Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor a man who was a dear friend to me and a giant in our community. Reverend James Coffee of Santa Rosa, California, passed away April 6, 2010, at the age of 76, after a life that touched thousands of lives. He will be deeply missed.

Raised in Oklahoma when segregation was the rule of the day, Rev. Coffee moved to the San Francisco Bay Area as a teenager. He was first invited to be the pastor of Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa in 1962 while studying at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary in Mill Valley. A year later, he accepted the position and took on a small congregation of 15 African American members.

Rev. Coffee was engaged in the civil rights struggles of those times, including the 1956 Montgomery bus boycott where he met Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Racial tensions existed in Sonoma County also. In 1985 the church was damaged in a fire that Rev. Coffee believed to be arson, possibly because of his stand against apartheid and his success in

persuading the Board of Supervisors to withdraw investments in South Africa. Many in the community rallied around the church, contributing time and money to the repairs and later to the building of a new church.

Reverend Coffee always persevered in his vision of a society where everyone could realize his or her full potential. With love and an open heart, he acted on his principles. With the support and assistance of his wife Vivian, his family, and his many friends made over the years, he worked inclusively to break down the barriers between races and promote the greater good.

He was particularly concerned with the community's youth, mentoring young people, providing scholarships, and joining with others to establish and promote programs such as Rites of Passage (with Shirley Gordon) which teaches teens that they can attend college and become leaders. These activities have given young people the hope and the support that keeps them out of gangs and on the path or promise.

Rev. Coffee also founded or participated in a wide variety of civic organizations and could be found bringing people together for a wide variety of social issues. From the Bridge Builders Organization (to promote racial reconciliation), 100 Black Men of Sonoma County, Race Equality Week, and Citizens Against Domestic Violence to the Salvation Army Advisory Board and Citizens for Balanced Transportation, Rev. Coffee's presence and energy were a catalyst for the whole the community.

In 1981, he co-founded Santa Rosa's Martin Luther King, Jr. birthday celebration (with Carole Ellis and Mary Moore) which continues to inspire youth and bring people together. In 2004, he had the honor of meeting King's son, Martin Luther King III who spoke at a Sonoma County Human Rights Commission event at which the first of a new series of awards were presented--the Reverend James E. Coffee Human Rights Awards.

Rev. Coffee himself earned many awards throughout his years of service. He appreciated these acknowledgements, yet the greatest honors for him were the light of understanding in a teen's eyes, the dialogue across a racial barrier, and the legacy of love and activism. He leaves a Community Baptist Church that is multi-cultural with 500 active members who will carry on his work.

He is survived by his wife Vivian; his children James Jr., Shirley, and Yvette; three grandchildren; one great grandchild; and countless friends who will mourn him and be inspired by his example.

Madam Speaker, I am one of those many friends and I will miss him every day. To me, the Reverend James Coffee, has been the perfect embodiment of one of his favorite sayings: ``Make a difference one day at a time.'' Reverend Coffee did make a difference--with strength and persistence, humor and compassion--every day of his life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor the life and memory of Hugh Codding, who helped shape and define Sonoma County over the course of the 92 years he was with us. He was a legend in his lifetime; a home builder, commercial developer, banker, city councilman, civic leader and philanthropist, who during the construction boom years of the 1950s and `60s, changed the face of the county forever.

He built his first home in the 1930s and honed construction skills in the Seabees in World War II and brought those skills home with him. He leveraged his $400 discharge pay into a construction project and with profits

earned from that endeavor and a small bank loan, he built one of the first shopping centers in the state, the first of several he would eventually build in the county.

As much as he was a builder and developer, he was also a showman. He earned Time magazine designation as the wunderkind of the post-war boom by building an entire house in three hours and 18 minutes and a church in five hours and 16 minutes.

He gave back generously to his community, helping fund and sustain both the Luther Burbank (now Wells Fargo) Center for the Arts in Santa Rosa and the Spreckels Performing Arts Center in Rohnert Park. There was scarcely a non profit organization in the county that didn't experience his generosity, whether it was the 4-H Club, the Earl Baum Center for the Blind, the Santa Rosa Junior College Foundation, the Sonoma County Community Foundation, the Children's Health Network, Artstart, the Southwest Community Health Clinic, Planned Parenthood, the Blood Bank of the Redwoods, the Green Music Center, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, the Jewish Community Free Clinic, the Council on Aging, the Sonoma County Museum or the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Rosa and many more.

He is survived by his wife Connie; former wife Elizabeth Mulkey; son George David Codding; granddaughters Alexis Codding, Lois Codding, Lisa Codding Chodrick, Terra Saxton and his stepchildren Brian Baker, Pamela Reed, Lisa Malapit, Melinda Bailey, and Bradley Baker.

Madam Speaker, Hugh Codding was an influential and respected resident of Sonoma County who will be greatly missed. It is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge him today and honor his memory.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Hanna Boys Center, who has been providing a home and education to students in Northern California for 60 years.

The school began as an experimental program for neglected and troubled boys in 1944 in Menlo Park, south of San Francisco. The 25 original students were referred to the new school by social service agencies and parish priests. The demand quickly outweighed the physical resources of the small school and after a very successful speaking tour, enough funds were raised to purchase 157 acres in the Sonoma Valley, the school's home today.

By 1949, classrooms, an administration building, a chapel, gymnasium, swimming pool and one residence hall had been completed. The first students entered the Sonoma Valley campus by the end of that year. Today 109 boys ages 13 to 18 call the campus home.

Although Hanna students come to the school from throughout the country, many are from my Congressional district. Many are from troubled homes.

There is a fully accredited high school on campus and all students can participate in woodshop, choir, soccer, baseball, track and basketball. Football is provided at nearby Sonoma Valley High School.

Thirty-four Hanna graduates are currently serving in the military. Graduates include very successful businessmen and civic leaders or simply men who live quiet lives of contribution and contentment.

Only three directors have piloted the school in its 60 year history, founder Monsignor O'Connor for 23 years, Father James Pulskamp for 12 years and Father John Crews for the past 25 years, a testament itself to the loyalty the school inspires.

Madam Speaker, Hanna Boys Center changes lives. It has been a stabilizing influence on hundreds of young men who have passed through its doors. It is therefore appropriate to honor the school for 60 years of dedicated service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who want to live in a world without nuclear weapons, there was very little good news, very little to celebrate over the last decade or so. The previous administration showed barely any interest in eradicating the nuclear threat. But now finally, with the recently signed START treaty between the United States and Russia, there is cause for optimism and hope for further progress.

In negotiating this agreement, I am pleased that President Obama has embraced the principles of the ``no-nukes'' resolution, House Resolution 333 that I have introduced in the Congress, and the SMART Security approach I've championed for years.

Much of the attention paid to arms control issues focuses on North Korea and the looming possibility of a nuclear threat from Iran. And of course these are gravely important matters to grapple with. But the fact is that more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear capability rests with the two Cold War superpowers. So a serious commitment to nonproliferation must begin with a bilateral U.S.-Russia approach.

This pact, the New START, mandates a 30 percent reduction in the allowed number of deployed strategic warheads, from a maximum of 2,200 down to 1,550 for each country, the most significant step toward disarmament in years. The treaty is far from perfect. In fact, I am disappointed that it places no restrictions on the development of missile defense programs which have delivered little bang for the taxpayer buck over the last several decades. But it is crucial that our Senate colleagues move quickly to ratify this treaty. Hopefully the partisan obstructionism that we've seen over and over again on the other

side of the aisle will be laid aside on this vital matter of national security.

We now have momentum on this issue. The President seized it this week with important breakthroughs at the Nuclear Security Summit he hosted in Washington. Tomorrow, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will convene an important hearing to discuss stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and combating nuclear terrorism.

We cannot let up, Mr. Speaker, because there is difficult work ahead, and because the New START treaty with Russia really doesn't go far enough. We can't be satisfied with incremental steps. 1,550 nuclear warheads is still 1,550 too many. Just one of them has the power to leave carnage so devastating it would make 9/11 look like a minor traffic accident.

In an op-ed written for the Tampa Tribune, the leaders of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility reminded us in vivid terms what a nuclear strike would mean, and I quote:

``A single Hiroshima-sized bomb detonated by terrorists in New York City could kill over 250,000 people and cause somewhere between $2 trillion and $10 trillion in damage.''

They continue:

``A large-scale nuclear exchange with Russia would kill more than 100 million Americans in the first half-hour. Clouds of dust and soot would block out the sun, and in a matter of days the average temperature across the globe would plummet 18 degrees Fahrenheit, to levels not seen on Earth since the depth of the last ice age. In this nuclear winter, agriculture would cease to exist throughout the northern hemisphere, and billions of people would starve in the following months.''

Mr. Speaker, nothing less than the future of the human race hangs in the balance here. That's why the New START must be the start and not the end of our commitment to eliminate nuclear weaponry once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Stewart L. Udall who passed away March 20, 2010, in his New Mexico home, at the age of 90. Secretary Udall is best known as Secretary of the Interior under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, but his role in the preservation of our national treasurers is far greater than that title suggests.

Today, we may take for granted the conservation of lands for our national parks and wilderness areas, but without the efforts of Stewart Udall, we would not have these vast unspoiled areas across our country. A lifelong conservationist, Secretary Udall oversaw the expansion of the National Park system to include four new national parks, six new national monuments, eight seashores and lakeshores, nine recreation areas, twenty historic sites, and fifty-six wildlife refuges. And he profoundly influenced the national landscape with his leadership on the Wilderness Bill, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Water Quality Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and others.

Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), in California's Sixth District, is one of the jewels in the National Parks system that owes its existence to Stewart Udall. Working with Congressman Clem Miller, Ed Wayburn, and others, Secretary Udall shepherded its establishment by Congress and President Kennedy in 1962 and continued to work for funding and expansion under President Johnson.

Following his tenure as Secretary of the Interior, he joined the Advisory Board of Save Our Seashore (SOS), a local group founded by State Senator Peter Behr. SOS secured support to incorporate the surrounding ranchlands into the park; these lands were thus saved from development and then leased back to the original families to continue agricultural activities.

Secretary Udall's words in a letter to Senator Behr still resonate today: ``That this magnificent stretch of the California Coast, within a mere 100 miles of five million people, has remained virtually intact and unchanged from the first day it was sighted by Sir Francis Drake in 1579 seems almost a miracle. . . . It is a scandal of historic proportions if the American people, at the peak of our affluence, admit that we lack the foresight and the wherewithal to preserve this great Seashore intact for ourselves and for future generations. If we can afford, this year, 600 million to develop an SST, it is an admission of moral bankruptcy if we are unable to fund the completion of the purchase of these parklands.''

These values explain why we enjoy the magnificence of Point Reyes National Seashore--from its stunning ocean vistas to its windswept hills--and are also a stirring reminder of the importance of environmental preservation in our Nation's priorities.

Secretary Udall's eloquence, warmth, and passion were deeply moving when I had the honor of meeting him at Point Reyes National Seashore in 2004. At that time, he described the establishment of the park and read from a book he had written on the history of the old West. His passion for the landscape--and its plant, animal, and human inhabitants--shone in every word.

Stewart Udall was born in a rural area of Arizona in 1920, served in the United States Air Force in World War II, and then opened a law practice with his brother Morris (Mo). His father was an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, and, continuing the family passion for public service, Udall was elected to Congress in 1954. After his appointment as Secretary of the Interior in 1961, Morris was elected to that seat, and today Stewarts's son Tom is a Senator from New Mexico and his nephew Mark is a Senator from Colorado.

Secretary Udall was predeceased by his wife Erma and is survived by their six children, Tom, Scott, Lynn, Lori, Denis and Jay and their families.

Madam Speaker, Stewart Udall's foresight and commitment will continue to shape the environment and landscape of this country. We

owe a great debt to his skill and passion and must never forget his reminder that ``Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife are in fact plans to protect man.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to protect America's estuaries by strengthening the management of the National Estuary Program, NEP, and to thank Congressman Oberstar, Congresswoman Johnson, Congressman Bishop, Congressman Boozman, and beyond for their excellent, excellent work.

Mr. Chairman, we have a solemn responsibility to keep the vital habitats clean for the thousands of plants, fish, and wildlife that live, breed, and spawn there. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act.

Currently, there are 28 estuaries within the NEP. The NEP conducts long-term planning and management activities to restore and protect estuaries. There are 38 additional estuaries, including Tomales Bay in my district, which have wanted to join the NEP. With H.R. 4715, we can increase the authorization of the NEP to $50 million. Tomales Bay and the other estuaries that have a desire to be part of it will have the opportunity to become part of this important program.

Tomales Bay supports a diverse group of wildlife, including seasonal populations of salmon and steelhead, more than 20,000 shorebirds and seabirds, and a wide variety of shellfish. Tomales Bay is considered a wetland of significant importance under the International Convention on Wetlands, so protecting the vibrant biological hotspot from pollution through the NEP will help to preserve this estuary for generations and generations to enjoy.

I want to commend the hard work of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council, a multistakeholder group that has long championed restoring Tomales Bay. Additionally, the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary is working on a Tomales Bay management plan, covering the bay, itself.

Extending this plan to the entire watershed through the NEP process would ensure better scientific understanding, and it would improve restoration projects. The Gulf of the Farallones would be a valuable and experienced stakeholder in developing a watershed-wide plan.

Mr. Chairman, we must protect nationally significant estuaries like Tomales Bay through better accountability, management, and coordination with local partners. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting healthy and clean estuaries by voting for H.R. 4715.

This resolution rightly honors the 29 courageous coal miners who were senselessly killed in the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, last week; and it supports those family members left behind. Our deepest sympathies go out to these families, and we also hope for the speedy recovery of the two miners who were injured.

Miners, like all working people, are the basis for America's future. And it is true that miners work in a very dangerous profession, but there is absolutely no excuse for a tragedy like this one. We don't know yet the cause of this explosion, but the investigations have begun.

We do know, however, that Massey Energy, the mine owner, was cited for 450 safety violations in the year 2009 for the Upper Big Branch mine. Massey contested most of these citations, keeping the violations in legal limbo and preventing MSHA from establishing a pattern of violations that could have led to a shutdown of the mine; and it could have increased scrutiny of this owner and possibly prevented these disasters.

These appeals filed by the companies like Massey have created a tremendous backlog at the MSHA Review Commission, a backlog that has increased from 1,500 cases in the year 2005 to 16,000 cases today. The Review Commission does not have the resources to resolve a backlog of this size in a timely fashion, so we as Members of Congress immediately must provide the background and the legal authority for more funds to hire more administrative law judges so that we can expedite the appeals process.

In addition to scrutinizing Massey Energy's role in this disaster, we need to look at MSHA's role as well. Is MSHA using all the authority it has under current law to prevent these explosions? Does MSHA need more authority to carry out their mission? As the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, I will be working closely with Chairman Miller, with Ranking Member Kline, and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Representative Rahall and all of the others in this Congress, which is probably 435 of us, knowing that we must take the steps that are necessary to prevent any future mining disasters.

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 2004, I rose in this Chamber to say that we needed a new approach to national security. To say for the very first time before any other Member of Congress was brave enough to say it that it was time to bring our troops home from Iraq.

I have continued to speak out almost every night that the House is in session, but I never imagined that almost 6 years later I would be here to talk about Iraq and about Afghanistan for the 350th time. But that's what I'm doing today, and it's because our service men and women are still in harm's way in both Iraq and Afghanistan on missions that violate core American values and undermine American security.

We have come a long way in building a movement across this country that opposes these military conflicts, but still our leaders stubbornly cling to a disastrous policy.

What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is disgraceful. It is a stain on our Nation. It will someday be remembered as a shameful episode in American history.

Seven years ago, Mr. Speaker, in fact it was 7 years ago this week, Baghdad fell. Remember? That was the moment when Iraqis were supposed to throw flowers and weep with gratitude that we had invaded their country.

But how did Iraqis recognize the sixth anniversary of their so-called liberation? With massive, colorful protests against the continued presence of American troops; protests that brought Shia and Sunni together; protests organized around the very idea that national unity against the U.S. occupation is stronger than Iraqi sectarian divides that are centuries old; protests that included the trampling of American flags; protests, in one case at least, that featured the burning in effigy of President Obama and Vice President Biden.

Meanwhile, one of the big developments out of Afghanistan this week is the death of several civilian bus passengers at the hands of American gunfire near Kandahar. This tragedy comes at the very moment and in the very region where U.S. forces are prepared to launch a major offensive. The push to defeat militants in Kandahar will require strong support from the civilian population, but instead, this incident has people taking to the streets shouting ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Infidels.''

Seven years in Iraq, 8\1/2\ years in Afghanistan, and we still haven't figured out that we can't win people's affection, loyalty, and trust by waging war on their country. To truly capture

their hearts and minds and also to defeat terrorism and make America safer, we need a smart security approach. That means empowering Iraqis and Afghans with civilian support and humanitarian aid, with programs to alleviate poverty, build schools, promote public health and so very much more.

The current approach is alienating the populations we're trying to win over and emboldening the very insurgents we're trying to destroy. How much longer will this go on?

There are American teenagers with no memory of their country not at war. We've already lost nearly 5,500 Americans to these conflicts. Thousands and thousands more have come home wounded, disabled, or suffering from the devastating effects of posttraumatic stress syndrome.

And as we all prepare to pay our taxes tomorrow, let's remember that every American is making a financial sacrifice for this folly. In just the time it's taken me to give this speech, we've racked up about $1 million in costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As long as this tragic and unnecessary war continues in both of these areas, I will continue to come to the floor of the House to state my firm opposition. I will not stop until our troops are brought safely home. I suppose I'll be giving my 351st speech tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, on March 25, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 191. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 191: ``yes''--Supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, a war that is illegitimate with no continued justification inevitably will be managed irresponsibly. But sometimes the excesses and the incompetence continue to shock me.

The Pentagon is now investigating a rogue spy operation that allegedly used private contractors to carry out attacks on militants and paid them inappropriately using a legitimate information-gathering program as a cover. It seems a Pentagon official named Michael Furlong was hiring private firms to gather intelligence about the whereabouts of top insurgents with the goal of hunting them down and killing them.

And the whole time he was claiming simply to be involved in an above- board project to give us a better understanding of Afghan society and culture.

The CIA, the United States Government's legitimate intelligence- gathering agency, felt that its work was undermined by Mr. Furlong's freelance shenanigans. And it was the CIA's complaints that finally shut Mr. Furlong down and prompted the investigation. You know you've gone off the deep end when the CIA thinks your covert operation is beyond the pale.

No one can say for sure who was supervising or approving Mr. Furlong's operation, and apparently some of the money he was given control over has gone missing.

Mr. Furlong was something of a cowboy, actually. According to news accounts, he liked to brag about having a notorious Iran Contra figure on the payroll, and he likened his contractors to fictional movie assassins.

But this isn't a movie, Madam Speaker. It's not like we can all go home with a clear conscience after the lights come up and the credits roll. There are grave life-and-death consequences to the decisions made inside the Pentagon. And while a movie costs us maybe $12, this war in Afghanistan is costing us millions every single day.

It's bad enough that this Congress is repeatedly asked to sign another check to pay for a war that is bankrupting our country and failing to advance our national security interests. But then we learn that the money being authorized, which I have consistently voted against, is being used on secret and illegal operations for which there is no transparency or accountability. And this is just the latest example of private contractors being used to carry out questionable wartime activities to get around the rules governing military operations.

It's an encouraging sign, however, that the Pentagon has begun to look into Furlong's operation, and this episode has prompted Secretary Gates to order a review of all the military's information operations programs to make sure everything is on the up-and-up. I'm expecting the oversight committee of this body to ask some tough questions. I can't imagine how we can debate another supplemental unless we've demanded and received answers about Mr. Furlong's spy ring and other possible wrongdoing.

It has to stop, Madam Speaker. It's time to rein in the contractors, and it's time to bring our valiant troops home.

We know there is a better way to fight terrorism and rebuild Afghanistan. It's time to turn our approach to national security upside down. We need a smarter strategy. We need to show American compassion, not American aggression.

We need a humanitarian surge, not a military surge. Instead of troops, we need to send aid workers and other civilian experts. That is the best counterterrorism approach of all. That is what will give Afghan people hope for a better life. That is what will build a durable peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor our mutual friend and advocate emeritus for the environment, Dr. Edgar Wayburn, who died March 5th in San Francisco after more than a century walking this Earth that he so loved.

``He has saved more of the wilderness than anyone alive,'' said President Clinton in 1999 when he awarded Dr. Wayburn the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor.

Born in Macon, Georgia, in 1906, at the age of 21 he trekked to California where he followed in John Muir's steps and was awed by the magnificence of Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada. He returned east to earn a medical degree at Harvard, and then in 1933 he moved to San Francisco to practice medicine and to fall in love with the sparkling waters of the bay and the golden hills surrounding it. In 1939 Ed joined the Sierra Club--in order to go on a burro trip, he claimed in his memoirs. He never left the organization, serving five terms as president, and ultimately honored as the club's Honorary Lifetime President.

Ed served four years in the Air Force during World War II and returned to San Francisco in 1946. There on the slopes of Mt. Tamalpais, he met his future wife, the stylish Peggy Elliot, an ad agency staffer and a former Vogue editor. Together they formed a formidable team for conservation, Ed the persistent, quiet spoken persuader of the powerful; Peggy, the brilliant wordsmith and organizer. And together they raised four children, William, Cynthia, Laurie and Diana--whose education included being packed into the family station wagon for summer rambles across the vast West.

Mt. Tamalpais, one of the couple's favorite hiking spots, was also the inspiration for Ed's first foray into conservation. With the Bay Area sprawling during the post-war boom, he wondered how much longer the signature peak of Mann County could remain green and undisturbed. Joining with Sierra Club activists and local residents, he began buttonholing State legislators and pressed for a series of acquisitions that expanded Mt. Tamalpais State Park from 870 acres to 6,300 acres over a period of 24 years.

In the early 60s developers set their sites on the Marin Headlands, quiet hills and valleys along the Marin Coast, just 15 minutes from the Golden Gate Bridge, a perfect place for a new suburb of the city, population 25,000. While local conservationists rallied to stop this kind of development in Marin County, Dr. Wayburn headed a movement to make the Headlands, along with Alcatraz Island, Muir Woods, the Presidio and Ocean Beach into a new national Park. Through his alliance with Congressman Phil Burton and his persuasive touch with Nixon administration officials, including the President himself, Dr. Wayburn was instrumental in establishing a whole new entity, the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, an ``urban'' national park.

During much of the time period, he worked tirelessly to establish the GGNRA's spectacular neighbor, the Pt. Reyes National Seashore. Together these two jewels have brought into public ownership lands rich in forests, meadows, marshes and rocky shores, bursting with wildlife on the urban edge of 12 million people.

In 1968, despite the opposition of much of the timber industry and the angry buzzing of chainsaw vigilantes, he convinced Congress to establish Redwood National Park in Humboldt County and to double its size ten years later.

He continued his quiet and persistent leadership of the Sierra Club, even while conducting a full-time medical practice and teaching at Stanford University and UC San Francisco. Then in 1980 after thirteen years of an intense lobbying campaign led by Dr. Wayburn, and aided by Peggy Wayburn's two books on Alaska wilderness, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The legislation added 104 million acres to our national parks and refuge systems and effectively doubled our nation's parkland.

``I have loved medicine and conservation,'' he is quoted in the Journal of the San Francisco Medical Society. ``In one sense, my involvement with both might be summed up in a single word: survival. Medicine is concerned with the short term survival of the human species, conservation with the long term survival of the human and other species as well. We are all related.''

Several years ago, Madam Speaker, we both joined Dr. Wayburn in a small redwood grove in the Presidio of San Francisco as it was being dedicated to honor Peggy and Edgar Wayburn. The redwood is a survivor of millions of years of evolution, fire, changing climate and the chainsaw. It is nature's tallest tree and can live for two thousand years. It is fitting that Edgar Wayburn will be remembered among our planet's natural wonders.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Nation desperately needs health care reform, but no group of Americans needs it more than women who face discrimination and insult at the hand of the broken status quo every single day. We all know that the current system allows insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions.

But I wonder how many of my colleagues realize that essentially being a woman is a preexisting condition. Pregnancy, for example, or C- sections, can be deemed preexisting conditions. Most unbelievable of all, insurance companies can legally turn their backs on women who suffered injuries due to domestic violence because that, too, can be defined as a preexisting condition. We should all be ashamed of a system that puts healthy insurance company profits ahead of healthy American women.

This weekend, today, tonight, we will make history by passing a health care bill that will correct these injustices, and no longer will female be considered a preexisting condition.

Madam Speaker, I was just doing a crossword puzzle waiting for my turn, because I am going to work with Congresswoman Speier on the next resolution, and there was a clue. I was doing a crossword puzzle, and the clue was ``emotion evoked by pathos.'' The answer was ``pity.'' And I thought, oh, my gosh, that is exactly what I am feeling about what I am hearing from other side of the aisle.

It is such a pity that for 8 years the Republicans did nothing to fix health care. It is such a pity that you must be so afraid of what is going to come out of the health care bill when we pass it this weekend, that it is going to be so popular when 32 million people will be covered, because 38 million people in this country have no coverage right now. And what did you do about it over the last 8 years? Nothing. What a pity.

What a pity that you have to say that we are rationing care when there is absolutely no question that American care is not going to be rationed. But care will be rationed today if we do nothing by the insurance companies, which are rationing care every day as I speak. They are making the coverage of care based on their profits. It is being rationed for those who have insurance but can't afford the care, and those who have lost insurance because it simply cost too much. Those who want to defeat reform are essentially defending rationing care.

Under the House and Senate bill and the President's proposal, there is not one provision that gives the government the ability to determine what treatments an individual can receive. More specifically, the comparative effectiveness research provisions in the House and Senate bills that are supported by the administration have been

funded by the Federal Government--already funded by the Federal Government for years.

This research has absolutely nothing to do with rationing. This research is to improve quality of care, it is to give doctors information they need and what they want so that they can treat patients better. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for treatment. We are looking for coverage. We are looking for access.

And what a pity that you folks couldn't work with us so we could get where we are getting this weekend, so we can bring care to the people of this country that is affordable, that they won't have to fear losing their coverage if they get sick. If they are sick, they get sick, they lose their jobs, they will still be able to be covered. That is what the people of America want.

You ask them point blank with these scare tactics--what a pity that you need them on the other side of the aisle. You ask anybody if they like those scare tactics. Of course they will say ``no.'' You ask them about the individual parts of this health care reform bill, they are absolutely glad to embrace it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the entire Nation is counting on us to pass comprehensive health care reform. The millions who have no coverage at all desperately need this legislation, but so too do those Americans who are insured and are being squeezed out by outrageous premiums. So do the businesses that are less profitable because they will be buckling under the weight of high health care costs. But above all, American women need us to do the right thing this week and overhaul the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, in ways both overt and beneath the radar, the current system discriminates against women. The health care reform bill with the corrections bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage or charging higher premiums based on a preexisting condition. And the fact is being a woman is a preexisting condition.

There are documented cases in which pregnancy was treated as a preexisting condition, with women denied the very basic prenatal care benefits that they needed. On other occasions, women have been socked with a huge hospital bill following a C-section because their insurance company would not cover the procedure which is used roughly one out of every three births in the United States.

And here is the most outrageous and unconscionable one of all. In several States, a woman who has endured domestic violence may also be out of luck when she goes to file a claim because domestic violence is defined by many of the large insurance companies as a preexisting condition. Talk about adding insult to injury. Literally, Sorry, ma'am, you're on your own. We can't pay to wire that broken jaw because it was given to you by your husband. Next time you get a facial injury, make sure it is from tripping or falling; then we might be able to help you. This is the health care equivalent of telling a rape victim she has no case because she was asking for it.

There's more. Systemic forces and biological realities conspire to make the health care crisis that much more severe for women. Because of their reproductive health needs, women, especially young women relative to their male peers, simply need to visit their doctor more often on average.

Women are less likely to have full-time jobs with large companies so they are less likely to qualify for employer-based coverage. That puts them at the mercy of the very expensive individual insurance market where women are at a disadvantage because they earn less. Thanks to the fact that women earn 78 cents for every dollar a man brings home, they are poorer. Many of the policies on the individual insurance market, 71 percent of them according to one study, don't offer comprehensive maternity services at all.

And thanks to a practice known as gender rating, many women are essentially assessed an estrogen penalty when they sign up for health care coverage. Insurance companies are allowed to charge women more simply because they are women.

The legislation before us will close these disparities and correct these injustices. We should all be ashamed of a broken system that marginalizes more than half of our population. We have to stop putting health insurance company profits ahead of healthy American women. Let's answer history's call and pass health care reform.