[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1385-H1390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Brooks of Indiana). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the minority leader.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, this week, the 
House Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan, laid out his budget plan. 
Sadly, it's just more of the same. Like a bad

[[Page H1386]]

record, this year's Republican proposal is virtually the same document 
as the one he proposed last spring. It harms the middle class. It harms 
low-income Americans, and it is especially bad for women and families.
  Now they have framed this budget and called it a prosperity one, a 
prosperity plan. But this budget should be called ``the road to 
austerity,'' because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the 
rather harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits 
it extends to the few. It clearly envisions a rising tide of selective 
tax cuts that would lift all yachts but leave many dinghies behind.
  Our Republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. 
What they propose here would indeed make things much harder for 
millions of Americans, but it will also make things much easier for a 
fortunate few. That's their plan.
  Now, specifically under this plan, he has this new goal of balancing 
the budget in 10 years. To accomplish this, he slashes funding safety 
net programs that serve seniors, students, children, low-income 
families, and women. The budget slashes food stamps and cuts funding 
for infrastructure investments like high-speed rail. We're falling way 
behind the rest of the world. We need to invest in our infrastructure 
to stay competitive. And it does nothing for job creation or to help 
the unemployed.
  The Ryan plan replaces Medicare, and really ends Medicare as we know 
it by replacing it with a voucher system and replaces Medicaid by 
making it a block grant to the States. These cuts hurt tens of millions 
of Americans who count on these programs for their health care 
coverage.
  But not to just rely on what I'm saying, to quote The Washington 
Post:

       The 10-year spending plan released Tuesday by 
     Representative Ryan is virtually identical to last year's GOP 
     budget. It would defund President Obama's health care 
     initiative and guaranteed Medicare coverage for future 
     retirees and sharply restrain spending on the poor, college 
     students and Federal workers.

  Now, what I find very hypocritical about this budget is that they say 
that they are going to repeal ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, 
yet this bill passed this Congress. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. 
We had an election where this was the issue that people ran on, and 
President Obama was reelected, strongly. So they keep flip-flopping on 
this issue. They say they want to abolish ObamaCare, but then they rely 
on the savings of over $700 million in that program.
  So when Congressman Ryan was Vice Presidential candidate Ryan, he 
campaigned against the health care provider cuts of $716 million, the 
same ones he wants to keep in this budget. The Republicans opposed 
these cuts when they were part of the Affordable Care Act, then they 
passed two budgets that included these cuts. And then Congressman Ryan 
and Presidential candidate Romney campaigned against the cuts in the 
2012 election. And now Mr. Ryan wants to keep them, once again. That's 
not just a 180-degree turn, it's 180 degrees times four, so it's a 
change of 720 degrees.
  But one thing that is completely clear in this budget is that women, 
in particular, will suffer because of the choices the Republican budget 
makes.

                              {time}  1810

  Instead of closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs 
overseas, the budget kicks kids out of Head Start. Instead of getting 
rid of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, for single moms 
struggling to put food on the table it cuts food stamps.
  It seems to me with the budget right now that we are spending at a 
roughly proposed 3.1 percent, but 1.1 percent is tax loopholes. If you 
just closed those tax loopholes, you would be able to significantly 
reduce the deficit and the debt. Why in the world are we giving tax 
loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas? If you're going to 
give a tax incentive, it should be to the companies that stay in 
America and create jobs for Americans.
  Now, instead of ensuring that women are not discriminated against by 
health insurance companies, this bill would repeal the rights women 
earned in the Affordable Care Act. The Republican budget cuts Medicare 
benefits, cuts Medicaid services, cuts health research funding and so 
much more all in the name of a new agenda that they have that will 
cripple our economy and cause real and lasting harm to the women of 
America.
  The Democratic approach is a more balanced one. Everyone agrees that 
we need to reduce the deficit and cut the debt, but it's a matter of 
how you do it, what priorities you have in it and what's your 
timeframe. The Democratic plan is balanced. I would call it a three-
legged stool. You have cuts, you have revenues and you have investments 
to help grow and expand the economy and create jobs, investments in 
education and innovation.
  Chairman Bernanke has testified before Congress that many of the 
reasons why America is really digging its way out of this recession and 
bouncing back faster and stronger than Europe is that we have had a 
balanced approach, whereas Europe has had an austerity, austerity, 
austerity approach. As many economists say, ``You cannot cut your way 
to prosperity.'' Austerity needs to be balanced with revenues and also 
investments.
  I'm joined tonight by Dina Titus from the great State of Nevada. She 
was reelected in this session. She was an outstanding member of our 
caucus. We are so thrilled that she's come back to join us.
  I yield the gentlelady as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney, for letting me join you 
tonight, and thank you for organizing this very important special hour 
to talk about the Republican budget and its unacceptable impact on 
women.
  For the third year in a row, Chairman Ryan has proposed an 
uncompromising budget plan that is out of touch with my State of 
Nevada's priorities and the country's vision for the future.
  Chairman Ryan has used a lot of gimmicks in his budget, but no amount 
of chicanery will hide what this budget really means for women.
  Instead of laying out a fair and balanced plan, as you said, 
Congresswoman, Representative Ryan's budget undermines the health and 
economic security of the elderly and the disabled, most of whom are 
women, and disproportionately harms low-income women and families they 
struggle to support.
  It also would repeal the Affordable Care Act. This landmark 
legislation that we passed increases access to critical women's health 
services such as prenatal and maternity care, and it finally ends the 
longstanding notion that being a woman is a preexisting condition.
  The proposed budget also threatens a laundry list of vital programs 
that help women and children such as SNAP, WIC, Head Start, school 
lunches, TANF, and Pell Grants, just to name a few. These are programs 
that millions of women across the country and their families rely on 
every day just to get by.

  Instead of protecting such critical programs, Representative Ryan and 
the Republican Party would rather protect tax breaks for the wealthiest 
folks in our country, for oil companies and for those companies you 
mentioned that ship our jobs overseas.
  The Federal budget is a blueprint for our Nation's future. It's a 
statement of our national priorities. It should reflect who we are, and 
it should provide a path forward that we can all be proud of.
  My constituents in Las Vegas and our constituents around the country 
deserve better than this old rehashed Ryan budget which slashes 
programs for children, dismantles health care for women, eliminates the 
safety net for seniors and defunds education and needed research and 
development that we should be investing in as part of that three-legged 
stool.
  Instead, we need to get to work on a balanced plan that protects 
women and families and makes those needed investments in our future.
  Again, I thank you, Congresswoman Maloney, and our colleagues who 
have joined us tonight to talk about these important issues, and I urge 
you to give careful consideration to the Ryan budget with all those 
hidden little tricks and old hat policies.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank you for joining us 
tonight to share how this impacts on Nevada, an important State that 
you're representing. And I just want to express my gratitude that you 
have come

[[Page H1387]]

back to Congress and that you're a part of our caucus.
  Another outstanding woman in our caucus is Carol Shea-Porter from the 
great State of New Hampshire. And it is a State that's really unusual 
now in that all of its elected officials are women: the Governor, the 
legislature, the State and the assembly. We're so pleased that their 
Congresswoman is here today, and I know she has a special message from 
the great State of New Hampshire.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I thank you, Congresswoman Maloney, for the chance 
to speak about the damage that the Ryan budget would do to women and to 
families.
  There are a couple of points. The new Ryan budget and the cuts to 
discretionary programs and the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid guarantees 
would disproportionately affect the women and children who are already 
suffering this year because of the sequestration.
  The Ryan budget would dismantle the SNAP food program just like it 
does Medicare. About two-thirds of the SNAP benefits go to families 
with children. They rely on this.
  The Ryan budget would roll back affordable health care provisions, 
bringing back gender-rating and allowing preexisting conditions like 
pregnancy and domestic violence.
  Discretionary spending programs have already seen sequester cuts that 
will force women and families in need off of programs that help them. 
The Republican budget would further decimate these programs.
  The special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and 
Children, the WIC program, is one of our most successful and essential 
nutrition programs. Sequester will drop about 600,000 women and 
children from this program. Under the Republican budget, even more 
babies and mothers would be kicked off.
  The new budget's enormous cuts would do even more than the sequester 
has done to destroy jobs and hurt our economic recovery. At a time when 
women are making unprecedented gains in higher education and the 
workforce, a war on jobs is a war on women and their families.
  A budget is a moral document, and the Ryan budget fails this basic 
test of morality. This is wrong for women, and it is wrong for 
families, and we just reject this.
  I thank you for the chance to talk about it.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I appreciate your input and for 
being here tonight to participate in this Special Order. You've raised 
some very relevant points.
  I want to talk about the special impact the Ryan budget has on the 
Pell Grant cuts.
  One of the ways women try to climb out of poverty and close the pay 
gap is through education, especially higher education. And as we all 
know, college tuition has far outpaced inflation for years and years. 
That's why programs such as the Pell Grant program are so important. 
And fully two-thirds of Pell Grant recipients are women.
  Yet again, the Ryan Republican budget hurts women college students by 
cutting nearly $83 billion--that's with a ``b''--from Pell Grants over 
the next 10 years. They're doing this even though Congress already 
enacted and paid for annual mandatory inflationary increases in 2010 
and recently cut Pell Grant benefits and eligibility to control costs. 
So the Ryan Republican budget will make it that much harder for women 
to climb the ladder of opportunity, get a college degree, get a decent 
job and start or maintain a family. It just does not need to be that 
way.

                              {time}  1820

  As President Obama has said, the math in this Ryan budget does not 
add up, and the math that is there cuts programs helping working women 
and single moms. The Ryan budget will be devastating for working women, 
low-income families and young women trying to afford college. Head 
Start, early childhood care, food stamps, Pell Grants for college, and 
so much more would be slashed under this budget. Let's start with early 
childhood education.
  Many researchers and economists tell us that the very best investment 
that we can make in our society and in our children is in early 
childhood education. These cuts in the Ryan budget are on top of the 
$85 billion from sequestration, which are already in effect. Because of 
the sequestration, 70,000 children nationwide will be kicked off of 
Head Start. Another 30,000 low-income children will lose child care 
assistance because of the cuts to the child care and development block 
grants. That's a total of 100,000 low-income kids being kicked out of 
early childhood services. That's already happening as we are speaking 
tonight on the floor. The Ryan budget would double those cuts, which 
would mean another 100,000 kids losing services.
  What are the working moms of 200,000 children across the country 
supposed to do? Women only earn 74 cents to the dollar of what men earn 
in similar jobs. While they are at work, how are these women going to 
afford to take care of their kids when they lose these services?
  The answer is they'll need to find another affordable child care 
option, which, if you're a mom, you know how difficult that is. Or 
you'll have to cut back on hours at work because there is no child 
care. This will only widen the already existing economic divide that 
separates men and women.
  It's not just the economic divide between men and women. The gap 
between the haves and the have-nots, because of the Ryan budget and the 
Bush years, has never been greater, but that's not all. Many of these 
same families would also lose the assistance they need so that they can 
feed their families.
  Now from the great State of Maryland is the ranking member of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings. It's good 
to hear that like-minded men have joined us in this Special Order on 
the Ryan budget and how it affects American families.
  Thank you for being here.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. It's my honor. I want to, first of all, thank the 
gentlelady for yielding, and I thank you for calling this Special 
Order.
  As I was listening to you talk, particularly when you talked about 
Pell Grants and women, I could not help but think about something that 
you and I hear over and over and over again as we serve together on the 
Joint Economic Committee. We hear that the less education a person has 
the more recessionary periods affect them negatively. In other words, 
if you have a little education, less than a high school education, your 
chances of being put out of a job or of not having a job are great. If 
you have a college education, you have a better chance of retaining a 
job.
  You talked a moment ago about women, and women with regard to Pell 
Grants. Just the other night, I was at Howard University's annual 
dinner where they were trying to raise money for students to get 
scholarships. The president of the university got up and said something 
that was very interesting. He said, We are now having to let young 
people go who have averages above 3.2 because they don't have the 
money. I can guarantee you most of those folks were women. He said, 
when they did the research and looked at young people who had left 
school years ago and when they just kind of tracked them, they noticed 
that only about 25 percent ever even returned to school.
  What you're talking about is the quality of life for women. So, when 
you look at the Ryan budget cutting Pell Grants and cutting those 
things that women are so concerned about--their children and how 
they're going to be able to raise them, to nurture them, to give them a 
head start--those things are being cut as if somebody is just going 
through a forest, cutting down trees with a hatchet. I think that we 
have to stand up for women. We have to make sure that we let the Nation 
know what is being done in this budget and make it clear that we're not 
going to stand for it.
  I just want to thank the gentlelady for her presentation tonight and 
for bringing us together with regard to this very, very important 
issue.
  Keep in mind that he is talking about doing away with the Affordable 
Care Act. So much of the Affordable Care Act goes to keeping people 
well--keeping women well, keeping their children well, keeping their 
families well. It allows them to have affordable and accessible 
insurance, which is something that women are most concerned about,

[[Page H1388]]

and being able to pay comparable rates that men would be paying. I 
mean, he comes in, and he wants to just do away with the Affordable 
Care Act and create and give us this budget that really makes no sense.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I want to thank the gentleman 
for his insight on how this budget is affecting his constituents, and 
to hear from him that women and men may have an almost perfect score in 
college and have to leave because they can't afford it, their Pell 
Grants have been cut--it's just unconscionable that the wealthiest 
country in the world is not there to invest in the next generation, in 
the next leaders, the next teachers and engineers that our country 
needs.
  It's not just education. It's not just housing. We're talking about 
food on the table. Once again, as they did last year, House Republicans 
are proposing to slash the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 
This is commonly called the ``food stamps.'' For people who don't have 
enough money for their food, this helps them, but they are calling for 
taking the food stamps and turning it into a block grant. Now, we who 
have worked in city, State, and Federal Governments know that ``block 
grant'' is another way of saying cut--permanently cut--and, in some 
cases, sliding it out of existence.
  SNAP currently helps, roughly, 47 million low-income Americans afford 
the food they put on the tables every day, and during these past few 
years of the Great Recession, SNAP has been a lifeline to those in 
need, making sure that in the wealthiest country in the world American 
families don't have to go hungry. People who apply for food stamps need 
food. Now women make up, roughly, 60 percent of SNAP's adult 
beneficiaries, and more than half of SNAP households with children are 
headed by a single adult, the vast majority of whom--over 90 percent--
are women. That means that single moms on SNAP are already struggling 
to make ends meet and to take care of their kids.
  They will be losing these benefits because the Ryan Republican budget 
refuses to close the $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes. Now, I for one say 
let's close those tax loopholes and keep the food on the tables of 
America's families who need it. I find that outrageous.
  I am really thrilled that a new Member of Congress, Lois Frankel--a 
woman with a great record of distinction in the State of Florida--has 
joined us. I want to thank her for coming and providing the perspective 
of her State. When it's cold, I know all my constituents want to be in 
Florida, but I'm pleased that she is here with us now.
  Thank you for being here.

                              {time}  1830

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. I'm pleased 
to be with you. I came up here as a new Member in a bipartisan spirit, 
and I really wanted to be standing here today embracing Mr. Ryan's 
plan; but I have to tell you, I'm worried about it. And I want to tell 
you why I'm worried about it. I'm worried about it for Sabrina, for 
Lucy, for Ruth, Lola, and Barbara.
  I'm going to tell you about them. Sabrina is a small business owner. 
She has a little catering company. She called my office because she's 
looking for a way to get a small business loan so she can stay in 
business and improve it. It's hard today getting loans from the banks.
  Lucy is a bright-eyed young student in a community college. She is 
thrilled to have a student loan, a Federal student loan.
  Lola is a teacher who has a daughter with cerebral palsy, and she 
depends on services from the government to help her with her daughter.
  And Ruth, Ruth is 91 years old. She used to be a ball of a fire, but 
she recently hurt herself. She just got out of the hospital, and she 
can't move around. She can hardly get out of bed. She depends on Meals 
on Wheels to feed her so she has food every day.
  And then there is Barbara who's outlived most of her relatives. She's 
in a nursing home in my hometown, and she has Alzheimer's.
  I know you ask me why I'm worried about them. You know why I'm 
worried about them, because they are the victims. They will be the 
victims of this proposed budget. And what's going to happen? Will 
Sabrina lose her business? Will Lucy have to drop out of school? Will 
Ruth go hungry? Will Lola have to give up her work so she can stay home 
with her daughter? Tell me something, who is going to take care of 
Barbara? Who's going to take care of her?
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. No one. No one. She is going to 
have to quit her job and stay home and take care of Barbara.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Barbara is in no condition to take care of 
anybody. Listen, I think we all know, the American people know that we 
have to get our fiscal house in order. There is a deficit problem for 
us, but the American people want us to solve it in a responsible manner 
because I also know this: we still have a job problem out there. We 
have slow economic recovery. And now as we are just turning the corner, 
all of a sudden we have this plan, this bill, this proposal, this 
budget that independent analysts tell us is going to throw, what, 2 
million people out of work, the majority of them women. It will really 
crush these people like Lucy, Ruth, and Lola and Barbara and Sabrina. 
We can tell each other hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stories.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Thank you for putting a human 
face on what it's meaning for people who are coming to your office for 
help. But also what has to be part of this equation is that the economy 
is still very fragile, and you can't cut your way to prosperity. These 
deep cuts could put the economy in a tailspin. Chairman Bernanke, the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has testified that we need a balanced 
approach, that we shouldn't slash so severely. Many economists say that 
the American economy is doing better than Europe because we are not 
cutting as deeply as Europe is, so giving the economy a chance to 
recover.
  So to go in with these draconian cuts, not only does it hurt people, 
such as with the stories you're telling us, but it could hurt the 
recovery, the overall economy that for the past 35 months has been 
growing private sector jobs and digging ourselves out of that deep 
recession, so it could possibly throw us back into it. You've raised an 
important point, and I yield back to you.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. I ask another question: What is the logic in 
taking little children out of Head Start programs when we know that the 
path to middle class, the path to be able to take care of your family, 
to take care of yourself, to be a tax-paying citizen is education? So I 
ask you, Congresswoman, why would we pass a budget that would take 
27,000--I think even more, I think the last sequester bill would take 
27,000 children out of child care, Head Start, and this new budget 
doubles down. Why would we do that?
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Well, I think you pointed out 
that this budget is not only draconian and unfair; it is filled with 
contradictions. Why in the world would you let these tax breaks 
continue for big oil companies that are making a profit, and we're 
subsidizing some of them to the tune of 40 percent, yet you're going to 
take the future of our young kids and throw them off. It is a total, 
total contradiction; and it's completely wrong.
  I want to point out the biggest contradiction in this budget. It 
repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the law's budget savings and 
uses it to balance their budget. So they say in the budget they're 
going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. How are they going to repeal 
it? It passed the Congress; it is the law of this country. It was 
upheld by the Supreme Court. We had an election where this was a 
central point of debate; and, guess what, President Obama won the 
election, and he ran on the Affordable Care Act. So they say that 
they're going to repeal it. They don't have the votes to repeal it. And 
even if they did, he'd veto it. There's no way they can repeal it, so 
it is a complete--really a hoax. It's a hoax.
  Then they claim to protect Medicare while ending Medicare as we know 
it for future seniors and our children and our grandchildren. And the 
biggest hoax, they sit there and say they are going to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, and then they take the savings from the Affordable 
Care Act, the $718 billion that was put there from the providers, and 
they use that to balance

[[Page H1389]]

their budget. So the numbers do not add up.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Let me ask you this: Does the repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act come with a repeal of people getting ill? I'm 
trying to figure out the logic here because if you repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, if you take Medicare and now you turn it into a 
voucher program or what they call ``premium support,'' which means 
literally thousands of dollars more coming out of the seniors' pockets 
to take care of themselves, you're not repealing illness. All you're 
doing with this Ryan budget is shifting the burden back to the middle 
class.
  You hit it on the head when you said let's keep giving those tax 
breaks to the big oil companies, the people who want to move their 
companies offshore, to big corporations with huge profits paying almost 
nothing in taxes. Here's how we're going to clean up our fiscal house: 
we're going to tell people when they're oldest and they're sickest, 
you're going to have to pay more money, or just don't get sick.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The gentlelady is correct. 
They're shifting the burden onto the middle class, the elderly, and the 
poor. Again, President Obama's budget contains $1.3 trillion in 
spending, and in that budget is $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. So where 
are the priorities of this country? Close the tax breaks, keep the food 
on the table, or close the tax breaks and reduce the deficit.
  I think they're not sincere about wanting to reduce the deficit and 
the debt because if they were, they would take those tax loopholes and 
close them. Some are important such as the deduction for a family's 
home. That allows many middle class and moderate middle class Americans 
to own their own home. They are able to deduct that.

                              {time}  1840

  But there are all these other deductions that make no sense. Why in 
the world are we giving a subsidy to companies that move jobs overseas? 
It's crazy. If anything, the subsidy should be for companies in America 
making it in America, creating jobs in America, and paying their taxes, 
their Social Security, and their Medicare in America.
  So this whole budget is an exercise in contradictions and it's an 
exercise in, really, lack of good judgment or values, and I hope that 
we are able to defeat it.
  I hope that the Democratic plan will be the one that is finally the 
one that passes. This is just the same old same old from the last 2 
years: slash the safety net and protect tax breaks. The Ryan approach 
just isn't a balanced or, I would say, fair or valued approach.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Thank you, Representative. I want to thank 
you for letting me join you here today.
  I just want to say this. I know we've been standing up here and we've 
been critical of this Ryan budget and, respectfully, I think we're just 
saying it like it is. But I want to just say this, and I know you feel 
the same way. I hope that we can vet it.
  You know, we're venting our feelings here today. And our constituents 
need to know that we're going to stay strong for them and the women of 
this country, the Lucys, the Sabrinas, the Barbaras of this country, 
and of course the men that we love, too. But I hope that we can find a 
way, that we can find a middle ground, we can find a reasoned budget 
that gets people back to work, that we secure our families and we get 
our fiscal house in order in a reasonable amount of time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I want to thank you, 
Congresswoman, and you raised some important points.
  And one that was not raised, that is the illnesses that we do not 
have cures for in this country. And one of the things that America's 
always led the world in is scientific research, yet this budget cuts 
that research. It cuts the National Institutes of Health that could 
come up with the cures for the diseases that she mentioned.
  America is a place of innovation and medical advancements, and 
Congress should be focused on keeping that status, that we don't want 
to lose our leadership in innovation.
  To give one example, breast cancer is one of the most common cancers 
among women. One in seven women will come down with breast cancer, and 
it is one of the leading causes of death among women of all races in 
America. In 2009, over 210,000 women in the United States were 
diagnosed with breast cancer, and over 40,000 women died from the 
disease.
  Over the past 5 years, the National Institutes of Health spent more 
than $3 billion on breast cancer research, which dwarfs any amount we 
see in the private sector or nonprofit sector. And yet, in the Ryan 
budget, the NIH would be cut and slashed by billions and billions of 
dollars, yet these dollars are the hope for saving lives. They're the 
hope for finding cures. And we know that health research has paid off.
  Another important area is Alzheimer's. The number of women and men 
that contract Alzheimer's is huge and growing, and this cut will be 
cutting the research that we have in Alzheimer's and other lifesaving 
efforts to prevent Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other diseases.
  So we've been making a lot of progress in health research and 
innovative research, and all of that research is really at risk under 
the Ryan Republican budget.
  I am very pleased that one of my colleagues from the great State of 
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, who is a strong advocate for women, 
children, and families, has joined us. Thank you so much for being here 
tonight.

  I yield the gentlelady as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my friend from New York, Congresswoman 
Maloney, for her leadership on economic issues particularly impacting 
women, for the persistence of her introduction of the Equal Rights 
Amendment, long overdue, that we all join in to ensure the rights of 
women. And let me thank the gentlemen that are on the floor that joined 
us this evening.
  I want to follow up, as I listened to the discussion that you just 
had, I met with Dr. Brinkley in the hallway, who is one of the leading 
researchers in biomolecular research from Baylor University, in my 
Congressional region, if you will. I consider representation because it 
is such a massive institution. And he brought with him two of his 
researchers. In fact, the headline on one of my papers was the 
standstill work of one of our important researchers because of the 
sequester, and certainly because of this budget. All of that points to 
women who are most vulnerable as relates to the needs of research in 
chronic illnesses.
  Let me cite for my colleagues about this question of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security what is drastically cut and reordered 
under the Ryan Republican budget. I'm really saddened that 
misinformation comes that the Medicare's predominance, in terms of its 
help, goes to those who are fat cats.
  Let me share some numbers with you. Many of these are women. We do 
know that women live longer, and so the needs that they have for 
Medicare and Social Security may be extended.
  And may I take something out of our vocabulary, though it is in the 
dictionary. Medicare and Social Security are earned. I don't know where 
we got the word ``entitlement,'' because entitlement suggests you're 
entitled with no basis of responsibility. But they earned this. Women 
earned this.
  And women started before the fight that we had, Congresswoman, for 
pay equity over the last decade or two. They were making the lower 
wages, and so their Social Security input had to be much lower as they 
continued to work years in.
  But let me just share with you on the Medicare beneficiaries:
  Annual income less than $22,500: 50 percent of the Medicare 
beneficiaries include in that number women;
  Chronic conditions: of those who receive Medicare, 40 percent include 
in that number women;
  Fair and poor health: 27 percent, women in that population;
  Cognitive mental impairment: 23 percent, women in that population;
  Functional limitations: 15 percent, women in that calculation.
  So, as I look at this budget, 60 percent of it is taking away health 
care from the poor and middle class, which would include women.
  The idea that the bill slants itself toward protecting the interests 
of the wealthy by not listing any deduction that you're willing to 
take. Now, I know if we get into a discussion about deductions, we put 
ourselves in that circle; but let me just say, middle class

[[Page H1390]]

Americans need mortgage deductions. I know, however, that that is one 
that is under discussion.
  But why did our friends writing this budget not list the deductions 
that they would be willing to put on the table? Some of us realize that 
mortgage deductions help young families. It helps single women. It 
helps women who are maintaining or getting their first house. So here 
we have a special emphasis.
  I'm glad my colleague mentioned breast cancer. I have introduced 
legislation on triple negative. It happens to have a far-reaching 
impact on women from all ethnic groups, whether they are Caucasian, 
whether they are Hispanic, or whether they are African American or 
Asian, but it is a deadly form of the disease, a more deadly form of 
the disease. And so that kind of research which many of us are arguing 
for is now limited because of this budget.
  The budget does not--well, let me just say this. The budget takes for 
its own what was accomplished with the savings in the Affordable Care 
Act. It takes for its own the cuts that we made, were willing to make 
in 2012, over a trillion in cuts and spending. And it totally ignores 
economists who have indicated that the austerity format that was taken 
in Europe was the completely wrong direction, and that, then, impacts 
our families more negatively.

                              {time}  1850

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I want to point out and make 
sure that our colleagues and the listening public know that the Ryan 
plan assumes the $85 billion in sequester cuts. So these cuts are on 
top of that. And according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, the sequester could cause the U.S. economy to lose 750,000 
jobs. And the Ryan plan compounds these job losses.
  The Economic Policy Institute has initial estimates that the House 
Republican budget would cost 2 million jobs in 2014 alone, relative to 
current policy. So why in the world would we want to take these steps 
that are going to result in job loss?
  I yield back to the lady.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for that astute assessment. 
When I give these various points, women are disproportionately placed. 
Many of them are heads of households, many of them are senior women. 
Many are going back into the workforce because they have resource 
shortages, if you will. And the Ryan budget takes in all of these; 
i.e., the $85 billion in sequester cuts. By the way, again, I 
introduced legislation to eliminate the sequester provision out of the 
Budget Reconciliation Act. I happen to think that it is meritorious 
because we need to start from a fair point of view, not what I call 
nickel and diming, ending people's research, closing doors in the 
Capitol, and a number of other things that are not good for America.
  But let me just finish on this. If we're interested in R&D, as we 
indicated, or clean energy--slashed. Obviously, it will have an impact 
on the quality of life of families who are raising their children. What 
about nutrition assistance, the SNAP program? What an obliterating cut 
to the SNAP program, which is now serving 48 million people. Let me 
remind my colleagues that these are military persons, women who are in 
the military. These are young families. These are individuals who are 
in school. And so women are disproportionately impacted.
  And this, I think, is clearly one of the largest conflicts of reason, 
and that is to underfund or take away the funding for the Affordable 
Care Act, which has been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court 
and has been documented as having a health care savings and providing 
for a healthier America. And here we are taking away coverage from 27 
million Americans.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. They take away the good aspects 
of it, all the preventive and the health care. They propose to 
eliminate that, but then they keep the tax savings from it to balance 
their budget. It is a hoax. It's not realistic. It's not true. And I 
really appreciate your words here today on the floor.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. They take all the good things that, might I say, the 
Democrats have worked on and can really be defined as balanced and fair 
and utilize it in a budget that is absolutely lopsided. And I thank you 
for having us on the floor to explain to the women of America why this 
budget will not be good for them, their children, or their expanded 
families, and that we're committed to standing against this kind of 
approach that is really not the American way.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady.
  In conclusion, Americans can't afford more fuzzy math and budget 
gimmicks. We need real solutions that help grow our economy, create 
jobs, support the health and economic security of our seniors, and one 
that will address the arbitrary sequester cuts. Chairman Ryan's budget 
fails to address any of these.
  Our Republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. 
What they propose here would indeed make things much harder for 
millions of Americans, but it will also make things much easier for a 
fortunate few. That's their plan. The reality is that the majority's 
Ryan budget harms those who need help and doles out tax breaks and 
benefits to those who do not. So let me be as clear as I possibly can: 
the Ryan budget, if it were passed by the House, would risk our 
recovery.
  I want to thank all the participants tonight. I thank the like-minded 
men who came to the floor to support us and the women that have spoken 
out tonight on how the budget affects women, children, and their 
expanded families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________