Floor Statements

Today is a solemn anniversary, a tragedy that began 10 years ago when President George W. Bush launched a war of choice in Iraq, driving our country into a costly, bitter conflict based on falsehoods and hyperbole. It took President Obama's fulfilling his campaign promise to end the Iraq war, and we are grateful that he brought the war to an end, but we must not forget how we got into the war in the first place so that these mistakes are not repeated.

We were told there were weapons of mass destruction. We were warned about mushroom clouds. Now, I offered an amendment at the time that would have taken us down a different path. It would have required the United States to work through the United Nations, using inspectors and maximizing diplomacy and inspections to determine whether or not Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, my amendment failed by a vote of 72-355.

What happened from there? We all know the tragic consequences: President Bush dragged this country into an unnecessary war. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. The costs of the Iraq war soared far beyond what was projected, and we lost 4,400 American troops in Iraq, and over 32,000 were wounded, not to mention Iraqis.

Once the war started, many of us in Congress quickly organized. Led by Congresswoman Maxine Waters and my good friend former Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and myself, we founded the Out of Iraq Caucus. Over 80 Members joined. Thankfully, on May 25, 2005, Congresswoman Woolsey introduced the first amendment to bring our troops home. From what I remember, there were about 132 votes that that amendment received, but that was not enough to stop the war. It was our way, though, to join the hundreds of thousands of people who marched and protested against what they knew was a war based on misleading information by the Bush administration. Many in this House supported my amendment every year to cut the funding for combat operations and to only appropriate funding for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and our contractors.

Now, we would have saved hundreds of lives had this body used the power of the purse strings to stop this war. Shame on us. Ten years later, today, the full consequences and costs of the Iraq war remain to be seen.

According to a new study by the Watson Institute at Brown University, the war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion, with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to our veterans. Most importantly, we paid for this war most tragically in loss of life and injury, and we poured billions of dollars into nation-building in Iraq with little oversight or accountability. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction issued his final report to Congress last month, detailing the billions of United States tax dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.

Speaking with an Iraqi official, Special Inspector Stuart Bowen was told: You can fly in a helicopter around Baghdad and other cities, but you cannot point a finger to a single project that was built and completed by the United States.

Unfortunately, these lost opportunities and tragic mistakes are not behind us. As the daughter of a 25-year veteran of the Armed Forces, I recognize the sacrifices our young men and women have made in Iraq and continue to make in Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned with the widespread incidences of PTSD and the alarming suicide rates among our returning veterans. We need to honor our troops who served and show our support by giving our men and women who served the best health care, the best educational opportunities and the best jobs available. They deserve nothing less.

It is my hope that this reckless and shortsighted decision will mark a turning point in American history and that we will never again wage an unnecessary war. We must use all the tools of American power in resolving disputes, including diplomacy, and we must have sufficient congressional debate. We only debated this go-to-war resolution for probably a couple of hours. We need more debate and oversight before ever putting another U.S. soldier in harm's way.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, just like in Iraq, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. We need to bring the war in Afghanistan to an accelerated end and bring our troops home now. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in expressing his sentiment during a different war, said: The bombs in Vietnam explode at home--they destroy the hopes and possibilities of a decent America.

So let us put this decade of perpetual warfare behind us, invest in our veterans, our children, and get about the business of nation- building here at home.

Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her continued tremendous leadership on the Rules Committee.

I rise in strong opposition to the rule; and I think the previous speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee, really laid out why I'm totally opposed to this rule and the bill.

As a member of the Budget Committee, let me just say that I've had a chance to study this GOP budget, which is full of choices that would undermine our Nation's future for the continued benefit of special interests, the wealthy and, yes, big oil companies--oil subsidies. It creates more income inequality, and it shreds the safety net. It is in keeping with the overall effort we've seen over and over again to dismantle government, increase inequality and leave the most vulnerable people on their own.

We should reject this very warped vision of America, and we should call this budget for what it is. Republicans call it a Path to Prosperity, but it really is a path to poverty for the middle class, for working families, for children, and for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the majority did not support the amendment that I offered in the Budget Committee that would set a goal of cutting poverty in half in 10 years, which listed and reaffirmed those government-supported programs, such as the earned income tax credit, which lifts people out of poverty even though we tried to come to some agreement on language; but, quite frankly, if they supported that goal, they would have accepted my amendment, and their budget would have made some radically different choices.

The reality is we hear the rhetoric that claims to support a goal of ending poverty while at the same time making devastating cuts that put more people into poverty. The fact of the matter is you cannot pretend to fight poverty while you make brutal cuts to the very programs that lift millions of Americans out of poverty.

The Republican budget would make devastating cuts that will increase child hunger, cut off millions of seniors from access to health care, and throw struggling families off TANF during the middle of a jobs crisis. Blocking Medicaid, turning Medicare into a voucher program, and gutting food assistance to our children and our seniors will not reduce poverty. It will just make it worse.

When you look at this Republican budget, for example, it takes 66 percent of the budget cuts from programs for people with low or moderate incomes. It would cost 2 million jobs in 2014, and it would slash $135 billion over 10 years by cutting 8 million to 9 million people from the SNAP program--our nutrition program, our food stamps program--which is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs in the United States.

The American people deserve more. They deserve a budget that creates jobs, a budget that creates opportunity for all, not a budget that creates more poverty. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on this budget because it is a pathway to poverty.

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't think I mentioned a full and open debate. What I wanted to talk about was the rule that allows for the presentation of this budget and listed all of the support programs that really keep people out of poverty. And also the fact that yes, we tried, as you know, in the committee to put together an amendment that would actually do that on a bipartisan way. But you can't ignore the fact that we need SNAP. We need food assistance for children and women. We need all of those programs.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member for your tremendous leadership and for yielding. And I also thank Chairman Ryan for a very spirited markup.

I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget. And let me just say as a new member of the Budget Committee, I've had the opportunity now to really get into the weeds of the budget, which really is full of choices, but those choices would undermine our Nation's future for the continued benefit of special interests and the wealthy.

The bottom line: that's what this budget does. It would dismantle government, it would increase inequality and leave the most vulnerable people on their own.

We should reject this warped vision of America, and we should call this budget for what it is. Republicans call it a ``path to prosperity,'' but it really is a path to poverty for the middle class, for working families, for children and for our seniors.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot pretend to fight poverty while you make brutal cuts to the very programs that lift millions of Americans out of poverty.

The Republican budget would make devastating cuts that will increase child hunger, cut off millions of seniors from access to health care, and throw struggling families off TANF during the middle of a jobs crisis. The Republican budget proposes yet another $6 trillion tax cut for the top 1 percent in our country while focusing 66 percent of their cuts on shredding our Nation's critical safety net for our children, our seniors, our disabled, and the poor. This budget would also cost 2 million jobs, and it would slash nutrition and food assistance programs for 8 million to 9 million people.

Mr. Chairman, block-granting Medicaid, turning Medicare into a voucher program, and gutting food assistance to our children and our seniors will not reduce poverty; it will make it much, much worse. Our Democratic budget will close special interest tax loopholes in order to raise the critical revenues that we need to invest in the American people.

Thank you very much.

Let me just conclude by saying that fully supporting our safety net programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security, will reduce poverty, grow the middle class, and renew economic prosperity for all Americans.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats simply do not believe that gutting the very programs that support poor and low-income families would reduce poverty, programs such as the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The Van Hollen Democratic alternative budget creates 1.2 million jobs this year; it reduces the deficit by 2.4 percent; and it makes huge key investments in our future.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say that I appreciate the chairman, Mr. Ryan, saying that he knows my heart is in the right place. But I also want him to know that the facts speak for themselves.

We have this chart right here, and it demonstrates very clearly that 18 million more people would be living in poverty had it not been for those initiatives in this budget that you completely cut out: SNAP, the refundable tax credits, and the broad selection of other programs. Eighteen million more people would be in poverty.

Also let me just say that a budget is a moral document. They reflect the values of who we are as Americans.

I thank the gentleman.

Why would we want to impose 66 percent of the cuts in your budget on low-income individuals and the poor? That does not make any sense. That is just morally wrong.

Finally, I just have to say that the ranks of the poor began to grow under the Bush administration.

In 2005, I formed the Out of Poverty Caucus because I saw the Bush economic policies and what, in fact, they were beginning to do. We had probably 42 or 43 Members who joined that caucus. And so I just have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this didn't just begin. The ranks of the poor began to grow as a direct result of the economic policies that this budget wants to return to.

Let me thank the gentleman from Nevada first of all for his tremendous leadership on behalf of the people of Nevada, and also thank you for those kind words and thank you for really helping to put together not only this Special Order tonight on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, but for your leadership on so many fronts. Thank you.

Let me first say, I serve as a member of the Budget Committee, and I have seen close-hand the Republican vision for our country's future; and believe you me, it is not a vision of shared prosperity or economic growth. Having a sound and balanced alternative, like the Congressional Black Caucus budget, exposes the Republican budget for the disaster that it really is.

The Republican budget shortchanges 99 percent of the American people so it can give even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and to protect tax loopholes for special interests and Big Oil. At a time when we need job creation the most, the Republican budget would kill more than 2 million American jobs in 2014 alone. That's unconscionable. Cutting infrastructure development would also kill jobs that are important to our communities, communities of color. Jobs in the construction sector and in the public transit sector, these sectors employ many people that other sectors do not employ.

The Republican budget would take away food from hungry children and families, kick thousands of children off of Head Start, and close the door to college for thousands of graduates next year. Two-thirds of all of the Republican budget cuts target programs for people who are poor or low income, and communities of color would be the hardest hit.

Communities of color still bear the brunt of the last economic recession. Unemployment remains high. As of January, 9.7 percent of Latinos and 13.8 percent of African Americans were unemployed, compared to the national average of 9 percent. And income inequality continues to grow.

Federal unemployment benefits already under sequestration would face greater cuts under this Ryan budget as he proposes an additional $900 billion in cuts to nondiscretionary spending.

The Republican budget's vision for America is very clear. Their budget would shred the social safety net. It would shatter our economic recovery and would push millions of struggling families over the edge.

In stark contrast, the Congressional Black Caucus budget shows that we can choose a different way forward. It is a document that shows our Nation's priorities and values, for, after all, a budget is a moral document. The CBC budget protects and enhances Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, all of our vital safety net programs that save millions of people from poverty.

We believe strongly that any savings derived from changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be used to extend their solvency, not to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and we do not support a cut in benefits.

For four decades, many of these programs have received support as the first line of defense against hunger and alleviating poverty, helping to ensure vulnerable families in our Nation that they have a stable life. While protecting important antipoverty programs, the CBC budget would also make sound invests in critical areas like infrastructure, education, innovation, and poverty reduction to strengthen the economy for all.

I'm very proud of the fact that the CBC budget includes supporting language for developing a national strategy to eliminate poverty with the goal of cutting poverty in half in 10 years. Fifty million people in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world are living in poverty; 16 million are children.

We've also included in our budget a formula that Leader Clyburn continues to champion. That's our 10-20-30 formula, which targets resources: 10 percent of Federal funds into certain accounts where there has been a poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years. That is extremely important as we begin to cut poverty in half in 10 years.

The Republican budget, of course, is a pathway to poverty, with cuts to social safety net programs, jobs, as well as programs that serve as a bridge over troubled water for millions of low-income and vulnerable families. The fact of the matter is, when the economy grows through sound policies and investments that lift up struggling families, everyone benefits.

Also, let me just mention the section with regard to national defense. Congressman Horsford, thank you very much for reminding us about these two wars, quite frankly, that have been off budget and that are responsible for the deficits and for the lack of jobs and the unemployment rates that we see throughout our country. Our Congressional Black Caucus budget brings our defense spending in line with our legitimate security needs, and we also have a budget that measures our growth in terms of our economic footing as it relates to investing in our national economic security here at home. Whatever savings can be achieved, we put into mental health, veterans' health, and also support and research treatment for traumatic brain injury.

Also, let me just remind you that the Pentagon is the only Federal agency that's not subject to an audit. The Pentagon has lost tens of billions of dollars to waste, fraud, and abuse. There have been reports of suitcases full of dollars, U.S. taxpayer dollars, being stolen or lost as it relates to Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got to be able to audit the Pentagon, and so our budget uses the $300 billion of the savings from cuts also to the ballistic missile defense program for implementing the remaining GAO recommendations. I think we have now 1,682 of them, which would save about $89 billion. And so our budgeting insists that we begin to audit the Pentagon. That is a very important function that the Congressional Black Caucus understands very clearly.

Finally, let me just say, we restore harmful cuts to the military Tuition Assistance program. I can't believe that the Republicans would cancel

military tuition assistance for veterans who have fought so hard in these wars. Don't they deserve better? The Congressional Black Caucus believes they deserve better, and so we restore those harmful cuts.

The Congressional Black Caucus knows we can do better. We know that a shared prosperity is the most important key to sound growth and sound fiscal policy. First, let me just urge everyone to reject the ruinous Republican budget and to support the CBC alternative budget.

I have to thank Congressman Bobby Scott and the Budget Task Force and all the staff for their tremendous work and their support in putting forth and writing a budget, really, that speaks to the aspirations and to reigniting the American Dream for all Americans.

I thank you again, Representative Horsford, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote 63. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership.

I rise in opposition to this TANF reauthorization bill that would deny States the opportunity to help put more unemployed people to work.

With 26 million working-age adults in America living below the poverty line, and millions struggling to stay afloat, I'm appalled that the House Republican priority is to bring to the floor a bill that further restricts the TANF program's ability to improve job outcomes and get people to work.

Funding for the TANF program has not kept pace with need. As a result, four out of five children living in poverty today are not being reached. Instead of targeting the President's reforms, which would actually increase flexibility for States, mind you, Congress should be focused on creating jobs and ladders of opportunity.

Now, I was on the conference committee that Congressman Thompson mentioned. I was in the California legislature, and I was on the conference committee that negotiated California's TANF program. And let me tell you, I voted against it. I voted against my own conference committee's report because, as a former welfare recipient myself, I didn't want to see more welfare recipients being penalized by a work requirement with no real effort and initiative and resources to help primarily women move from welfare to work.

This administration's reforms would correct for this, finally. It would create that flexibility that was needed then.

That's why yesterday myself, Congressmen Raul Grijalva, Judy Chu, and Emanuel Cleaver, we submitted an amendment to restore the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund to further support our Nation's jobless workers and put people back to work.

It's not surprising that our amendment was ruled not in order by the Republican-controlled Rules Committee, but it does underscore the reality that Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points than they are in putting people back to work.

American families need a national strategy to end poverty, and this should be part of that. As chair of the Democratic whip's Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, I'm working with all of our colleagues to advance that goal. Unfortunately, this reauthorization, though, takes us in the exact opposite direction.

We need to extend the TANF program, but this is not the way to do it. We need flexibility.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Let me thank our ranking member for yielding and for her tremendous leadership.

First of all, let me just make this point. This bill--actually, this CR--reaffirms sequestration, and it really could have been canceled. I have to tell you, also, that at a time when the Pentagon has enjoyed a decade of unchecked defense spending, this bill gives the Pentagon new flexibility to cushion the effects of sequestration. Again, it reaffirms sequestration.

At the same time, the bill ignores the impacts of these devastating cuts on the American public. These sequestration cuts would not only hurt low-income families first and hurt them the most, but also communities of color and the millions of Americans who still are struggling to find a job.

The sequester will impact my congressional district, my home State of California, and every single household in America. It also underfunds the vital programs that protect public health and safety, promote and develop our workforce, and educate the next generation.

While all of us believe that it's important to keep the government functioning, governing by a continuing resolution is really no way to run the Federal Government. We need to rein in Federal spending and spend our security dollars wisely on proven programs that meet today's national security needs, but we also must begin some nation building here at home. The American people deserve better than that. Not only is this resolution a fiscal disaster, it is morally wrong.

[From the New York Times, March 5, 2013]

California, on Brink of Recovery, Braces for Setback on Federal Aid

(By Norimitsu Onishi)

San Francisco.--After years of ballooning budget deficits,

California finally seemed on firmer footing. Unemployment

remained high, but revenues and housing prices were up.

Taxpayers even voted themselves a tax increase to bring

deficits down.

And then came the automatic federal budget cuts known as

sequestration.

As the $85 billion in spending cuts slowly roll out

nationwide, California officials are girding themselves for a

blow not only to the state's large military industry but also

to its nascent economic recovery. Still, experts say, it will

most likely slow down, though not derail, the state's

economic growth.

The cuts, which began to take effect on Friday and will

accelerate as time passes, will amount to a loss of an

estimated $9 billion for California this year. The military

industry will incur the biggest reduction, $3.2 billion, but

education, social programs and other areas that were hit

particularly hard by California's budget turmoil in recent

years will also face cuts.

State officials await word from Washington on exactly how

the cuts will be put in place in the weeks and months ahead,

hoping that the long-term ripple effects on California's

consumers and businesses will become clearer.

``It's very frustrating for a state like California, where

we've had housing-market and job-market gains beginning to

solidify here,'' said Jason Sisney, the director of state

finance at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's

Office. ``And just as that's happening, we have the federal

government taking actions that could impede that recovery.''

Despite the size of military and federal programs in

California, the state's $2 trillion economy is larger and

more diverse than the economies of other states, and less

dependent on federal workers.

``California will be an average state,'' said Stephen Levy,

the director of the Center for Continuing Study of the

California Economy. ``We won't be hit less, and we won't be

hit more.''

Jerry Nickelsburg, an economics professor and expert on the

California economy at the Anderson School of Management at

the University of California, Los Angeles, said: ``But is it

sufficient to choke off the recovery in California? I think

the answer is no. Will it slow the growth of the California

economy? The answer is yes.''

Because the automatic budget cuts had been set up to force

Democrats and Republicans to negotiate over cuts and

spending--and not to be actually put in place--California

officials, like their counterparts in other state capitals,

have received only general guidance so far from the Office of

Management and Budget on how to carry out the cuts. But in

the coming weeks, federal agencies are expected to provide

details on their respective spending cuts.

``As we learn more the specifics on how they're going to do

that, then we will have a better sense of how it will impact

the state,'' said H. D. Palmer, a deputy director at the

California Department of Finance.

State officials could have to adjust for the cuts in the

state budget revision scheduled for May. In January, Gov.

Jerry Brown announced the first balanced budget in years,

thanks largely to a temporary tax surcharge that voters

approved in November.

The budget cuts are expected to be felt strongly in the San

Diego area, where the military industry plays a significant

role in the economy. According to the White House,

California's 64,000 civilian military workers will be

furloughed starting next month, most likely by losing a day

of work a week over several months. The White House estimates

that the furloughs will total a $400 million reduction in

gross pay this year.

Military contractors in the area are also bracing for cuts.

Marion C. Blakey, the president of the Aerospace Industries

Association, a trade group based in Arlington, Va., said

larger contractors could absorb the loss of an anticipated

order. But smaller members, she said, could be forced to lay

off highly paid engineers, and in that way dampen the

regional economy.

``These are companies that often do not have the resilience

and flexibility to take this kind of body blow,'' Ms. Blakey

said, adding that these were typically highly specialized

companies incapable of quickly shifting their businesses.

``As an industry, we are very concerned about the third and

fourth tier in the supply chain, and California has a lot of

those kinds of companies.''

Gregory Bloom, a member of the trade group's executive

board and the president of Seal Science, a 120-employee

aerospace company in Irvine, Calif., said his business had

already suffered from the cuts. Because of the uncertainty

surrounding federal financing of military-related programs,

his company had lost two top engineers and was unable to fill

four existing engineering positions, he said.

``In my entire career, I've never been in a situation where

I can't at least put some probability on what's going to

happen,'' Mr. Bloom said, adding that he had delayed

expanding capacity at a plant as a result. ``There's

absolutely no way to plan.''

The cuts could hurt California's schools and colleges,

whose budgets have been slashed in recent years. The

University of California system is expected to face at least

a 5 percent cut in the $3.5 billion it receives annually in

federal research money. Cuts in federal student aid programs

will affect the next academic year.

``As a family starts to plan for what's going to happen

next year--how much money do I need to send my son or

daughter to school?--these are unknowns right now until we

get more information from the federal government,'' said Gary

Falle, the University of California's associate vice

president for federal government relations.

According to the White House, California will also lose $88

million in federal money for primary and secondary education

this year. Though Washington accounts for less than 11

percent of the state's budget for schools, that share has

taken on increasing weight in recent years because of state

cuts, said Erika Webb-Hughes, an official at the California

Department of Education's government affairs division.

The cuts are likely to affect disadvantaged students the

most, including those with disabilities, Ms. Webb-Hughes

said. The uncertainty of the magnitude of the cuts will also

make it difficult for school districts to plan for next year

because, by state law, they must notify staff members of

their future employment status by March 15.

``People will be sending out pink slips,'' Ms. Webb-Hughes

said. ``Even if at the end of the year there is a miraculous

agreement in the Congress that averts a majority of this

issue, the damage is already done.''

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.

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 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.

Madam Speaker, first let me thank Leader Pelosi and Congresswoman Gwen Moore for their tremendous leadership to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Today we have an opportunity to really stand up for tribal women, for the LGBT community, for immigrant women, for women all across the United States and to finally pass the strongly bipartisan Senate version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. We should have done this a long time ago. After much grandstanding, feet dragging, and shameful politicking over protecting the right for all women to feel safe in their homes and workplaces, I hope today that finally we can come together to say that violence against any woman is never an option.

When I was in the California Legislature, I authored the Violence Against Women Act for the State of California, and it was signed into law by a Republican Governor. It was, indeed, a bipartisan effort.

As someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, I know how traumatic it is, and I know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. That is what the Senate's VAWA reauthorization will accomplish for all women--and I don't mean for some women; I mean for all women. So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court heard arguments in Shelby County, Alabama vs. Holder. This case presents a direct threat to Section Five of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965--the most effective civil rights legislation ever enacted by Congress.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed just one year after I graduated high school.

I was born and raised in El Paso, Texas, and I vividly remember the days of Jim Crow, segregation, and the poll tax.

Even now, in 2012, discrimination is still haunting us.

It's not in the form of a poll tax, but it's in the cost of waiting in line for 7,8, 9 hours just to vote.

We should be making it easier for everyone to participate in the democratic process, not harder.

We still need the Voting Rights Act.

We still need to be vigilant about protecting our full democratic right to vote.

That right is the heart and soul of our democracy, and we must defend it.

We will not go back.

Should the Supreme Court rule against the Justice Department and overturn this important legislation, minority communities will lose these vital voting protections.

Today, I attended a rally with my colleagues in the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian American and Pacific Islander Caucuses outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are delivered.

Many of us were part of the 390-33 majority--along with 98 Senators--who voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

After an exhaustive review that lasted almost a year, including 21 hearings, testimony from over 90 witnesses, and over 15,000 pages of evidence, Congress came to a nearly unanimous decision that protections are still needed to preserve the voting rights of ALL Americans.

After all, it is this right that lies at the very heart of our democracy.

The Voting Rights Act is routinely used to protect voters against efforts to dilute or suppress their vote. Section five is a critical tool to protect Americans whose voting rights continue to be threatened to this day. I am certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the will of Congress, and respect the overwhelming evidence and comprehensive review that led to President George W. Bush reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

Voting is at the heart of our democracy and we must constantly fight to protect it when it is threatened.

We have come a long way because of the work and sacrifice of millions who came before.

We encourage and support democratic movements around the world, yet here in our country these rights are being eroded each and every day.

Far too many have shed their blood and shed their tears.

So we must protect the most valuable right, the most central right, the right that makes America the nation that it is: the right to vote.

I call on every American to stand up and join us in the call to protect the right of every American to cast their vote.

As our great Drum Major for Justice, Dr. King once said: ``Voting is the foundation stone for political action.'' Truly, our votes are the bedrock of democracy. We will not bow to voter suppression. These are our rights. We will not budge.

As we pursue the Founding Father's vision of a more perfect union, I am proud to stand with my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues in defense of this critical tool for our democratic republic.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 46-47. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month we lost a true champion for women, for communities of color, for the entire country.

Elected in 1973, Congresswoman Cardiss Collins soon became a forceful political voice in the House, rising quickly to become chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in 1979. I came to know and to love Cardiss Collins while working as a staffer to Congressman Ron Dellums.

She opened so many doors for African American women elected to Congress now, serving for a time as one of the only African American women. From 1985 to 1991, she was the only Black woman here in the House of Representatives. She broke so many glass ceilings, oftentimes fighting many, many lonely battles with grace and distinction, knowing her power and her strength.

She was a leader in the fight for low-income women's access to reproductive health services. And she fought tirelessly to ensure that women and minorities were treated equally to their counterparts, especially in college athletics, in the insurance industry, government hiring, and at the Smithsonian.

On behalf of Ron Dellums and his staff, we send our condolences and our prayers.

Mr. Speaker, in the State of the Union address this week, President Obama laid out a powerful vision for our Nation, one that will create jobs, tear down barriers to prosperity, and lift the most vulnerable out of poverty.

At the same time, the Republican-controlled House has yet to bring a bill to the floor to prevent the unconscionable budget sequester from slashing thousands of jobs and pushing poor and low-income individuals over the edge.

As the President said this week, we cannot grow the economy by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing our communities to lay off more teachers, more firefighters, and more police officers.

We must reject the sequester and reject proposals that would balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans, and low-income families. Everyone should have the opportunity to climb, strive, and reap the rewards of the American Dream. That is how we build our economy for all and create a better world for our children.

Mr. Speaker, the upcoming Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder Supreme Court case presents a direct threat to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is the

most effective civil rights legislation ever enacted by Congress.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed just 1 year after I graduated from high school. Growing up in El Paso, Texas, I vividly remember the days of Jim Crow, segregation, and the poll tax. Should the Supreme Court rule against the Justice Department and overturn this important legislation, minority communities will lose many of their voting protections.

Later this month, I intend to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to listen to the oral arguments for this case at the Supreme Court. Many of us were part of the 390-33 majority, along with 98 Senators, who voted to reauthorize the Voting Right Act in 2006. We agreed there is still a compelling need to protect and preserve the voting rights of all Americans. After all, it is this right that lies at the very heart of our democracy that must not be eroded.

Thank you very much.

First of all, let me thank you, Congresswoman Speier, for bringing us all together today to speak out on the important issue of addressing gun violence, not next month, not next year, not next Congress, but right now. And I have to just thank you so much for your tremendous leadership.

Yourself and Congresswoman McCarthy, both of you have so eloquently laid out why we need gun violence safety measures, both with your intellect and with your heart. Both of you have shared your very painful experiences, really, basically, so that others can live rather than die from gunshots. So thank you so much for staying the course.

I can think of no more important subject than what we're talking about today because this gun violence has been destroying communities, taking lives, and injuring too many people for much too long across America.

As President Obama invoked in his State of the Union speech last night, the families grieving from losing loved ones to gun violence deserve a vote. In fact, though, we're saying they deserve more than a vote. They deserve concrete steps to reduce gun violence, and we can take those steps right here in Congress.

We cannot accept one more innocent life being lost to gun violence, not one in Newtown, not one in Chicago or Cleveland, not one in my district in Oakland, California, not one in any town, any city, any school, in any theater, or any place of worship, mall, or any neighborhood.

We have an obligation to our children to ensure that Newtown marks a turning point that made us finally say, ``Enough is enough.'' We must come together to build an America where our children do not have to live in fear, and where they really believe that they have a future. Many of my young people in my district don't even think they have a future, and this is a very sad state of affairs that we've got to turn around.

Recently, I had an event in my district in West Oakland. It was the unveiling of a mural painted by several talented young artists. This ``Tree of Life'' mural depicted the hope and the faith that my young people have for a future from violence and without violence. Yet they've seen and experienced so much gun violence in their communities throughout their young years, but they still have a lot of hope, and they're counting on us here to make sure that their dream lives.

Too many of my constituents have been affected by gun violence, have pleaded for help in protecting their children from the horrors of gun violence, only to see the status quo at the Federal level.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take some serious action that includes what we've heard today, and I'll reiterate, commonsense measures such as the Federal gun buyback programs, banning high-capacity magazines, expanding the 24-hour background check, closing gun show loopholes, and reinstating the assault weapons ban. We need to do this immediately.

But we also need to work to end domestic violence in our homes and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. We need to do this right away.

We must also seek input from our young people, community stakeholders, faith community leaders, and others. We can work together to identify the root causes of this Nation's more than 16,000 homicides a year.

Let me call to your attention the work of a magnificent community- based organization in my district that I actually am very proud of, that I helped found in the early nineties, called the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center. These young people continue to work on conflict resolution and violence prevention efforts day and night, but they constantly tell us that their work is thwarted by too many guns on the street. And so we have to pass these gun safety measures.

We have to repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which I know Congresswoman Speier and Mr. Moran and myself and other appropriators are working to do. And we must, as part of this, rededicate ourselves to getting the guns off of the street and working for, finally, a culture of peace and security.

Thank you again for your leadership.