance of Federal funds would be accessible for the disabled. This legislation is based on the principle of integrating basic accessibility, establishing ``visitability'' standards, and allowing elderly Americans to ``age in place'' rather than being forced to move, be institutionalized, or spend thousands of dollars on home renovations. This is a sustainable, affordable, and inclusive design approach. It would require the new homes to meet four accessibility standards. First, it would require at minimum one accessible entrance into the home. Second, doorways on the first floor must be large enough to accommodate wheelchairs. Third, at least one bathroom must be wheelchair accessible. Finally, the light switch and thermostats are required to be at a reachable height for those in a wheelchair. I am proud to have the support of Access Living and the Paralyzed Veterans of America in passing this legislation.

I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution recognizing North American Inclusion Month, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure equal access for all.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a new and extremely innovative campaign to encourage businesses to employ workers with disabilities. I also want to congratulate Health and Disability Advocates for overseeing the campaign. Health and Disability Advocates, a non-profit organization located in Chicago, is a leading voice on disability issues and, under the talented leadership of Barbara Otto, has been a valuable resource for Illinois and the nation.

As of December 2008, 54.4 million people in the United States--18.7 percent of our population, or nearly one in five Americans--reported some level of disability. Official figures show that unemployment among persons with a disability was 13.8 percent this past November, compared to 9.5 percent among nondisabled people, but this doesn't include many people who are too discouraged to even look for work. When disabled persons are employed, promotion opportunities may be scarce.

The cost of employing a person with a disability is minimal, averaging only $313 in 2007. Employees with disabilities had nearly identical job performance ratings to those without disabilities according to a 2007 study by DePaul University researchers. Employers say that employing a disabled person is well worth the expense, finding these individuals to be loyal, reliable, and hard-working, serving long tenures with low absenteeism rates. Additionally, hiring disabled employees serves to diversify the work environment, which has an overall positive impact.

Health and Disability Advocates has undertaken a campaign to highlight the importance of hiring people with disabilities that is imaginative and persuasive. I hope that my colleagues will take an opportunity to read the following article that ran in the New York Times on January 29 to read about it.

Using Humor in a Campaign Supporting Disabled People

A national effort to encourage businesses to employ workers

with disabilities is not your father's hire the handicapped

campaign.

One difference is that the new ads are paid rather than pro

bono, with an estimated budget of $4 million for the first

two quarters of 2010. The ads will appear on television, in

print, online and outdoors; there is also a sponsorship deal

with NPR.

The ads are being financed largely by agencies in 30 states

that provide employment services as well as health and human

services to their citizens who are disabled. The agencies

have set a goal of raising $10 million for the campaign's

budget for the full year.

Typically, ads that seek to make a case for employing

people with disabilities run as public service announcements.

That makes them dependent on the kindness of media outlets to

place them prominently on television, in print or online.

``We'll never have enough money to oversaturate the

media,'' said Barbara Otto, executive director at Health and

Disability Advocates in Chicago, which is overseeing the

campaign, ``but we wanted to do something different,

something that didn't look like a P.S.A.''

To that end, the campaign takes a light-hearted tack rather

than a sober or earnest tone. The ads try to challenge

conventional wisdom about workers with disabilities by

offering humorous examples of people with ``differences''

already employed.

For instance, in a television commercial, a worker in a

wheelchair points out her colleagues who ``you could label as

`different.' '' Among them are a woman dressed in a nightmare

wardrobe of clashing patterns, who is ``fashion deficient'';

a klutzy young man at the copier, who is ``copy incapable'';

and a shouting man who suffers from ``volume control

syndrome.''

The punch line of the commercial is that the worker in the

wheelchair is different, too: Her skills at a basic office

function are so bad that she is labeled ``coffee-making

impaired.''

Print ads introduce employers to a man in a suit whose

awkward dance moves make him ``rhythm impaired'' and an

awkward man who is hard to understand because he is ``jargon

prone.''

The text of the ads elaborates on the point the campaign

strives to make.

The ad with the worker who is rhythm impaired declares:

``Just because someone moves a little differently doesn't

mean they can't help move your business forward. The same

goes for people with disabilities.''

The ad with the jargon-spouting worker reads: ``Just

because someone talks differently doesn't mean they don't

bring something of value to the conversation. The same goes

for people with disabilities.''

The tongue-in-cheek differences in each ad appear as Dymo-

style labels across the faces of the employees, to set up the

theme of the campaign, ``Think beyond the label.'' The theme

is repeated in the address of a microsite, or special Web

site (thinkbeyondthelabel.com), where additional information

is available about, as the home page puts it, ``just how

silly labels can be.''

The concept was tested, Ms. Otto, said ``to get that

employment decision-maker thinking that everyone in the

workplace is different,'' but not so much that it would make

anyone--with disabilities or otherwise--feel uncomfortable.

``We knew it needed to be disruptive,'' Ms. Otto said,

``but we wanted it to be tasteful.'' In the research,

``people said they liked the funny and human tone,'' she

added.

The tenor of the campaign was endorsed by the actor in the

wheelchair, Alana Wallace, who is an advocate for people with

disabilities as well as a performer.

``I knew I needed to be a part of this campaign,'' Ms.

Wallace said, because ``there were enough of the pity-party

approaches'' to the subject.

The commercial ``speaks to our similarities in that we all

have a label someone

could put on us,'' she added. ``We never use the word

`disability' throughout the entire ad.''

Among those collaborating on the campaign are Wirestone;

Kelly, Scott & Madison; and Fuor Digital, a unit of Kelly,

Scott & Madison, all based in Chicago.

``People go through life labeling other people: `the funny

guy,' `the bald guy,' `the girl with the glasses,' '' said

Brian Addison, director for brand strategy at Wirestone.

``The labels can go from harmless to hurtful.''

``We're saying, before you label someone, think twice

whether it correlates to productivity in the workplace,'' he

added.

In developing the creative approach, ``we wanted it to be

on that fine line of provocative but not polarizing,'' Mr.

Addison said, adding that he believed the campaign

accomplished being ``human instead of being overly serious.''

The ads are being concentrated in media outlets preferred

by the intended audience of people who ought to, as the

campaign suggests, ``evolve your work force,'' those who

influence hiring decisions at small, midsize or large

companies. They include senior managers, executives and staff

members of human resources departments and hiring managers.

The commercial is to run during Sunday morning news

programs on ABC, CBS and NBC and on cable channels like BBC

America, CNN, ESPN and HLN.

The print ads are to appear in publications like Fast

Company, HR Magazine, Inc., Time, The Wall Street Journal and

The Week.

Among the Web sites scheduled to run the digital ads are

CNN.com, ESPN.com and WSJ.com. There will also be search-

engine marketing tied to keywords on Web sites like Google.

Madam Speaker I rise today in support of H. Res. 1009, honoring the seven Americans killed in Khost, Afghanistan in a suicide attack on December 30, 2009. I extend my sincere condolences to their families and friends, as well as to the entire intelligence community.

The men and women of the clandestine services face great personal danger to protect the United States. Their work is largely done in the shadows and seldom do they receive the credit and recognition they so deeply deserve. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their courageous service.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen firsthand the work these men and women are doing to protect Americans on the frontlines of international conflicts. While their names may never be made public, their memory and the impact of their service will not be forgotten.

The loss of seven American men and women in the December 30th attack is a tragedy for both the intelligence community and our country, and my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were killed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my condolences and pledge to stand in solidarity with Haiti.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution and to express my sincere condolences to the Haitian people and to their friends and family around the world, including Haitian-Americans living in my district. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked with them on ways to improve the live of Haitians, and I know we will continue that work together.

Last week's 7.0-magnitude earthquake was an almost unimaginable tragedy for Haiti. The capital city was flattened, tens of thousands of people were killed, and countless others lost what few possessions they had as homes, business, and schools crumbled.

I have traveled to Haiti several times, most recently last spring, and I am always struck by the incredible resilience of the Haitian people in the face of extreme poverty and devastating natural disasters. Still, this most recent tragedy is absolutely heartbreaking, particularly at a time when glimmers of light were beginning to appear for Haiti's future.

Emergency assistance in the coming days, weeks, and months will be critical. Earthquake survivors desperately need food, water, and medicine. But that cannot be the end of the story. Even before the earthquake, Haiti was the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 80 percent of the population living on less than $2 per day. In recent years Haiti has weathered serious food riots after rising prices forced parents to feed mudcakes to their children, as well as a series of devastating storms.

So long as Haiti remains a country without a viable economy, it will remain dependent on assistance. We must continue to work to make sure that food, water, and medicine reach those who desperately need it right now, but, in the months and years ahead, we also need to work to bring real economic development to Haiti.

Madam Speaker, I extend my sincere condolences to the people of Haiti, and I join with my colleagues and the Obama administration in pledging U.S. support in the days, months, and years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in recognizing the extraordinary life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As our nation prepares to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday this weekend, we are reminded of his remarkable accomplishments as a civil rights leader and as a lifelong advocate for human justice and peace. More than 40 years have past since Dr. King delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Yet today, Dr. King's words and his life's work help inspire Americans to think differently about race and human rights.

Sadly, Dr. King's life ended tragically and prematurely, but his dream lives on. As the election of President Barack Obama demonstrates, America has made significant progress in the last 40 years and there is no question that Dr. King's remarkable work for fairness and equality under the law led profoundly to this historic moment for our country.

Yet, more work must be done. We need to honor Dr. King's call to make our communities, our nation and the world more just. As we face high unemployment rates, increased child poverty, and unprecedented number of Americans who go to bed hungry, we need to remember not just Dr. King's words but his call to action.

I am particularly reminded about that call as we stand on the precipice of passing historic health care reform. Dr. King's words are used by health care justice groups across the country. As he said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.''

We must pass health care legislation that not only ends health care disparities but provides health care justice. Every person must have access to affordable health coverage. Every person must receive the highest quality care. And every person must be able to get a medical education if they choose to make a career of caring for others.

Madam Speaker, Dr. King was a visionary, a man ahead of his time, and his words of wisdom and contributions to our country will never be forgotten. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to thank Representative Titus for joining me in offering this important amendment to make sure that the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency has authority to regulate reverse mortgages. It is a proposal that is supported by the AARP.

Reverse mortgages are unique mortgage products that allow homeowners over age 62 to borrow against their homes to receive either cash or a line of credit. The loan is paid back when the homeowner dies or sells the home. In the past 3 years, more than 335,000 federally insured reverse mortgages have been issued to seniors.

Unfortunately, all is not well in the reverse mortgage market. An October report by the National Consumer Law Center found many of the abusive practices that were common in the subprime lending market before its collapse are also common in reverse mortgage transactions. Those practices include high fees, incentives for brokers that are harmful to borrowers, and lenders steering consumers to products that are more costly than necessary. Also, securitization, as in the subprime market, is becoming more common for reverse mortgages.

Unfortunately, the complexity of the loans and the age of the typical borrower have made the reverse mortgage market ripe for scam artists. We have to make sure that seniors who use reverse mortgages are protected against unlawful and unfair practices.

The amendment I am offering seeks to correct an oversight in the CFPA provisions of the bill. The bill, as written, gives the CFPA authority over a number of consumer statutes, but a majority of reverse mortgages today are FHA insured home equity conversion mortgages, which are primarily regulated by HUD under the National Housing Act statute. Therefore, as currently written, reverse mortgages may not clearly fall within the CFPA's authority.

My amendment would clarify that the CFPA director has oversight and regulatory authority over lenders and brokers that issue reverse mortgages and directs the agency to consult with HUD as it develops regulations.

My amendment would also require CFPA to begin a rulemaking within 1 year of the bill's enactment in order to develop regulations that will make sure that reverse mortgage transactions are not unfair, deceptive, or abusive.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how many minutes I have left?

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the committee, Barney Frank.

I do.

Madam Chairman, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents who called, faxed, emailed me in strong opposition to the Stupak-Pitts language and its inclusion in health care reform.

The grand myth in this debate is that the Stupak amendment is simply an extension of current law, which prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions except in the case of rape or incest or to protect the life of a mother. It is not current law. It would be the largest restriction on abortion access since Roe v. Wade--preventing women from using private dollars to purchase coverage for a legal medical service.

A recent George Washington School of Public Health study warns that the Stupak language will reduce access to women who already have it by encouraging insurers to ``drop coverage in all markets.'' That is not the status quo.

The Stupak-Pitts language is unfair, unnecessary, and unwise. The Senate rightly rejected it last night. It cannot be part of health care reform. Women will not be forced back to back alleys.