[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2309-2316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CBC HOUR: THE IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to stand 
here today as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus to participate 
one more time as an anchor for the CBC Special Order today on the 
subject of the impact of sequestration on the American people.
  As we know, on Friday, the sequestration took effect, automatic 
spending cuts of a significant painful amount that will be experienced 
by the American people all across the land. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, 
it's something that was avoidable had there been a willingness to try 
and find common ground.
  There are many of us who believe that the most appropriate approach 
would have been to try and find a balanced resolution involving tax 
reform and revenue and attempting to identify where reasonable spending 
adjustments could have been made. But instead of all parties trying to 
come together to find a balanced resolution to the problem that we find 
ourselves in, there are some in this Chamber who seem committed to 
trying to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our 
society, balancing the budget on the backs of children and seniors, 
pregnant women, Superstorm Sandy victims, public housing residents, or 
national security.

                              {time}  1930

  I'm just hopeful that as we move forward that we can find the 
capacity, find the ability, find the courage to come together to seek 
out common ground so we can resolve this sequestration matter and move 
forward supporting the economy in the manner that will be the 
healthiest for the greatest number of Americans possible.
  I'm pleased today that we've been joined by several distinguished 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the chairperson of 
the CBC, to whom I yield as much time as she may consume, the Honorable 
Marcia Fudge, who has been a tremendous leader on so many issues on 
behalf of working families and the middle class and seniors all across 
this country.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I certainly do 
want to thank Congressman Jeffries for once again leading the 
Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour on another timely and 
important topic: the impact of sequestration.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are. It is March 4, and the Congress and the 
administration are still mired in political gridlock with no resolution 
on how to avoid the across-the-board cuts, destructive as they may be, 
and untargeted sequestration cuts. How irresponsible.
  Many communities around the country are still reeling from the worst 
economic recession since the Great Depression. Let us not forget that 
the national black unemployment rate remains in double digits at 13.8 
percent, far higher than the national rate. Now these communities can 
only watch as the sequester threatens to roll back the modest gains of 
the last few years.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates that title I education 
funds could be eliminated for more than 2,700 schools. This cut alone 
will have an impact on nearly 1.2 million disadvantaged students. In my 
home State of Ohio, the public schools are preparing for the loss of 
$25.1 million in funding for primary and secondary education. You tell 
me, Mr. Speaker, what have children done to deserve this impact of 
sequestration?
  The sequester will impact every neighborhood and every household. No 
matter your race or your age, the sequester will have an impact on your 
life.
  What does the sequester mean for our economy? What does it mean for 
our neighborhoods? What does it mean for your household? It means cuts 
to education. The jobs of 10,000 teachers are now at risk. It means 
cuts to small business. Small business loan guarantees will be reduced 
by up to $540 million. It means cuts to food safety. There will be 
roughly 2,100 fewer food inspectors. It means compromising workplace 
safety. Workers will be less safe due to about 1,200 less safety 
inspections. It means cuts to mental health funding. Up to 373,000 
mentally ill adults and emotionally disturbed children will go 
untreated.
  The American people expect and deserve more. While Congress debates 
the

[[Page 2310]]

policies of deficit reduction, our struggling communities must cope 
with the consequences of our inaction. While politicians argue over tax 
cuts, our cities and towns--rural and urban--become less secure. Our 
children's futures become less secure. Our children are important.
  We could talk all night about how and why we got here, but many of 
you at home, our constituents, only want to know how we're going to end 
the sequester, escape this fiscal limbo and set our Nation back on the 
right track.
  The path to prosperity is built on compromise. As long as House 
Republicans insist on the Grover Norquist cut-only approach to 
budgetary health, Congress will not move forward. Simply put: A cut-
only plan will not work. A true path forward will be a compromise built 
upon raising revenues and targeted cuts.
  Just last week, this caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, 
delivered a plan to House leadership on how to responsibly replace the 
sequester. The CBC budget replaces the sequester with commonsense cuts 
and revenue options that don't make the rich richer and the poor 
poorer.
  Mr. Speaker, this constant cycle of fiscal calamities and cliffs is 
bad for the Nation. It's bad for our economy, and it is bad for our 
people. We were sent to Congress to move America forward. Time has run 
out for games. The sequester is not a game. It means real cuts that 
will affect the lives of real people.
  Again, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Fudge.
  I now yield to the Congresswoman from the Golden State, Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank you for your tremendous 
leadership and pulling us all together tonight to talk about this 
impact of sequestration. And I also want to thank our chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, Marcia Fudge, for once again sounding the 
alarm and keeping us on track.
  Let me first just start by saying we need to stop the sequestration, 
and we need to create jobs, lift the economy and reduce poverty.
  The sequester will impact my congressional district in my home State 
of California and every single household in America. It will push 
750,000 Americans into the unemployment line and slow our entire 
economy.
  In my home State, for example, it will cut 8,200 children from Head 
Start and shut the door to college for about 9,600 students. 
Additionally, 600,000 to 775,000 eligible low-income women and children 
are going to be denied nutritional assistance because they're going to 
be cut from the WIC program.
  Sequestration will impact everyone, but it will have a particularly 
harmful effect on communities of color who were hit first and worst by 
the Great Recession and have yet to significantly feel the effects of 
the recovery.
  Let me just read out 10 reasons which were recently highlighted by 
the Center for American Progress, and why communities of color and the 
African American community and Latino community particularly should pay 
attention to sequestration and the impact it will have in these 
communities.
  First, there are going to be deep cuts to the long-term unemployed 
and the reduction of benefits will disproportionately affect people of 
color.
  Extended Federal unemployment benefits remain vulnerable under 
sequestration, and the long-term unemployed--those out of work and 
searching for a new job for at least 6 months--could lose almost 10 
percent, mind you, 10 percent of their weekly jobless benefits if the 
sequester goes into effect.
  Now, 13.8 percent of African Americans and 9.7 percent of Latinos are 
unemployed. Worse than that, 40 percent of unemployed Asians, 38 
percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Latinos have been 
unemployed for more than 52 weeks.
  Secondly, workforce development programs that are vital to 
communities of color such as YouthBuild and Job Corps face significant 
cuts. YouthBuild is a program that connects low-income youth to 
education and training, and it could be cut about 8 percent.
  Cuts to critical job-creation programs such as Build America Bonds 
are also on the chopping block. This was created in 2009 and provides 
incentives for infrastructure investments through the Tax Code.
  Fourth, Federal budget cuts under sequestration would quickly mean 
cuts to Federal, State, and local public sector jobs which 
disproportionately employ women and African Americans. In 2011, 
employed African Americans comprised 20 percent of the Federal, State, 
and local public sector workforce, and women were nearly 50 percent 
more likely than men to work in the public sector.
  Early child care funding could be cut by more than $900 million, 
impacting thousands of children of color who benefit from these 
programs, programs that directly help the most vulnerable families and 
children such as, as I said earlier, WIC. They're threatened by 
sequestration.
  Federal education funding cuts will disproportionately hurt students 
of color. If sequester goes into effect in the way it has been 
designed, nearly $3 billion would be cut in educational loans, 
including cuts to financial aid for students and to programs for our 
most vulnerable youth.
  Cuts to medical research put patients at risk. The National 
Institutes of Health would lose $1.5 billion in medical research 
funding, meaning fewer research projects would be aimed at finding 
treatments and cures for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, and 
diabetes, all of which are among the leading cause of death for African 
Americans.

                              {time}  1940

  Since 2010, funding for housing has been cut by $2.5 billion, meaning 
any additional cuts would significantly hurt low-income families and 
communities. Many housing programs, such as section 8 housing 
assistance, provide vouchers to low-income families for affordable 
housing in the private sector.
  Finally, as the Nation continues to endure a cold winter, programs 
such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps 
bring down the cost of heating for low-income households, are critical.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert for the Record an 
article from today's New York Times, headed: ``As Automatic Budget Cuts 
Go into Effect, Poor May Be Hit Particularly Hard.'' It explains that 
sequestration cuts, as they are called, still contain billions of 
dollars in mandatory budget reductions and programs that help low-
income Americans, including ones that give vouchers for housing for the 
poor and the disabled and another that provides fortified baby formula 
to the children of poor women.
  So I think we need to really listen to the Congressional Black Caucus 
and understand what this means in terms of vulnerable, marginal 
communities--communities of color and individuals who were hardest hit 
by the recession and who have yet to feel any of the economic recovery 
that has taken place and who are going to now have another hit in terms 
of the safety net and the quality of life. They don't deserve this. We 
need to get back to the drawing board and do what is right and what is 
fair.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 3, 2013]

 As Automatic Budget Cuts Go Into Effect, Poor May Be Hit Particularly 
                                  Hard

                           (By Annie Lowrey)

       Washington.--The $85 billion in automatic cuts working 
     their way through the federal budget spare many programs that 
     aid the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, including the 
     Children's Health Insurance Program and food stamps.
       But the sequestration cuts, as they are called, still 
     contain billions of dollars in mandatory budget reductions in 
     programs that help low-income Americans, including one that 
     gives vouchers for housing to the poor and disabled and 
     another that provides fortified baby formula to the children 
     of poor women.
       Republican and Democratic lawmakers largely resigned 
     themselves to allowing sequestration--a policy meant to force 
     them to the negotiating table, not to actually reduce the 
     deficit--to take wider effect after it started on Friday. 
     That leaves agencies just seven months to carry out their 
     cuts before

[[Page 2311]]

     the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. In many cases, they will 
     eventually have to deny aid to eligible needy families.
       Unless a deal is reached to change the course of the cuts, 
     housing programs would be hit particularly hard, with about 
     125,000 individuals and families put at risk of becoming 
     homeless, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     estimated. An additional 100,000 formerly homeless people 
     might be removed from emergency shelters or other housing 
     arrangements because of the cuts, the agency said.
       Local administrators are trying to decide how to put the 
     mandatory 5.1 percent budget cuts into effect by the end of 
     September. Adrianne Todman, the executive director of the 
     District of Columbia Housing Authority, said that no person 
     in her program currently using a housing voucher or living in 
     a public facility would be affected or put out on the street.
       But to absorb the cuts, Ms. Todman plans to defer 
     maintenance and leave staff vacancies open. She may also not 
     be able to fill open public housing units as tenants vacate 
     them. And she may stop rolling over housing vouchers to 
     families on the waiting list. Eventually, she said, she may 
     have to furlough employees.
       ``It's a shame. It's more than a shame, it's despicable,'' 
     Ms. Todman said, noting that her agency already lacked enough 
     capacity to meet the district's needs. ``These are real 
     families that we have deemed eligible and are waiting to 
     receive their voucher from us.''
       In Washington and across the country, families and 
     individuals generally need to have very low incomes to be 
     eligible for federal assistance. Public housing residents in 
     Washington have an average annual income of just $12,911. 
     More than 40 percent are either children or the elderly, and 
     more than a quarter live with a disability. In the voucher 
     program, the annual income is even lower, just over $10,000 a 
     year, and similarly large proportions of residents are 
     elderly, disabled or young.
       ``These people are very, very, very poor,'' said Sheila 
     Crowley, the president of the National Low Income Housing 
     Coalition, speaking of recipients of federal housing support 
     across the country. ``They don't have resources to fall back 
     on.''
       In some places, officials have already started carrying out 
     cuts. For instance, King County in Washington State, which 
     includes Seattle, stopped issuing new housing vouchers on 
     Friday.
       ``Sequestration will result in some 600 fewer families in 
     our local communities receiving crucial rental assistance 
     over the next year,'' Stephen Norman, the executive director 
     of the county housing authority, said in a statement. 
     ``Because rents are so high, many of these families may, 
     quite literally, find themselves out on the street.''
       Members of Congress have indicated that they might give 
     agencies more discretion in fulfilling the cuts, to help 
     blunt their impact. But policy experts said that in the case 
     of many low-income programs, budget cuts would necessarily 
     mean fewer people get help.
       ``There's no loose change in the cushions,'' Ms. Crowley 
     said. ``Anything you take out of HUD is going to reduce 
     services and cut programs. There's just no fat there. There 
     hasn't been for a long time.''
       Other programs that assist low-income families face 
     similarly significant cuts, including one that delivers hot 
     meals to the elderly and another that helps pregnant women. 
     Policy experts are particularly concerned about cuts to the 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and 
     children known as WIC, which provides food and baby formula 
     for at-risk families.
       It is considered one of the most effective social programs 
     in government, reducing anemia and increasing birth weights. 
     But up to 775,000 low-income women and their children might 
     lose access to or be denied that aid because of the mandatory 
     cuts, according to calculations by the Center on Budget and 
     Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group.
       The start of sequestration, a policy never meant to take 
     effect, has left both sides seeking cover, with many 
     Democrats dramatizing the impact of the cuts and many 
     Republicans playing them down.
       Some Republicans, in fact, have said that whatever the 
     effect, the cuts are a necessary part of reversing the trend 
     of the government spending more and taking on more debt.
       ``President Obama proclaimed that the sequester's `brutal' 
     and `severe' cuts will `eviscerate' America's domestic 
     spending,'' Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, wrote 
     in a recent article published by Investors.com. ``But 
     `eviscerate' is not the adjective I would use; in fact, I 
     believe the sequester is a pittance.''
       The $85 billion in cuts is just a small part of the $3.6 
     trillion annual budget, but policy experts say that even 
     those cuts that are being applied to programs that do not 
     specifically focus on low-income people and communities will 
     disproportionately affect them.
       Other cuts might not hit low-income Americans specifically, 
     but their impact could affect vulnerable families 
     disproportionately. Those include cuts to programs that aid 
     children with special needs; job-training programs that help 
     unemployed people find a new career; foreclosure prevention 
     services; and programs that help 150,000 veterans every year 
     make the transition into the nonmilitary work force.
       They also include a reduction in jobless benefits for the 
     long-term unemployed. Those out of work for more than six 
     months could see their checks shrink by as much as 11 
     percent.
       The Budget Control Act, a 2011 law that created the 
     automatic cuts, exempted ``mandatory'' spending programs that 
     aid low-income Americans, like Medicaid, which receive 
     automatic federal financing. But it did not exempt 
     ``discretionary'' programs, whose financing Congress 
     determines in its annual appropriations process.
                                  ____


                            [Feb. 22, 2013]

   Top 10 Reasons Why People of Color Should Care About Sequestration

                           (By Sophia Kerby)

       Thanks to congressional Republicans putting the economy in 
     jeopardy during the debt ceiling debacle in the summer of 
     2011 and again in 2012, a package of automatic across-the-
     board spending cuts known as sequestration is set to go into 
     effect on March 1, 2013. Senate Democrats have proposed a 
     balanced approach to resolve this crisis, urging 
     congressional Republicans to avoid the damaging sequester 
     cuts by accepting a package of more tax revenue coupled with 
     targeted spending cuts. But once again Republicans are 
     threatening the economy by risking massive and harmful 
     spending cuts that will hurt the middle class, damage the 
     economy, kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, and harm the 
     most economically vulnerable among us.
       Sequestration will impact all Americans but will have a 
     particularly harmful effect on communities of color, who were 
     hit first and worst by the Great Recession and have yet to 
     significantly feel the effects of the recovery. Our nation's 
     demographics are changing, and communities of color are the 
     fastest-growing group of Americans. It is important that we 
     invest now in these communities, as we prepare for our 
     nation's economic future and upcoming workforce needs.
       Our driving focus should be on averting crises that slow 
     our economy and instead, promoting policies that help all 
     Americans.
       Below are the top 10 reasons why communities of color 
     should pay attention to sequestration and the impact it will 
     have in these communities:
       1. Deep cuts to long-term unemployment benefits will 
     disproportionately affect people of color. Extended federal 
     unemployment benefits remain vulnerable under sequestration, 
     and the long-term unemployed--those out of work and searching 
     for a new job for at least six months--could lose almost 10 
     percent of their weekly jobless benefits if the sequester 
     cuts go into effect next week. These cuts will have a greater 
     impact on people of color, as 9.7 percent of Latinos and a 
     staggering 13.8 percent of blacks are unemployed, compared to 
     only 7 percent of whites. What's more, in 2011, 40 percent of 
     unemployed Asians, 38 percent of unemployed blacks, and 28 
     percent of unemployed Latinos were unemployed for more than 
     52 weeks.
       2. Workforce development programs that are vital to 
     communities of color such as YouthBuild and Job Corps face 
     significant cuts. YouthBuild, a program connecting low-income 
     youth to education and training, could be cut by about 8 
     percent under sequestration. Coupled with previous federal 
     appropriation cuts in fiscal year 2011 by 37 percent, the 
     program could see about one-third of its federal funding cut 
     between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013. In 2010, 54 
     percent of YouthBuild participants were African American and 
     20 percent were Latino. Job Corps, an education and training 
     program geared toward young adults, faces about $83 million 
     in cuts in FY 2013 under sequestration. In 2011, 72 percent 
     of Job Corps participants were people of color.
       3. Cuts to critical job-creating programs such as the Build 
     America Bonds program are also on the chopping block. Build 
     America Bonds, which were created in the 2009 stimulus bill, 
     provides incentives for infrastructure investments through 
     the tax code. Since its inception, the program has helped 
     states and cities fund thousands of job-creating 
     infrastructure projects at lower costs than traditional tax-
     exempt municipal bonds. Build America Bonds could see budget 
     cuts of up to 7.6 percent, however, if sequestration goes 
     through. Build America Bonds benefit all Americans, as more 
     than $106 billion of Build America Bonds have been issued by 
     state and local governments in 49 states and the District of 
     Columbia since the program started. Infrastructure 
     investments stimulate employment in sectors that employ 
     disproportionately high rates of workers of color, such as 
     construction and public transit.
       4. Federal budget cuts under sequestration would quickly 
     mean cuts to federal, state, and local public-sector jobs, 
     which disproportionately employ women and African Americans. 
     In 2011 employed African Americans comprised 20 percent of 
     the federal, state, and local public-sector workforce, and 
     women were nearly 50 percent more likely

[[Page 2312]]

     than men to work in the public sector. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office, scheduled cuts in federal 
     spending were the primary driving force behind slow economic 
     growth projected for this year, meaning thousands of lost 
     jobs and cuts to federal contractors.
       5. Early child care funding could be cut by more than $900 
     million, impacting the thousands of children of color who 
     benefit from these programs. Such cuts will mean 70,000 
     children will be kicked out of Head Start, a federal program 
     that promotes the school readiness of children from low-
     income families from birth through age 5. Sixty percent of 
     program participants are children of color.
       6. Programs that directly help the most vulnerable families 
     and children--such as the Special Supplemental Nutriton 
     Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC--are 
     threatened by sequestration. WIC serves as a supplemental 
     food and nutrition program for low-income pregnant, 
     breastfeeding, and postpartum women and for children under 
     age 5. The program could be cut by $543 million--a 
     devastating loss to the more than 450,000 people of color who 
     benefit from its services.
       7. Federal education funding cuts will disproportionately 
     hurt students of color. If the sequester goes into effect, 
     nearly $3 billion would be cut in education alone, including 
     cuts to financial aid for college students and to programs 
     for our most vulnerable youth--English language learners and 
     those attending high-poverty, struggling schools--impacting 
     9.3 million students. Such cuts will affect key programs that 
     receive federally funded grants such as Education for 
     Homeless Children and Youth and federal work study. The lack 
     of access to financial aid for people of color will further 
     exacerbate the student debt rates in these communities. In 
     the 2007-08 academic year, 81 percent of African Americans 
     and 67 percent of Latinos with a bachelor's degree graduated 
     with student debt, compared to 64 percent of their white 
     peers. Cutting access to these vital financial aid programs 
     will curtail the higher education aspirations of tens of 
     thousands of students of color.
       8. Cuts to critical medical research put patients at risk. 
     The National Institutes of Health would lose $1.5 billion in 
     medical research funding, meaning fewer research projects 
     would be aimed at finding treatments and cures for diseases 
     such as cancer and diabetes--both of which are among the 
     leading causes of death for African Americans.
       9. Since 2010 funding for housing has been cut by $2.5 
     billion, meaning any additional cuts would significantly hurt 
     low-income families and communities. Many housing programs 
     such as Section 8 Housing Assistance provide vouchers to low-
     income families for affordable housing in the private market. 
     In 2011 Section 8 aided more than 2 million low-income 
     families across the country. Data from 2008 indicate that 44 
     percent and 23 percent of public housing recipients are 
     African American and Latino, respectively.
       10. As the nation continues to endure a cold winter, 
     programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program, or LIHEAP, which helps bring down the cost of 
     heating for low-income households, are crucial. The Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helped about 23 
     million low-income people pay their winter heat bills, is in 
     jeopardy of being cut in FY 2013. Low-income communities, 
     which tend to disproportionately comprise people of color, 
     depend on such programs to make ends meet during these tough 
     economic times.
       In order to avoid significant damage to the U.S. economy--
     and particularly to communities of color across the country--
     congressional Republicans should agree to a balanced package 
     to replace the sequester and its damaging cuts.

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.
  The economic recovery, as you pointed out, is still in an extremely 
fragile state. Many of those most vulnerable Americans who were 
adversely impacted by the recession still have not been made whole in 
any way, shape, or form. Sequestration is an $85 billion shock to the 
system. It may begin as a slow burn, but it is going to sear over time. 
It is going to hurt our most vulnerable Americans, as has been detailed 
in congressional district after congressional district after 
congressional district all across this country.
  It is irresponsible for us to even have allowed it to get to this 
point, which is why we are advocating for everyone to come to the table 
to find common ground. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Because 
we are in a divided government, it is unreasonable to simply say ``no 
revenues.'' So as a result of this hardened position, we find ourselves 
in the midst of this sequestration.
  We've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, my 
good friend, Congressman Donald Payne, to whom I yield the floor.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends and 
colleagues--Congressman Horsford from Nevada and Congressman Jeffries 
from New York, across the water from me--for once again anchoring this 
Special Order for the CBC on the impact of sequestration.
  I came to Washington to work--to serve the hardworking families and 
individuals in my district who have been disproportionately impacted by 
this economy. I came to Washington to spur growth and development for 
the sake of this country's economic future. Unfortunately, my 
colleagues on the other side oppose any effort that would support this 
mission. Sadly, the only growth and development that the Republican 
leadership has spurred has been the development of lies and the growth 
of fear among the American people.
  We now face the drastic cuts of sequestration because the Republican 
leadership in Congress refuses to adopt a balanced approach to our 
Nation's deficit and debt. Instead, they push drastic measures that 
would only further depress this economy. The fact is that it is 
impossible to reduce Federal debts without a healthy economy, and a 
healthy economy will not develop as a result of sporadic cuts but, 
rather, as a result of increased revenue, in part by an increased 
volume of working people who earn income and pay taxes. This is common 
sense; yet the sequester and everything the Republican leadership has 
proposed undermines the current and future workforce, and it 
disproportionately harms low-income families and individuals.
  At a time of great need for a skilled workforce, the sequester would 
cut workforce development programs and assistance for college students. 
As it was stated, YouthBuild and Job Corps are key workforce 
development programs that provide pathways to employment for low-income 
youth. These programs already experienced a 37 percent cut in fiscal 
year 2011, but they will face additional cuts under sequestration. TRIO 
programs are key Federal supports for first-generation college students 
to prepare them to attend and complete college. These programs serve 
nearly 800,000 students, and they will face cuts of almost $43 million 
under sequestration.
  In New Jersey, my home State, around 1,480 fewer low-income students 
will receive financial aid for college, and nearly 650 fewer students 
will receive work-study jobs. Approximately 15,000 students will be 
impacted by the cuts in education, and around 1,300 children will be 
removed from Head Start. Nationally, approximately 9 million students 
will be impacted due to cuts in education, and nearly 70,000 children 
will be removed from the Head Start program.
  Further, under sequestration, the security of children and their 
families will also be impacted. Research shows that the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children--WIC--
improves birth outcomes, reduces child anemia and improves the 
participants' nutrition and health. It is widely regarded as one of the 
most effective social programs; yet under sequestration this program 
will be forced to cut an estimated 600,000 to 775,000 women and 
children. This is devastating.
  These cuts are unnecessary and counterproductive. Democrats have 
offered commonsense solutions time and time again to our deficit issue, 
including the latest alternative to sequestration--H.R. 699. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership prefers manufacturing problems 
and not offering real solutions. The Republican leadership claims that 
their actions are in the name of our Nation's future and austerity for 
our children; but our Nation's deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009, 
which was prior to their efforts to cut, and it has been falling ever 
since.
  Our economy, though sluggish, is experiencing record growth. Now is 
not the time for arbitrary cuts. Now is the time to end the shameful 
attack on the middle class and the hardworking Americans. Pass a 
balanced approach. We are waiting for leadership in this area.

[[Page 2313]]


  Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
pointing several things out, but particularly for making it clear that 
we have already made significant progress under this administration, in 
partnership with this side of the aisle, as we have attempted to move 
forward over the last several years as it relates to deficit reduction. 
I believe that we've cut approximately $2.5 trillion--done--as it 
relates to deficit reduction. While certainly we're open to trying to 
figure out how to move forward in the best possible way as it relates 
to the economy, an $85 billion shock to the system over the next 
several months and approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years is 
harmful as it relates to the ability to move the economy forward.
  We are thankful that we have been joined by the distinguished 
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen.

                              {time}  1950

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you for yielding, and I thank you for 
hosting this Special Order and for coming to the floor on many evenings 
to speak to the American people and make sure that they understand what 
is at stake here.
  I am somewhat ashamed to come back to work this week because the 
sequester wasn't avoided, and the failure of Congress to work together 
and take action has put so many important programs that our fellow 
Americans rely on, so many jobs, and the early recovery from the recent 
recession at risk.
  Our Democratic leaders said before the President's Day recess and 
again at the end of last week that we should not go home without fixing 
the sequester; and yet the Republican leadership, which sets the 
schedule, did not enable us to stay here and work together to prevent 
the cuts that everyone knows will hurt our country.
  So under the Republican leadership--or lack of it--the Federal 
budget, which affects government workers, contracts, and programs in 
every department, will have an across-the-board ax taken to them. I 
think that we are smart enough that if the will was there, we would 
come together and reason to a far better approach than this blunt 
instrument that's now being applied.
  It makes one wonder: what are our priorities? If we look at where the 
cuts will hurt the most, it does not tell a proud story--education and 
job training, Head Start, special education, health and programs like 
WIC that support the health of mothers and babies, mental health and 
substance abuse programs when we have seen so vividly and painfully how 
much these programs are needed, health care, law enforcement and 
homeland security, defense, housing, jobs and the economy, which is now 
struggling to recover.
  And as often happens, people of color are disproportionately 
impacted. African Americans are more likely to work in the public 
sector where the jobs are going to be cut. We already have the highest 
unemployment and will be severely hurt by the reduction in unemployment 
benefits. The YouthBuild and Job Corps programs that were spoken about 
earlier, over 70 percent of the young people in those programs are 
African American and Latino, and those programs will be cut.
  The TRIO programs, which have already been cut, caused the Virgin 
Islands' only Upward Bound program to be lost. They need to be more 
fully funded; but they, too, will suffer. And many low-income students 
will not have the benefit of their support to enter and complete 
college.
  I want to focus on how it will affect my district, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. We stand to lose $13 million in Federal funding. The 
territories already do not participate in all of the Federal programs 
that the States do, and many programs are capped regardless of need or 
what would have been the eligibility in the States.
  Already, over the past 2 years, the Virgin Islands Government has had 
to cut salaries 8 percent and laid off about 500 government workers. 
The abrupt closing of the HOVENSA oil refinery has cost 200 direct jobs 
and many more indirect ones. So that $13 million does not tell the full 
impact, nor does it include the impact of possible layoffs, furloughs, 
or other reductions of the close to 800 Federal employees in the 
territory.
  If we just look at WIC, Meals on Wheels, special ed, Head Start and 
HIV/AIDS, which serve almost 10 percent of our population of 106,405, a 
cut of any size will have a major impact on some of the most vulnerable 
in any society.
  Unemployment is over 17 percent in St. Croix, the island on which I 
live and where the HOVENSA refinery was operating. The cuts in 
unemployment benefits will definitely be felt. All of these cuts hurt 
individuals and families, but like everywhere else, they have ripple 
effects across the entire community.
  The American people expect better from us. They expect us to lead and 
to govern, to be responsive to their needs and to help the less 
fortunate. This 113th Congress thus far has not lived up to their 
expectations. The Congressional Black Caucus, as it always is, is 
prepared and poised to lead. We will soon be releasing our budget, 
which raises revenues, makes strategic investments that strengthen our 
country, and still would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, 
more than any other budget that we've seen proposed, so we know it can 
be done. And we also know that the cuts the sequester would impose will 
cost this country more in the long run.
  So where is the gain? We have been advised time and time again that 
the cuts in the sequester are the worst thing that we can do at this 
time; and although no one wants to talk about it, what we really need 
is another stimulus.
  Last week the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, strongly advised:

       Congress and the administration should consider replacing 
     the sharp, front-loaded spending cuts required by the 
     sequestration with policies that reduce the Federal deficit 
     more gradually in the near term and more substantially in the 
     longer run.

  That's what all reputable economists have been saying. We need to 
call off the sequestration before irrevocable harm is done and replace 
it with a sensible approach that recognizes and counts the savings that 
we have already put in place, that does not stifle the growth that we 
need and still reduces the deficit in the long run.
  The American people are tired of the gridlock up here. They want us 
to work together. They also, in their vote in November, said very 
clearly that they support the President's approach and agenda. As the 
African Kikuyu proverb says: When the elephants fight, it is the grass 
that suffers.
  My constituents are hurting, as I know all of yours are. The 
sequester only adds more pain and suffering and does nothing to reduce 
spending, because more spending will have to be done to clean up the 
mess the sequester will leave later on. Let's call it off and let's 
pass a responsible and fair budget for the rest of the year.
  It's time for the Republican leadership to work with our President, 
the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Together, we can do 
better for our country and for those who send us here to represent 
them. We must do better.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Congresswoman Christensen, thank you very much.
  I think it's important to emphasize a point that you just made as it 
relates to what we should be doing to jump-start the economy. We should 
be investing in the American economy, attempting to grow it so we can 
create prosperity for the greatest number of people possible, not using 
sequestration, which is a blunt instrument, to beat the economy and 
give it a pounding when it is already in an extremely fragile state.
  We know that objective economists have said that sequestration will 
have an impact of 750,000 lost jobs. We can't afford that at this 
moment. We urge our colleagues to come back to the negotiating table.
  I'm pleased that we've been joined by the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his leadership in hosting this event. It is so good to 
see young

[[Page 2314]]

and talented individuals come to the Congress, building upon the 
experiences that they've had in their city, State, and local 
governments, and it's a pleasure to be here.
  You know, I've been told that you can measure the humaneness of a 
society by how well it treats its old, how well it treats its young, 
and how well it treats those who have difficulty caring for themselves. 
I was just thinking that should the sequestration deal hold through the 
end of the fiscal year, between 600,000 and 750,000 low-income women, 
infants, and children will be turned away.
  This would be not only unfortunate, but it would be a tremendous 
change in what precedence has been because traditionally, dating back 
to 1997, both parties have made it a point of trying to make sure that 
this population group did in fact have an opportunity to participate in 
the Women, Infants, and Children program and that low-income pregnant 
women, infants, and children, the most vulnerable members of our 
society, would be able to have the basic necessities of life.
  And it was amazing to me this weekend, as I watched a little bit of 
television on Sunday morning, on the traditional Sunday talk shows, and 
how different Representatives were characterizing this action as: not 
as bad as some people thought it was going to be; it's not going to 
affect as many people as it seems; our country has not fallen into Lake 
Michigan.
  Well, I can tell you, if you are a young, pregnant mother with no 
money, no place to go, and you rely upon the Women, Infants, and 
Children program to try to make sure that you produce a healthy baby 
who just comes into the world with a chance to make it and who, without 
these services, may come into life already disadvantaged, already 
behind.

                              {time}  2000

  And so I don't know how we can actually do this with a good 
conscience. But, also, I can't imagine what it is that we're thinking. 
How do you cut, cut, cut jobs and opportunities for people to work and 
expect to raise a recessed economy?
  I've always been led to believe that you've got to have the exchange 
of goods and services. You've got to keep money flowing in an economy, 
in a society, to move it beyond the bottom up towards the top.
  And so, in the recessed state that we're in, we need to be producing 
jobs, creating work opportunity, not furloughing, laying people off, 
having them wonder what they're going to be able to do. I think it's 
the wrong approach. I think it's not a good way to manage our 
resources, and I think it's not a good message that we're sending to 
the American people.
  So, sir, I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to 
participate with you and other members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus as we raise awareness that, with this sequestration deal, our 
country is headed in the wrong direction.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congressman Davis, for your leadership and 
for your eloquence in laying out, in a very clear, concise, and 
articulate fashion, the problems with sequestration that we are forced 
now to confront here in America as a result of the irresponsibility of 
some in this Chamber.
  I'm pleased that we've been joined by my distinguished co-anchor, the 
gentleman from Nevada, the Silver State, Steven Horsford. I now yield 
to Representative Horsford.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Madam Speaker. To my good friend and 
colleague, Representative Jeffries, thank you for co-anchoring this 
special hour, and to all of my colleagues who joined us tonight to 
discuss the impact of the sequester.
  You know, far too often, talk of the so-called sequester ignores the 
very real people who feel the pain of unfair cuts. Our job, as 
Representatives, is to be the voice of our constituents. Well, tonight, 
I hope that we can have a frank discussion about what these cuts really 
mean to all of our communities.
  My colleagues talked about the 750,000 to 1 million job losses that 
could result as a result of the sequester. Any day, Congress can pass a 
reasonable, balanced deficit reduction solution to avert these 
devastating, across-the-board cuts. That's what the American people are 
asking for, in fact.
  According to a USA Today/Pew Research poll, three out of four 
Americans surveyed said that Congress should focus on a balanced 
approach to the deficit, with a combination of spending cuts, strategic 
spending cuts, and additional revenue.
  Now, I know here in Washington, sometimes the focus is more on 
scoring political points, or seeing who can win the blame game. Well, 
Madam Speaker, the American people are watching, and they are fed up 
with the broken ways of Washington. They came out and they voted in 
November, and they sent a very clear message to all of us here in 
Congress that it is time for us to work together to put partisanship 
aside and to put our Nation first.
  So, if all parties would come to the table, like we are supposed to, 
we can minimize the impact of the sequester on working families like 
mine in Congressional District Four. If we do our jobs, like the 
American people are rightfully demanding, we can reduce our debt in a 
responsible way and get our economy moving again.
  So I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Come to 
the table, help find a solution, and let's fix some of these deep cuts 
that were never supposed to happen. I wasn't part of the Congress that 
enacted the sequester. I know my colleague, Mr. Jeffries, was not 
either, but we are here now, and we want to do our jobs on behalf of 
the constituents who sent us here.
  This is victory for no one and a horrible loss for the American 
people. Now, if we let the sequester continue, our economic recovery 
will be thrown in reverse.
  A study by George Mason University projects a loss of 2.14 million 
American jobs if we fail to act. Half of those jobs will come from 
small businesses, businesses that are the engines of our economy. 
Perhaps most unfair, as part of the sequester, our schools and our 
students will be hurt.
  Now, a couple of weeks ago, I voted, along with many of my 
colleagues, to not adjourn this body, to stay here throughout the so-
called District Work Week to work with my colleagues across the aisle 
to try to come up with a balanced solution to avoid these devastating 
cuts. But the leadership, the Republican leadership, decided to 
adjourn.
  And so, instead of spending time with our families, we went out and 
met with our constituents to listen to them about what these cuts mean 
in their everyday lives. So let me talk to you about what this means in 
my home State of Nevada.
  Nearly 300 Nevada children will lose Head Start and early Head Start 
services. These are programs that provide critical early education 
programs. At a time when we talk about wanting to close the academic 
achievement gap and allowing every child to start school ready to learn 
on day one, these impacts would deny services to 300 Nevada children. 
In fact, I already have 400 children who are on the waiting list for 
one of my Head Start providers, and families can't even get in to be 
served.
  Primary and secondary education in Nevada would be cut by $9 million, 
putting around 120 teacher and teacher aide jobs at risk. Funding for 
title I schools would be slashed.
  One particular elementary school that I visited, Matt Kelly 
Elementary School, over 50 percent of their allocation from the school 
district is title I funding. How is that school supposed to maintain 
the services that they're providing to these young and deserving 
children?
  Services like nutrition programs, full-day kindergarten, a parent 
center so that we can actually have parental involvement in our 
schools, that is what is under attack with these mindless, across-the-
board cuts.
  About 14,000 fewer students would be served, and approximately 10 
fewer schools in my district would even receive funding under title I.
  Disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child 
care, which is also essential for working parents. When we talk about 
helping people get back to work, one of the biggest

[[Page 2315]]

impediments for many families is having access to child care.
  Schools and families in my district need these programs to provide 
hungry students the meals that they need to focus in class, to fund 
math and reading intervention programs, and to keep their teachers 
employed.
  We can reduce unnecessary spending, Madam Speaker, but these are the 
wrong places to cut, and everyone knows it on both sides of the aisle, 
in both Chambers of this Congress.

                              {time}  2010

  Now, some of these cuts won't heal. And as Mrs. Marian Wright Edelman 
of the Children's Defense Fund has aptly noted, we better be careful 
what we cut because some cuts don't heal. We don't get a second chance 
at Head Start. We don't get a second chance once our kids have moved on 
to the next grade, with or without the schools that they need. We don't 
get a second chance at the whole formative experience of education that 
so heavily influences the paths of our lives.
  Opportunities are just that. They're there for a moment, and they 
disappear if you don't act. There is no reset button for your 
education. Once our children are in those classrooms, we set them on a 
track for success or failure. We tip the scales for or against them in 
the moment that they walk through the front doors of the schoolhouse.
  We ask our students to study hard, meet deadlines and do their 
homework. That's their end of the bargain. We, as parents, are asked to 
be involved, to foster our children's growth and to pay attention to 
their needs. As Members of Congress, our end of the bargain is to make 
sure that our children's schools are well-funded institutions of 
learning.
  Well, if anyone is grading Congress right now, we're not doing our 
job, Madam Speaker. We even gave ourselves a 2-month extension, but we 
missed our deadline and let cuts go into effect that Members from both 
parties have described as dumb, avoidable, and painful. Congress didn't 
make the grade.
  When it comes to fixing the deficit, you have to be careful what you 
cut. As I said, according to the Children's Defense Fund, eliminating 
early education investments now would increase a child's chances of 
going to prison later by up to 39 percent. Paying for that prison will 
cost nearly three times more a year than it would have cost to provide 
them with a quality early learning experience.
  Simply put, our kids are being shortchanged by adults here in 
Washington. This is an adult problem, and it's time for adults to be 
adults and to come into this body and work together and solve this for 
our children and their future.
  Let's make the right choice--adequately fund our schools and look out 
for our children.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congressman Horsford.
  I think what is important, as it relates to the moment we find 
ourselves in right now in America, is that there are some who make the 
argument that the reason why the sequestration cuts perhaps were 
acceptable is because we've got to do something to deal with our out-
of-control spending problem--I believe that's the phraseology that is 
often used--that we have here in America. And certainly when you think 
about the debt number that we have, $16 trillion, it strikes you as an 
extremely troubling situation.
  And then of course we've had debates back and forth as it relates to 
the debt ceiling and suggestions from some in this Chamber that the 
President's effort to raise the debt ceiling is evidence of his 
willingness to be irresponsible as it relates to the economy.
  What's interesting, of course, is that the debt ceiling is not a 
forward-looking vehicle that's designed to give the administration the 
ability to spend more. The debt ceiling is a backward-looking vehicle 
designed to give President Obama at this moment the ability to pay for 
bills that this Congress has already incurred.
  And so when we talk about the notion that there is a spending problem 
in America, let's be accurate with what really is at issue. And the 
reality is that many of the bills that we've already incurred, that 
Americans are forced to pay for and borrow in order to meet our 
obligations, these were debts incurred by the prior administration.
  In fact, this chart illustrates the dynamic that we find ourselves in 
as it relates to where we really are in America and how we got here. 
Under the prior administration of George W. Bush, we had two 
significant tax cuts that were not paid for in 2001 and 2003 that 
disproportionately benefited the wealthy and the well off. We had an 
unjustified war in Iraq that cost Americans in lives and in treasure 
and that contributed significantly to the deficit and our need to raise 
and borrow additional debt.
  And then, of course, we had the collapse of the economy. It cost 
America, by some estimates, $22 trillion in lost wealth, homeownership, 
and economic productivity. And as a result of the collapse of the 
economy, which took place under the prior administration--many argue 
they were sleeping at the switch and allowed some in Wall Street to 
engage in reckless behavior--we were forced to bail out some of the 
largest financial institutions in this country, which added to our 
financial burden here in America. And then when the administration came 
in, inherited a train wreck, in order to stimulate the economy we 
incurred some additional financial responsibility.
  And so when you look at this chart, you can see what the projected 
debt is as a result of things that occurred in the prior administration 
as a proportion of GDP. This is a dangerously high number. But we are 
at this point where the debt has increased relative to our GDP because 
of things that happened in the prior administration. And, in fact, if 
you look at the bottom of the chart, you see what the debt would be, 
much lower, as a proportion of GDP, had those things not occurred.
  So when you talk about the need to get spending under control, let's 
be intellectually honest. Because when we're not, you lay out a 
scenario: Well, it's because of Social Security that we're in this 
situation. That's not the case. Well, it's because of Medicare and 
entitlements that we're in this situation. That's not the case. Well, 
it's because of Medicaid, and we have all of these takers--so-called 
takers--in our economy. That's not the case.
  Two wars, one of which was completely unjustified, the other of which 
it's not clear whether it was prosecuted in the manner it could have 
been because we were distracted in Iraq; two enormous tax cuts that 
benefited the wealthy and the well off disproportionately; the collapse 
of the economy; a subsequent Wall Street bailout; and then the need for 
an economic stimulus package explains why we are where we are right 
now.
  And so the sequestration is an irrational, irresponsible, 
illegitimate reaction to the reason why we are in this place. And 
that's why, Congressman Horsford, we are arguing for a balanced 
approach to our economic reality, the one that we confront right now.
  I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you to my friend and my colleague from New York. 
And as you aptly noted, the history of how we got to this point needs 
to not be lost in this debate. And I know there are some who also want 
to now talk about the cuts that were made in agreement with the 
administration last year, along with those additional revenues which 
were approved in January, as somehow the answer for why there needs to 
be no additional revenue.

                              {time}  2020

  That doesn't take into account the $85 billion of cuts that are now 
upon us under this sequester.
  I'd like to just hit on three additional points, if I could. One is 
the unemployment impact.
  We're focused on growing the economy, putting people back to work. In 
my home State of Nevada, we still have an unemployment rate above the 
national average. While our numbers are coming down, we don't need to 
add anyone to the unemployment lines. Under the sequester, some 750,000 
to 1 million Americans will end up losing

[[Page 2316]]

their jobs unless this Congress comes together and finds a solution--a 
balanced approach, as you indicate.
  In Nevada, that's 10,000 lost jobs. And of those jobs, the main areas 
that will be affected are the civilian positions at our Air Force 
bases--Nellis Air Force Base, Creech Air Force Base, and the Hawthorn 
Army Depot. It's estimated that some 1,400 furloughs will occur to 
civilian jobs, amounting to $11 million in lost wages. These aren't 
just lost wages to these individuals and their families; it's $11 
million less of economic recovery that we so desperately need.
  Then when you talk about our tourism and the impact to travel, the 
FAA will be required to cut its operational activities by nearly $483 
million. As a consequence, all FAA employees could be furloughed for 11 
days, meaning as much as 10 percent of the FAA's workforce of 40,000 
would be on furlough on any given day. So for those of us who travel, 
States like ours, yours in New York that rely on tourism to fuel our 
economies, that is going to affect our ability to recover.
  On top of that, Nevada will lose funds for job search assistance to 
help those who are currently looking for work. Nevada could lose 
upwards of $300,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral and 
placement, meaning that 10,000 fewer people will get the help that they 
need for the skills to help them find another job.
  So these are the dire impacts that we see, talking to our 
constituents. These are the real impacts that we believe need to be 
addressed by this Congress in a balanced approach.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank you for highlighting some of the impacts that 
are going to take place in your district in Nevada.
  If I might ask, Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on 
our Special Order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The gentleman has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I represent the Eighth Congressional 
District in New York. It was one of the districts that was hardest hit 
by Superstorm Sandy that struck on October 29.
  The people of the Eighth Congressional District--neighborhoods like 
Canarsie and Coney Island, Sea Gate, Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, 
Mill Basin, folks who are in coastal communities along the Atlantic 
Ocean or who live near the Jamaica Bay--lost their homes, experienced 
significant damage, were displaced, lost property that can never be 
recovered.
  They were victimized on October 29, and then this Congress attempted 
to come together to provide swift and immediate relief--as is our 
responsibility to do when Americans have been hit with disaster. A $60 
billion aid package was passed in the Senate. Although there was a 
promise for a vote in 2012, it didn't happen. At the 11th hour, it was 
yanked because there were some who were arguing--again, in the name of 
alleged fiscal responsibility--that we should be considering offsets. 
Americans in need, desperate, but we should be considering offsets, 
unprecedented in the history of America's response to a tragedy.
  Then, thankfully, in January, we came together. Common sense 
prevailed and we were able to pass that robust $60 billion package. But 
now we've victimized those who were impacted by Superstorm Sandy in a 
district that I represent--and others in New York and New Jersey and 
Connecticut--for a third time because in this sequestration, $2.5 
billion in superstorm aid relief has been cut.
  That's just one of the examples of how sequestration will impact 
folks in my congressional district and all across the country, which is 
why we've been arguing for a balanced response.
  The other thing that I'd note: I was in Brooklyn a few days ago and 
had a meeting with public housing leaders. The New York City Public 
Housing Authority, which presides over public housing units in New York 
City--the largest such public authority related to public housing in 
the country--will experience a $190 million cut as a result of 
sequestration. There are already residents of public housing in my 
district and all across the city of New York dealing with inhumane 
conditions right now--mold infestation, broken elevators, rat 
infestation, the inability to get repairs done on a timely basis, 
violence at levels that should not be tolerated. And instead of cutting 
almost $200 million from the Public Housing Authority in New York, we 
should be investing more.
  Madam Speaker, we're hopeful that we can arrive at a place where 
common sense will prevail and we can move forward to keep America 
moving forward in a reasonable way.
  I yield to my colleague from Nevada to close.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I just want to add that this debate begins and ends 
with the American people. We want to hear and listen to their views. We 
want you to know that you can go to # Be Careful What You Cut and tell 
us the impacts that you are seeing with this sequester and how it is 
affecting you. That way we can share those opinions and views with our 
colleagues to hopefully convince them that a balanced approach, working 
across party lines, both Chambers, the Senate and the House, coming 
together for the good of the American people is what we desperately 
need at this time.
  Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing us to speak this evening and 
for the American people allowing us to be their voice in this 
representative government.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, when the Congress 
adjourned last week, it did so without addressing the drastic spending 
cuts known as sequester. Now the March 1st deadline has passed, still 
with no action. Without the attention of Congress, these cuts will 
wreak havoc on our fragile economy and jeopardize the safety and 
security of families in this country. House and Senate Democrats have 
both offered reasonable, balanced plans to avert these damaging cuts, 
but the GOP has refused to work towards a bipartisan plan to reduce the 
deficit. We have had more than a year to reach a bipartisan agreement, 
and without an agreement these cuts will be balanced on the backs on 
our most vulnerable citizens.
  I am specifically concerned about the effects of sequestration on the 
30th District, and the state of Texas as a whole. Texas will lose 
approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, 
putting educators at risk and compromising our children's education. In 
Texas alone, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense 
employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 
million in total. These are not just numbers. Madam Speaker. These are 
mothers and fathers trying to provide for their families.
  Under sequestration, 9,730 fewer children in Texas will receive 
vaccines, and our state will lose approximately $3,557,000 to help 
provide meals for seniors. Texas will also lose approximately 
$2,402,000 to help respond to public health threats including 
infectious diseases and natural disasters.
  Madam Speaker, we must confront our federal debt and deficit, but we 
must do so in a balanced approach that does not further harm our 
weakened economy. Deficit reduction must be comprised by both decreased 
spending and enhanced revenue measures. I implore the House leadership 
and the Republican Members of Congress to come back to the table and 
get back to work.

                          ____________________