Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of reforms that ensure that no mother will ever have her child's care denied because of a preexisting condition.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise in emphatic support of H.R. 3962. As we pass this historic legislation today which improves health care for all Americans, I want to focus on the benefits for women's health.

When this bill becomes law, a woman will no longer be discriminated against by an insurance company simply for being a woman. Women will no longer be discriminated against by insurance companies for being victims of domestic violence. Women will automatically be covered for maternity care. Women will not have to pay co-pays for important preventative screenings, like mammograms and cervical cancer. Most importantly, women who make the bulk of the health care decisions for their families will have access to quality, affordable health care for their families.

This is an excellent bill, and I am humbled by the fact that, as a Representative of the 23rd Congressional District in California--a nurse, a mother and a grandmother--I am privileged to vote today in favor of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Contrary to what its sponsors and their supporters say, the underlying bill does prohibit Federal funding for abortion. It is written clearly and plainly on page 246, line 11, ``prohibition of use of public funds for abortion coverage.'' But apparently that isn't good enough for people whose goal really is to strip women of their right to choose altogether despite purporting to just want to maintain the status quo. So instead we have this amendment which restricts a woman's right to access a legal medical procedure in this country.

It is ironic, actually, because most of the people who support the amendment claim to oppose government interference in health care, yet this amendment is government interference and a decision that should be made between a woman and her physician.

If this amendment passes, it will be the only language in the entire legislation that actually restricts coverage of a legal medical procedure. Not one other legal medical procedure is singled out in this legislation for rationing.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this devastating amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the Reverend LLoyd Saatjian, who passed away on July 28, 2009. Reverend Saatjian was a beloved pastor, humanitarian, social justice advocate, and so much more. His genuine warmth was felt by all who met him, and had unique ability to connect with people.

Reverend Saatjian was appointed to lead the First United Methodist Church of Santa Barbara in 1989 where he served as Pastor until his retirement several years ago. During his time as Pastor, he was an active member of the Greater Santa Barbara Area Clergy Association where he worked closely with leaders from other local faith communities on a wide range of projects and initiatives, including an annual interfaith Thanksgiving service. Hosted at First United Methodist Church, this wonderful event brought together community members from every faith to find common ground and give thanks. This event held special significance in 2001 when it helped facilitate an open dialogue between the local Muslim community during a time of such great unrest and misunderstanding.

He also forged a unique and inspirational partnership with the local Jewish community to help rebuild African American churches in the American South that had fallen victim to arson. Beginning 11 years ago, this partnership has sent hundreds of my constituents to small rural towns across the South to help those in need. These trips have not only built places of worship, but also lasting friendships with church and community members from all walks of life. This ongoing partnership is a shining testament to Reverend Saatjian's lifelong commitment to social justice and interfaith collaboration.

Reverend Saatjian was a cherished and valued member of the Santa Barbara community, and he will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, one of the scariest themes of Halloween has been the continuation of myths about our health care legislation that is being made by opponents of reform. These TEA-bagger myths have been debunked time and time again, yet some in this Congress continue to perpetuate them. Why? Because they have no alternative plan of their own.

If they had a comprehensive plan that would actually address our Nation's health care crisis, it would have been put forward, or maybe they would have enacted it during the years that they ran Congress and the White House. But when you don't have a plan, you have nothing else to talk about.

We all know we cannot continue the status quo: Americans with health insurance today, never knowing if it will be there when they need it; millions of Americans today without any coverage; all the while, costs keep climbing and insurance companies keep getting richer.

So what do some folks do? They distort our plan and use scare tactics and try to fool the American people. But the American people support our plan, which ensures that we all have access

to quality, affordable health care, and they won't be fooled anymore by the Party of No.

I thank my colleague for yielding, Madam Speaker.

I rise to express my opposition to the resolution before us. Sadly, I think that in this body's haste, we've overlooked some of the depth of unspeakable tragedies that have occurred during the war on Gaza. Innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives were lost. We owe it to all victims' families to vow to do everything in our power to prevent further tragedy. Instead, we have a flawed resolution before us.

As an example, the text of the resolution focuses on the original mandate of the report, not the mission that was actually carried out by the investigators. I am disappointed the committee chose to ignore the fact that Justice Goldstone did not agree to take on the investigation until it was agreed to that the conduct of all parties would be investigated. This is just one of many parts of the resolution.

The United States will remain a true friend to our ally Israel without passing a resolution that has questionable accuracy and motives. So let us call for an open and honest debate with the reputable Judge Goldstone. Let us not act in haste to pass a resolution that will in no way achieve our ultimate goal of achieving a lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1694, the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program Extension Act of 2009.

This grant program, due to expire at the end of this year, is a vital component of a nationwide fully interoperable communications network for our first responders. It provides grants to States so they may purchase expensive, yet essential, interoperable communications equipment.

This simple, straightforward extension would assist States in establishing their portion of a nationwide interoperable network. We cannot afford to let this program expire.

There are two primary reasons to support this bill.

First, interoperability is essential for the safety of Americans. We all know the devastating consequences that occur when our first responders and public safety entities cannot communicate in the face of incredible disaster. Tragedies such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina instantly come to mind.

Interoperability was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and one of the foremost reasons Congress passed legislation to ``free-up'' spectrum by transitioning to digital television.

First responders need to be able to communicate effortlessly--lives depend on it.

Second, we want to ensure the communications networks established by States are thorough, effective, and efficient.

The Department of Homeland Security has set deadlines for all States to develop Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans and Congress established the grant program to help States purchase the equipment to implement these plans.

Unfortunately, the deadline for the program has not afforded States sufficient time to comply with the program requirements.

By extending the deadline for applications for this grant program, we are enabling public safety entities to do the right thing--to carefully and thoroughly design their interoperable plans before they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on equipment.

Of course, the sooner interoperable communications networks come online, the better. But we do not want to unwisely rush their implementation or effectively punish those entities that do their due diligence in the planning stages. We must extend this vital grant program.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague Rep. Harman who had the foresight to introduce this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1694, the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program Extension Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, the news from the Senate that they will include a public option in the health reform bill is encouraging, as we in the House prepare to vote on comprehensive reform. It is also precisely what the majority of Americans want. They want true competition in the health insurance market, and only the public option can do that. If the current insurance market had wanted to provide equitable and affordable health coverage for Americans, we wouldn't have 47 million uninsured people.

These are our constituents, our neighbors, even our family members. It's the young mother who called me to tell me that her daughter, born with spina bifida, was being denied a lifesaving surgery. I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming the news from the Senate. Let's pass real health reform now.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment and the underlying legislation.

I thank Chairman Oberstar for his hard work on this bill.

As someone who represents over 200 miles of coastline, I am keenly aware of the importance of the Coast Guard and this legislation.

H.R. 3619 provides the Coast Guard, including the 3 stations located in my congressional district, with the resources it needs to meet an ever-increasing workload--from search and rescue and terrorism protection to fisheries law enforcement and oil spill cleanup.

I also want to thank Chairman Oberstar for including the amendment I submitted to the Rules Committee within his manager's amendment.

My amendment would require the Coast Guard to report to Congress on the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oil spills from vessels, as well as on the most significant types of ``near miss'' incidents.

The amendment would also require the Coast Guard to use these findings to take appropriate action domestically and at the International Maritime Organization to reduce the risk of oil spills due to human error.

The consideration of this amendment, Madam Chair, could not be more timely.

Earlier this week we learned that more than 18,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled when two ships collided in the Gulf of Mexico.

By yesterday morning oil covered an area two miles long and a mile and a half wide.

This troubling incident reminds us that our fragile marine resources are still susceptible to disaster.

While efforts by the Coast Guard, states, and industry have reduced spills over the last two decades, accidents still occur and most are the result of human error.

Unfortunately, we currently lack the data and analysis we need to determine the causes of human errors and the ways to prevent them.

My amendment would begin filling in that gap so we can learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past and take action to avoid similar incidents in the future.

Madam Chair, with billions of gallons of oil passing through our nation's coastal waters every year, we must strengthen our oil spill safety programs.

And we must do everything we can to prevent future accidents like this week's collision in the Gulf of Mexico and the resulting spill.

I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment which takes appropriate action to reduce the risk of oil spilled because of human error.

Thank you to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong support of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, and I want to add my thanks and my acknowledgment to the great work of our committee's chairmen, the ranking members, to swiftly move this extension through the process in a bipartisan and bicameral manner.

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS program has been the critical safety net for Americans diagnosed with HIV and AIDS. Since its inception, we have watched diagnosis and treatment evolve to a point where we can now manage HIV as a chronic condition rather than as a fatal disease.

This issue is especially important in my home State of California, which has the second-largest disease burden in the United States and a significant number of new cases each year, particularly among the Latino population. And in today's world, California--like some other States--is experiencing a severe budget crisis. State HIV and AIDS funding has been drastically reduced.

My district serves as the main source of HIV services between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and I want to ensure that central coast providers have all the resources they need to care for their patients. We need to make sure HIV patients and their families' livelihoods aren't interrupted by our failure to act.

This legislation really is a stopgap measure that we need to ensure that nobody loses their existing services. I am pleased that we haven't hesitated to address the most pressing funding and logistical needs, especially those that affect distribution of funds to population centers.

I am looking forward to the next authorization, when we can address all of the lingering improvements that are necessary to make Ryan White HIV/AIDS programs operate in an even better way for patients. As HIV research and care evolves, we must also respond accordingly. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act.

As one of the co-Chairs of the House Cancer Caucus, along with my friend and colleague Sue Myrick, I am so pleased to join my colleagues here tonight. I applaud you Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sue Myrick for organizing this Special Order, this time together, and for the legislation that you have introduced. I acknowledge my own sister, a breast cancer survivor, and I acknowledge our sisterhood.

There were men and women standing on the Capitol steps today who have worn pink today in recognition. It's a lot deeper than that, but there is a sisterhood of those who have been touched by this disease, and the men who have been touched as well, some with breast cancer, also men who love people with breast cancer and have stood by them and supported them, and that network has really made all the difference.

I applaud the amazing work of the advocacy groups for all that they do on behalf of breast cancer patients and their families. It's because of them that we've really come such a long way in the fight against this disease. And because of them, we've taken this disease out of the closet. The advocates against breast cancer and for understanding it have paved the way for many other disease entities to have survivors, and those touched by it really become vocal and become the strong voices.

When I first became a nurse--and that was many years ago--the word ``cancer'' was hardly ever said out loud in public, and you never said the word ``breast'' in public. But everyone who has worked so tirelessly over all the years to make sure that people understood that these are not words to be embarrassed by or shamed by but, rather, to be empowered by, they encourage us to know how to be more aware of how to take care of our own bodies through prevention and early detection, and that's a lot about what this legislation is about.

So now we've reached an age and a time where more and more women know the importance of self-exams, of learning about family histories and risk factors and taking advantage of early detection mechanisms like mammograms. But far too many women still face barriers. Too many women are discriminated against by insurance companies for having this disease. Whether it's the egregious practice of kicking you out of the hospital too soon after reconstructive surgery or posing barriers to accessing annual mammography, we need to put an end to these practices, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to do so.

I also applaud efforts to target populations that are still marginalized--minorities and young women. Both of these populations need better access to information and better access to quality care. We need to pass legislation to make information and quality care more accessible.

So I proudly stand with my colleagues who are championing efforts in Congress to improve breast cancer research, awareness, detection, and treatment. I do this on behalf of my constituents, my family, my friends, people who know all too well what it's like to receive the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 710, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Estuaries Day.

I want to thank my colleague Kathy Castor for introducing this resolution, which I have cosponsored. We both represent coastal districts that are home to amazing estuarine systems that are of great importance to our communities and constituents.

In my district, the Morro Bay National Estuary is an ecological treasure.

Lagoons and wetlands that were once common along the southern California coast are now nearly all filled and developed. But we are fortunate that the Morro Bay Estuary has largely survived. And we must continue to protect this natural resource.

The Estuary provides vital habitat for birds and fish. It is an important stop-over for over 150 species of migratory birds during their annual migration. And it is a critical winter home to several other bird species. The estuary also acts as a nursery for more than 75 percent of commercial fish species in the area.

Since the Morro Bay Estuary was incorporated into the National Program in 1995, the inspiring team of staff and volunteers has spearheaded numerous efforts to preserve and restore the estuary.

For example, partnering with local ranchers, the Estuary Program has installed riparian fencing along nearly 75,000 feet of creek to limit cattle access. This has protected water quality and improved riparian habitat on seven creeks.

The program has provided funding to the City of Morro Bay to remove derelict vessels before they pollute local waters and damage habitat.

They have also established the Estuary Nature Center and WaterFest, to educate the general public about the beauty of the estuary and its importance to water quality and conservation.

In addition, more than 75 dedicated volunteers collect and provide important water quality data for the Estuary Program each year. These data are critical to evaluating the health of the estuary and watershed, as well as compiling a plan to address problems.

Estuaries are among the richest habitats known on earth--providing immeasurable economic and ecological benefits. But they are threatened by pollution and other human activities. We must change our course and work harder to protect them.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H. Res. 710--to recognize National Estuaries Day and the community organizations that fight to preserve these invaluable resources.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for yielding.

I am so honored to be with you this evening, and I thank you for organizing this time and for your leadership on this issue.

It's a humbling experience to come to the podium and come to the well following the eloquent testimony that you and our colleague Tim Walz have given us, the two of you having distinguished yourselves in uniform serving our country on the battlefield. And your eloquence in your statements and also your testimony to the importance of this legislation gives credibility to it and credence to it that you alone uniquely, I believe, in this body have that ability to do, and I thank you that you are stepping up and leading this effort.

I am honored to join you. I believe it takes those of you who served to express your leadership in this way, but I also believe that the rest of us who didn't have that experience of serving but who are so grateful to those who

did want to join you in this kind of effort. I am so honored to stand here this evening tonight with our colleagues from different parts of the country, from different backgrounds and experiences, all with this conviction that we have and lending our support to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

It's been stated already, and it's going to be stated again, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is discriminatory, detrimental to the productivity of our Armed Forces, and it really contradicts the very foundation of equality that the United States of America is founded upon. Plain and simple, it is way past time for this prejudiced policy to end.

As you stated before, over 12,000 men and women have been discharged from the military since 1993 because of their sexual orientation, because of their sexuality. That's over 12,000 gifted and qualified individuals our military could not afford to lose in the first place.

We must keep the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on our priority list in this Congress, and this issue must also remain on the national conscience as well. We have to seek out every opportunity that we can to educate our constituents that Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens not only our national security but all of our inherent rights as Americans.

I'm very grateful for the countless individuals who are working in our communities to do just that. Many of them are current and former members of the military, and they do their service and they do our country a great honor by doing that, but I want us to widen that. We can't leave it up to those who have served to tell their story out of their own personal experience. We have to also join them because we are part of that movement as well. And there are numerous organizations working across the country to inform people and citizens, all citizens, about the injustice of this policy.

I am very proud that one of these organizations, the Palm Center, is located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in my district. Nathaniel Frank is a senior research fellow at this center. I have listened to him and had him explain his research to me, but he has written also extensively about how detrimental this policy is in a book that he has published entitled, ``Unfriendly Fire.''

He explains how Don't Ask, Don't Tell has added to the challenge of recruiting and keeping qualified soldiers in the military, and he also describes how the ban undermines the unit cohesion that it is supposedly designed to protect. The very reasons for establishing this policy have had the effect of undermining troop morale and troop discipline. And this is evidence that has been gathered now, substantial enough, that it is way past time, as I said, for us to act on it.

With the assistance of organizations like the Palm Center, important volumes like ``Unfriendly Fire,'' and the testimony of our civilian and military allies, we can and really we must overturn the ban on gays in the military.

I applaud our President's stance on this issue, and I look forward to getting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act to his desk as soon as possible. I believe that's our goal, and I'm grateful, again, for the effort of this hour to lay the groundwork for it.

Every day that passes with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy continuing in place, the United States military loses out on more and more qualified applicants. For a country at war, this is simply inexcusable, and it threatens the safety and security of our overstretched deployed troops today. Every effort needs to be taken to ensure that those serving in our Armed Forces have the materials, the support, and the work environment that they need to function most effectively.

The brave men and women serving today in our Armed Forces deserve nothing less than the ability to be honest about who they are.

Thank you again, Mr. Murphy. Thank you to my colleagues for organizing this hour for giving us the opportunity to speak out on this very important issue, for holding this special order to bring further attention to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, for 60 years our country has been trying to come up with a better way to deliver health care. Despite the lingering differences of opinion over how to achieve this goal, we really have come along further than we ever have before.

We all agree we need to put an end to insurance companies' most egregious practices. We need to lower the costs of health care for everyone. We need to better incentivize preventive and primary care.

These are all accomplished by the bill which has now passed out of our three House committees. Of course, it's much more interesting for the media to talk about the few areas where disagreements still exist rather than the accomplishments we have made so far. But the legislation before us means so much more security for America's hardworking families.

Right now, when you lose your job, it can mean your entire family loses access to health insurance. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a preexisting condition, which in some States can be defined as having been the victim of domestic violence, then you may not qualify for any affordable health insurance coverage. Worse yet, when you buy health insurance on the individual market, there is a team of people ready to comb through your records to find a reason to drop you if you are ever diagnosed with a condition that is costly to treat. Now a few States have protections against these practices. But don't we agree that all Americans deserve access to these protections?

Ironically, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have often touted a supposed ``solution'' to our health care troubles by allowing insurers to sell across State lines. If anything, their proposal would essentially allow insurance companies to continue their very worst practices because insurers would simply begin a race to the bottom. They would move their operations to whichever State affords the least consumer protections and sell those policies across State lines.

I'm especially concerned because I come from California, a State with some of the strongest consumer protections from health insurance company abuses. Here are some examples: California law requires that insurers cover a minimum stay in the hospital after a mastectomy. Our neighboring States of Nevada and Arizona do not. California law requires that patients have the right to appeal decisions by insurance companies and receive an external review. Idaho and Mississippi do not. And California has stricter laws defining what may and may not qualify as a preexisting condition. In Florida and Georgia, there are no definable conditions that insurers may classify as ``preexisting,'' which means that a preexisting condition could mean pretty much anything.

So to my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe that selling insurance across State lines will solve all of our problems, I remind you that your suggestion would do just the opposite. It would strip away vital consumer protections that exist for many patients now at the very time our focus needs to be on increasing consumer protections for American families.

We also agree that we need to lower costs. I'm very heartened by provisions in this bill that will achieve this shared goal.

For seniors, we're taking immediate steps to reduce their prescription drug costs by closing the doughnut hole. Since the rollout of Medicare part D, my constituents and seniors across the country have begged for relief from the doughnut hole. The doughnut hole is the period of time during which you pay an insurance company to not cover the cost of your medications. I have objected to this policy from day one.

Under our plan, seniors will see relief immediately. As we begin to close the doughnut hole, prescription drugs will be available at deep discounts. Eventually, the doughnut hole will disappear completely. This is the relief that America's seniors need, and we all can agree that they deserve it.

We will bring down costs by introducing a public option to compete with private insurers. Currently, private insurance companies have every reason to increase costs for patients and to reduce reimbursements to physicians in order to line their pockets.

Why? Because there's no competition. There's no one else in the market offering consumers a choice. But the public option will finally bring greater choices to consumers in the individual insurance market. Once that happens, premiums will become more affordable as insurers compete for customers. Insurance companies will be enticed to reimburse physicians better in order to retain them in their networks. The necessity for more affordable choices is something we can all agree on.

We can also agree that we need to do a better job of improving preventive care and giving people the tools they need to be more personally responsible for their health and well-being. As a public health nurse, I spent decades educating people about the importance of adopting healthy habits. But too many people in this country don't have access to primary care and never see a health professional until an otherwise preventable disease has worsened. How tragic is this?

H.R. 3200 encourages better primary and preventive care. It does away with copays for preventive services. It increases primary care service reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid. It makes smart investments in community-based prevention and wellness programs. These are the things we can all agree upon.

I urge my colleagues to join me in enthusiastically supporting H.R. 3200, supporting these principles on which we all agree.

Mr. Speaker, even today we have come further than we ever have before on the path to achieving comprehensive health insurance reform. Now is not the time to take a step back. Now is the time to keep the momentum going.

The American people want access to affordable health insurance when the small business they work for can't provide it for them. The American people want to know they won't lose their health insurance if their company has to make another round of layoffs. The American people want more doctors and nurses in their communities so they know health care is always available.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3200 accomplishes all these goals and more. I urge my colleagues to step up and seize this moment. Support this legislation to bring affordable and quality care to all Americans. Join me in strong support of H.R. 3200.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act.

This critical legislation would extend unemployment benefits by up to 13 weeks in states with high unemployment, such as my home state of California, where the unemployment rate has reached a record 12.2 percent.

In California alone, this bill will provide additional benefits for over 150,000 jobless workers who would otherwise exhaust their unemployment benefits before the end of this year.

These new benefits will help the millions of Californians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own feed their families, heat their homes and pay their mortgages.

Extending these benefits is also one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. According to Moody's Economy.com, every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.63 in new economic demand.

There is no question that this legislation is needed. Yes, our economy is beginning to recover. But millions are still out of work and struggling to stay afloat.

I support this bill because it will provide real money for real workers who need it in California and across the nation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on H.R. 3548.