Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the whole Nation desperately needs health care reform, but no group of Americans needs it more than women, women who face discrimination and insult at the hands of the broken status quo. 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. And most unbelievably of all, insurance companies can legally turn their backs on women who have 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 insurance company profits ahead of healthy American women. It's time for women to no longer be a preexisting condition. Pass the health care bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. After listening to 14 women come down here and speak for 5 minutes on why it is so important that being a woman is not a preexisting condition as a part of our health care system, and to change that--and to change it this weekend when we vote on the health care reform bills--I want to tell you I love women. We are so fortunate to have such an amazing group of Democratic women in the House of Representatives, and I thank every one of them for having come down here to speak and to represent their districts, womanhood, and, as Gwen Moore just said, humanity in general. We're on our way. Tonight, we're going to have a Special Order. We may take an hour; we may not. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois has joined us. Corrine Brown from Florida has joined us. Others have said they're coming, but I think we may have taken a little bit more time on our 5-minute Special Orders than had been planned. So I think we should start our conversation with Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, who was down here last evening talking about senior women.

Ms. WOOLSEY. The gentlewoman from Florida is here with ideas and thoughts, and I would like very much to hear them.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, thank you very much.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Twenty-six years old.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And something else, if the gentlewoman will yield. If that young person is employed, the employer cannot insist that the young person go on their plan because, you know, young people make plans cheaper because they don't get sick as often as older folks. So the young person can choose--if the parents agree--to be on the parents' plan, even if they're employed.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, for children, after 6 months, there will be no such thing as a preexisting condition. But I believe it's in 2014 that preexisting conditions will not be allowed for any coverage, including group plan coverage.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Or if you get sick.

Ms. WOOLSEY. To the Congresswoman from California, would you like to respond?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, thank you for your input.

Ms. WOOLSEY. A perfect beginning. And one of the reasons that women will be able to afford health care in low-wage jobs is the exchange that will be provided in the health care bill. Women will be able to select from a group of health care plans the best plan that will service them, because, I mean, even if they could afford health care, not all businesses provide health care. Many will be able to after this bill is passed. All right. So a woman gets a catalog of what's available in her area. We call it an exchange. She chooses her plan. And if that plan is more expensive than she can afford, which it probably will be if she's on low wages, then this bill provides subsidies for that person so that the low-wage worker is subsidized. What a difference that will make.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Or they lose their job, and then they have no insurance.

Ms. WOOLSEY. You are right. It's by providing health care for everybody and helping those who can't afford it and helping small businesses who find it very difficult to provide health care for their workers, helping them bridge the gap between what it costs and what they can afford. Let's talk about the argument that we hear that many people think we should hold out for the perfect plan that this isn't, and we know it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, and some people believe that because they have coverage that they don't have to worry about it. Well, I'm telling you, everybody has to worry. Retired folks, their retirement plans are cutting back. Individuals with really nice, high-paying jobs are finding out even their employers are cutting back.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, the entire Nation is counting on us to pass comprehensive health care reform. We know that. There's no question about it. The millions who have no coverage at all desperately need this legislation. But as we just said, so too do those Americans who are insured and are being squeezed out by outrageous premiums. And businesses that are less profitable because they are buckling under the weight of high health care costs are strapped, and it keeps them from being able to invest in innovation, as Jan said. And individuals cannot innovate when they're handcuffed to their health care policy. But above all, American women need us to do the right thing this week and to overhaul the health care system because it is in ways both overt and beneath the radar. This current system--and we've heard it over and over and over tonight--discriminates against women.