[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H806-H811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SEQUESTRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, we've heard over the last 
several days numerous speakers who have spoken quite eloquently about 
the impact of sequestration on their communities and their constituents 
across this country; and I daresay there are many Americans who have no 
idea what sequestration is. But they will come to know, Mr. Speaker, 
exactly what sequestration is when they figure out that of the range of 
programs and services that impact them and their communities, the 
Federal Government is taking a step backwards because of Republicans' 
failure to bring forward a balanced approach to dealing with our 
budget. In fact, we've just been moving from one crisis to the next 
crisis.
  Today, in this House Chamber, we did something very special. We 
passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which was 
first passed in 1994 and had enjoyed bipartisan support up until 
recently. We ended up passing the Senate version of the Violence 
Against Women Act which, frankly, we could have done about a year and a 
half ago but for failure in this House Chamber.
  In passing the Violence Against Women Act, we, on the one hand, 
provided for authorizing funds to support shelters, services, and 
programs for victims of domestic violence, many of them women, all 
across this country. And on the other hand, March 1 sequestration looms 
and, in fact, is happening, and we take away with one hand what we've 
provided with the other under the Violence Against Women Act that was 
just reauthorized today by a bipartisan vote with overwhelming support 
from Democrats. But tomorrow, $29 million will be cut from the very 
shelters and programs that we authorized today.
  Six million women all across this country face domestic violence, and 
yet the programs and services that they depend on from the Federal 
Government will be ripped away in a sledgehammer approach--across-the-
board cuts, arbitrary cuts to the budget beginning on March 1.
  Workers and families all across this country have truly grown weary 
of watching this and past Congresses create and kick down the road 
fiscal disaster after fiscal disaster. Sequestration is going to rattle 
our very still-recovering economy and take an axe hammer to so many 
agencies and programs that are struggling to meet their work loads to 
deliver services for the American people.

                              {time}  1300

  Sequestration is estimated to lower the U.S. economic output by $287 
billion.
  In the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland that I have the 
privilege of representing in this Chamber, people are truly preparing 
for the drastic impact sequestration will have on them, their capacity 
to pay their bills and to meet their obligations.
  These cuts are devastating, and today we're here to talk very 
specifically about the devastation to women

[[Page H807]]

and children across this country, and specifically to women of the 
impact of sequestration. Whether that is the devastating cuts to the 
Women, Infants, and Children program that so many low-income women 
depend on; school nutrition programs in our Nation's schools; K-12 
education; cuts to Head Start; cuts to serving children with 
disabilities; cuts to health care screenings like cancer, cervical 
cancer and breast cancer screenings that so many women rely on, and 
this at a time when we just discovered that, in fact, younger women are 
suffering from greater rates of breast cancer than ever before in our 
history, here we go slashing and burning a budget.
  I don't like to use the term ``war on women,'' but, Mr. Speaker, as a 
woman, it sure feels like it. Sequestration definitely has that impact.
  Joining me today, who I will yield to in just a few moments, is my 
good friend from New York, Carolyn Maloney, who has been quite a leader 
on a range of women's issues, and she knows clearly the devastating 
impact of sequestration on women.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I want to thank my colleague for 
leading this very important Special Order and to note two women's 
issues that will be introduced next week.
  One is the women's museum. It will cost no extra money and will 
create a commission to put a women's museum on the Mall. We have it for 
postage stamps, flights. It should be there for half the population, 
and it is something, hopefully, we can move forward with in a 
bipartisan way.
  Also, next week, I'm reintroducing the equal rights amendment. We 
really lag behind in the Western World in not having that important 
provision in our Constitution. But regrettably, this country has a 
habit of sweeping women's issues under the rug and ignoring them; and 
this meat cleaver approach through sequestration will 
disproportionately hurt women.
  Tomorrow, $85 billion will be cut from our budget, sequestration will 
go into effect, and economists predict that over 700,000 jobs will be 
lost.
  Chairman Bernanke testified yesterday before the Financial Services 
Committee that the sequester could make it harder to reduce the 
deficit, not easier. The whole purpose of sequestration is to reduce 
the deficit. But as he pointed out in his testimony--and I will quote 
him directly--he said that it would have ``adverse effects on jobs and 
incomes,'' and ``a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit 
reduction.'' So here we are hearing from the head of the Federal 
Reserve and many economists that sequestration will literally hurt the 
deficit, hurt our economy, and hurt jobs.
  Why can't we agree on a measured, balanced approach that targets 
certain areas such as tax loopholes? Why in the world are we giving tax 
deductions to companies that move jobs overseas? We should be giving 
tax incentives to people who create jobs in America, not those who move 
their companies and their jobs overseas. And why are we giving up to 40 
percent subsidies to very profitable oil companies that are making 
profits? Why are we doing that when we are going to be turning around?
  Because of sequestration, we'll be cutting teachers, which is the 
very investment that we need for the future. Teaching is one of the 
professions that is disproportionately headed by women. So 
disproportionately these cuts are not only going to hurt the future of 
our country, but women teachers and male teachers in our country.
  I am particularly concerned in one area that my friend mentioned, and 
that's research. This country has invested in research, and it is one 
of the areas that has moved us out of our recessions with innovative 
ideas. But there are across-the-board cuts in research. NIH may face as 
much as 40 percent cuts. That's the National Institutes of Health.
  Right now, 1 in 7 women contracts breast cancer. Because of the 
research in our great country, lives are being saved. There are 2 
percent more lives saved each year because of new breakthroughs in 
breast cancer treatment. I venture to say there is not a person in this 
body or America who doesn't have a sister, a mother, a grandmother, or 
a friend who has not suffered from breast cancer. Yet the treatments, 
the research, the medical facilities that are there to help women 
confront this disease will be cut back in the sequestration.
  Men also are contracting breast cancer. It is a disease that men are 
suffering from, and also prostate cancer, but the breakthrough in cures 
every year to save lives are going to be cut.
  This past week, I had a meeting with some of the teaching hospitals 
in the district that I am privileged to represent, and they had a 
survivor there. His life had literally been saved with a new 
breakthrough in treatment and technology that they had developed while 
at Cornell. He testified that the doctors there with their new research 
had literally saved his life.
  It is this lifesaving, cutting-edge research that we will be cutting 
away, along with many other important areas. Why are we passing the 
Violence Against Women Act and then turning around and cutting it 
dramatically with sequestration?
  So I join my good friend from the great State of Maryland in really 
protesting sequestration. The approach doesn't work. Even Chairman 
Bernanke says it's wrong, wrongheaded, and will not help us reduce the 
deficit. And it particularly is disastrous to programs, research, and 
health care that impact women.
  With that, I thank the gentlelady for organizing this Special Order.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York. Thank you 
so much for your leadership.
  You know both as a woman and a woman legislator what this impact is 
going to be to your communities in New York, and I know what they will 
be to mine in Maryland.
  Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we throw out these numbers, and most 
Americans have no idea what these numbers mean in real terms. From 
March 1, until the end of this fiscal year, we'll have to cut $85 
billion with a wide range of impacts across this country. Women are 
going to be disproportionately impacted by these. And there is no other 
word, Mr. Speaker, for these absolutely senseless cuts.
  It is as though as legislators we are brain dead when it comes to 
making decisions that impact people's lives. These deep cuts are going 
to slash vital investments in job training, in public health, in public 
safety and education and small business. We know that so many women are 
juggling multiple responsibilities. They are juggling the 
responsibilities of their homes and their families; the 
responsibilities of a job or running a business; the responsibilities 
of being active in their community and making sure that there's a 
quality of life for themselves and their children.
  They're also doing this and operating at the absolute margin. It's 
really unfair and completely lacking in compassion to place this 
additional burden of sequestration on their already burdened 
households. Even worse, low-income women and women of color who are 
toiling in the fragile economy at the lowest-wage jobs are going to be 
hit the hardest by sequestration.
  I want to highlight these cuts and the resulting fiscal instability 
that is in addition to the fact that we are already falling farther 
behind other Western World nations in providing employment protections, 
pay equity, sick leave, promoting child care services. These are all 
the things that particularly women have use of as caregivers.

                              {time}  1310

  Is this really the way, Mr. Speaker, that we see ourselves as leaders 
of the free world? I don't think so.
  With that, I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from 
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlelady from Maryland and thank 
her for her leadership. This is a very important statement today 
because I was on the floor earlier this morning and said that we should 
not go home, that we should stay here. I'll say it again: We should not 
go home. We should stay here.
  With all of the chatter of disagreement and accusations and blame 
games, what should be the message to the American people is, in fact, 
that we are committed to finding some form of common ground. Now, 
common ground is enormously challenging when there is no give from our 
Republican friends.
  I do want to applaud the Congresswoman today in that the Violence

[[Page H808]]

Against Women Act was passed because of Democrats' championing the 
right direction so that immigrant women, so that the LGBT community and 
so that Native Americans could be specifically covered, which, as a 
lawyer, is what the law is all about. Fuzzy legislation cannot work, 
but when you specifically designate in law the protection of these 
groups, then you have brought about a change. I say that only because I 
want to thank our Republican friends who voted for that ultimate Senate 
bill that was passed in a bipartisan way in the Senate and now in the 
House.
  That should be an example of what we can do with regard to this 
dastardly act that is going to occur tomorrow--the sequester--which 
most Americans don't even understand. So I am delighted to join and to 
be able to be part of this Special Order, led by the gentlelady from 
Maryland, on explaining how vulnerable women can be impacted.
  We did a good act today. Vulnerable women have been in the eye of the 
storm since this legislation was not reauthorized, and women's centers 
and shelters all over America were feeling the ax of the non-funding of 
the STOP grant, but today we made a difference. I want to make a 
difference in stopping the onslaught against women and children that 
the sequester will bring about, and I am going to use as an example the 
impact on a State like mine--the State of Texas--that has a diverse, if 
you will, congressional delegation, with more Republicans than 
Democrats. Frankly, the people of the State of Texas are not interested 
in what party we are; they simply want to find out why we can't come to 
the floor and vote to block the sequester and find common ground.
  So, to my State of Texas, let me tell you what you will be facing, 
and why I want to say, stay and work, stay and work, and find some kind 
of common ground. In the alternative, all of us are willing to be 
called back this weekend. We're willing to be called back Friday night 
and Saturday morning. I want that to be on the record. We're willing to 
get back in a short order of time to come here and solve this problem.
  Specifically, I have worked extensively with our teachers and schools 
and school districts:
  $67.8 million for funding for primary and secondary education, 
putting 950 teachers' and aides' jobs at risk, meaning that they may 
ultimately be terminated. Those jobs are at risk in the State of Texas. 
172,000 fewer students can be served in approximately 280 schools. 
That's not just in Houston; that's throughout Republican and Democratic 
districts in the State of Texas. That is shameful. Texas will lose 
approximately $50 million in funds for about 620 students and aides to 
help children with disabilities;
  Work study jobs will impact our college students. 4,720 fewer low-
income students will be able to have those jobs, and, of course, it 
will eliminate the opportunity to finance the cost of college to around 
1,450 students, who will not get work study jobs;
  Head Start. Many of my Head Start leaders advocated and asked me, as 
I was in Austin this past week, to stop the elimination of their 
funding. I will be meeting with those from AVANCE next week, 
approximately 4,800 students in Texas, on the reducing of access to 
critical early education;
  Law enforcement. Part of the Violence Against Women Act specifically 
speaks to the question of helping the crime victims. When I had a gun 
briefing in Texas, I made sure that the victims of gun violence were in 
the room. What we'll be stopping is $1.1 million in what we call 
Justice Assistance Grants, which specifically deal with our crime 
victims;
  This is an example of what will happen in America if you're looking 
for jobs and if you want assistance from the Federal Government. It's 
interesting how people make light that the Federal Government does 
nothing. My friends, the Federal Government is you. It is the tax 
dollars used wisely to ensure that it is a bridge, a complement, a 
collaborator with State government. So you will be losing in the State 
of Texas, for those of you who are searching for jobs--and you do it 
every day--some $2.2 million if this goes through.
  Child care. Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children may 
lose their access to child care. That impacts women who go out every 
day, one possibly to look for a job but, more importantly, to go out to 
go to work. I hate the thought that 9,000 children will have a lack of 
access to vaccines. That's a mother's responsibility, that's a parent's 
responsibility to ensure her children are getting vaccines, and the 
public health system will collapse because of the lack of resources;
  $1.1 million will be lost, in particular, for HIV tests, which is 
devastating among the African American community, particularly women. 
We have encouraged them now to get tested. We've tried to remove the 
stigma. When they go up to the door of the public health entity to get 
tested, you're going to tell me that there are a million less dollars 
and that the door will be closed? On the STOP Violence Against Women's 
program, which we'd now reauthorize, I'm sad to say that Texas could 
lose $543,000 and that 2,100 more victims will not have this.
  Let me come to a close and look at it generically across America as I 
cite what Congresswoman Edwards just cited about small businesses, and 
I would indicate that, on a nationwide impact, two-thirds of all new 
jobs we know have come from small businesses. As I listened to the news 
this morning about a woman-owned business that does work with the 
Defense Department, she was being interviewed, and she said, about 5 
days from now, she'll literally be shut down. So what we're talking 
about is losing $900 million across the Nation in helping small 
businesses. That is a travesty.

  When we travel internationally, one thing we sort of look at is the 
question of food safety, and what we pride ourselves on here in the 
United States is that which stops disease and that which stops 
contamination. Well, my friends, 2,100 food inspectors for the Nation, 
who deal with helping to ensure the kind of safe food for our women and 
children, will be shut down. That means that billions in food 
production will be shut down. I heard a plant manufacturer, or a food 
manufacturer--a packaging company--say that it literally cannot do 
anything without a food inspector saying ``yes.''
  Let me indicate something that is very close to my heart, and that is 
those who are needing mental health services. Do you realize, with the 
sequester, Congresswoman, that 373,000 mentally ill adults and 
seriously emotionally disturbed children will lose public services for 
their needs? That is a travesty, and asks the question: Why are we 
going home? Why don't we stay here and find the compromise that we did 
for the Violence Against Women Act?
  Let me close on our work in dealing with homeland security. I am the 
ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and 
Maritime Security. We have responsibilities with ranking member 
Thompson and our chairperson, who has noted in our hearings as recently 
as this week that we would lose some 2,750 Customs and Border 
Protection officers, CBP. Those are the individuals who allow goods to 
travel, to meet individuals at airports; and we would lose 5,000 Border 
Patrol officers at our borders, where we're talking about the question 
of border security.
  Are we talking out of two sides of our mouths? Here we're making the 
argument that we want border security, and we're willing to allow 5,000 
Border Patrol agents--willy-nilly--to just go away? We're allowing 
difficulties with the FAA and, as well, with TSA officers of whom some 
have critiqued. I serve on the Transportation Security Subcommittee. 
These officers every day face the trials and tribulations of ensuring 
safety on our airlines and airplanes, and we are telling them that we 
don't care about security? Right now, we've got a sequester and you're 
out, and we don't know how long the lines are. Frankly, the statement 
is being made by my Republican friends and leadership that they simply 
don't care.
  We have an opportunity to work together. We can work with the Senate. 
We can work with the White House. We can understand the underpinnings 
of this whole debate, and that is: revenue and cuts. Why do I want 
revenue? Because I want for the money not to run out when the victims 
of Hurricane Sandy are desperate. That's why I want revenue.

                              {time}  1320

  I want the Head Start programs to be funded, and I want our military 
in a

[[Page H809]]

balanced way to be funded. So I support the utilization of the Buffett 
rule that has been offered by the Senate, and aspects of many other 
proposals. They are out there, we can do it, and we can do it with the 
kind of grace and mercy and understanding of the needs of the American 
people, and protecting the middle class. And, as Congresswoman Edwards 
stated, we can do that with an eye on women, to make sure that women, 
many of whom are heads of households, do not face these devastating 
cuts that would literally shut them down, their small businesses, Head 
Start, teachers for their children's schools, to ensure that there is 
funding for the Violence Against Women Act.
  I want to say thank you to Congresswoman Edwards for allowing us to 
have an opportunity to share our concerns today. I am pained by what we 
are saying today, but I am extending a hand of friendship to my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. Leadership can call us back. We are 
ready to be called back. We can huddle somewhere else. We can find a 
way to get consensus by email so that when we come back next week, we 
have an immediate vote because we have been willing to do so.
  I'll close by saying I'm supporting Mr. Conyers, who has offered an 
alternative that will be coming forward next week that ends the 
sequestration. I believe that is the way to go to allow us more time 
for debate and collaboration. I hope others will join us in supporting 
this legislation we're introducing today. I thank him for his 
leadership on that. I think that speaks to the fact that all Members, 
Congresswoman Edwards, are following the leadership of this Special 
Order, which is to protect women from this devastating impact of 
sequester. Thank you so very much for the opportunity to speak today.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlelady, and especially to thank 
her for, Mr. Speaker, pointing out to us that in virtually everything 
that impacts our lives as Americans, and particularly impacts women, 
there is a devastating impact of sequestration on a whole range of 
things that, you know, most of us get up every day and don't even think 
about. But we will think about them beginning on March 1 because the 
services won't be there.
  The gentlelady pointed out, as she was speaking and as others have as 
well, the devastating impacts to education. Just a few weeks ago, many 
of the people in this body, Republicans and Democrats, stood on their 
feet and cheered the President of the United States when he talked 
about the need to invest in early education, in Head Start, in making 
sure that our young people get started early in school so that they are 
prepared through their education years to take on the challenges of the 
21st century. And yet here we are, just a couple of weeks after that 
great moment of a bipartisan show of support, ripping apart the very 
programs that the President talked about that are so important, Mr. 
Speaker, to the development of our children.
  I would note that in my great State of Maryland, and Maryland has now 
been named the State with the number one schools in the Nation for the 
fifth year in a row. Well, we've been able to achieve those great 
heights in Maryland because of the commitment of our governor, because 
of the commitment of our legislators, and because of the commitment of 
the Federal Government, especially to some of our most vulnerable 
schools.
  To our students who depend on investing in Head Start, to our 
students who are in some of our most vulnerable communities served by 
our title 1 schools, to the idea that we're going to educate all of our 
young people, even those with disabilities, so that they can achieve 
their greatest ability, and in Maryland we're going to see in fact very 
devastating cuts to the number one school system in the country--$5 
million ripped out of Head Start; $14 million ripped out of our title 1 
schools; $9 million, almost $10 million, taken out of funding our young 
people with disabilities, and that's a total of almost 300 jobs that 
will be lost as a result of these cuts. And that's in my small State of 
Maryland.
  You know, we've heard from Members representing New York and Texas. 
Well, they're going to suffer even more devastating cuts. I would note, 
for example, in Texas, Texas will lose $51 million from education for 
children with disabilities. Texas will lose $67 million from their 
title 1 schools. And Head Start will lose to a tune of $30 million from 
Head Start. This is devastating for women and children, for their 
families.
  But it doesn't end there, Mr. Speaker. Would that it would, but it 
doesn't end there. Sequestration, as I said, has a devastating impact 
and a disproportionate impact on women and children.
  I would note that about 600,000 children and pregnant women are going 
to lose access to food and health care and nutrition education, 
including supplemental nutrition programs that are the difference 
between having a meal or a healthy meal, or not. The difference for a 
mother who, even as she is working every day, has the ability to make 
sure that there is a good meal on the table for her children. Six 
hundred thousand children and pregnant women will lose those benefits.

  Let's look at child care. There's not a one of us, Mr. Speaker, who 
hasn't had children and had the need of child care. Now if you are a 
wealthy woman or if you have a high income, your needs may be very 
different. But for most of us who get up and go to work every day, we 
really do need child care assistance. About 30,000 children across the 
country who are in low-income families are going to lose essential 
Federal funding for child care services. That's about $121.5 million, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Let's just look at the Centers for Disease Control. Twenty-five 
thousand low-income women--and this is according to thinkprogress.org 
so I'm not making it up. Americans across the country can go to 
thinkprogress.org, and what they can find is the same information that 
I'm sharing with you today. At the Centers for Disease Control, 25,000 
low-income women who rely on the Centers for Disease Control for their 
breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings are just going to be lost. 
So there we will have a ripple effect through the health care system as 
these women, potentially with cancers that are curable, will not have 
those diagnosed in time.
  In Army military construction of family housing where we have so many 
more female recruits who are in need of housing, they're going to lose 
about $424 million. How on one hand can we say that we support and 
honor those who serve and who are in uniform, but at the same time take 
away the kinds of things that would be supportive for our military 
families.
  In the area of global health care--I mean, after all, these cuts 
apply not just to those of us in the United States but to the support 
that we provide for vulnerable communities around the world. There are 
1.6 million women around the globe who rely on family planning 
services, and guess what? They're going to be turned away, too, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We could go on and on, as we have. But the reality is that beginning 
on March 1, beginning tomorrow, America's women and children will see 
cuts to things that they had no idea about, and those cuts will be, in 
fact, devastating. And what are we doing here in this Chamber? We're 
going home for the weekend. Where else in America do you stop working, 
Mr. Speaker, after 3\1/2\ days, a couple of journal votes saying we 
approve of the business of the day, a couple of adjournment votes, a 
vote to rename a space center, and then devastating cuts to health 
care, to Head Start, to education, to food inspection, to all of the 
things that impact so many of our families. If it weren't true, if it 
weren't reality, it would seem like it was just a bad B movie, Mr. 
Speaker.

                              {time}  1330

  We can go through so many other impacts to our children, 70,000 
children, Mr. Speaker, who are going to be cut from Head Start and 
Early Head Start programs. Sixty percent of these program recipients, 
60 percent of those 70,000 children, are children of color.
  And so I guess we're saying, Mr. Speaker, that we don't care about 
our Nation's children. We don't care that they go hungry. We don't care 
that they're not receiving adequate child care. We don't care that 
they're not getting the education that they need. Mr. Speaker, these 
across-the-board, arbitrary, senseless cuts just say to the rest of 
America, we don't care.

[[Page H810]]

  And you know what? I would love it if the blame were equally shared 
across the board, but the reality is that Republicans control this 
Chamber, and this Chamber could be gaveled in tomorrow morning, 
straight up, and stop this sequestration. That's what could happen, and 
that is what would make a difference to America's women and children.
  You know, I would look to, Mr. Speaker, women and girls across this 
country and just share with them that no matter what their age, no 
matter, really, what their income, whether they're young children in 
school readiness programs or they're older women who rely on senior 
nutrition programs, things like Meals on Wheels, that these cuts will 
have an impact on them.
  We've already talked, Mr. Speaker, about devastating impacts to 
education. Can you believe that 7,400 special education teachers, their 
aides and other staff servicing our vulnerable kids with disabilities 
are going to be laid off, 7,400 educators who will be laid off because 
we haven't provided the resources for them to serve our children with 
disabilities? It's pretty shameful, Mr. Speaker.
  I'm thinking about the landmark Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. You 
know, we did something very special, actually, in this Chamber when we 
passed ObamaCare. But the reality is that, because of these looming 
cuts, these cuts that will take place just hours, hours from now, Mr. 
Speaker, they're going to jeopardize critical health care services, 
prevention initiatives, medical research to help women lead healthier 
lives. These sequestration cuts will affect millions of women.
  Four million dollars is going to be cut from the Safe Motherhood 
Initiative. Who knew that the Congress doesn't like motherhood? And so 
$4 million in cuts, Mr. Speaker, to the Safe Motherhood Initiative.
  And what does that do? It helps prevent pregnancy-related deaths. In 
this great Nation, the leader of the free world, we still have 
pregnancy-related deaths, and the way that we've chosen to deal with 
that is through the Safe Motherhood Initiative. But, beginning on March 
1, these devastating cuts will have an impact on that program.
  In addition, 5 million fewer low-income families will be able to 
receive prenatal health care. And we know, those of us who've had 
children, know the importance of getting prenatal health care, know the 
importance of a successful pregnancy that goes to term. We know the 
importance of prenatal health care because it becomes a determinant of 
overall health care as that child is born. And yet, with these 
devastating cuts, these across-the-board cuts, these arbitrary cuts, 
these senseless cuts, 5 million fewer low-income families will receive 
prenatal health care. And this is particularly concerning, Mr. Speaker, 
and very serious, because two to three women die each year, each day, 
in fact, from complications as a result of pregnancy.
  I don't know if you're aware of this, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is 
that the United States has an infant mortality rate that is twice as 
high as the rate of other wealthy nations. We're not a leader when it 
comes to prenatal health care. It is why we need the Motherhood 
Initiative.
  Eight million dollars in cuts are going to go, Mr. Speaker, to breast 
and cervical cancer screening. That means that there will be 31,000 
fewer cancer screenings for low-income women.
  Now, I suppose we could just write these low-income women off the 
books. But you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? When they're diagnosed 
with cervical cancer or with breast cancer, they show up in the 
emergency room and they require even greater treatment, or worse, it 
becomes a mortality risk because they lose their lives, not because the 
cancer was not curable, but they lose their lives because the cancer 
was not diagnosed.
  And yet here we are, Mr. Speaker, ready to exact $8 million in cuts 
that will prevent low-income women from receiving cervical cancer 
screenings and breast cancer screenings. That's not what a leader 
nation does, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, we can recall very recently the very fierce battles to protect 
Title X family planning and reproductive health services. I will just 
remind the Speaker that sequester would cut $24 million from 
these lifesaving programs. That's right; $24 million that would be 
ripped out of Title X family planning and reproductive health services, 
lifesaving programs that provide care to low-income, uninsured and 
underinsured women, men, children, and families--$24 million. Our 
Nation really can't afford this.

  And let's talk about research. The National Institutes of Health 
could lose as much as $1.5 billion in medical research funding. And 
that means there will be fewer research projects for treatments and 
cures for diseases like cancer, like diabetes, like Alzheimer's, like 
all of these diseases where we're right on the cusp of the kind of 
research that will make a tremendous difference, Mr. Speaker, in the 
lives of so many, and particularly a tremendous difference in the lives 
of women. But, oh, no, National Institutes of Health, on the chopping 
block March 1, losing up to $1.5 billion for medical research funding.
  Women, Infants, and Children programs, something that's particularly 
important to me and to people in my community, to women and children in 
my community, $353 million, remind you, to begin, Mr. Speaker, on March 
1; $353 million cut from the Women, Infants, and Children program.
  And I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you go to any State in this 
country, talk to your Governors. It doesn't matter whether you talk to 
a Republican Governor or to a Democratic Governor. Those Governors will 
tell you that the investment and the payoff for making investments in 
Women, Infants, and Children programs is enormous, that it results in 
great benefit, not just for the quality of lives of the women, infants, 
and children who are served by the WIC programs, but, really, to 
communities, enabling them, people, women, to go out and get an 
education, to get on their feet, to take care of their children.
  These are really lifeline programs, and they're highly effective. And 
yet there's no sense to these cuts, and so we will end up cutting the 
most ineffective programs in the same way that we cut the most 
effective ones. That's what sequester means.
  Let's look at unemployment benefits. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, really 
recovering from the devastation of the economy of the last 5 years, 
unemployment going down, but still the need for so many in this country 
for unemployment benefits. Now, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, about other 
people, but any of us who've ever received an unemployment check 
because of the misfortune of losing a job, it's not a big check, Mr. 
Speaker. And yet, even that small check, which is a fraction of what 
your income might have been were you working, even that check will face 
devastating cuts, and particularly to the long-term unemployed, to 
people who are out of work and who've been searching for a new job for 
at least 6 months, not because they don't want to work, Mr. Speaker, 
but because the economy is recovering and because work is hard to find.

                              {time}  1340

  And yet we rip apart 10 percent of their weekly jobless benefits if 
this sequester goes into effect. Maybe the 1 percent or the 2 percent 
out there can get away with not having 10 percent of their income. But 
the families that I know, the communities I come from, a 10 percent cut 
in an income is the difference between paying your electric bill and 
your water bill and your rent or your mortgage. A 10 percent cut. No 
one can afford that. And yet that's exactly what happens beginning on 
March 1 with this senseless sequester.
  Child care assistance is going to be cut by $121 million. Child care. 
What great nation doesn't ensure child care for its nation's children 
so that moms and dads can go out and work and not have to worry about 
the care that their children are receiving? Worse yet, not have to 
worry about leaving young ones unattended because the choice is between 
going to work and staying at home because there's not quality child 
care available. Child care assistance cuts 30,000 children across this 
country who would lose essential Federal funding for child care.
  And we've talked about the Violence Against Women Act. But I want to 
get specific because I spent a lot of years before I came into Congress 
working on these issues of violence against women, on domestic 
violence, on sexual assault, on stalking, trying to make sure

[[Page H811]]

that the Federal Government meets its responsibilities for women. I've 
worked on a hotline. I've been in a shelter. I know what it means to 
provide those services. I know that when a woman calls and she's being 
abused and she's seeking help, that that phone call needs to be 
answered.
  And yet, Mr. Speaker, we've passed the Violence Against Women Act and 
we're running the risk that because of these cuts in this sequester--
because of these senseless cuts--that phone call from that woman in the 
middle of the night calling a shelter or a program or a hotline, that 
call won't be answered.
  Who's going to take responsibility when that abuse results in the 
death of a woman or her children because we've not done the right thing 
in this Congress? That's what's at stake. And that is real and it is 
harm, Mr. Speaker, to this Nation's women. And so we passed the 
Violence Against Women Act, but you can be sure that what we gave with 
one hand, we took away with the other hand beginning on March 1 because 
of these devastating cuts to domestic violence shelters and programs 
and hotline services, to the law enforcement officials who need to be 
trained about issues of domestic violence so that they don't endanger 
themselves and so that they provide the kind of law enforcement 
assistance that's needed in every community across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, you sit on that hotline and know that you can't pick up 
a call because the other phone is going unanswered. Because the other 
phone is going unanswered because the Congress hasn't done what we need 
to do to protect women and children and their families.
  The Department of Justice estimates that the cuts to the Violence 
Against Women Act is going to mean that 35,927--and I want you to hear, 
Mr. Speaker, every single one of them--35,927 victims will be prevented 
from gaining access to shelter and to legal assistance and to services 
for themselves and for their children, every single one of them 
vulnerable because Republicans in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, have not 
done their job. The cuts are going to mean that domestic violence 
training is going to be eliminated for 34,000 police officers, 
prosecutors, judges, and victim advocates. This really is shameful, Mr. 
Speaker.
  And for women who work and who own small businesses, the sequester is 
going to be a handicap as well. And we know that women work. Some of us 
work not because we want to. We work because we have to because we're 
partners in our families with our spouses, with our partners taking 
care of our families, taking care of our children, because we're women 
living on our own, because we're women as caregivers to other members 
of our family. That's why we work. We create businesses; and, 
thankfully, we've had the support of the Federal Government for women-
owned small businesses, a really fast-growing sector.

  But these contracts are in jeopardy, Mr. Speaker. In fact, contracts 
that have been won by women-owned businesses dropped 5.5 percent in 
fiscal year 2011; and the damage that they are facing now, the harm our 
vulnerable women-owned businesses are facing is even more devastating. 
The gender gap may reflect stiffer competition over a shrinking pool of 
contract revenue, but it may get worse for women as women face 
difficulty in winning a greater share of contracts in an era of these 
devastating spending cuts.
  And that's according to Bloomberg. It's not made up by this 
Congresswoman from Maryland. It is what is happening in our economy, 
Mr. Speaker. Thousands of public sector jobs are going to be lost. 
That's on top of jobs that have already been lost, Mr. Speaker. And 
since women are 50 percent more likely than men to be employed in the 
public sector, just like education, these jobs are going to be cut and 
lost needlessly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that my colleagues in this 
Congress have the ability to exercise common sense and rationality; but 
these cuts don't reflect common sense at all. In fact, they don't 
reflect much thought, in my view. When you say across the board, that 
would be like in your own family budget, when you know you have to 
tighten up the budget, rather than looking at where you're doing your 
spending and going with a scalpel to cut that wasteful spending--in my 
household, I would probably cut the coffee expenditures--but we're not 
doing that. We say we cut coffee just like we cut the mortgage. We cut 
coffee just like we cut the groceries. We cut coffee just like we cut 
buying school clothing.
  But this is what is happening with the Federal budget. We're taking 
an ax or hammer to the entire budget. We're not looking at every single 
line and making strategic and thoughtful and important choices about 
what needs to stay and what needs to go. That's the danger here. And 
for women, the impact is really substantial.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close now, but I wish I were closing and 
saying I'll see you tomorrow. But, unfortunately, we won't be seeing 
each other tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because when you gavel out this 
evening, Mr. Speaker, what you will know is that we've said sequester 
is going to go into effect. So what? Sequester is going to go into 
effect and we'll just come back next week and name a couple more 
buildings. But we won't deal with the real issues that are facing 
America's families, that are facing America's women.
  And as I said before, I'm not particularly fond of the term, Mr. 
Speaker, ``war on women.'' But as a woman, when I know that there's a 
threat of not getting a cervical exam or a breast exam, when I know 
that as a woman there's a threat of not receiving family planning 
services, when I know as a woman that my children won't be able to go 
to a Head Start program or that if I have a child with a disability 
that that child won't receive the kind of education that he needs to 
get his or her fullest potential, when I know as a caregiver that a 
senior woman won't get Meals on Wheels, when I know that the important 
research that could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's isn't going to 
happen, Mr. Speaker, it may not be a war on women, but it feels like as 
women we are on the front line and we are taking all of the heavy-duty 
fire coming in.
  And so I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge my Republican 
colleagues to do as my colleague from Texas said: get back to work. 
Come back to work and let's do the business of the American people. 
Let's take up a truly fair and balanced approach to our Nation's fiscal 
problems. Let's make certain that we preserve and protect a social 
safety net for so many of our vulnerable families.

                              {time}  1350

  Let's make certain that we make the investments we need to make in 
education, in research and development, in small business so that we 
really can grow our economy, so that we, Mr. Speaker, together can 
create growth, but create growth by making great investments.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will close by just saying to you that I want to 
work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but it does 
take two to tango. Unless we do that, women in this country are going 
to face the devastating impact of these budget cuts that go into effect 
on March 1.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________