[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 31 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1185-S1192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                EFFECTS OF H.R. 1 ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here representing 150 million women 
in the United States of America, and they are bewitched, bothered, and 
bewildered by what the Congress, particularly the House of 
Representatives, in H.R. 1, has done to women.
  Women all over America have to balance their family budgets, so they 
know our United States of America needs to get its fiscal act together. 
They also know we need to live in a more frugal time. They understand 
that. But what they do not understand is that in H.R. 1, with what the 
House did, the entire burden has come from a very limited amount in 
discretionary spending. When you take off defense, homeland security, 
women and children are actually thrown under the bus. Well, they are 
mad as hell, and they don't want to take it anymore. So the Democratic 
women today, in the hour we have been given, are going to lay out the 
consequences of what H.R. 1 means.
  Now, we in the Senate, and we, your appropriators--of which there are 
many women on the committee: Landrieu, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray--we 
know we have to bring about fiscal discipline. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee has already worked to reduce the 
appropriations in the Senate by $41 billion. Now that is really meat 
and potatoes. So we feel we have already given an option, but, my god, 
enough is enough.
  Let me give you just the top 10 reasons why H.R. 1 is bad for women 
and children and examine why we are ready to negotiate so we do not 
have a shutdown of the government. We need a final settlement on the 
budget for 2011.
  Let's just go through them. One, it defunds the entire health care 
reform law. That is bad for saving lives and saving money. It also 
eliminates title X family planning money. It jeopardizes breast cancer 
and cervical cancer screenings for more than 5 million low-income 
women. They even went after Head Start. Even little kids in Head Start 
had to take it on the chin. It is going to cause 218,000 children to be 
kicked off of it. But they go further. For the group who says they are 
pro family, family values, and that they have to defend life, yet they 
slash the nutrition programs for pregnant women by $747 million, 
affecting 10 million low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and 
children. They also cut funding for prenatal care, and they went after 
afterschool programs.
  They cut funding for Pell grants. They terminate funding that helps 
schools comply with title IX. They cut funding for job training, which 
hurts over 8 million workers, many of them getting new training for the 
new jobs for the new economy. And something very near and dear, I know, 
to the Presiding Officer: they went not after Social Security in terms 
of the benefits but went after the people who work at Social Security--
the Social Security offices where they work on everything from the 
regular Social Security benefit to the disability benefit. If H.R. 1 
passes, over 2,500 people at Social Security will be laid off. In my 
home State, they were out in the streets in front of the Social 
Security headquarters saying: What about us? We come every day. We give 
you the actuarial information on how to keep it solvent. We make sure 
checks are out there on time, and in snowstorms we are showing up to 
make sure everything works. But at the end of the day, we are going to 
be told we are nonessential.
  This whole nonessential drives me crazy because, ironically, Members 
of Congress are considered during a government shutdown. Well, if we 
are going to be essential, we need to get real about how we come to an 
agreement on this Continuing Resolution.
  So, Mr. President, we in the Senate feel we have given $41 billion 
already, and we think H.R. 1 just goes too far. It goes too far by 
leaving so many things off the table.
  Now I want to talk about health care reform. We had many goals during 
health care reform, one of which was to expand universal access. Again, 
the Presiding Officer has been a champion of that, a stalwart defender 
of the public option, and a stalwart defender of the single-payer 
system. As we worked on it and came up with a compromise, what was very 
clear was that there were certain things we just had to do. One was--
whether you were for the public option or not, whether you are for a 
single-payer system or the system

[[Page S1186]]

we have now--we knew we had to end the punitive practices of insurance 
companies.
  We knew in the health care reform bill we also had to improve quality 
measures that would actually save lives and save money. We also knew 
that if we had a strong preventive care benefit, we, once again, 
through early detection and screening, could minimize the cost to the 
insurance companies and the Federal budget and also the terrible cost 
to families who face all kinds of problems but particularly cancer. So 
that is why we passed the health care reform.
  Over in the House, they thought it was going to be really cool to 
say: We could repeal health care--remember, they said ``repeal and 
replace.'' They have only talked about repeal because they do not know 
how to replace. So they decided, through H.R. 1, to defund it, to take 
the money away. So let me just outline very quickly what we think it 
means to women and children.
  First of all, we ended gender discrimination by the insurance 
companies. Before we reformed health care, women were charged 40 
percent more in many instances for health care premiums as compared to 
men of comparable age and health care status--40 percent more. There 
was a gender tax of 40 percent put on by the insurance companies. We 
ended that.
  The second thing is that the insurance companies were treating simply 
being a woman as a preexisting condition. So we went to the floor, and 
with the great guys of the Senate we passed the preventive health care 
amendment. We wouldn't let them take our mammograms away from us. We 
also made sure our children could have early detection and screening in 
schools. And, because it is not about gender, it is about an agenda--we 
included men in these preventive health services as well.
  Now, if we agree to that element in H.R. 1, we will take away the 
preventive health care benefits. They guarantee coverage of preventive 
care and screenings, such as mammograms for women under 50. We cannot 
go back.
  It would also repeal the quality measures, such as the famous 
Pronovost checklist developed in Maryland by a Hopkins doc. When used 
at just Michigan hospitals alone, it is a simple, low-tech way to lower 
in-house infections in hospitals. In Michigan hospitals, it has saved 
2,000 lives and has saved the State $200 million each year.
  We can do this. There are so many things that are important in the 
health care reform bill. We cannot defund it.
  As we move ahead in what we hope will be a negotiation and a 
settlement, we, the women of the Senate, will not surrender the women 
and children of this country. We will not let them be thrown under the 
bus and run over by H.R. 1.
  Mr. President, I now yield the floor to one of our very able 
advocates, someone who has been a stalwart defender of childcare in our 
country, Senator Patty Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
being our fearless leader and making sure women have had a voice at the 
table for many years. I wish to thank her for leading this important 
debate and discussion today about how H.R. 1 will affect women and 
children in this country in a very dramatic and very troubling way.
  Since Wall Street came crashing down on Main Street, I have been very 
proud to work with so many of my colleagues on efforts to get our 
economy back on track and our workers back on the job. We all know we 
have a long way to go. So many families in our country today are 
fighting to stay in their homes. Small businesses are struggling to 
keep their doors open. Many of our workers are still trying desperately 
to find work or they stay up at night wondering what would happen to 
them and their families if they are the next ones to get a pink slip. 
So that is why I am so disappointed that at the very moment we need to 
be working together to invest in our future, cut spending responsibly, 
and support those American families, House Republicans have decided to 
take a slash-and-burn approach to the budget that would devastate our 
economy and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  While many Republicans came to this Congress this year promising to 
work with Democrats to focus on the economy, they have now chosen 
instead to push their extreme, antichoice agenda of a minority of 
Americans who want to go further than ever to restrict health care 
options for women and families. So I am here this afternoon with my 
women Senate colleagues to talk about that aspect of the budget 
proposal they sent to us because this assault on women's health will be 
truly devastating if it is acted, and this extreme agenda does 
nothing--nothing--to further our goals of getting our economy back on 
track.
  The House Republican-proposed budget they sent to us completely 
eliminates title X funding. That is funding for family planning and 
teen pregnancy prevention. And it includes an amendment that completely 
denies funding for Planned Parenthood. That is so wrong. It would be 
absolutely devastating for 3 million men and women across the country 
who depend on those services.
  I recently got a letter from a woman named Elizabeth. She lives in 
Bellingham, WA. She is 28 years old. Elizabeth told me she is 
uninsured, and she depends on her local Planned Parenthood for her 
annual checkups and for family planning. She told me that cervical and 
breast cancer run in her family, and she does not know what she and her 
husband would do if she was not able to access this care that Planned 
Parenthood provides.
  Elizabeth is not alone. I have received hundreds of letters just like 
hers, women telling me about the health care they got at Planned 
Parenthood and the critical services title X allows them to access.
  Title X supports cancer screenings, family planning, and preventive 
services for more than 5 million low-income men and women and families 
across this country. In my home State of Washington, more than 100,000 
patients who otherwise would not have access to care are able to 
receive treatment thanks to these services. The House Republican plan 
would devastate this for women, and honestly, it just does not make 
sense. In my home State alone, family planning services at title X-
funded health care centers prevent over 21,000 unintended pregnancies 
every year. Without these services, our States and the Federal 
Government would end up spending far more in services for low-income 
families over the long run. So cutting off these important programs 
would be wrong, and I am going to do everything I can to stop it right 
here in the Senate by fighting alongside my women colleagues.
  That is not all the House Republicans are proposing in their extreme 
budget. They want to slash nutrition programs for women and children by 
$747 million. That would end support for close to 10 million pregnant 
women, new moms, and infants in the country. That is not what we stand 
for.
  They want to cut funding for prenatal care by $50 million. That is 
going to jeopardize care for 2.5 million women and 31 million children. 
That is not what we stand for.
  They want to cut $39 million from the childcare and development block 
grant that would end the child support many low-income families need so 
the parents can go out and work and put food on the table. That is not 
what this country stands for.
  They want to slash $1 billion from Head Start. That not only cuts off 
comprehensive early childhood services for nearly 1 million children, 
but it puts tens of thousands of teachers and staff out of a job. Guess 
what. Most of them are women.
  The House antifamily agenda is wrong, and we are not going to stand 
for it. We do need to cut the budget. We do need to work together to 
bring down the deficit. But we are not going to do it on the backs of 
women and children. We are going to do it responsibly. We are going to 
do it right. I have said many times on this floor a budget is a 
statement of our values. It is a reflection of our priorities as a 
nation. I feel very strongly that we do need to work together to invest 
in our future and get our economy back on track, put people back to 
work, and make sure families get the support they need so they feel 
secure again. The House Republican spending fails to meet those goals. 
It

[[Page S1187]]

fails our women, it fails our families, it fails our communities, and 
it fails our Nation.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject the House Republican slash-and-burn 
approach on the backs of women and children and families and work with 
us to propose a responsible long-term budget reduction plan that 
reflects the values for which this country stands.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York, 
Mrs. Gillibrand. Although our newest Democratic Senator, she has been a 
strong advocate, and she is not new to being a strong advocate. I yield 
her 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her 
leadership.
  I rise today to join my colleagues and speak out about the failure 
that is taking place on the other side of Capitol Hill right now in the 
Republican-controlled House. The election last November was not a 
mandate for any one political party or extreme ideology. It was a 
mandate for action--for solutions that will create jobs and get our 
economy moving again. But rather than focusing on jobs and responsible 
budgeting, House Republicans have engaged in an all-out assault on the 
health and well-being of women, children, and families in America.
  The American people voted overwhelmingly for debate on economic 
solutions that will create jobs. That is what many of my colleagues and 
I have been trying to focus on during this Congress. But what are the 
House Republicans focused on? Not creating jobs, not creating ideas for 
how we are going to create economic growth, but undermining the health 
care rights of millions of American women and families.
  We have an undeniable job crisis on our hands and they are ignoring 
it. Unemployment is still far too high. Having a national rate of close 
to 10 percent means real unemployment is closer to 15 or 20 percent 
when we look at all of those who are underemployed, working less hours, 
or who are no longer looking for work. Twenty-two percent of our 
youngest veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are unemployed. 
That is more than one in five. What are they doing to address those 
problems?
  Rather than debating the solutions for how we create this economic 
growth or how we spur growth among small businesses and how we help our 
middle-class families, they are focused on degrading women's rights--
basic privileges and health care priorities and safety nets for the 
women and children who are most at risk in this country. They have 
shown a heinous disregard for the health and safety of women and young 
girls, and they have worked to undermine their ability to buy 
affordable, accessible health care.
  Republicans lament at length that government is too intrusive, too 
large, too overblown. But tell me: What is more intrusive than telling 
every woman in America that their decisions are going to be made in 
Congress, not by them, not by their doctors, not by their families?
  Let's look at the facts. The temporary budget bill that came out of 
the House slashes critical funding for prenatal care, that unbelievably 
important care when a woman is expecting. They have cut nearly $750 
million from nutrition programs for pregnant women and their children. 
They have cut access to lifesaving breast and cervical cancer 
screenings for more than 5 million American women. Their budget 
destroys early childhood education, taking nearly $1 billion from Head 
Start and nearly $40 million from childcare, robbing nearly 370,000 
American children of early childhood learning. They have even cut more 
than $2 billion from job training programs that we need to prepare 
America's workforce for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow.
  What kind of priorities does that demonstrate? It demonstrates a 
disregard for the future of this country--for our children, for our 
women, for their health, their well-being, their education, for job 
training, for the future. This debate is much more than about where the 
dollar figures lie. It is about what will happen to the women and 
children they are now disregarding.
  Let's look at the single mother who has two jobs and needs this 
support to feed her children. Let's look at the young women in every 
State of this country who will now get cancer because they were denied 
those precancer screenings. Let's look at the children who will never 
walk through the door of a university because they were denied access 
to the early childhood education that would have prepared them so that 
they could achieve their God-given potential.
  We cannot slash and burn our way to a healthy and growing economy. It 
is time these Members of the House get serious about economic growth, 
about our small businesses, creating access to lending, creating a tax 
policy that is going to create economic growth. Those are where the 
solutions lie, not undermining the health, well-being, and future of 
our women and our children and America's prosperity.
  I now yield the floor to my colleague from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski has asked that I control 
the time for our side, so I will stay on the Senate floor. What time 
does that time expire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 37\1/2\ more minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I am here today to speak out along with my colleagues 
for the women and children in our Nation who would be gravely harmed by 
the House budget, H.R. 1. I hope we get the chance to vote on that 
House budget because I think the American people need to look at what 
is going on with my Republican friends who are in charge of the House 
of Representatives.
  We all know we need to reduce the deficit, but we also know the right 
way to do it. We did it with President Bill Clinton. We did it with a 
mix of revenue-raisers and smart cuts, plus investments that paid 
dividends. We did it in such a way that we actually had a surplus at 
the end of the day, and 23 million new jobs.
  When George W. Bush took over, the surplus was gone and the job 
creation was gone. Compared to 23 million new jobs, under President 
George W. Bush there were 1 million jobs created, and he left us with 
soaring deficits and the deepest recession since the Great Depression. 
That is the story. It has a beginning, a middle, and we are about to 
write the end.
  I will be honest. I will stand with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who are willing to fight for the people of this country and 
the middle class of this country.
  According to leading experts, the budget bill, H.R. 1, would destroy 
700,000 jobs, hurt our families, and, to me--this is my personal 
opinion--it looks as though they have a political vendetta against 
women, children, and a healthy environment on which they rely because 
they need to breathe clean air and drink clean water. All of this is on 
the chopping block in the House.
  Let's look at the title X family planning program. It is zeroed out. 
It is zeroed out in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget. What does 
title X do? Title X provides contraceptive services for 4.7 million 
women nationwide, almost 5 million women nationwide. It helps prevent 
almost 1 million unintended pregnancies. Now, here are my friends on 
the other side joining with us. We are all saying let's make sure we 
cut down on the number of abortions. What is one proven way to do it? 
Contraception. They would prevent almost 1 million people from getting 
that kind of service.
  Planned Parenthood operates 800 health care centers nationwide. I 
know my colleagues are very aware of health centers. They provide 
720,000 breast exams nationwide, 730,000 pap tests. What does this 
mean? Hundreds of thousands of women just in California, and millions 
nationwide, go to Planned Parenthood to make sure they don't have 
breast cancer, they don't have cervical cancer, they don't have an STD, 
they don't have AIDS. And if, God forbid, it turns out they have any of 
these things, they can get treated. Without this, they are in deep 
trouble. Everyone in America knows early detection is where it is at. 
So if I said the impact of the Republican budget would mean more 
abortions, more breast cancer, more cervical cancer, more STDs,

[[Page S1188]]

more AIDS left untreated, that is not hyperbole. It is not an 
understatement. That is a fact.
  I wish to talk about Nicole Sandoval from Pasadena, CA. She wrote to 
me and said: Please support Planned Parenthood because--by the way, our 
colleagues eliminate Planned Parenthood getting $1 of Federal funding. 
What are they implying? That the funds are used for abortion services. 
That is an outright lie. Since the 1970s, the Hyde amendment has said 
not one penny of Federal funds may be used for providing abortions, so 
they know that is an untruth. Yet they let it hang out there. The money 
Planned Parenthood gets is for just what I said: cancer prevention, 
sexually transmitted disease prevention, and contraception.
  So what does Nicole say? She was 23 years old. She had no insurance. 
Planned Parenthood was there for her and caught her cervical cancer 
early enough to save her life. So I stand with Nicole Sandoval.
  I am here to stand with Leah Garrard from Torrance. She wrote to me 
about a horrific incident in which a member of her family was raped. 
This young woman went to Planned Parenthood. She didn't know where else 
to go. She wrote and said: Planned Parenthood directed her family 
member to a local hospital, got in touch with the local sexual assault 
nurse examiner, and contacted her family to come and take care of her. 
Had her family member not gone to Planned Parenthood, she truly, she 
wrote, would not have survived that experience. I stand with Leah and 
her family and with Planned Parenthood.
  Zero out Planned Parenthood? Where are we going? We are certainly not 
going forward. We are going backward. I remember the years when George 
Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Planned 
Parenthood is a bipartisan operation. If you walk in the door, they 
don't ask whether you are a Democrat, Republican, registered voter, or 
who you are. You get taken care of, and the community is healthier.
  Now, in the remaining time I wish to talk about the attack on the 
environment in which women and children have to live. The attack on the 
Environmental Protection Agency is the biggest cut of any agency in the 
Federal Government by our Republican friends over in the House.
  Seventy percent of the American people say the Environmental 
Protection Agency should do its job. Sixty-nine percent think the EPA 
should update EPA Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution 
limits. Sixty-eight percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from 
enforcing Clean Air Act standards.
  Sixty-nine percent believe that EPA scientists--not Congress--should 
set pollution standards. Look at this. In this tough time, when the 
country is divided, almost 70 percent of our people say leave EPA 
alone. But, no, our Republican friends whack that agency by one-third--
billions of dollars--and not only that, instruct that agency with 
riders telling them they can't enforce air pollution standards for 
soot. We know what happens when you are exposed to soot. We are looking 
at other exposures as well--small particulate matter which gets into 
our lungs and is lodged in our lungs.
  They say we can't look at cement manufacturing and go after the 
mercury that comes out of those stacks--the mercury and arsenic. Do we 
think the American people want dirtier air? Is that what the election 
was about? I just came out of a tough election. I have to tell you that 
not one person ever came up to me and said: Please, I want more soot. I 
need more smog. It is missing out of my life. Oh my God, when my kids 
drink water, I want them to get contaminated.
  Forget it. That is not what the election was about. It was about 
jobs, jobs, jobs. OK. Let's look at a photo of a child who pays the 
price when the air is dirty. Children's exposure to air pollution 
worsens asthma attacks and causes lost days at school, emergency room 
visits, and for older people, it causes heart attacks, stroke, cancer, 
and premature death. According to the American Lung Association--and we 
have another picture--asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases 
in children. It affects 7 million children. Here is a photo of another 
beautiful baby. I am showing you this as a grandma. I am going to take 
another 2 minutes and then turn it over to Senator Shaheen.
  Look at this picture, this face. Look at those eyes. I wish to say to 
our friends in the House, what are you doing? You are throwing women 
and children under the bus. You are throwing the middle class under the 
bus. I, for one, am going to tell the truth. During my campaign, people 
would say: What are you going to do to win? How are you going to win? I 
said: I have a secret plan. I am going to tell the truth. I am going to 
just lay it out there.
  Look, the truth is, EPA released a new report that was asked for by 
Congress. Congress demanded to know the benefit of the clean air law. 
They said that, in 2010 alone, 160,000 cases of premature deaths were 
avoided. Can you believe that? They want to turn all this back. The 
American Lung Association says H.R. 1 is toxic to the public health. 
They say it would result in millions of Americans, including kids, 
seniors, and people with chronic disease, such as asthma, being forced 
to breathe air that is unhealthy. It can cause asthma, heart attacks, 
strokes, cancer, and shorten lives.
  A Republican President set up the EPA--a Republican President--
Richard Nixon. What are you doing over there? I already said that 
George Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. 
Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. They don't either seem to have 
a sense of history or they have moved so far away from some of the 
proud traditions of their party that they have lost total touch.
  In closing, we have to stop this war against women and against 
children. We are going to have to stop this war against the 
environment. We are going to come forward with deficit reduction that 
will equal what they do, but we will do it in a way that doesn't hurt 
job creation and doesn't hurt our kids, our families, and the 
environment we all depend upon.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the devastating 
impact that H.R. 1, the House Republican continuing resolution, would 
have on women, children, and families nationwide.
  House Republicans would eliminate the $317 million title X Family 
Planning Program, which provides critical health care services to over 
5 million Americans each year, including 1.2 million in California.
  House Republicans would also exclude Planned Parenthood, which serves 
over 2.9 million women annually, from Federal funds. These services 
provide necessary preventive health care including: contraceptive 
services, education, cancer screening, annual exams, STD and HIV 
testing, smoking cessation, flu vaccines, and well baby care.
  It is ironic for people who do not believe in abortion to propose 
these cuts, when in fact, through family planning, contraception, and 
education, title X programs prevented 406,000 abortions nationwide in 
2008 alone; 83,600 of those were prevented in California. So by cutting 
these programs, the numbers of unplanned pregnancies and abortions will 
increase.
  How does this make sense? These cuts are not about deficit reduction. 
They are biased, politically motivated cuts that will result in 
increased Federal spending. These cuts hurt women. In California alone, 
these programs helped save $581 million in public funds in 2008.
  Nationwide, title-X supported family planning centers saved taxpayers 
$3.4 billion in 2008. Every dollar invested in helping women avoid 
unintended pregnancies is estimated to save taxpayers $4.02. Some might 
not think these programs are important, but I judge they are.
  In the past 3 weeks alone, I have received 28,000 letters urging me 
to oppose eliminating title X and Planned Parenthood.
  Over 153,000 Californians have signed a petition to express their 
opposition towards defunding Planned Parenthood.
  I have heard from uninsured college students, who only make $10,000 a 
year and cannot afford basic preventive care without title X and 
Planned Parenthood.
  I have heard from outraged constituents who point out title X family 
planning programs have been in place since

[[Page S1189]]

1970, and have provided cancer screening, annual exams, and prenatal 
care for millions of women.
  I have heard from young women who went to Planned Parenthood for STD 
screening and birth control, when they had no other place to go. Half 
of all pregnancies in the United States every year--about 3 million 
pregnancies--are unplanned.
  I have heard from women pleading with me to preserve Federal funding 
to Planned Parenthood; telling me that the cancer screenings they 
received saved their lives. I have heard from women all over my State, 
whose primary source of health care is a women's health center like 
Planned Parenthood.
  Eliminating this funding will also cause a rise in another epidemic: 
teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy costs taxpayers an estimated $9.1 
billion annually. Without title X programs in California, teen 
pregnancy levels would have been almost 40 percent greater.
  House Republicans would also eliminate the $110 million Teen 
Pregnancy Prevention Program, which has the potential to serve 800,000 
teens by 2014. In California, the estimated cost from teen pregnancy to 
taxpayers in 2004 was at least $896 million. From 1991-2004, unintended 
teen births in California cost taxpayers a total of $17.3 billion.
  California has managed, through programs like the Teen Pregnancy 
Prevention Program, to reduce the rate of teen birth in the State by 46 
percent from 1991 to 2004. This saved California taxpayers an estimated 
$1.1 billion in 2004 alone. The House Republicans plan to slash funding 
all but guarantees the rate of teen pregnancy will go up, and costs for 
taxpayers will increase.
  Almost 9 in 10 adults believe there should be direct efforts in 
communities to prevent teen pregnancy. Once again, this is not about 
deficit reduction; it is about harming women's health, and taking away 
comprehensive education.
  House Republicans would also cut $1.3 billion from Community Health 
Centers, which is 45.8 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels. Community 
Health Centers serve over 20 million patients nationwide, who otherwise 
cannot receive care.
  Almost one-third of patients are women of childbearing age, 37 
percent are age 19 and under, and 13 percent are children under 6. 
Ninety two percent of this patient population is low income, meaning 
they may not have anywhere else to go. With these cuts, 11 million 
patients are at risk of losing access to primary and preventive care 
provided by these health centers.
  In California, almost 458,000 patients would immediately lose access 
to care, and $31.8 million in funding would be immediately lost. By 
defunding the health reform law, House Republicans block critical 
consumer protections in the law.
  The health reform law will decrease costs for everyone, but 
particularly for women who have been charged more for insurance, simply 
because of gender. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women 
higher premiums than they charge men. Additionally, the medical loss 
ratio requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 or 85 percent 
of premium dollars on actual medical care, not on profits. With these 
and other benefits in the law, women make great strides towards 
equality in the insurance market.
  The House Republicans plan would allow women to be charged more for 
insurance than men, and prohibit enforcement of this medical loss ratio 
requirement. This would allow insurance companies to discriminate 
against women, charging more for health premiums simply because of 
gender, while companies continue to rake in enormous profits.
  The assault on women's health from Republicans in the House is 
astounding to me. Obliterating family planning services that have been 
around for 40 years, slashing teen pregnancy prevention, prohibiting 
funds for primary health services is nothing short of irresponsible.
  We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, 
but those cuts can't be politically motivated and they shouldn't put us 
at risk of another recession. I do not support any biased cuts that 
harm women and children.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is my honor to yield to Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
leadership. I thank Senator Mikulski for the work she has done to 
organize us this afternoon, to point out just what is being proposed by 
our colleagues in the other Chamber.
  We need to address our long-term deficit. We all know that. We need 
to make some hard choices to balance the budget. But there is a right 
way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to first look at 
things such as eliminating the billions of dollars in duplicative 
programs that were identified just this week by the GAO. The wrong way 
is to address the deficit by doing what our colleagues in the House did 
when they slashed funding for services that are critical to middle-
class families and our future prosperity.
  The House Republican budget cuts include a $1.1 billion cut to Head 
Start and childcare. This is money that is critical to so many working 
families in New Hampshire and across the country. Let me put it into 
perspective. A cut this size would mean that nationally over 200,000 
children would be kicked out of Head Start and an additional 360,000 
children would lose childcare opportunities.
  I have three daughters and seven grandchildren. So I understand, like 
so many mothers do, how difficult it is to juggle work and family 
obligations. I appreciate how important it is for working parents to 
understand that their children are being supervised by quality 
caregivers. I also understand that a working parent can be a productive 
member of the workforce only when they know their children are safe.
  When I was Governor, we asked for a report to be done on childcare in 
New Hampshire. We found in that report that there is a direct result 
between quality childcare and the productivity of their parents in the 
workforce. Childcare is expensive. Quality childcare can easily top 
$10,000 per child per year--an amount that is out of reach for so many 
working families who are trying to make ends meet--especially in this 
economy.
  The unemployment rate in this country is 9 percent. We should be 
putting our focus on creating jobs today and helping to build a strong 
workforce for the future. The proposed budget that the House 
Republicans have done would do the opposite.
  Research shows that the quality care and early childhood development 
is critical to preparing our children for tomorrow's jobs. We know that 
the first 5 years are the most important in the development of a 
child's brain. During these years, children develop their cognitive, 
social, emotional, and language skills that form a solid foundation for 
their lives.
  Economists point to the strong return on investment we get for 
intervention early in life. For every $1 we spend on quality early 
learning, we return up to $17. These same experts cite an increase in 
productivity, workforce readiness, and in graduation rates among 
children who are in quality early childhood programs. In addition, they 
have also found out that for those children there is a decrease in 
special education, crime rates, welfare dependency, and in other 
behavioral problems.
  One of the things that made me aware of this direct relationship was 
going to my first Governors' conference after I got elected. I heard a 
presentation on brain development. The presenter showed that the brain 
scan of a child who had quality early learning looked very different 
than the brain scan of those children who did not. They showed a graph 
that demonstrated that the way a child's brain develops is inversely 
proportional to our investment. In other words, we are making the 
smallest investments in the years when it would make the most impact on 
how a child develops. This made such an impression on me that I went 
back home to New Hampshire and focused so much of my time as Governor 
on the importance of early learning.
  When I became chair of the education commission of the State in my 
second term as Governor, this became the top priority for me and for 
ECS. There is no doubt--and we can look at all the

[[Page S1190]]

data--that helping working families afford quality childhood care and 
education programs has immediate and long-term benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the shortsighted, reckless cuts that 
have been made in the House Republican budget and, instead, invest in 
our future and the future of our children and families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. I yield 5 
minutes to Senator Kay Hagan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I also rise to speak for women and 
children across this country but especially in North Carolina.
  Prenatal and postnatal maternal care translates into healthy moms and 
healthy families.
  Children who receive regular well-child visits to their doctors and 
recommended immunizations live healthier lives. They can go to school 
and just be kids.
  But the House-passed continuing resolution for the remainder of 
fiscal year 2011 makes draconian cuts to community health centers and 
the title V maternal child health block grant--two programs that are 
vital in reducing maternal and child mortality.
  If these cuts go through, nearly 4 and a half million women and 
children under age 6 are at risk of losing care.
  Consider that community health centers account for 17.2 percent of 
all low-income births, but prenatal patients at health centers are less 
likely to give birth to low birth weight babies compared to their 
counterparts nationally. It is because they are getting good prenatal 
care.
  Moreover, rates of vaccination among children receiving regular care 
at a health center are uniformly higher than those of children with 
another source of care.
  With the House-proposed cuts, pregnant women and children, who rely 
on community health centers for care, will be left with literally 
nowhere to turn for health care.
  By slashing $50 million in funding from the maternal child health 
block grant program, the House bill would dramatically curtail services 
to the 35 million women and children across this country, including the 
nearly half a million women and children in North Carolina who receive 
such services as newborn hearing screenings and postnatal care.
  In North Carolina, infants born to minorities are twice as likely to 
die as those born to Caucasians. However, the Healthy Beginnings 
Program is working to reverse infant mortality and low birth weights 
among minorities in North Carolina.
  Healthy Beginnings provides case management, general health 
education, and other support for at-risk women throughout their 
pregnancy and until their child turns two. In 3 years, this initiative 
reduced infant mortality by 60 percent in participating communities.
  Also, early detection of permanent hearing loss is essential for 
children to progress at age-appropriate rates.
  Research shows that by the time a child with hearing loss graduates 
from high school, more than $400,000 per child can be saved in special 
education costs if the child is identified early and given appropriate 
educational, medical, and audiological services.
  The North Carolina Early Hearing Detection and Intervention, EHDI, 
Program was established in 1999 as part of the State's title V Maternal 
and Child Health Program.
  Since the establishment of the EHDI Program, there has been a 
remarkable increase in the percentage of infants screened in the State. 
All neonatal facilities in North Carolina offer initial newborn hearing 
screening prior to infant discharge.
  In 2009, 96 percent of infants completed newborn hearing screening--
about 100,000; 450 children receive hearing aids or cochlear implants 
annually through a contract funded by the maternal and child health 
block grant.
  I heard from three families in North Carolina--all whose children 
failed the screening tests. Their stories were heartwrenching as they 
described their hours-old babies not being able to hear their parents' 
first words to them.
  But in all three families, the hearing loss was detected as part of 
the newborn screening, and the North Carolina EHDI program immediately 
provided them with followup and hearing aids or cochlear implants. As a 
result of these programs, in each of these families, the child is ahead 
of their peers verbally.

  These are just two critical programs that are funded by the title V 
maternal and child health block grant. As we can see, these are not 
just statistics but real women and kids and families who benefit from 
this important program.
  I strongly believe we have to work together to get our country back 
on solid fiscal ground. I am very much concerned about it and want to 
work on it. But the path we are on is obviously unsustainable. In fact, 
I was one of the Senators who advocated for the creation of the Bowles-
Simpson fiscal commission. But our fiscal challenges require a 
thoughtful bipartisan solution that gets us on the right track and 
encourages economic growth. These cuts are simply counterproductive. We 
cannot balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's future--our 
children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hagan for her remarks. She 
is one of the leaders in the Senate in finding solutions to the deficit 
that do not kill jobs and do deficit reduction in the right way. I 
thank her.
  She made the point that when we attack kids and pregnant women, at 
the end of the day it is morally reprehensible, but in addition to that 
it costs money. That point was made beautifully.
  It is an honor to yield 10 minutes to a great colleague, Senator 
Maria Cantwell from Washington State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
her leadership and her articulation on the floor earlier about the 
rider that is on H.R. 1 that would undo what the Supreme Court said EPA 
should do, which is to make sure the Clean Air Act is enforced.
  I thought the comments of the Senator from California about no one in 
California telling her they wanted more smog was a very profound 
statement because that is what people are saying when they try to do a 
rider: EPA, do not enforce the law the Supreme Court told you to 
enforce. It is as if they are jamming down small children across the 
country air and air quality that is something less than sufficient. We 
know that. We know that because it is based on science. That is what 
EPA has said, and that is what the Supreme Court has said they should 
enforce. Yet here we are, in the middle of all of this, the solution to 
our economy is to have a rider on legislation basically saying: Do not 
enforce what the Supreme Court says is the Clean Air Act.
  I thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this issue.
  I come to the floor to join my other colleagues because I think the 
American people sent a clear message. They want us to focus on creating 
jobs, promoting innovation, and putting people back to work. That is 
what we are trying to do in the Senate.
  But in the House, the Republicans seem to be saying: Let's cut 
programs and vital services to working women and families, and somehow 
that will generate economic growth. Instead of creating jobs, all they 
have done is launched a war on women.
  H.R. 1 would eliminate funding for title X, which would provide 
health services, including family planning, breast and cervical cancer 
screenings, and other preventive health care. This certainly would 
impact low-income women. It does not create jobs. There is nothing in 
what I just said with regard to these cuts that would create jobs. How 
are jobs created out of cutting those services? It is actually an 
attack on access to health care. When we do not have healthy people, I 
guarantee you, Mr. President, we end up with bad economic consequences.
  The bill also cuts funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and 
funding for Planned Parenthood centers that serve more than 3 million 
women each year, jeopardizing, again, access to critical preventive 
health services.
  Just in the State of Washington, we have 39 centers and serve over 
130,000

[[Page S1191]]

patients annually and administer over 170,000 tests for sexually 
transmitted infections. One of my constituents was diagnosed at age 22 
with abnormal cell growth on her cervix wall. She went to a Planned 
Parenthood clinic. Why? Because she did not have health insurance. In 
fact, quoting her, she said:

       I would not have scheduled an annual exam on my own. 
     Without Planned Parenthood, I may have died or lost my 
     ability to have children in the future. . . . Aside from 
     these personal effects, as an uninsured student, I would have 
     been a huge financial burden to my family and my community.

  There it is. Planned Parenthood has been effective in preventing over 
40,000 pregnancies and diverting $160 million back to the State, which 
we need in these tough economic times.
  Instead of supporting women and families so they can be productive 
parts of our economy, Republicans are continuing to turn the clock back 
on hard-fought access to healthy services and attacking a woman's right 
to choose. Their proposal would deny women using flexible spending 
accounts, from using pretax dollars for insurance to cover a wide range 
of reproductive choices; deny small businesses their tax credits if 
they choose employee health coverage that includes reproductive health 
care; and would disallow tax deductions for health insurance for the 
self-employed if the insurance included reproductive health care.
  The Republican answer to the economy is attack reproductive health 
care? It seems to me that these proposals are just about attacking the 
most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly where they would 
have an impact on services for the elderly, including meals, housing, 
and employment services.
  Women comprise two-thirds of our elderly, and they would be harmed 
most by these cuts. For example, in 2009, 25 percent of all families 
with children were female head of households, and 78 percent of mothers 
with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the labor force. 
That is a big percentage. Therefore, cutting programs that support 
working mothers, such as job training, childcare, education, and health 
care will impact those families' ability to be productive members of 
our economy.
  I personally do not understand why in the world at this point in 
time, with this high unemployment rate, we would ever cut job training 
programs. I can tell you, I travel the State of Washington and I 
constantly hear, even in these hard economic times, employers who 
cannot find the workforce they need to do the jobs. When one thinks 
about that, when a company cannot find the workforce it needs because 
there is a skills gap, that is holding that company back from producing 
higher revenues, from meeting their goals, and from adding stimulus to 
the economy, all because they cannot find the workforce.
  Yet we in the Senate are trying to promote workforce training and to 
have programs that have been tested successes, such as the Workforce 
Investment Act. For every dollar invested by the Workforce Investment 
Act, it is $10 in stimulating our economy. It is a 1-to-10 ratio. Why 
would we cut such a program?
  In Washington State, our local WorkSource Centers have helped over 78 
percent of job seekers find jobs. It is a high percentage of helping 
people and placing them.
  I look at the example of this big decision on Boeing winning the 
refueling tanker decision. Here we are with 11,000 jobs in Washington 
State and a supply chain that is going to also have more jobs created. 
Yet if we do not make an investment in workforce investment that supply 
chain will not be able to find the people to fill those jobs to help 
fulfill this contract. Something as big as a $35 billion contract we 
are involved in because it is the Department of Defense, and yet at the 
same time the Republicans in the House are saying: Let's cut the 
Workforce Investment Act--even though we know we have a plane to 
deliver, even though we know it has a military purpose we support, and 
we are going to say let's cut programs because somehow that is going to 
make our economy healthier.

  I can give an example. General Plastics would not have been able to 
keep its current staff level or grow its business in the past year 
without the help of workforce investment dollars. They were in partner 
with Tacoma Community College and trained a workforce in improvement 
techniques that allowed the company to streamline its production and 
grow its business effectively.
  In the last year, they grew 10 to 15 percent and became more 
competitive. They also added about 22 new employees because of 
additional new business.
  These are programs that would be cut by the proposal in H.R. 1 that 
the House Republicans are trying to push. I do not think it would 
improve our economy. I think it would stall what is a very fragile 
recovery. Workforce development is economic development, and when 
people are trained and skilled, the employers get what they need, the 
community prospers, and everybody truly wins--what the President has 
called for in winning the future.
  We need to make sure that we in the Senate stand and say no to these 
cuts, such as in the Workforce Investment Act, in family health, cuts 
in the Pell Grant Program which would be cut by more than $800 per 
student or Head Start or Early Start that, again, would impact 
thousands of children in Washington State.
  In addition, we should not cut what are the healthy elements of our 
economy but make sure we are helping women and families do what will 
help them survive and help them help us with economic recovery.
  I know some people think this is the way to get our economy going 
again. But I can tell my colleagues, our economy certainly hit the 
iceberg in 2008. But what H.R. 1 does, instead of saying women and 
children first, they are basically cutting them off the lifeline they 
need and cutting off what are essential programs to help us grow jobs 
and have a healthy economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after consulting with my friends, Senator 
Collins and Senator Sessions, I give Senator Lautenberg until 6 minutes 
after the hour and then add 6 minutes to the time of the Republicans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope it is noted that I stand here 
as a male Member with my colleagues who comprise a significant part of 
the women Members of the Senate. They do the mothering, they do the 
family raising, but it is pretty obvious to all of us that fathers and 
grandfathers have an active interest in what happens with our children, 
what it takes to make sure they grow up healthy, that they grow up with 
the tools they will need in their future lives for them to contribute 
to themselves, their families, and the country at large.
  What we are witnessing in America today is an assault by House 
Republicans in trying to ram through a reckless, unhealthy spending 
plan that will ultimately bring shame to our country as it causes pain 
for little children who come from families who do not have the means, 
who do not have the stability of family life, in many cases, that will 
give them an opportunity to establish themselves with a cycle that will 
bring them to successful lives later on, to be able to hold jobs of 
significance and create a family environment.
  It is hard when we look at this to figure out the mission. I come 
from the business community. I have been here a lot of years--27--but I 
spent 30 years in the business community. I learned something about 
financial statements. I learned you have to sometimes cut costs here or 
there and that sometimes you have to make investments so you can expand 
your business, you can make it more competitive.
  As we look at the plan that is being offered, to cut, cut, cut, it 
causes us to rethink what is taking place, to think outside the box, as 
they say. There is a lot of applause for cutting costs. There is a 
whole group of people in the House of Representatives who have targets 
for cost cutting that will leave America without the tools in the 
future to remain competitive and to remain a place where great things 
can happen. Why is that? A lot of it is because they are cutting 
education programs--Head Start, for one thing.

  I think every Senator ought to pledge to take a trip through a Head 
Start facility and see what it is like.

[[Page S1192]]

See what it is like when you have children, even 1 and 2 years old, in 
the early Head Start Program or 3, 4 and 5 in the full Head Start 
Program. See the enthusiasm that exists with these children.
  I have an indication of that here--this card. It was Valentines Day 
when I went to the city of Perth Amboy. Oddly enough, Perth Amboy is 
where the first signature on the Bill of Rights was made, in New 
Jersey--the Bill of Rights. Here is an opportunity that is certainly a 
right, to be able to learn. I get notes from these children--
flattering, by the way, and not because of my looks. They say:

       Dear Representatives: We love coming to school. We learn 
     languages. We can be scientists. We can be artists. We can be 
     authors and illustrators. We are lifetime learners.

  Here they talk in less precise handwriting about how nice it is to be 
able to come to school. The design of this makes it a little tougher 
presentation:

       Dear Mr. Representative: We love our preschool class. We 
     learn to write. We explore science. We explore changing 
     things in the world. We love to be here in school.

  We love it when they are there because we know that not only are 
their lives going to be improved substantially, but also they are going 
to be contributing citizens to the society we live in.
  So this is amazing and often neglected. I asked for some indication 
of what happens at Head Start. But let me say, first of all, all those 
children are beautiful. I never saw so many beautiful children in my 
life. I am a professional grandfather. I have 13 grandchildren. My wife 
brought 3 to the marriage and I had 10. There is nothing like seeing a 
1\1/2\-year-old learning, a 2-year-old learning.
  What we have found is that by the age of 1, most children begin 
linking words to meanings. They understand the names used to label 
familiar objects--body parts, arms, legs, animals, and people. At about 
18 months, they add new words to their vocabulary at the astounding 
rate of one every 2 hours. By age 2, most children have a vocabulary of 
several hundred words and can form simple sentences, such as ``Go 
outdoors'' or the traditional ``All gone.'' Between 24 to 30 months, 
children speak in longer sentences, and from 30 to 36 months kids can 
usually recite the alphabet and count from 1 to 10. The fact is, they 
are learning something.
  By kindergarten, kids are beginning to turn the pages of the book, 
and they start learning to read by about 5 years of age. There is a 
real reward for the country when they do that. Our society receives 
nearly $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in Head Start children. It 
leads to an increase in achievement and lots of good things.
  I learned a little bit the hard way about what Head Start means when 
I and a business partner of mine went back to a school we went to as 
kids. We went to the sixth grade and offered a scholarship program to 
youngsters in the sixth grade to pick up a large part of their college 
tuition. For 28 young people in our class, we would contribute toward a 
large part of their college tuition if they were accepted at any one of 
30 colleges picked at random. We had counselors, and we brought them 
down here. I was able to take them on a visit to the White House, where 
Vice President Dan Quayle was very generous with his time, and I took 
them to the company I was running so they could see.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). All time dedicated to the 
majority has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, you say there is no time left on our 
side for a presentation?
  I will wrap this up very quickly, if I might. Just a couple words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator continuing?
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if the Senator is truly going to wrap 
it up, I don't object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague and friend from Maine.
  Very simply, we now see what the problem was. We analyzed it 
thoroughly. The problem was we started too late. In the sixth grade, it 
was too late to get a learning habit. Now we see these little tots and 
how quickly they are learning, how quickly they talk, and how quickly 
they adapt.
  These children will suffer the pain created by Republicans' cuts--and 
shame on us if we don't stop them. You have to wonder why children are 
their No. 1 target? Did children cause the financial crisis? Were Head 
Start kids engaging in credit default swaps with mortgage-backed 
securities?
  You have to wonder if House Republicans think this is the case. They 
want to decimate Head Start by cutting its funding by $1 billion. If 
they have their way, roughly one-quarter of all children in Head Start 
will be kicked out of the program. This includes 3,700 kids in my State 
of New Jersey, like the kids at the Head Start Center I visited last 
week and the kids who sent these Valentines Day cards. How can we tell 
these children: Forget about getting a head start. You must go to the 
back of the line.
  The fact is, the House Republican budget will poison our future. 
Their prescription for America's kids is toxic. If we want our country 
to succeed, we must invest in its future--and that means protecting and 
inspiring our children. So let's reject shame and pain. Let's reject 
the disastrous House Republican budget plan. Let's invest in our kids 
and win the future. Our country's children deserve nothing less.
  Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine for the courtesy, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________