Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the destruction caused by natural disasters across the country affirms the need to address climate change. Conservation efforts that protect wildlife ecosystems help to mitigate these climate concerns as well as provide lands for all Americans to enjoy.

Today, I am proud to introduce legislation that helps preserve the northern Rockies--one of our country's vital environmental regions. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act will safeguard 23 million acres by establishing a system to connect biological corridors on public lands in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington. It prioritizes the health of whole ecosystems by designating all of the inventoried roadless areas as wilderness, including wild and scenic rivers. This designation helps ensure the preservation of native plants and animals.

It's our responsibility to preserve our country's natural treasures for our own and future generations. I thank my colleagues Reps. Markey, Grijalva, Capps, and Nadler for their support, and I urge others to join us in helping to protect these lands.

Madam Speaker, this week, the House Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan, laid out his budget plan. Sadly, it's just more of the same. Like a bad

record, this year's Republican proposal is virtually the same document as the one he proposed last spring. It harms the middle class. It harms low-income Americans, and it is especially bad for women and families.

Now they have framed this budget and called it a prosperity one, a prosperity plan. But this budget should be called ``the road to austerity,'' because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the rather harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to the few. It clearly envisions a rising tide of selective tax cuts that would lift all yachts but leave many dinghies behind.

Our Republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. What they propose here would indeed make things much harder for millions of Americans, but it will also make things much easier for a fortunate few. That's their plan.

Now, specifically under this plan, he has this new goal of balancing the budget in 10 years. To accomplish this, he slashes funding safety net programs that serve seniors, students, children, low-income families, and women. The budget slashes food stamps and cuts funding for infrastructure investments like high-speed rail. We're falling way behind the rest of the world. We need to invest in our infrastructure to stay competitive. And it does nothing for job creation or to help the unemployed.

The Ryan plan replaces Medicare, and really ends Medicare as we know it by replacing it with a voucher system and replaces Medicaid by making it a block grant to the States. These cuts hurt tens of millions of Americans who count on these programs for their health care coverage.

But not to just rely on what I'm saying, to quote The Washington Post:

The 10-year spending plan released Tuesday by

Representative Ryan is virtually identical to last year's GOP

budget. It would defund President Obama's health care

initiative and guaranteed Medicare coverage for future

retirees and sharply restrain spending on the poor, college

students and Federal workers.

Now, what I find very hypocritical about this budget is that they say that they are going to repeal ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, yet this bill passed this Congress. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. We had an election where this was the issue that people ran on, and President Obama was reelected, strongly. So they keep flip-flopping on this issue. They say they want to abolish ObamaCare, but then they rely on the savings of over $700 million in that program.

So when Congressman Ryan was Vice Presidential candidate Ryan, he campaigned against the health care provider cuts of $716 million, the same ones he wants to keep in this budget. The Republicans opposed these cuts when they were part of the Affordable Care Act, then they passed two budgets that included these cuts. And then Congressman Ryan and Presidential candidate Romney campaigned against the cuts in the 2012 election. And now Mr. Ryan wants to keep them, once again. That's not just a 180-degree turn, it's 180 degrees times four, so it's a change of 720 degrees.

But one thing that is completely clear in this budget is that women, in particular, will suffer because of the choices the Republican budget makes.

Instead of closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, the budget kicks kids out of Head Start. Instead of getting rid of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, for single moms struggling to put food on the table it cuts food stamps.

It seems to me with the budget right now that we are spending at a roughly proposed 3.1 percent, but 1.1 percent is tax loopholes. If you just closed those tax loopholes, you would be able to significantly reduce the deficit and the debt. Why in the world are we giving tax loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas? If you're going to give a tax incentive, it should be to the companies that stay in America and create jobs for Americans.

Now, instead of ensuring that women are not discriminated against by health insurance companies, this bill would repeal the rights women earned in the Affordable Care Act. The Republican budget cuts Medicare benefits, cuts Medicaid services, cuts health research funding and so much more all in the name of a new agenda that they have that will cripple our economy and cause real and lasting harm to the women of America.

The Democratic approach is a more balanced one. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce the deficit and cut the debt, but it's a matter of how you do it, what priorities you have in it and what's your timeframe. The Democratic plan is balanced. I would call it a three- legged stool. You have cuts, you have revenues and you have investments to help grow and expand the economy and create jobs, investments in education and innovation.

Chairman Bernanke has testified before Congress that many of the reasons why America is really digging its way out of this recession and bouncing back faster and stronger than Europe is that we have had a balanced approach, whereas Europe has had an austerity, austerity, austerity approach. As many economists say, ``You cannot cut your way to prosperity.'' Austerity needs to be balanced with revenues and also investments.

I'm joined tonight by Dina Titus from the great State of Nevada. She was reelected in this session. She was an outstanding member of our caucus. We are so thrilled that she's come back to join us.

I yield the gentlelady as much time as she may consume.

I thank you for joining us tonight to share how this impacts on Nevada, an important State that you're representing. And I just want to express my gratitude that you have come

back to Congress and that you're a part of our caucus.

Another outstanding woman in our caucus is Carol Shea-Porter from the great State of New Hampshire. And it is a State that's really unusual now in that all of its elected officials are women: the Governor, the legislature, the State and the assembly. We're so pleased that their Congresswoman is here today, and I know she has a special message from the great State of New Hampshire.

I appreciate your input and for being here tonight to participate in this Special Order. You've raised some very relevant points.

I want to talk about the special impact the Ryan budget has on the Pell Grant cuts.

One of the ways women try to climb out of poverty and close the pay gap is through education, especially higher education. And as we all know, college tuition has far outpaced inflation for years and years. That's why programs such as the Pell Grant program are so important. And fully two-thirds of Pell Grant recipients are women.

Yet again, the Ryan Republican budget hurts women college students by cutting nearly $83 billion--that's with a ``b''--from Pell Grants over the next 10 years. They're doing this even though Congress already enacted and paid for annual mandatory inflationary increases in 2010 and recently cut Pell Grant benefits and eligibility to control costs. So the Ryan Republican budget will make it that much harder for women to climb the ladder of opportunity, get a college degree, get a decent job and start or maintain a family. It just does not need to be that way.

As President Obama has said, the math in this Ryan budget does not add up, and the math that is there cuts programs helping working women and single moms. The Ryan budget will be devastating for working women, low-income families and young women trying to afford college. Head Start, early childhood care, food stamps, Pell Grants for college, and so much more would be slashed under this budget. Let's start with early childhood education.

Many researchers and economists tell us that the very best investment that we can make in our society and in our children is in early childhood education. These cuts in the Ryan budget are on top of the $85 billion from sequestration, which are already in effect. Because of the sequestration, 70,000 children nationwide will be kicked off of Head Start. Another 30,000 low-income children will lose child care assistance because of the cuts to the child care and development block grants. That's a total of 100,000 low-income kids being kicked out of early childhood services. That's already happening as we are speaking tonight on the floor. The Ryan budget would double those cuts, which would mean another 100,000 kids losing services.

What are the working moms of 200,000 children across the country supposed to do? Women only earn 74 cents to the dollar of what men earn in similar jobs. While they are at work, how are these women going to afford to take care of their kids when they lose these services?

The answer is they'll need to find another affordable child care option, which, if you're a mom, you know how difficult that is. Or you'll have to cut back on hours at work because there is no child care. This will only widen the already existing economic divide that separates men and women.

It's not just the economic divide between men and women. The gap between the haves and the have-nots, because of the Ryan budget and the Bush years, has never been greater, but that's not all. Many of these same families would also lose the assistance they need so that they can feed their families.

Now from the great State of Maryland is the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings. It's good to hear that like-minded men have joined us in this Special Order on the Ryan budget and how it affects American families.

Thank you for being here.

I want to thank the gentleman for his insight on how this budget is affecting his constituents, and to hear from him that women and men may have an almost perfect score in college and have to leave because they can't afford it, their Pell Grants have been cut--it's just unconscionable that the wealthiest country in the world is not there to invest in the next generation, in the next leaders, the next teachers and engineers that our country needs.

It's not just education. It's not just housing. We're talking about food on the table. Once again, as they did last year, House Republicans are proposing to slash the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This is commonly called the ``food stamps.'' For people who don't have enough money for their food, this helps them, but they are calling for taking the food stamps and turning it into a block grant. Now, we who have worked in city, State, and Federal Governments know that ``block grant'' is another way of saying cut--permanently cut--and, in some cases, sliding it out of existence.

SNAP currently helps, roughly, 47 million low-income Americans afford the food they put on the tables every day, and during these past few years of the Great Recession, SNAP has been a lifeline to those in need, making sure that in the wealthiest country in the world American families don't have to go hungry. People who apply for food stamps need food. Now women make up, roughly, 60 percent of SNAP's adult beneficiaries, and more than half of SNAP households with children are headed by a single adult, the vast majority of whom--over 90 percent-- are women. That means that single moms on SNAP are already struggling to make ends meet and to take care of their kids.

They will be losing these benefits because the Ryan Republican budget refuses to close the $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes. Now, I for one say let's close those tax loopholes and keep the food on the tables of America's families who need it. I find that outrageous.

I am really thrilled that a new Member of Congress, Lois Frankel--a woman with a great record of distinction in the State of Florida--has joined us. I want to thank her for coming and providing the perspective of her State. When it's cold, I know all my constituents want to be in Florida, but I'm pleased that she is here with us now.

Thank you for being here.

No one. No one. She is going to have to quit her job and stay home and take care of Barbara.

Thank you for putting a human face on what it's meaning for people who are coming to your office for help. But also what has to be part of this equation is that the economy is still very fragile, and you can't cut your way to prosperity. These deep cuts could put the economy in a tailspin. Chairman Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has testified that we need a balanced approach, that we shouldn't slash so severely. Many economists say that the American economy is doing better than Europe because we are not cutting as deeply as Europe is, so giving the economy a chance to recover.

So to go in with these draconian cuts, not only does it hurt people, such as with the stories you're telling us, but it could hurt the recovery, the overall economy that for the past 35 months has been growing private sector jobs and digging ourselves out of that deep recession, so it could possibly throw us back into it. You've raised an important point, and I yield back to you.

Well, I think you pointed out that this budget is not only draconian and unfair; it is filled with contradictions. Why in the world would you let these tax breaks continue for big oil companies that are making a profit, and we're subsidizing some of them to the tune of 40 percent, yet you're going to take the future of our young kids and throw them off. It is a total, total contradiction; and it's completely wrong.

I want to point out the biggest contradiction in this budget. It repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the law's budget savings and uses it to balance their budget. So they say in the budget they're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. How are they going to repeal it? It passed the Congress; it is the law of this country. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. We had an election where this was a central point of debate; and, guess what, President Obama won the election, and he ran on the Affordable Care Act. So they say that they're going to repeal it. They don't have the votes to repeal it. And even if they did, he'd veto it. There's no way they can repeal it, so it is a complete--really a hoax. It's a hoax.

Then they claim to protect Medicare while ending Medicare as we know it for future seniors and our children and our grandchildren. And the biggest hoax, they sit there and say they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and then they take the savings from the Affordable Care Act, the $718 billion that was put there from the providers, and they use that to balance

their budget. So the numbers do not add up.

The gentlelady is correct. They're shifting the burden onto the middle class, the elderly, and the poor. Again, President Obama's budget contains $1.3 trillion in spending, and in that budget is $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. So where are the priorities of this country? Close the tax breaks, keep the food on the table, or close the tax breaks and reduce the deficit.

I think they're not sincere about wanting to reduce the deficit and the debt because if they were, they would take those tax loopholes and close them. Some are important such as the deduction for a family's home. That allows many middle class and moderate middle class Americans to own their own home. They are able to deduct that.

But there are all these other deductions that make no sense. Why in the world are we giving a subsidy to companies that move jobs overseas? It's crazy. If anything, the subsidy should be for companies in America making it in America, creating jobs in America, and paying their taxes, their Social Security, and their Medicare in America.

So this whole budget is an exercise in contradictions and it's an exercise in, really, lack of good judgment or values, and I hope that we are able to defeat it.

I hope that the Democratic plan will be the one that is finally the one that passes. This is just the same old same old from the last 2 years: slash the safety net and protect tax breaks. The Ryan approach just isn't a balanced or, I would say, fair or valued approach.

I want to thank you, Congresswoman, and you raised some important points.

And one that was not raised, that is the illnesses that we do not have cures for in this country. And one of the things that America's always led the world in is scientific research, yet this budget cuts that research. It cuts the National Institutes of Health that could come up with the cures for the diseases that she mentioned.

America is a place of innovation and medical advancements, and Congress should be focused on keeping that status, that we don't want to lose our leadership in innovation.

To give one example, breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. One in seven women will come down with breast cancer, and it is one of the leading causes of death among women of all races in America. In 2009, over 210,000 women in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and over 40,000 women died from the disease.

Over the past 5 years, the National Institutes of Health spent more than $3 billion on breast cancer research, which dwarfs any amount we see in the private sector or nonprofit sector. And yet, in the Ryan budget, the NIH would be cut and slashed by billions and billions of dollars, yet these dollars are the hope for saving lives. They're the hope for finding cures. And we know that health research has paid off.

Another important area is Alzheimer's. The number of women and men that contract Alzheimer's is huge and growing, and this cut will be cutting the research that we have in Alzheimer's and other lifesaving efforts to prevent Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other diseases.

So we've been making a lot of progress in health research and innovative research, and all of that research is really at risk under the Ryan Republican budget.

I am very pleased that one of my colleagues from the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, who is a strong advocate for women, children, and families, has joined us. Thank you so much for being here tonight.

I yield the gentlelady as much time as she may consume.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I want to point out and make sure that our colleagues and the listening public know that the Ryan plan assumes the $85 billion in sequester cuts. So these cuts are on top of that. And according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester could cause the U.S. economy to lose 750,000 jobs. And the Ryan plan compounds these job losses.

The Economic Policy Institute has initial estimates that the House Republican budget would cost 2 million jobs in 2014 alone, relative to current policy. So why in the world would we want to take these steps that are going to result in job loss?

I yield back to the lady.

They take away the good aspects of it, all the preventive and the health care. They propose to eliminate that, but then they keep the tax savings from it to balance their budget. It is a hoax. It's not realistic. It's not true. And I really appreciate your words here today on the floor.

I thank the gentlelady.

In conclusion, Americans can't afford more fuzzy math and budget gimmicks. We need real solutions that help grow our economy, create jobs, support the health and economic security of our seniors, and one that will address the arbitrary sequester cuts. Chairman Ryan's budget fails to address any of these.

Our Republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. What they propose here would indeed make things much harder for millions of Americans, but it will also make things much easier for a fortunate few. That's their plan. The reality is that the majority's Ryan budget harms those who need help and doles out tax breaks and benefits to those who do not. So let me be as clear as I possibly can: the Ryan budget, if it were passed by the House, would risk our recovery.

I want to thank all the participants tonight. I thank the like-minded men who came to the floor to support us and the women that have spoken out tonight on how the budget affects women, children, and their expanded families.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you so much for organizing this.

I want to thank my dear friend and colleague, Mike Thompson, not only for his leadership here on the floor, but the great work that he has done as the leader of the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. One of the things that he underscores at all of our hearings and meetings is that he is himself a gun owner. He enjoys hunting; he enjoys having a gun for protection; he enjoys it for target shooting. But he also understands that certain guns are not for hunting; they're just for killing people, such as assault weapons, and that there are loopholes in our laws.

I regret to inform you tonight that there has been another mass murder in New York yesterday, where a gunman shot down four law enforcement in upstate New York. Now, if we don't make changes, we can only expect more of the same. It was only 10 days after the tragic killing of 20 young innocent children in Connecticut that the tragedy happened in upstate New York.

Now, the straw purchaser that bought the guns--the rifle and the assault weapon--for the felon that murdered two police officers and firemen, I doubt that that neighbor would have bought those guns for him if the law had been on the books that straw purchasers could be looking at 20 years for knowingly buying guns and giving them to a criminal or a person who could not legally have that gun.

Now, this bill has been endorsed by 30 different law enforcement organizations. Law enforcement is asking us to give them the tools to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. This bill that I authored grew out of a hearing we were having on violence on the border of Mexico. The agents testified that guns were being shipped into Mexico that were then used to kill our border

agents. So I asked the question: Why don't we just stop the guns? At that point, the agents testified that they don't even bother to bring charges against straw purchasers because the laws are so weak. They call them a ``slap on the wrist,'' a paper violation, that you wouldn't be punished at all.

So what we're trying to do with this bill is to make trafficking in guns to felons, to drug cartels, to gang leaders a crime--it's unbelievable that it's not a crime now--and to increase the penalties for the straw purchasers. I think it's reasonable, it's common sense, and, fundamentally, it will save lives in our country. It was introduced with Mr. Cummings, Mr. Meehan and Mr. Rigell. Mr. Rigell is a member of the NRA. Also, I think that Mr. Meehan was also a former leader in law enforcement, so he had really literally understood the need of it.

At our hearing yesterday--and at the hearings we've had in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee--law enforcement is basically begging us, absolutely begging us to give them the tools to better protect Americans.

I hope that we will listen to our chairman's plea, Mike Thompson's plea, that at least on this we can come together and forge a bipartisan effort to pass these two important bills. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act. According to the US Department of Justice, in 2007 intimate partners committed 14 percent of all the homicides in the United States.

In 2007, of all the deaths caused by Intimate Partner Violence, 70 percent were females and 30% were males.

In 2008, females age 12 or older experienced about 552,000 nonfatal violent victimizations by an intimate partner.

From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.

All those numbers are all real. And so are the tragedies behind them. The body count is indisputable. The pain--the suffering--the loss--are hard to bear even in our imaginings.

And the damaging effect on the children that witnessed such acts of violence--lingers into future generations--spreading its toxic effects.

Grim facts like these are why the Violence Against Women Act was originally passed: Women were dying--disproportionately--from intimate partner violence. Women were the ones being beaten. Women were the ones being raped. And the ordinary efforts of law enforcement at the time-- were simply not able to keep them safe.

More needed to be done to stop the plague of violence. And that is why the Violence Against Women Act was passed with strong bi-partisan support. And was re-authorized--again--with strong bi-partisan support.

And yet somehow--in this sad new world of partisan politics and endless rancor--the simple reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has become a political football. A way--not to save lives--or keep women and children safe--but to score points--to win a game.

But this is not about politics--this is about the single most fundamental task that we require of our government--keep it's citizens safe from violent assault.

That is what the Violence Against Women Act is about--keeping people safe--people who are at clearly demonstrable risk.

And in America--we have long stood by the principle that the protections of the law are not meant just for some--not just for those who may be in greater favor or hold greater sway. But the law should be there to keep all people safe. Period.

And yet--our Republican colleagues have seen fit to weaken the Violence Against Women Act and strip from the Senate version of the bill--new protections for populations that we know beyond dispute have been victimized by intimate partner violence--and are in need of protection.

We know that long standing prejudices put these populations at risk. We know that without the specific protection of the law--they will continue to suffer. And yet these protections have been stripped.

And we know beyond question--there are estimates that hundreds of thousands of rape kits are sitting on shelves un-tested--and that each and everyone of those rape kits may hold the information that will solve a violent crime--and bring some closure to a traumatized victim.

And yet our Republican colleagues weakened the bill and ripped from the VAWA a provision which I sponsored, that would help state and local governments conduct audits of those rape kits with no new spending.

The SAFER Act (H.R. 354) would also have provided a measure of open government and public accountability, by requiring audit grantees to issue regular public reports that detail the progress they have made in clearing the rape kit backlog.

Additionally, it would have allowed the National Institute of Justice to publish a set of non-binding protocols and practices to provide guidance in cases that include DNA evidence. And yet the Republicans chose to weaken the bill and take that out.

We also know that recent studies have shown that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted during her college years.

That grim statistic is made even worse by the fact that a study of sexual assaults on campuses, showed that even though victims' may be profoundly traumatized, the students deemed `responsible' for the sexual assaults typically faced little in the way of real consequences.

How then, could Republican's in the House also strip from the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act, The Campus Save Act (H.R. 812), another provision I offered that would increase the obligations of colleges to keep students safe and informed about policies on sexual assault?

To keep your daughters safer, the bill would also have required colleges to collect and disclose information about sexual assault; and to update and expand existing domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking services on their campuses. And yet Republicans chose again-- to weaken the bill--and to take that out.

To turn a blind eye to such a fundamental obligation of government-- to simply keep its citizens safe from sexual assault--is to throw up your hands and surrender to a level of savagery that is unworthy of a great nation.

Let's Renew VAWA Today

(By Carolyn Maloney)

Today, Congress has an historic opportunity to reauthorize

the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It has been more than

500 days since VAWA expired and women have gone without

critically important protections. Despite the fact that last

year the Senate voted on a large bipartisan basis to renew

VAWA, the House Republican leadership blocked a vote on that

bill and instead pursued a highly partisan plan that actually

narrowed VAWA's protections.

Last week, the Senate again passed a bipartisan bill (S.

47) to reauthorize VAWA and today my colleagues and I in the

House may finally get the vote we have been waiting for. The

Senate bill renews and expands VAWA's protections and also

includes several new provisions I have been pushing for years

to help rape victims, reduce violence on college campuses and

assist human trafficking victims.

The facts are indisputable and they are grim. Women are far

more likely than men to be the victims of domestic violence.

Women are the ones being beaten. Women are the ones being

raped. Without VAWA, the federal government is extremely

limited in what it can do help combat this plague of

violence.

I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Violence

Against Women Act when Congress passed it in 1994, and was

proud to support the previous renewals in 2000 and 2005.

These bills always enjoyed large, bipartisan support.

Yet somehow in this sad new world of partisan politics and

endless rancor, even the Violence Against Women Act has

become a political football. But this is not about politics.

It is about the single most fundamental task that we require

of our government--to keep its citizens safe from violent

assault.

In America, we have long stood by the principle that the

protections of the law are not meant just for some. The law

should be there to keep all people safe. That is why I

support the Senate bill's expansion of VAWA to protect

vulnerable populations such as Native American victims, LGBT

victims, and immigrant victims.

We know that long standing prejudices put these populations

at risk. We know that without the specific protection of the

law, they will continue to suffer. We cannot let these

protections fall by the wayside.

I'm also incredibly proud that the Senate's VAWA bill

includes two bipartisan bills I authored that will help keep

women safe and do not cost any new money--The SAFER Act (H.R.

354), which I introduced with Rep. Ted Poe, and the Campus

SaVE Act (H.R. 812).

According to some estimates, hundreds of thousands of

untested rape kits are sitting on lab shelves across the

country. Each and every one of these rape kits may hold the

information to solve a violent crime and bring some closure

to a traumatized victim. By creating a new grant mechanism to

conduct audits of unprocessed kits so that the backlog can be

tracked and reallocating funding already approved under the

Debbie Smith Act so that more money is spent processing

untested rape kits, the SAFER Act will help eliminate this

backlog--and apprehend more rapists.

My other bill included in the Senate's VAWA version, the

Campus SaVE Act, will increase the obligations of colleges to

keep students safe and informed about sexual assault

policies. Recent studies have shown that 1 in 5 women will be

sexually assaulted during their college years. To keep our

daughters safer, the bill requires colleges to collect and

disclose information about sexual assault, and to update and

expand domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking

services on their campuses.

The Senate bill also reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims

Protection Reauthorization Act, providing programs and

services to help victims of human trafficking rebuild their

lives. For years I have fought to end human trafficking in

America and around the globe and I commend the Senate for

including this amendment to end this modern day slavery.

When the House considers the Violence Against Women Act

later today I will urge my colleagues to pass the Senate bill

with the same overwhelming bipartisan support it received in

the other chamber. We cannot turn a blind eye to such a

fundamental obligation of government, keeping its citizens

safe. With today's vote on VAWA, the House has an opportunity

to renew our nation's commitment to do everything we can to

protect our sisters, daughters, nieces, mothers, and

grandmothers from violence. I hope we take it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to really applaud the House for renewing today the Violence Against Women Act. This will protect our citizens. It's important legislation. I had the privilege of helping to author the original one in 1994 with Patricia Schroeder, Louise Slaughter, and Joe Biden; and we reauthorized it twice. I'm pleased that it passed today.

I was very pleased that the bill included two bills that I had authored, one the SAFER Act with Congressman Poe, in a bipartisan way, that would process the DNA rape kits that are sitting on shelves across this country gathering dust and hopefully put rapists behind bars and protect women from future assaults from these particular rapists; and also the Campus Security Act, which would require campuses to keep statistics on violence on the campus and steps that they're taking to protect their citizens; also the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act to crack down on sex trafficking.

It's an important bill. I applaud my colleagues for passing it.

I want to thank my colleague for leading this very important Special Order and to note two women's issues that will be introduced next week.

One is the women's museum. It will cost no extra money and will create a commission to put a women's museum on the Mall. We have it for postage stamps, flights. It should be there for half the population, and it is something, hopefully, we can move forward with in a bipartisan way.

Also, next week, I'm reintroducing the equal rights amendment. We really lag behind in the Western World in not having that important provision in our Constitution. But regrettably, this country has a habit of sweeping women's issues under the rug and ignoring them; and this meat cleaver approach through sequestration will disproportionately hurt women.

Tomorrow, $85 billion will be cut from our budget, sequestration will go into effect, and economists predict that over 700,000 jobs will be lost.

Chairman Bernanke testified yesterday before the Financial Services Committee that the sequester could make it harder to reduce the deficit, not easier. The whole purpose of sequestration is to reduce the deficit. But as he pointed out in his testimony--and I will quote him directly--he said that it would have ``adverse effects on jobs and incomes,'' and ``a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction.'' So here we are hearing from the head of the Federal Reserve and many economists that sequestration will literally hurt the deficit, hurt our economy, and hurt jobs.

Why can't we agree on a measured, balanced approach that targets certain areas such as tax loopholes? Why in the world are we giving tax deductions to companies that move jobs overseas? We should be giving tax incentives to people who create jobs in America, not those who move their companies and their jobs overseas. And why are we giving up to 40 percent subsidies to very profitable oil companies that are making profits? Why are we doing that when we are going to be turning around?

Because of sequestration, we'll be cutting teachers, which is the very investment that we need for the future. Teaching is one of the professions that is disproportionately headed by women. So disproportionately these cuts are not only going to hurt the future of our country, but women teachers and male teachers in our country.

I am particularly concerned in one area that my friend mentioned, and that's research. This country has invested in research, and it is one of the areas that has moved us out of our recessions with innovative ideas. But there are across-the-board cuts in research. NIH may face as much as 40 percent cuts. That's the National Institutes of Health.

Right now, 1 in 7 women contracts breast cancer. Because of the research in our great country, lives are being saved. There are 2 percent more lives saved each year because of new breakthroughs in breast cancer treatment. I venture to say there is not a person in this body or America who doesn't have a sister, a mother, a grandmother, or a friend who has not suffered from breast cancer. Yet the treatments, the research, the medical facilities that are there to help women confront this disease will be cut back in the sequestration.

Men also are contracting breast cancer. It is a disease that men are suffering from, and also prostate cancer, but the breakthrough in cures every year to save lives are going to be cut.

This past week, I had a meeting with some of the teaching hospitals in the district that I am privileged to represent, and they had a survivor there. His life had literally been saved with a new breakthrough in treatment and technology that they had developed while at Cornell. He testified that the doctors there with their new research had literally saved his life.

It is this lifesaving, cutting-edge research that we will be cutting away, along with many other important areas. Why are we passing the Violence Against Women Act and then turning around and cutting it dramatically with sequestration?

So I join my good friend from the great State of Maryland in really protesting sequestration. The approach doesn't work. Even Chairman Bernanke says it's wrong, wrongheaded, and will not help us reduce the deficit. And it particularly is disastrous to programs, research, and health care that impact women.

With that, I thank the gentlelady for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Women's History Museum Commission Act of 2013. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friends and colleagues Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, as well as by Senator Susan Collins.

This bill, with a Senate companion sponsored by Senator Collins, creates a commission to review the feasibility and cost for building a National Women's History Museum (NWHM) on the National Mall.

This commission will be bipartisan, consisting of an eight member body comprised of two members appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two members appointed by the Minority Speaker of the Senate, and two members appointed by the House of Representatives Minority Leader. The appointees are required to demonstrate proficient knowledge and commitment to the research and study of women's history.

Most importantly, this fiscally responsible bill will not use any taxpayer dollars. The NWHM commission will be entirely financed through private funds.

Women's history is largely missing from textbooks, memorials, museum exhibits and many other venues. Today, more than half a century after she changed our nation's history, Congress is honoring civil rights leader Rosa Parks with a statue in the U.S. Capitol. This is an extraordinary achievement that we should build on. Of the over 200 statues in the Capitol, there are currently only 13 statues depicting women.

Across the country, less than 5 percent of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle women's achievements and according to a survey of 18 history textbooks, only 10% were dedicated to women.

The museums and memorials in our Nation's Capital reflect our country's values. Though we have museums dedicated to other important people and subjects such as flight, postage stamps, and law enforcement, we do not have a museum contributed to women's history.

Despite being half of our population, women's deep and lasting impacts have taken a backseat to the hundreds of years of written and available narrative focusing on men. It is time that women are honored for their many contributions that are the very fabric of our country. This bill would be the first step in achieving that goal.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the women that built this nation by cosponsoring the National Women's History Museum Commission Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and the underlying bipartisan Senate Violence Against Women Act. This is the first bill that I worked on when I came to Congress with the great Louise Slaughter and Patricia Schroeder, and then-Senator Joe Biden. It has been reauthorized in a bipartisan way many times.

From 1994 to 2010, about four in five victims of intimate partner violence have been female. These numbers are real people, and so are the tragedies behind them. But this is not about politics. This is about the single most fundamental task that we require of our government: to keep its citizens safe from violent assaults--all of our residents, all of our citizens, immigrants, no matter what the sexual orientation is of our citizens. It's for all of our citizens.

I am pleased that two of the bills that I have authored are part of the Senate version. It would be ripped out by the Republican version, so I strongly support the bipartisan Senate version. One I authored with Representative Poe in a bipartisan way, and that was the SAFER Act. This took the monies and directed Justice not to spend more money but to process the backlog of DNA kits in rape cases to put rapists behind bars. And also, the Campus SaVE Act.

There's too much violence on campus. One in five women will be sexually assaulted during their college years. This provision that I authored would increase the obligations of colleges to keep students safe and informed about policies on sexual assault. Also, the very bipartisan, important anti-trafficking bill is part of it.

So I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan, historic way, to reauthorize, repass the Violence Against Women Act, the Senate version.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act. This bill will close a gap in current law by requiring universities and colleges to spell out their policies on sexual assault, stalking, dating violence, and domestic violence generally. By requiring transparency out of these institutions, this bill will increase awareness for the victimization students face every day on our college campuses.

Sexual and dating violence is a serious problem on our college campuses. Over 13 percent of female undergrads have reported being stalked while at school and one out of every five women in college have reported being sexually assaulted. While these statistics are shocking, what's even more shocking is that only a fraction of these incidents are reported. When these instances of abuse go unreported, our nation's female undergraduate victims never get the support they need.

The Campus SaVE Act would close the gap in current law by requiring institutions of higher education to clearly explain their policies on dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence. Institutions will be required to include in their annual security reports statistics on domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that were reported to campus police or local police agencies. It will also promote prevention and bystander responsibility by requiring these institutions to develop clear statements of policy regarding domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking prevention programs. Campus SaVE ensures that victims get the help they need by requiring schools to provide clear statements regarding their procedures followed when a case of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is reported and provide victims an explanation of their rights in writing.

Young people should be able to focus on finding their intellectual passion during these years, not dealing with the mental and physical exhaustion of abuse. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act will help ensure our college campuses and universities are safer and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act with my colleagues Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Conyers, Jr, Gwen Moore, David Cicilline, Barbara Lee, Chellie Pingree, Janice Hahn, Sam Farr, Charles Rangel, Jerrold Nadler, Keith Ellison, Diana DeGette, James Moran, Rush Holt, and Scott Peters. Special thanks go to Senator Frank Lautenberg for introducing the Senate version of the bill.

This legislation ensures women's timely access to basic, preventative health care and ensures that women of age will not be denied birth control or emergency contraception by their pharmacist. The ABC Act also requires pharmacies to help a woman obtain medication by her preferred method if the requested product is not in stock and protects women from being intimidated when requesting contraception.

Family planning is central to women's basic health care. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act women can receive contraceptive coverage and other preventative services without a copay. While this is great news to the millions of women using some form of birth control, barriers to contraceptive access still persist. According to the National Women's Law Center, at least 24 states across the country have reported incidents where pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control or provide emergency contraception to individuals who do not require a prescription. Furthermore, six states permit refusals without patient protections such as requirements to refer or transfer prescriptions and seven states allow refusals but prohibit pharmacists from obstructing patient access to medication.

Denying contraception to women represents an erosion of a woman's constitutional right of access to contraception and a threat to women's basic health care. Access is especially important for women living in rural areas who may not have multiple pharmacies near them and low- income women who lack the resources to find an alternative pharmacy in the appropriate time frame.

The use of birth control is widespread, with 99 percent of women having used contraceptives at some point in their life. Now that insurance plans are required to cover birth control, Congress must act to make sure that women receive timely access to both prescription and over the counter contraception at the pharmacy counter.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with my colleagues, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Madeleine Bordallo, Rep. Rush Holt, which would simply allow Christian Indonesian citizens fleeing persecution, many of whom arrived during a five-year timeframe (January 1, 1997-November 30, 2002) and were denied asylum solely for missing the one-year filing deadline, the opportunity to reopen their claims during the two-year period following enactment.

Beginning in 1997, many Indonesian Christians fled religious persecution in Indonesia, where extreme violence and destruction of churches drove them from their homes. These individuals came to this country, seeking relief from extreme violence and persecution for their religious beliefs, but were unable to make the one-year filing deadline. They deserve the opportunity to have their claims heard.

The United States has long sought to protect refugees fleeing persecution and provide a process to fairly consider their claims. This bill does not, in itself, grant asylum, but merely removes a procedural barrier to their claims being considered. These individuals seeking asylum deserve a second chance to avoid the persecution they have fled and remain united with their families.

I'd like to yield to my inspiration in so many ways--we share the same name--Carolyn McCarthy. And on this issue, from New York, she is our spokesperson.

Thank you so much to Jackie Speier for organizing this. She has told me she's going to continue working with her colleagues in Congress to raise this issue, to focus on it. She's going to try to get us here at least once a week to keep the focus on this priority of the American people and our President.

We see here some important information. I think what we should do every week, Jackie, is print the names of the innocent children, men, and women who are murdered every day in our great country because of senseless gun violence like my dear friend's husband and her son who was critically wounded. She told me how hard it was for her to tell her son that he had lost his father. And I want to publicly thank Carolyn for making this a priority in her time in Congress and giving so selflessly of her time to help us pass meaningful gun legislation.

I'm a cosponsor of all my colleagues' bills. I think they all are common sense and important and should pass. But I want to focus on one that I think every NRA member should be for, and that is to take the guns out of the hands of traffickers, people who are selling guns to criminals, to cartels that are used only to kill, whether it's gangs or robberies or whatever they use them for. Why can't we do that? Why can't we make that a felony and put teeth behind the punishment?

When we were having hearings on the Fast and Furious program in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, law enforcement came and testified. They said: Help us. Trafficking and guns is not even a felony. It's not even a crime. You can be a drug kingpin selling guns all over the place, and you won't be convicted because it's not a crime.

No law-abiding person is a kingpin and trafficking guns. One thing that's good about this bill and why we have so much support on the other side of the aisle is that it doesn't in any way infringe on Second Amendment rights. Law-abiding Americans, if they want a gun for recreation or shooting practice or defense, fine. But these are guns that are being sold to criminals, to thugs, who then go out and kill more people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a Federal courtroom in Las Cruces, New Mexico, two people were convicted of being part of a larger conspiracy to smuggle guns to some really bad people, criminals. They had smuggled guns to folks who worked as ``muscle'' for a vicious Mexican drug cartel. In fact, one of the defendants had purchased three semiautomatic weapons that showed up a month later at the scene of a triple homicide. Another of the guns he bought surfaced at a Juarez drug seizure. These two men were found guilty, but they didn't get much of a sentence because it's not a crime.

The sad fact is that about all the prosecutors could reasonably hope for in the case--under Federal law, gun traffickers can expect to do about as much time as people who illegally traffic in livestock. Illegally sell an assault weapon to a known killer or drug

kingpin or sell a chicken without a permit, and you can expect to do about the same amount of time for each. This is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, there is something dreadfully wrong with this picture. Right now people known as straw purchasers can buy multiple guns and immediately resell them to cartels or killers and know that if they are caught that they will not be charged with anything but paperwork violations. Law enforcement told us at the committee that they don't even bother to arrest and try to prosecute straw purchasers because there's no penalty. Well, our bill changes that and can give up to 20 years in prison for being a straw purchaser.

Tragically, this is what happened in my own State of New York last Christmas Eve just 10 days after the massacre at the Sandy Hook children's school. Last December in Webster, New York, a convicted felon set fire to a house and then set himself up as a sniper to shoot down law enforcement when they came to protect him. He shot and killed two firefighters and seriously injured two others before taking his own life.

This is a heart-wrenching tragedy, and it is one that could never have happened but for the fact that the gunman's neighbor had acted as a straw purchaser for him. Authorities say she purchased a 12-gauge shotgun and a Bushmaster rifle for the man who, as a convicted felon, could not have purchased a gun in his own name. For knowingly acting as a straw purchaser for a felon, the neighbor has been charged with the only law that really applies: State and Federal paperwork violations.

I believe she would not have been buying these weapons for him if she knew she could have faced 20 years in prison. That's what prosecutors all too often have to rely on--a toothless Federal law that prohibits ``engaging in the business of selling guns without a Federal license.'' Little wonder then that, according to the ATF, straw purchasers is the most common channel of illegal gun trafficking in America.

Believe me, if guns made us safer, we'd be the safest country on Earth. We are the most armed country on Earth, and we know from statistics that, if you own a gun, the degree of probability of being hurt or injured or killed by a gun is 8 to 15 percent higher than it is for other individuals. It is no surprise then that U.S. Attorneys are forced to decline to prosecute 25 percent of gun trafficking cases. This is an outrage. This is a crime. This is causing the loss of lives. The investigation can take longer than the sentence a trafficker might receive. In the wake of recent tragedies, the voice of the American people has been clear on this issue: They want something done, and they want it done now. They want us to do something to address this problem. They want something done that shows some bipartisan cooperation.

As our President said, we came here to do a job. Let's have a vote. Let's put this bill out on the floor of Congress, and let's have a vote. If some of my colleagues would like to vote against making trafficking in guns a felony, then let them do it. If some of my colleagues would like to vote against having meaningful penalties for trafficking and a straw purchaser's buying guns to be given to criminals, then let them do it, but let's have a vote. That's a democracy.

I introduced a bill in the last Congress and have reintroduced it in this Congress, H.R. 452. I hope that the listening public will urge their Members of Congress to cosponsor this bill and help us pass it for the American people. It is called the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act. It is a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Mr. Rigell of Virginia, who happens to be an NRA member, said this doesn't infringe on any gun owner's rights. He owns guns, but he just wants to go after the kingpins and the murderers and the illegal traffickers; and Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania, who is a former prosecutor and knows firsthand why law enforcement needs these tools.

This bill will help keep guns out of the hands of felons and domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill, who cannot and should not be able to legally buy guns on their own. This bill prohibits the purchase or transfer of a firearm if the intent is to deliver the firearm to someone else who is prohibited by Federal law or State law from possessing a firearm. Persons who commit this offense are subject to up to 20 years of imprisonment. For the first time, our bill makes firearms trafficking a Federal crime--something law enforcement officials have been asking for in hearings, in letters. They have been asking for this for years.

The bill also establishes significant penalties for straw purchasers who buy firearms on behalf of someone else. Buy a firearm for a convicted felon and you could look at 20 years in prison. These increased penalties will provide law enforcement officials with the critical tools that they've been asking for, tools that Bobby Scott knows from his judiciary work are critically needed. The increased penalties can be used to encourage straw purchasers to cooperate with prosecutors in order to make it possible to go on up the food chain-- after the cartels and the kingpins who now have little to fear.

Let me be absolutely clear that this bill has no impact whatsoever on the Second Amendment, on legal gun ownership or purchases.

As the President pointed out in his speech last night, this bill will not put an end to all gun violence. No bill can do that. No bill can prevent any particular act of violence, but we can stop some. We can do something and we can do this, and law enforcement is begging for the passage of this bill. We can begin the healing. We can restore some trust. We can stop putting guns in the hands of criminals. We can do it in a bipartisan way, and we can do it together.

Again, I thank my good friend and wonderful colleague, Jackie Speier from the great State of California, for organizing this. I will be with you at all of your future events.

Mr. Speaker, our 4-6 million constituents scattered across the world promote our culture and strengthen our nation's global influence as they live and work abroad. For years I have worked to ensure that overseas Americans can fully exercise their rights as U.S. citizens by having their voices heard loud and clear by Congress. Five years ago, I formed the Congressional Americans Abroad Caucus because I wanted to bring awareness and focus to the concerns of those residing abroad. U.S. citizens remain just that, citizens, regardless of

where they choose to live and should not be ignored by virtue of residence.

Our constituents living and working abroad have consistently voiced concerns about the impact federal policymaking has on the issues directly affecting them like voting, immigration, access to financial institutions, and taxation. The time has come to take a look at the importance of federal policies for our overseas community rather than continuing to ignore the calls from our abroad constituents. That is why today I am introducing the Commission on Americans Living Abroad Act, which creates an Executive Commission with the main purpose of examining those concerns. The Commission creates a 15 member panel to examine the impact of federal policymaking on U.S. citizens abroad. The resulting study would then be used by Congress and the Executive Branch when considering the best steps we can take to engage the abroad community and ensure their voices are heard. This process will ensure clearer awareness of the federal issues impacting Americans abroad and will open a path for coordination with those communities towards more robust representation.

We must take a real and comprehensive look at how we, as Members of Congress, respond to U.S. citizens living abroad. Each of our constituents has a right to have their interests represented and to have a role in the political process. The Commission on Americans Living Abroad would establish a foundation from which we can work to better serve the needs of our global constituents. I welcome and urge my colleagues to lend their support to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 2013 we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Millions of American families have benefitted from this landmark law that allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave to care for a new child, a sick family member, or an injured service member in their family.

As we mark this anniversary we also must acknowledge that two decades later our nation's family leave policies have not kept pace with changes to America's families and workforce. FMLA provides unpaid leave, which means families must choose between foregoing a paycheck and caring for a new child or sick loved one.

The Federal government is our nation's largest employer and as such should be leading the way on family-friendly workplace policy. Today, I am introducing the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, legislation that provides federal employees with 4 weeks of paid leave following the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. By extending paid parental leave for new parents this bill helps diminish the risk of real economic hardship for the 2 million federal employees following the birth or adoption of a child.

In 2009, the House successfully passed the bill with the bipartisan support of 258 Members. I urge my colleagues in the 113th Congress to focus on job creation efforts while also ensuring that federal leave policy reflects the realities of our nation's workforce in the 21st Century. Thank you to my colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Representatives Gerald Connolly, George Miller, John Conyers Jr, and Raul Grijalva for their support of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the House Resolution Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, as an entity of the United States Postal Service, should issue a commemorative stamp in honor of the holiday of Diwali. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Congresswoman Grace Meng and Congressman Ami Bera.

This House Resolution urges the United States Postal Service to issue a stamp in honor of the holiday Diwali. Meaning ``row of lights,'' Diwali celebrates the triumph of good over evil, the awareness of one's inner light, the dispelling of ignorance, and bringing peace and joy through the awakening gained from this higher knowledge. Also marking the beginning of the Hindu New Year, this festive and important Indian holiday is observed in America, and across the globe, by Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Buddhists.

But despite the significance of this holiday, the United States Postal Service has yet to merit Diwali with the same recognition as other major religious holidays for which stamps are issued such as Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and Eid.

As one of the world's oldest religious holidays, Diwali has survived political, economic and social changes throughout history, while always carrying the universal symbolism of the victory of light, goodness, knowledge and truth. It is long overdue that we honor this significant holiday with a postage stamp of its own.