[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4396-4402]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  BUDGET CUTS HARM WOMEN AND CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight how the 
President's fiscal year 2007 budget will harm millions of women and 
children around the country. Tonight you are going to hear from some of 
my colleagues about those specific programs that have proven to be 
successful for all women but are currently being cut and in some cases 
eliminated altogether.
  The President is proposing to cut programs that disproportionately 
help women, children, the elderly, and the increasing population of 
Americans living in poverty.
  Earlier this month, I was part of a recent delegation of Members of 
Congress who traveled to the gulf coast and New Orleans where most 
communities are still struggling to clean up their homes and get back 
to some sense of normalcy after Hurricane Katrina. We need to be doing 
more to help those, those that lost everything to regain their lives. 
These communities must have quality health care, emergency care, and 
safe environmental conditions. But we cannot accomplish these goals and 
help the millions of women and children around the country who are 
living in poverty with the reckless and immoral budget that President 
Bush has proposed.
  Key domestic programs that provide food and housing and support to 
women are vulnerable under this administration. In fact, the Bush 
administration is determined to protect tax cuts for the very 
wealthiest of Americans and provide health care for those who already 
have health care coverage and not include the 50 million uninsured 
people in our country today. The President wants to eliminate 
educational support for women, food assistance for seniors living in 
poverty, and he wants to significantly slash funding from important 
safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps. In just 4 years, the 
cost of making these tax cuts permanent will exceed the amount that the 
Federal Government spends on education beginning in preschool through 
college.
  Where is the economic recovery that the administration promised? Real 
wages as we know are down. The number of people living in poverty has 
increased. Job growth has been stagnant. And tonight I am glad that so 
many of our colleagues in our Congress, the Women's Democratic 
Congress, who serve here are coming together to speak out against the 
President's budget and how it is going in the wrong direction for women 
and their families.
  I would like to begin by talking about education. But first I would 
like

[[Page 4397]]

to begin by addressing the President's failure to address rising 
college costs. With increased funding for student financial aid 
programs like the PELL Grant program and the Perkins loan program. 
Before my election to public office, I worked for the California 
Student Opportunity and Access Program and helped many young people in 
my community obtain the ideal of going to college and receiving 
financial aid because there was no other means to go to college.
  The President's budget currently continues to shortchange America's 
students who rely on financial aid to pursue their college education. 
Just one month after Congressional Republicans cut college aid by $12 
billion, $12 billion, the President proposed a budget that eliminates, 
decreases and freezes funding for much needed programs that are vital 
to helping students of color, people from my own community.
  Low interest Perkins loans are crucial resources as we know for 
college students who have demonstrated need. Two-thirds of the Perkins 
loan recipients are from families with annual incomes less than $40,000 
a year. Yet, the Perkins loan program took a hit in the President's 
2007 budget and would recall $664 million from the federal Perkins loan 
fund for nearly 1,800 colleges in the year 2007. And as a result 
463,000 college students would lose a key part of their financial aid.
  Despite the record tuition increases that we all know are going 
through in our States, Bush's budget breaks his promise yet again of 
making college more affordable and he actually freezes the maximum PELL 
grant in scholarships. Six years ago President Bush promised to 
increase the maximum PELL scholarship for all college freshmen at 
$5,100.

                              {time}  2100

  This budget is now the fourth time that the President has frozen the 
Pell Grant. Access to financial aid, as we know, is a huge factor for 
many students, particularly from low-income areas like my own.
  Three out of four young Latino adults who do not attend college cite 
the fact that without having financial aid they cannot continue to have 
the American dream. About 40 percent of African American students and 
30 percent of Hispanic students depend on Pell Grants, compared to 23 
percent of all students.
  Young women, just trying to improve their earning potential and get a 
better job also disproportionately rely on the Pell Grant program, and 
I have to tell you, when I was a student, that was my means of going on 
to college.
  My parents could not afford to send me to college. They could not 
afford to give me a substantial amount of money to go to a university. 
So thank God that we had Federal financial aid programs available, work 
study programs and the National Student Loan Program, where I was able 
to attend a 4-year institution to have my full tuition paid for, 
including expenses; and I thank God that our government at that time 
stepped up to the plate.
  I cannot say that now, under this administration, but for the last 4 
years now we have seen an increase of 57 percent in costs to attend 
college, by this President. We need to reject the President's freezes 
and cuts to financial aid and help those students who want to go to 
college, but the high cost of tuition is just way out of line.
  When these students get to college, we need to do more to encourage 
them to pursue fields that will encourage innovation and increase 
America's competitiveness and increase the number of women that seek 
access into the technical fields like science and math. While women 
account for more than half of the number of bachelor's and master's 
degrees awarded, they make up a small number in the fields that are 
crucial to spurring innovation and job creation, for example, in areas 
like engineering, computer science, physical sciences and math. Only 21 
percent of master's degrees in engineering were awarded to women. For 
computer science and physical science, women only earn about 35 percent 
of the master's degrees in the country.
  The statistics are far worse for women of color, like Latinas and 
African American women and even Asian Americans. Within the small 
number of women who earn an engineering master's degree, 11 percent are 
Asian American, a little over 4 percent are African American and less 
than 4 percent are Latinas.
  We need to encourage women to be part of the technical and skilled 
workforce from school age all the way up to adulthood.
  The President's budget also eliminates the Dropout Prevention Program 
and, therefore, ignores the big problem that we have currently in many 
of our communities where we see a number of our students dropping out 
of high school. For the past 4 years, the Bush administration has cut 
funding for dropout prevention, denying our most-needed students the 
opportunity to succeed, and in Los Angeles, by the way, only 29 percent 
of Latinos and 47 percent of African Americans actually graduate from 
high school.
  This budget also freezes over $1 billion in current funding for 
ongoing programs, including the GEAR UP program, the TRIO and Upward 
Bound program, which are vital programs to many youngsters in our 
community. Many that attend and currently are enrolled in those 
programs are the first in their family to have the opportunity to be 
trained and have the motivation and support and mentoring that is 
needed to be successful in college. With the President saying that he 
wants to zero out these programs, he is sending the wrong message to my 
community and to communities across this country.
  We need to be encouraging all of our young people to pursue higher 
education to keep America competitive and to increase our productivity 
and economy. With deep cuts to student aid proposed by the President, 
we are closing the doors to eager students instead of providing a 
helping hand to those who want to learn, who want to work and want to 
be a part of the society.
  We must defeat this immoral budget to help our students achieve their 
goals and access all the opportunities that our Nation can provide.
  I would like to briefly speak about women in the workforce. Once 
these young women who complete college graduate, they face challenges 
in the workforce. The wage gap among women and men continues to this 
day. Some of you may know that women earn on an average 76 cents to 
every dollar that a man earns. Instead of eliminating the wage gap and 
providing more opportunities for women to enter the workforce and earn 
good wages, the Bush budget continues to undercut and devalue women's 
contributions to the American labor force.
  The Bush budget eliminates the women in apprenticeships and 
nontraditional occupational programs. This program, which only costs $1 
million per year, provides grants to employers to help them recruit, 
train and retain women in nontraditional and well-paying jobs. Women 
who were a part of Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional 
Occupations projects were 47 percent more likely to enter higher-paying 
technical jobs than others.
  The overwhelming lack of women in technical fields like science and 
math, as you know, is astounding. Even if women graduate with 
engineering and science and math degrees, they are still faced with low 
salaries.
  On the average, women hold Ph.D.s in computer science and 
engineering, but still earn $9,000 less per year than their male 
counterparts. Latino engineers, both men and women, earn $10,000 less 
than the average salary for all engineers, and African American 
engineers earn $8,000 less.
  We need to encourage women to be a part of the technical and skilled 
workforce from school age right up to adulthood.
  Programs like Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations 
Act are a part of that effort, and I will work in Congress, along with 
my colleagues, to reject the elimination of this or any other programs 
that help women achieve their dreams and realize their potential to be 
an important component of the technical workforce.

[[Page 4398]]

  From the wage gap to discrimination, we need to do more to help women 
succeed and support this vital and necessary part of the American 
workforce. I urge all of my colleagues here today and tonight to do 
everything possible to defeat the President's immoral and irresponsible 
budget that puts women and children's futures at risk.
  I would now like to introduce one of my colleagues who has joined me 
tonight, who is also part of the Women's Issues Group here in the 
Congress, the distinguished former ambassador and Congresswoman, Diane 
Watson, who is going to also join me in discussion regarding this 
important topic with respect to the budget cuts towards women and their 
families.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for allowing me to join in this discussion on women and the 
budget.
  This budget, as you have heard, would hurt working women and their 
families. It does not alleviate the real health disparities that exist 
throughout the Nation, and it does not do much to help young girls 
realize their potential, whether in the classroom or in the community.
  I would like to use my 33rd District in Los Angeles, California, as 
an example to show what women want and the impact of the President's 
budget on my sisters.
  Women want an environment where they and their families can live, 
work and play. They want to eliminate the community health disparities 
that leave some people with different standards of care, and they want 
to redirect youth away from violence and lives of crime and into a life 
of productive citizenship.
  Women are integral to uncovering the solutions to these issues, yet 
this budget severely undermines women and the roles they play.
  For example, the President's budget hurts working women and their 
families by freezing funding for child care in the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant, early childhood education in the Head Start 
programs, and necessary social services in the Social Services Block 
Grant.
  The legislation we passed tells low-income women they have to work if 
they wish to qualify for aid from the government, but how can women 
work if they cannot afford a decent place to leave their children 
during the day? They have to have confidence that their children are 
getting the proper care. The President's budget does not provide an 
answer to that question.
  Women need more assistance with their health care needs, not the same 
as last year, and certainly not less.
  The budget reduces funding for title X family planning programs, the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, and the Public Health Service's 
Office of Women's Health. The goals of these programs are to improve 
the health and the well-being of women and girls, and by reducing their 
funding, we show women and girls that their health care is less 
important.
  This budget has failed economic policies and has contributed to the 
1.2 million more Americans slipping into poverty. Communities of color 
are disproportionately living at risk. Approximately 25 percent of 
African Americans and 22 percent of Latinos are living in poverty. We 
should be doing more, not less, to help all Americans trying to make 
ends meet.
  The President's budget cuts spending on food stamps by more than $650 
million over the next 5 years by making it more difficult for low-
income families receiving welfare to qualify for food stamps. 
Approximately 225,000 people will lose eligibility for food stamps. 
40,000 of those are children who will also lose access to free school 
lunches, and subsequently, spending on child nutrition will be cut by 
$50 million over the next 5 years.
  These cuts will hurt the low-income women who rely on the food 
stamps; and what is so tragic about this is that it is the women who 
shop for children's foods, and when we think of it, children will be 
going to school with empty stomachs, hungry. How can they concentrate 
on their classwork when they are hungry? Of the 21 million people who 
receive food stamps, nearly 70 percent are women.
  The President's cuts will also affect Latinos across the country who 
are struggling to put food on their tables. We must end the 
irresponsible cuts to the food stamp program that pays for tax cuts for 
the wealthy, and we must oppose this President's budget.
  The President's budget also eliminates the Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program which provides nutritious food packages, primarily to low- 
income seniors. Over 420,000 seniors are served by the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program, as well as 50,000 mothers and children. Our 
seniors deserve better treatment than to cut these programs.
  Over two-thirds of low-income elderly are women who also receive 
disproportionately less in other government benefits, and the programs 
are Social Security and others.

                              {time}  2115

  And these are people who have paid in to the Social Security System 
who deserve to have a dignified retirement. In February, 59,000 of 
these recipients were eliminated from this program and are no longer 
able to obtain their monthly supply of groceries. Shame on us.
  Simply transferring these individuals to the Women, Infant, and 
Children Food Assistance program, known as WIC, or food stamps is not a 
workable solution for many elderly individuals. Cuts in the budget to 
food stamps will make it more difficult for seniors who will be 
transferred from this commodity supplemental food program if the 
President's budget is implemented. In addition, many elderly shifted to 
food stamps will not qualify for the same amount of groceries they 
currently receive from the commodity supplemental food program. Again, 
shame, shame on us.
  The commodity supplemental food program is also a very unique program 
that helps seniors because the food is delivered where they live and 
eat, and it is important that we preserve this program for our 
distinguished seniors, all of whom are distinguished because they have 
lived long and worked most of their lives.
  The President's budget also calls for cuts to WIC in the coming 
years. While the budget includes $5.2 billion for 2007 for the WIC 
program, funding declines to $5.0 billion in 2011. That is a 13.3 
percent cut from the amount that would be necessary to maintain 
purchasing power at the current level. The President's cap on 
administrative costs in the budget will likely lead to reduced WIC 
clinic hours and other service cuts, making it more difficult for 
families to receive services such as nutrition education.
  So the President's assault on the safety net services for the poor in 
favor of tax breaks for the wealthy has to come to a stop, and it is up 
to us here in Congress to say no to his ridiculous requests that put 
thousands of women, children and the elderly at risk. We must honor our 
old, and we must do for our children what America stands for.
  Women need more assistance with their health care needs. Seniors need 
better assistance with their health care needs, and the budget reduces 
funding for many of these programs. Shame, shame on us if we allow such 
a detrimental budget to go forward.
  So I would say, my colleague, my distinguished colleague, that our 
speaking tonight, I hope, will convince our colleagues that this is a 
detrimental budget that doesn't help. It only harms America's women and 
elderly and America's children.
  Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Honorable Congresswoman Diane Watson for your 
eloquent words. I know that there are thousands, millions of people out 
watching us tonight, and I know in my great State of California there 
is a lot of preoccupation in terms of what is occurring here in the 
House. It is very disappointing to go back home and tell folks that the 
policies this administration has leveled are outrageous and severely 
harmful to our most vulnerable populations, our children, our seniors, 
our working families.
  And we don't have to look too far to be reminded what the President 
attempted to do just last year when he

[[Page 4399]]

talked about privatizing Social Security. A failed policy. He tried to 
sell it. I think he had several town hall meetings. I know I did. And 
when we went out and spoke to our seniors in an open, unbiased setting, 
where no one was given pretickets and everyone was allowed to come in, 
where we had lay people, we had doctors, and we had folks in the health 
care industry but we had also the seniors there, they asked the very 
important questions: How is making this program, Social Security, which 
is the bedrock, our insurance plan for all Americans when they retire, 
how is it going to help to privatize it? Who is going to make the money 
off of that? And if I don't pay into it and put money aside, who is 
going to support me in my old age?
  I heard this from widows and disabled people, and I heard an 
outpouring of negative support for the privatization of Social 
Security. In just about every forum that I held in my district, in east 
Los Angeles, in the San Gabriel Valley, we heard by an overwhelming 
margin that the people did not support that plan. Do not touch Social 
Security was the clear message that I got. And I know that many 
colleagues in the House on our side, in the Democratic Caucus, held 
several, if not thousands, close to a thousand, I believe, town hall 
meetings last year, and overwhelmingly there is a consensus that we 
can't afford to shortchange our seniors and people who have paid into 
the system. And to also neglect the disabled, because there are some 
very vulnerable populations that rely on that Social Security check.
  Many people wrote me personally and said, Congresswoman Solis, please 
do not allow for further cuts in Social Security. We need to have an 
indexing system so that we can keep up with the cost of living. My rent 
is $400, but my check for that month is maybe $800. I have to pay for 
utilities. I have to pay for medicine, and it isn't enough to cover my 
medicine. So I have to cut my medicine in half and spread it out for 
the week or the month.
  And still no one there to listen, to help. This administration has 
turned their backs on our most vulnerable population. Thank goodness 
that that proposal went nowhere. But I understand that there are 
current attempts to try to revive it again, and I know that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also heard very strongly 
that their constituents are not in agreement with privatizing Social 
Security.
  That leads me to something else, because one of the things I think is 
most important for us tonight is to talk about Medicaid and its effect 
on women and the proposed cuts that this President would like to make. 
We can't allow it.
  Here on this chart I would like to explain to the public and to my 
colleagues that this is the Republican budget, which fails to provide 
health care for women and families. And if you note, women account for 
over 56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. The Republican budget 
slashes Medicare by $36 billion over 5 years. The majority of Medicaid 
beneficiaries are women and girls. The Republican budget cuts Medicaid 
by $42 billion over 5 years, and more than 20 million women do not have 
any form of health insurance.
  The Republicans health savings account, which is much like the 
privatization of Social Security, would lead to higher out-of-pocket 
costs for most Americans. And once people hear about this, they will 
turn down the notion of health savings accounts.
  In my district, you have to have money to be able to put away just to 
set up that account. We are talking about needy people, working class 
people, working families that are struggling. They can't afford to put 
$200 and $300 away per month just to provide for a premium to pay for 
that health care account. And then we are probably sure to hear that 
some of these providers that are going to get into these accounts are 
going to be very selective and cherry pick who their patients will be. 
They are not going to take the very ill, the very sick.
  That is why it is important that the government step in and continue 
to fully fund Medicaid and not go in the wrong direction that this 
administration would like to go into.
  I would like to go back to my comments here where the President's 
budget proposes new rounds of Medicaid cuts that would take another $14 
billion out of Medicaid, as I said over the next 5 years. These cuts 
come just months after Republicans in Congress forced through an ill-
conceived budget reconciliation bill which slashed $6.9 billion over 
the next 5 years in the Medicaid program.
  Over 20 million women in our country lack any form of health care. 
Again, cuts to Medicaid, an already underfunded program, would have a 
devastating impact on women and their families. And more than 53 
million people, including 14 percent of low-income Americans, currently 
have no access to health care. And it is even more important because 
more than one in every four children in the United States is covered by 
Medicaid. That is more than 25 million children in our country. More 
than 30 percent of children with disabilities rely on Medicaid for 
health coverage and services.
  Medicaid provides essential care, such as family planning, breast and 
cervical cancer treatment, and care for disabled women to more than 16 
million women, including approximately 10 million women of childbearing 
age. Nearly one in ten women in the U.S. receives health care coverage 
through Medicaid, and one-third of all poor women are covered by 
Medicaid, including 40 percent of single moms.
  Medicaid is so important to Latinas, who have the highest rate of 
uninsurance, 37 percent, of any racial and ethnic minority group. 
Approximately 12 percent of low-income Latinas rely on Medicaid for 
their health care coverage. Even Latinas who are legal immigrants, who 
are here legally, find barriers to health care access.
  Since 1996, legal immigrants have been barred from receiving Medicaid 
coverage for the first 5 years of their residency unless the State they 
reside in specifically covers them through State funds. In our State of 
California, we have been able to do that. This is a 5-year period in 
which these women and men who legally emigrated to the United States 
are denied regular health care and screenings for diseases that plague 
communities of color, like cancer, diabetes, HIV and AIDS.
  Without health insurance, many Latinas are forced to delay or forego 
their health care coverage all together. For example, approximately 25 
percent of Latinas have not even visited a physician in the last year. 
Incredible. Almost one-third of Latinas do not have any health care 
provider at all. And Latinas do not access prenatal care or cervical 
and breast cancer screenings at the same rate as the regular 
population.
  We need to do more to expand access to Medicaid for all women, all 
women of color. Women are twice as likely as men to qualify for 
Medicaid because they are poorer, in lower-paying jobs, and are less 
likely to be offered health care insurance. Women of reproductive age 
are especially vulnerable because they are more likely to lack health 
insurance.
  Medicaid accounts for two-thirds, two-thirds of all Federal and State 
family planning funding nationwide. This is the largest source of 
public funding for family planning services and products. Low-income 
pregnant women can receive critical prenatal care when they need it 
without being turned away. Medicaid ensures that women receive a full 
spectrum of maternity coverage, including prenatal, labor, delivery and 
postpartum care.
  Medicaid is also important for elderly women, as we spoke about 
earlier. It is the largest source of funding for women over the age of 
80 living in nursing homes. The program covers high-cost nursing homes 
and long-term care services.
  Medicaid also covers important health screenings for cervical and 
breast cancer as well as for sexually transmitted infections. Medicaid 
in California provides vital health services to low-income women of all 
ages who comprise 75 percent of the beneficiaries ages 19 and older.
  In California, in our great State, 42 percent of all births in the 
State are

[[Page 4400]]

paid for by Medicaid. There is no question or doubt in my mind that 
Medicaid is a significant health safety net program for women. The cuts 
in Medicaid that are being proposed would shut the neediest individuals 
out of the public health system and put the health care of millions of 
women and young women and girls at risk.

                              {time}  2130

  Proposing reductions without ensuring the preservation of coverage 
for those in need simply transfers the burden to States that are 
already over stretched, and Medicaid cuts would shift costs to the 
States and impose higher costs to beneficiaries and health care 
providers who are already strapped. States would be forced to reduce 
Medicaid coverage and benefits, increasing the number of low-income 
Americans who are uninsured or underinsured.
  The proposed Bush budget that we are discussing tonight would cut 
billions from Medicaid while doing nothing to make health care more 
affordable. Democrats believe in strengthening and not undermining 
Medicaid. The Federal Government should fulfill its promise of being a 
reliable partner in Medicaid, and we must protect Medicaid and maintain 
the current Federal commitment to this fundamental public health 
insurance program.
  I stand in strong opposition to the President's budget because I know 
it does not go far enough in protecting the health and wellbeing of our 
families and our children.
  In his State of the Union address, the President touted the 
government's responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the 
elderly and he set forth a goal of confronting the rising costs for all 
Americans. Unfortunately, the President's budget fails to live up to 
that goal. Instead, his budget undercuts health care for women, 
children and the elderly. America cannot afford to go in that 
direction. In recent years, health care costs have risen by almost 60 
percent, and the number of uninsured continues to grow and grow, 
including more than 13.7 million Latinos. Today, 22 million women, one 
in 5 adult women, rely on Medicare for basic health insurance 
protection. In fact, women comprise 56 percent of the Medicare 
population. By the time women are age 85 and older, they account for 
nearly three-quarters of all beneficiaries, and President Bush's fiscal 
year 2007 budget that is being debated tonight in the Committee on 
Rules goes way off the mark by cutting back good proposals that help 
many, many of our Americans in the Medicare and Medicaid programs by 
increasing the fees paid by our veterans, and by increasing Medicare 
premiums paid by our poor seniors. That includes $39.4 billion in cuts 
to Medicare over 5 years and $105 billion in cuts over 10 years.
  With the shoddy implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription 
drug benefit program and the growing population of seniors who are 
living longer than ever, now is definitely not the time to cut back on 
Medicare. And women who are eligible for Medicare are going to be at 
greater risk if these cuts are implemented.
  I have to tell you in my own district we had a series of these forums 
where we also talked with our seniors at various senior citizen sites 
about this very complicated program. Many said they refused to sign up. 
They refused to sign up because they could not go through the quagmire 
of 40 different programs that they were being told to select from. Many 
did not have access to appropriate linguistic information in Spanish 
and in Chinese. Some were not able to access a computer because there 
may be only one computer in their entire neighborhood. Our seniors 
cannot even afford a computer in their home, and are even less likely 
to be able to pay for an increased premium in the Medicare prescription 
drug program. It is a failure in my opinion.
  Just this last week on Monday we had a forum, a press forum in front 
of a pharmacy in east Los Angeles, Mr. Ramirez's pharmacy, and we heard 
from some of our pharmacists as well as some of our seniors that those 
individuals who are dual eligible on Medicare and Medicaid had a very 
difficult time now going into the pharmacy to get their medicine. They 
did not know that all of a sudden Medicaid was just going to pay for 
the hospital service that they did not need at that time, but if they 
went in to get their medicine, they were going to be charged anywhere 
from $1 to $5 more for every prescription that needed to be filled. So 
if you needed to repeatedly get medicine to treat your diabetes, to 
treat your high blood pressure or heart disease, you would be paying 
anywhere from $100 to $200 more out of pocket. And these are the folks 
on a fixed income, so $5 and $10 is a hardship. It means no food, no 
electricity, no phone and could lead to death if they are not given the 
appropriate treatment. This continues to go on.
  As Democrats, we are fighting to try to extend the deadline so people 
can go beyond the May 15 deadline that this administration said they 
would like to impose. If seniors do not sign up for this program by 
that time, they will be penalized, just further demonstrating how 
insensitive this administration is.
  We have a bill as Democrats to extend that deadline to December 31, 
2006. Why can't we get bipartisan support when the outcry has been so 
strong. I ask my colleagues to consider how we as Members of Congress 
can take care of ourselves, have the best health care programs for 
ourselves and our families and yet forget about our constituents in our 
districts. That is shameful and we need to address that immediately.
  I know in our communities, especially senior women of color, they are 
more likely to be low income. That is the case in east Los Angeles and 
the San Gabriel Valley. Fifty-six percent of African American women and 
58 percent of Latinas live on Medicare and their annual incomes are 
less than $10,000 a year compared to 24 percent for white women 
beneficiaries. Who in their right mind could survive on $10,000 a year, 
maybe a widow who has outlived her spouse who maybe live in an 
apartment, does not even own a car and has very little wealth, and yet 
we are expecting them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps after 
they have given so much to our country and paid in to the tax base and 
the economy of this great country. Shame on the Bush administration for 
doing that, for cutting health care funding for the elderly when we 
cannot even agree to negotiate with, for example, the pharmaceutical 
companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. We do it for our 
veterans, why can't we do it for all seniors. Why can't we allow for 
low cost and generic drugs to come into our country and import from 
those countries that we work with already. It is beyond comprehension 
for me to understand why this administration continues to have this 
roadblock where they do not want to support and preserve the rights of 
our seniors and our elderly.
  The President seeks Medicare savings through arbitrary reductions in 
provider payments, and we heard this at my press conference on Monday 
from our local pharmacy who said, ``Congresswoman, I cannot even afford 
to give some of these medicines out because I am not getting an 
appropriate refund or rebate on the medicine that I am giving. It is 
costing me more to give out the medicine than what I am getting in in 
payments from the Federal Government.''
  There is something wrong with that scheme, and I know perhaps the 
President has not thoroughly spent enough time in communities like mine 
to understand the hardships that are going on throughout our country 
right now. Those are challenges that we have to face. We have to face 
those here in Congress and we must do everything we can to see that 
this administration minimizes any costs and hardships to our seniors.
  Medicare costs in my opinion definitely need to go back. We do not 
need to move forward with this prescription drug program that was 
implemented, that was given to us in the dawn of night, 2,000 pages 
that Members could not even read, and three or four more hours where 
the clock was running and people could not decide on how to vote. It 
just blew my mind to see that there was such a callous understanding of

[[Page 4401]]

what the implications of this bill would be.
  Now we know the truth. The seniors know the truth, and they know that 
these programs are not working for them. That in fact this program, 
this facade of a program that was supposed to help seniors, actually 
helped the pharmaceutical companies. They are the ones that made 
millions. They are the ones that stand to make millions from the 
implementation of this program. That is wrong. That is not why we were 
sent here to this House. We were sent here to work on behalf of our 
constituents, and I refuse to vote for programs that will keep harming 
not only our seniors, our children, our women and also our veterans, 
which is happening here tonight in back of me in the Committee on 
Rules.
  We must talk freely about what is happening here and ask for 
transparency on the part of our elected leaders, especially those that 
control the domain of this House. We need to stand up. I know my 
colleagues in the Women's Caucus, in the Women's Democratic Caucus, 
will do everything we can to go out in the next few months, to hold 
forums and to continue to educate the public about the atrocities that 
are occurring. They need to be aware that we are here to speak to them 
clearly as Democrats, that we will stand for them and that we will 
fight with every fierce bone in our bodies to make sure that these cuts 
against our families and our children no longer occur. I pray for that 
moment to come soon.
  I thank my colleague, Ms. Watson, for joining me tonight, and I thank 
the Honorable Nancy Pelosi and our leadership and all of the 46 members 
of our caucus, the Democratic Women's Caucus, who stand tall every 
single day, coming here to work and working in their districts to make 
sure that the public is aware of the transparency that our party would 
want it to be like here for all of us.
  I want to thank also my staff and the staff of Leader Pelosi for 
helping us prepare for this one of many occasions we will come on the 
floor and speak the truth about these cuts that are being alleged and 
the harmful effects they will have to our communities, the senior 
community, the women's community, children's community and veterans' 
community.
  I would ask individuals to please take note that this is the 
Democratic Women's Working Group fighting for America's women and our 
families. Visit our Website at http://democraticleader.house.gov/dwwg/ or e-mail us at democratic womensworking [email protected].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 proposed 
budget sells women in this country short. Whether we are talking 
education, housing, financial security or health--this budget fails 
women.
  The President's budget will hurt elderly women by slashing Medicare 
once again. Congress just passed legislation cutting Medicare payments 
to health care providers to the tune of $22 billion over 10 years. Now, 
the President's FY07 budget will slash Medicare by yet another $105 
billion over 10 years. These drastic cuts will disproportionately 
impact women throughout this country, as women account for over 56 
percent of Medicare beneficiaries.
  But the President's budget doesn't stop with Medicare. It also cuts 
Medicaid to the bone. I'm sure it is no surprise to anyone in this body 
that the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are women and girls. With 
over 2 million women and girls having lost health insurance coverage 
since 2000, many have turned to Medicaid for needed health care. The 
President's budget cuts Medicaid by more than $42 billion over 10 
years. These cuts will shift costs to the states, who are already 
drastically reducing health benefits due to current budget shortfalls.
  This budget leaves behind women seeking reproductive health services. 
Title X clinics provide high-quality, low-cost family planning 
services. For more than 30 years, these clinics have enabled millions, 
and millions of women to plan their pregnancies, prevent unintended 
births, and receive desperately needed reproductive health care. Yet 
the President has proposed cutting funding for this program by millions 
and millions of dollars.
  Women cannot afford for this valuable program to be short changed, 
especially if this administration is not willing to adequately fund 
maternal child health programs. Which apparently, it is not. The 
Healthy Start infant mortality initiative and the Maternal and Child 
Health Block Grant--both are placed on the chopping block in the 
President's budget.
  How can we tell women--we won't help you access contraception, and 
we'll do our best to see that you can't get an abortion, and then 
you're on your own if you have a child?
  Whether a senior needing Medicare, a young woman seeking reproductive 
health care or a mother in need of care for their child, this budget 
sells all women short.
  The President's budget puts special interests first--and America's 
women last. It turns back the clock on programs that we have fought for 
so many years to adequately fund, and the consequences are 
disproportionately placed on the backs of those who can least withstand 
the impact.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and oppose the President's 
budget cuts.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed 
to hear that once again the Women's Educational Equity Act is proposed 
for zero funding under the Fiscal Year 2007 budget. Since its inception 
in 1974, WEEA has proven an extremely effective in providing 
opportunities and support for young women.
  The WEEA program is an essential part of eradicating sex 
discrimination in our schools. Through WEEA girls are exposed to career 
opportunities from which they have traditionally been excluded. In 
addition, WEEA funds programs that develop teaching strategies, 
educational materials and curriculum designed to reflect the 
experiences and achievement of women. WEEA also funds programs that 
combat sexual harassment.
  We hear rhetoric that programs such as WEEA are no longer necessary 
because women have equal status. While women have made many strides, 
gender disparities still exist in many fields. Even though college 
enrollment of women continues to increase, there continues to be a 
gender disparity in the fields of science in technology. Women not only 
earn fewer degrees, but are under represented in advanced secondary 
math, science and computer science classes. Investment in collegiate 
athletic programs and athletic scholarship opportunities also continue 
to favor men.
  Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this gender gap is the 
persistence of sexual harassment on college campuses. Recent studies 
show that nearly two-thirds of female college students experience 
sexual harassment at some point during college--causing immeasurable 
harm to these women's studies and future goals. WEEA programs provide 
vital resources in order to fight this type activity.
  WEEA continues to be an essential component in ensuring that young 
women are not inhibited by their gender and can choose a career path 
based on their interests, aspirations, and abilities. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to support access, equality and opportunity for young 
women through continued funding of this program.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I join my colleagues in highlighting 
the detrimental effects the President's fiscal year 2007 budget will 
have on women.
  From health and education, to the protection and development of women 
and girls internationally, this administration intends to cut funding 
in programs that are vital to women's well-being and development.
  Worse still Mr. Speaker, many of the programs that the President 
intends to cut disproportionately impact minority women negatively.
  For example, in the area of health, the fiscal year 2007 budget cuts 
$1 million out of the National Center on Minority Health and Health 
Disparities. This is a critical facility that directs money and 
technical assistance to organizations working with minorities on 
diseases that disproportionately kill women, such as heart disease, 
diabetes and obesity.
  Additionally, the President's budget would cut funds from the 
minority HIV/AIDS initiative which actively seeks to address the 
prevention and treatment needs of minority communities heavily impacted 
by HIV/AIDS.
  The budget cuts the Office of Minority Health by a staggering $11 
million and the Office on Women's Health would receive a significant 
cut.
  It's not just health that is slashed in the President's budget.
  The President proposes cutting funding for education initiatives for 
homeless children and youth by $600,000 and cut Pell grants by a 
whopping $430 million--with an award cap of $4,050.
  Furthermore, the President has proposed a $1 million decrease to fair 
housing assistance programs for our most needy.
  Mr. Speaker, I could stand here all night and list the outrageous 
cuts in health, education, and housing programs the President's

[[Page 4402]]

budget would inflict, but I would be remiss if I didn't also highlight 
the cuts to programs that guarantee the safety of women domestically 
and abroad.
  One of the most successful programs to prevent violence against women 
while funding the prosecution of those who have committed those crimes, 
the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA, will face a potential $39.5 
million cut.
  Additionally, women's health is the President's proposed $2 million 
cut to the United Nations Development Fund and a $9 million cut to the 
United Nations Population Fund will jeopardize the health and safety of 
women around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, our budget is a moral document. It reflects the values 
of our Nation. I'm sad to say these aren't the values that my sisters 
in Congress and across the country hold dear.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to think about what a budget 
like the one the President has proposed means to each and everyone of 
their constituents. You can't tell me we can't do better.

                          ____________________