Floor Statements

Thank you for yielding, gentleman, and thank you for putting together this Special Order.

I can tell you that it has been very distressing to watch the progress of this budget being put together for the American people. And part of the distress I think is because of the sort of psychological warfare that is being committed here. I think that the Orwellian way that the budget is being presented--it's being presented as we have got to make draconian cuts in the budget in order to heal our fledgling economy, and especially, we have to so-called ``reform'' our entitlements programs in order to maintain them for the future.

There has been a call for an adult conversation about this, a call for the facts and for the truth, and no accounting gimmicks and no gimmickry in this discussion of reforming entitlement programs. Democrats are admonished not to scare seniors with entitlement reform and to demagogue the issue, and yet what we have seen from the Republicans are these fire engine red colorful charts warning us of the burden that the aging baby boomers will impose upon the hapless taxpayer unless we adopt the so-called austere ``path to prosperity,'' which ends the entitlement to Medicaid, caps those benefits, which turns Medicare into a voucher--so-called ``premium supports''--and which gives instruction to the Ways and Means Committee to privatize or to fix Social Security.

Now experts have told us, even though the Republican Budget Committee has told us that Medicare and Medicaid are driving the budget deficits and that they are the cause of this huge, tremendous debt, experts across the spectrum have told us that the real problem with health care costs is the growth of health care in the private market. We have seen health care costs double, in double digits, increase by double digits every single year. We have seen private health insurance premiums increase, double within the last 20 years. And so it doesn't matter whether you're a Medicaid recipient, whether you are a double recipient--a Medicare recipient who is also using Medicaid because you're in a nursing home. It doesn't matter if you're a large corporation, Harley Davidson or Xerox Corporation. It doesn't matter if you're a small business operator. It doesn't matter if you're someone who is on the individual market looking for insurance. Nobody can afford to fuel these profits for pharmaceutical companies, $20 million annual salaries for insurance executives, and all of the other giveaways to wealthy insurance companies.

Medicare was overpaying insurance companies by 14 percent until we enacted the Affordable Care Act. We cannot afford, in Medicare part D, the prescription drug program, we simply cannot afford to have a program where Medicare pays pharmaceutical companies for a large group--like Medicare recipients--and then not negotiate the drug prices as they would with any group. I mean, there are companies, large corporations with a much smaller pool of employees that benefit from negotiating for the group, and the law that the Republicans passed, the Medicare part D, doesn't allow those negotiations. These are easy fixes. These are easy fixes that could reap us billions of dollars in savings.

Social Security. Social Security. There is some very low-hanging fruit if people would want to come to the table and negotiate in good faith to create a solvent situation for Social Security well beyond the baby boomer years. We could raise payroll taxes beyond the $106,800 cap that is now in place.

But, of course, our Republican colleagues have an aversion, as the gentleman has pointed out, of shared sacrifice. No one who earns money and who has reaped the benefits of this great American economy should be asked to pay taxes. Who should be made to pay taxes? Those suffering working class, middle class folks.

The gentleman has shared with us earlier in his chart where they're proposing to lower the top tax rate by 10 points, down from 35 percent to 25 percent. Yet they claim that this is a budget-neutral act.

Well, come on now. You know, I don't have a degree from the Wharton School of Economics, but I can tell you that if it's budget neutral and we're still going to receive those revenues, then that must mean that somebody else is going to pay the taxes. Am I wrong about that?

I would like to ask the gentleman.

I think that budgeting is not just about numbers and figures; it's about values.

I think that the Republicans have made it very, very clear that they want limited government. They particularly don't want government enriching the lives of individuals. You would think that they would want to protect some things that are not individual things, like clean air, clean water, food safety protection, but they are eviscerating all of these programs as well: research for cancer, the creation of green energy jobs, the Community Development Block Grant programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment is fairly straightforward. We all understand that small businesses are critical to the economic vitality of our communities and of the Nation. Small businesses, however, face many obstacles in trying to win Federal contracts, especially for transportation and infrastructure projects. For certain small businesses, those led by minorities, women, and veterans, the barriers to competing for federally funded contracts are even steeper, and for many years now Federal transportation legislation has included language to help these businesses even get in the door much less compete for and win these contracts.

I would submit to you that this is very noncontroversial. There are no quotas. There is no spending.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

This bill, as I understand it, will authorize $47.5 billion over the next 4 years to improve our Nation's aviation system; and we all want small businesses to be able to fairly compete for that piece of the pie, because we know they can.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment encourages the development of aerotropolis transportation zones.

Let me start out by congratulating and thanking the committee for including the Cohen amendment in the underlying bill, which would direct the FAA to adopt policies that encourage the development of aerotropolis transportation zones.

I mean, no airport exists in isolation. There are cases where targeted investments in the intermodal transportation system would significantly benefit the airport and make it more profitable, and all other users would need to think about how to do that in the future and make these airports the hubs of their activities.

I so appreciate Mr. Cohen's leadership on this, and recognize the value in his new way of looking at our Nation's airports and the value that that brings to us.

My amendment goes one step further by giving the administration explicit authority to participate in helping to fund aerotropolis projects that he finds would significantly benefit the participating airport. It builds on Mr. Cohen's efforts by making it clear that the administrator can authorize demonstration projects but only if an airport authority makes a convincing case that it has a project that will result in clear benefits to the airport.

Now, a little birdie told me that there will be some objection to this proposal based on the supposition that I'm arguing for a sudden shift in airport funding to be used for other transportation modes. No, no, no. That's not what I'm trying to do. I recognize that airports have a unique need and deserve a sustainable and dedicated stream of funding. What I am saying is, as to that same funding stream, when there are times that intermodal transportation will benefit an airport--maybe bring it back to life and increase profits for it--we should look at it.

I wish my colleague from Memphis, Tennessee, were here, but just let me tell you a little bit about my district, Mr. Chairman.

I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Our airport is only 90 miles from O'Hare, a global network. The deepest part of Lake Michigan, our port, is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We have lots of parcels of land available for trucking and storage. Our Governor, our very popular Governor, Scott Walker, who just turned down $810 million for high-speed rail, now wants $150 million to improve the Hiawatha between Chicago and Milwaukee. We're only 90 miles from O'Hare, which is overcrowded. So I think the aerotropolis concept could improve the profitability of that airport.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield some time to my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

In reclaiming my time, I would just say I really appreciate the generous offer of the gentleman, the chair of the committee, to work with me on it. I think a demonstration project would have accorded us an opportunity to show you this, but I am sure that this is so profitable that many places, like Milwaukee, will continue to work on this.

So I would be willing to withdraw this amendment at this time if you would be willing to work with me toward improving the language and process through which this could be realized.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against efforts to cut federal funding for public broadcasting.

Republicans already tried to kill Big Bird in H.R. 1, but since the American People won't let Big Bird die, here we go again.

This time, NPR has been singled out as their target.

H.R. 1076 is a reckless bill that would defend NPR and prohibit public radio stations from using federal funds to acquire any radio programming from any source.

It would endanger 9,000 jobs at local public radio stations in communities across the country.

It would cripple stations like WOJB-FM, a community radio in Hayward, Wisconsin that uses CPB money for about 40% of its budget.

Without good quality national programs, local stations would lose their ability to attract the audience that they need to develop local used for local/regional news.

Why is Public Broadcasting a worthy national interest?

Demand for quality national and international news has never been higher, and the American people are best served when they are informed with current events.

At the same time, commercial news rooms are shrinking, reporting staff is downsizing, and even the size of newspapers are fractions of what they used to be.

Then you look at how the listening base for public radio has actually increased. You simply cannot argue that NPR is irrelevant when it draws in 34 million listeners a week.

It's still in the public interest to support the arts and education.

More than 2/3rds of voters oppose the elimination of public broadcasting, and the American people are smart enough to know how this bill is nothing but a piecemeal attack towards a larger agenda.

I would suggest to my Republican colleagues that we focus on creating jobs, and not on cutting quality news and education to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution with great reluctance.

I have had many great conversations and discussions with the sponsor of this resolution since coming to Congress about the issues of war and peace and justice. He even came to my district last year to join me in a town hall on the war in Afghanistan. He's been a great leader on this issue and a great friend.

I agree with the gentleman about the need to bring our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Recently, I joined a number of my colleagues in writing to the President to make clear our belief that the troop withdrawals from Afghanistan should be ``substantial, significant, and orderly.'' The gentleman from Ohio did not join that letter although as I said, I know he shares the same goals of all those who signed it.

A few weeks ago, I voted for an amendment to H.R. 1 that would limit funding for the war in Afghanistan to $10 billion, with the hope that those funds would be used by the Defense Department to plan and implement a timetable for the safe and expeditious withdrawal of our troops.

I want an end to these wars. One of the criteria that I have used for supporting those efforts and similar efforts in the past by a number of my colleagues is that we have to allow our military planners to implement that withdrawal in a way that is safe, orderly and responsible.

I doubt that the 30 day-withdrawal deadline in this bill meets that criteria. The bill itself recognizes that by giving the President the option to delay that withdrawal through the end of the year.

Although I am eager to withdraw, I am beset with a nagging question: how practical is it to move 100,000 troops and the associated equipment out of a country half way around the world in 30 days in an orderly, safe, and responsible fashion?

I support getting our troops out of Afghanistan. But we have to do so wisely. We can't waive a magic wand today and they are gone tomorrow or dismiss concerns about their safety. That is why on the issue of how that withdrawal is conducted, I have always supported legislation that defers that question to our military planners.

Again, even the letter that was sent to the President recently by a number of my colleagues, such as Barbara Lee and Jim McGovern, who like myself opposed the escalation of this war and want all of our troops home soon, does not dictate size or set a timetable for those withdrawals after July 2011.

That letter however did make clear that ``a significant redeployment from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 will send a clear signal that the United States does not seek a permanent presence in Afghanistan.''

Even though July does not begin for over 100 days from now, sending that letter in March allows the military to have plenty of time to plan for a sizeable withdrawal.

This was the same gist of several bills by Mr. McGovern last year that asked the military to give us their withdrawal plan by a certain date, including any reasons for why a redeployment might be delayed, rather than having Congress mandate that date.

Again, I support this resolution reluctantly because it sends an important signal to the Afghanistan government and its people that the U.S. is not intent on an endless occupation and that after ten years in America's longest war in history, we cannot morally or financially continue to afford this war. To the extent this resolution does that, I am in full support. However, again, my concerns remain about its method.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize Wisconsin's Fabulous 14. These 14 Wisconsin State senators took a stand on behalf of the people in order to prevent legislation that would strip State public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights and sell off government power plants without bids. This legislation would also grant extraordinary powers to an unelected government official appointed by the Governor, who has been a staunch opponent of medical assistance his entire political career, to make drastic changes to Wisconsin's successful Badger Care, Family Planning programs, and Senior Care Programs.

These 14 courageous men and women, at great sacrifice to themselves and their families, fled to Illinois, to the land of Lincoln. In fact, these 14 Wisconsin Democratic Senators now share something in common with former Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. The then State Senator Lincoln left the Illinois Statehouse to prevent a quorum from being reached to hold a crucial vote in 1840. Lincoln reportedly opened a window and escaped from the second floor of the building. One newspaper joked that Lincoln's ``long legs'' prevented him from being injured as he left.

During the senators' absence, the people of Wisconsin were given an opportunity to review the Budget Repair Bill and the Budget Bill and thoroughly scrutinize its contents of the Governor's proposals. The bill will affect every citizen in Wisconsin, and for many middle class and vulnerable Wisconsinites; it will be devastating.

Governor Walker and Republicans in the State Legislature worked around the 14 senators' protest to prevent a quorum and the bill was signed into law on Friday, March 11, 2011. During the past 3 weeks, I have been in Madison on several occasions standing in solidarity with the people.

On Saturday, March 12, 2011, along with an estimated 100,000 people, I was on hand to Welcome Back ``the Fabulous 14'' who returned to the State after weeks. I could feel the energy, the intensity of the people of Wisconsin; teachers, nurses, students, plow drivers, fire-fighters, prison guards and dozens of farmers with their tractors gathered around the Capitol square. Mr. Speaker, Wisconsin has

undergone an historic change; it was evident in the faces of Wisconsinites that visibly displayed their resolve and in their shouts of thank you. While this battle may be over, the war continues. I rise to give a hearty thank you to Wisconsin's Fabulous 14.

Thank you so much, gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. I am so pleased that you put this Special Order together to memorialize the contributions that African American women have made in this, our month of March, a tribute to all women.

As the Democratic cochair of the Women's Caucus, I am particularly proud to talk about some of the accomplishments and challenges, quite frankly, of African American women in this country. It is so obvious that we have to honor some of our ancestors on whose shoulders we stand, women like Harriet Tubman, who led slaves out of slavery, even at the point of a gun, a rifle, a strong African American woman that really instilled the kind of self-respect and self-esteem in the African American community, that strength of character that has helped us survive all kinds of tragedies in our community.

Sojourner Truth, of course, who really was engaged very heavily in the women's right to vote movement, in the suffrage movement. And of course Fannie Lou Hamer in Mississippi, who fought for the right to vote. And Rosa Parks, who fought to end the segregation in the South on accommodation. And really, moving through history, people like Madam C.J. Walker, first millionaire. So many people, I could just go on and on naming women in every field of business and entertainment, Oprah Winfrey, all the way of course to our very own first lady, our own great Michelle Robinson Obama.

But I think that such a tribute would not be complete if we did not recognize some of the people who are unknown to people, some of the unsung heroes within our own community. And I'm thinking of such a woman right now, a woman named Velvalea Phillips. Velvalea Phillips lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and graduated from North Division High School, my alma mater, the same school that Golda Meir graduated from, and it was at that time a predominantly white school, and she won an oratorical contest, and the school was reluctant to give her that prize because she was a black student, and of course, the majority white student body rebelled and insisted that she win the prize as an orator.

Velvalea Phillips later came to be known as Vel, affectionately as Vel Phillips, went on to run for alderman of the city of Milwaukee. There had never been a woman who had won a seat on the common council until Vel ran, and because she shortened her name from Velvalea to Vel, they thought she was a man. She didn't put any pictures on her literature. So they also did not know she was a black. So she was the first woman and the first black person to become an alderman in the city of Milwaukee.

She was the first black woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School. She was the first black person to become a judge in Milwaukee County. She was the first black woman to ever serve on a national party committee in either the Democrat or the Republican national committee, the very first black woman. She is the first and only African American who has ever won a Statewide office in the State of Wisconsin.

She is alive and still kicking, and is a major force in the community brainstorming conference of Milwaukee, a sort of black think tank in Milwaukee that talks about all kinds of social situations in Milwaukee, very thriving organization in our community.

But even then it would be inappropriate to end this tribute without talking about those unknown women who have contributed so much, and I believe that this hour started out with your referencing some of these people. Madea, Big Mama, Aunt Peaches, Cousin Fannie, these people who dug deep into their pockets to pull out a very carefully folded $20 bill to press into your hand as you went off to college to give you some support. Those people who scrubbed floors and were not proud to try to give you a better life than they had. Those people who held the family together when all else failed. And that is why African Americans have thrived and survived to the extent that they have because of the strength of the African American woman in our community.

I will tell you as a physician, gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, that African American women are facing some tremendous challenges right now. We live in America, and of course, African Americans are very proud to be American, but the fact still remains that there is no level playing field in America for African American women. Women in general only earn 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns, and of course, African American women earn even less than that.

And they're faced with so many challenges. With a very high incarceration rate among African American men, African American women are often finding themselves in situations where they are the sole breadwinners in a family where their wages are less than African American men or any men in this country.

African American women, though, have continued to show that they are overcomers; that they can step outside of their story; that they can stand in the truth of their power and continue to inspire generation after generation after generation of African Americans. And we see this so often when we think of people in our community who have been raised up by single female and single female heads of household but have continued to move forward.

We look at our own President, Barack Obama. He is an African American. His mother was not an African American woman but she mirrored the condition of so many African American

women in this country, finding themselves rearing African American children on their own.

And that is why I think it is important to come to this floor and to implore our colleagues to not eviscerate the kinds of support that makes so much difference to children. Like the Women, Infant, and Children program, where there have been efforts to cut that by $747 million; efforts to cut Head Start; efforts to cut the maternal and child health block grant; efforts to cut out basic kinds of support that African American women need to support their often lonely task of trying to rear children who are already poor. And the genius of African American women to cobble together a living where there seems to be nothing is something that I admire a great deal and something, quite frankly, that I have been a beneficiary of.

My mother was the mother of nine children. I'm the eighth of nine children, and my mother was poor. At the point at which I was born, my mother had nine children and did not have a high school education. She went back to high school--this was prior to GED--she went back to high school when I was about 5 years old and she got an associate's degree after that, and she went on to graduate and become magna cum laude as an adult, and all this time she kept us fed with beans and cornbread and rice and plenty of fresh water out of Lake Michigan.

She believed firmly in taking us to church and feeding us at the trough of religion and good morality and having compassion and loving justice.

Her very best friend, Ceria Travis, who went to church with her, has a daughter, Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore, who has established a school in Milwaukee devoted to helping struggling African American men because they saw how these strong black women worked hard. And my mom and Mrs. Travis inspired a whole generation of African American men and women to strive for a life better than they had. My mom helped so many young people go on and win college scholarships. She used to train them and tutor them to be able to win scholarships from the local Masons and Elks oratorical contests.

This is why I can't stop, gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, because I had a role model in my own life of a sociological miracle, someone who overcame all of the things that had been said she couldn't do. So that is why, if people tell me that I cannot do something, I have what all children should have, and that is a background of someone who is close to them that says continuously, Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Yes, I can. And as black women, we can do it.

However scarce our resources, however austere these budgets are, we are not going to go away. We are Americans. We work hard. We have built this country, and we have provided this country with a lot of genius. We have provided original music. We have provided inventions and agriculture. We have built this Capitol with our sweat, blood, and tears. And as African Americans, we are proud of the American part. And as black women, we have given birth not only to our children, but we have given birth to a great country.

I rise today as the Democratic cochair of the Women's Caucus to celebrate the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to join millions in our Nation and around the world in commemorating this International Women's Day. We celebrate courageous women in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, and elsewhere, who continue to fight the good fight at great risk to their own lives in the face of being ostracized and persecuted by their families and communities, for women's abilities to be included in the societies in which they live.

We celebrate tremendous women here at home in the United States who have done much to advance the ability of women to work, to vote, to go to school, and to run for and hold elective office. As a woman who is able to serve in Congress today, I know that I stand on the shoulders of these women giants who have sacrificed so much in the past.

But we must also recognize that much needs to be done right here in the United States. In our country, women make only 77 percent of the paycheck that a male would make doing the same job. We know that even after 100 years it is too soon to declare: Mission accomplished.

Recent news reports in Afghanistan show efforts in Afghanistan to pass legislation that would shut down domestic violence shelters. Turning our attention closer to home, in Haiti, we find that after the devastating earthquake, UNICEF has found that the rapes in Haiti are at an all time high. But we've also been fixated in recent weeks by the protests and push for democracy sweeping the Middle East. And women have been leading the charge.

We must also acknowledge the shameful plight of hundreds of thousands of mothers-to-be around the globe who die because of pregnancy or child-related complications. It's shameful that the simple act of childbirth remains a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of women and girls around the world.

We must recommit ourselves to the Millennium Development Goal to reduce dying from pregnancy or childbirth.

Last, I had the honor of attending the State Department's Women of Courage ceremony to honor 10 women.

They were:

Maria Bashir, a prosecutor general in Afghanistan. She handles cases on behalf of women victims of domestic abuse.

Nasta Palazhanka, who at age 20 has led peaceful protests and called attention to the plight of families of political prisoners.

Henriette Ekwe Ebongo from Cameroon, a political activist and publisher of Bebela, she spent a lifetime advancing press freedom, human rights, good governance, and gender equality.

From China, Guo Jianmei, a lawyer. Founder of the Women's Law Center at Peking University, she helped to create a corps of lawyers to defend public interest cases, especially affecting women and other vulnerable groups.

From Cuba, Yoani Sanchez. She has an international following for her blog to provide insight into life in Cuba and to expand information flow and free expression throughout Cuba.

Agnes Osztolykan, elected to the Hungarian Parliament in 2010, the only female Roma Member of Parliament in Hungary.

From Jordan, Eva Abu Halaweh has dedicated her career to advocating for

the vulnerable people of Jordan, including women at risk of becoming victims of so-called ``honor crimes.''

From Kyrgyzstan, we have Roza Otunbayeva, who emerged as central Asia's first female head of state and head of government in a traditional, majority Muslim country.

From Mexico, the first woman ever appointed to the position of Assistant Attorney General, Marisela Morales Ibanez, a leader in bringing to justice some of Mexico's most dangerous and notorious criminals.

Last but certainly not least, from Pakistan, Ghulam Sughra has become her village's first female high school graduate and the first teacher at the first school for girls.

Thank you so much for these women and thanks for International Women's Day.

[From the Department of State, United States of America, Mar. 8, 2011]

2011 International Women of Courage Awards Ceremony

100th Anniversary of International Women's Day

Well, thank you so much for yielding, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, during this hour.

I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus members and the women of the Congressional Black Caucus for joining me here today. The Congressional Black Caucus has always been known as the conscience of the Congress because we understand budgets, and these initiatives to break the collective bargaining agreements are being presented to us in the context of a budget. And we all know that budgets are not about numbers, and this is proof of that. It's about values. And where you place your money is where you place your heart.

And so I'd like to talk about the situation in Wisconsin.

You know, there are a few things that have been misinformation, just let me say that, around this budget. And I appreciate the fact that we have a physician here with us this evening who is an expert on the Medicaid program. We have an attorney here with the gentlelady from Ohio. And we have the gentlelady from Maryland who is an expert on all kinds of programs that deal with family issues.

So I need you to help me sort out some of the things that have been misinformation and disinformation in this campaign.

Let me say that I once served on the Joint Committee on Finance and put the budget together as a State senator in the Wisconsin Legislature. So I know that the opening balance to the budget was a $121 million surplus. Now, that's not a lot of money when you consider that $65 million is required for a statutory minimum balance in the account. But it left a cushion of $54 million in those accounts. Nothing like the $3.6 billion deficit that the Governor likes to present as his raison-

d'etre for these draconian cuts in collective bargaining.

Now, what is a structural deficit? A structural deficit simply is the difference between what the agencies of the government request and what the Governor provides. And so when is the last time the agencies have gotten every dime that they've asked for? Never. So it's a phony structural deficit. But given the fact that our Governor, just like any Governor, has budget challenges, I respect the fact that, you know, sometimes you have to make unpleasant cuts.

So what the Governor proposed to do was to realize savings by requiring that State employees, except for the police and fire and State troopers, pay 5.8 percent of their pension funds and a little over 12 percent of their health care funds, and to make those contributions, generating $725 million in savings. Miraculously, the unions agreed to do that.

But the Governor said, No. No, I do not want to negotiate with you. I want to strip you of your rights to collective bargain. And the exact words of the bill were that they were prohibited from bargaining about anything related to their conditions of employment.

So I was wondering if I could yield to the gentlelady from Ohio and talk about that kind of legal jargon, that they are unable to negotiate on any conditions of employment except for the 1 percent wage within the consumer price index.

Will the gentlelady yield?

There are some things that I don't understand.

Now, another myth and an untruth that has abounded in this debate is that somehow these public sector employees who are very well educated-- I mean, some of them are nurses, school teachers, career executives in State government. Well-educated people make less, it is true, they make less than their peers in the private sector because as part of their compensation they have accepted less in wages so that they could have a pension, so that they could have health care benefits.

And so the misinformation, the effort to gin up antagonism against public employees is totally faulty. Because the pensions, and I want you to share this with me as a lawyer and as a former chief executive, the pensions are obligations because people have already earned that money in lieu of the salary they may have received in the private sector.

Will the gentlelady yield?

It is very interesting that you should raise that, because in fact the governor of our State, in his previous capacity as the Milwaukee county executive, hired private security guards for the county jail. And a court just this past January ordered Milwaukee County to restore those public servants to their jobs. And in fact, they are required to do that. And it was all presented as a budgetary crisis. The Court found that the county exec, now our governor, had overstated the savings that would be realized by privatizing those county prison guards. And it's been the same tactic.

Indeed, the police and firefighters and State troopers were excluded from the collective bargaining prohibitions and the prison guards were not. And as a State legislator, and I served with our current governor, he did introduce a bill to privatize our prison system. So that's a very important insight.

Reclaiming my time, you know, I will tell you there are a couple of other myths I want to bust before I turn to the gentlelady, the doctor, physician in our caucus, to talk about Medicaid a little bit, because that links in with this union-busting effort. You know, Congresswoman from Maryland, you talk about trying to pit private sector workers against public workers, I am happy to say that those unions in the private sector in Wisconsin have stood firm with the public sector employees.

I am happy to report to you that the firefighters and the police, those unions that were exempted from this collective bargaining fiasco, stand firm with public employees. Why? Because they get it. They get it that the gains made by organized labor inure to all workers.

In Wisconsin in the 19th century, May 5, 1886, five people in my district, in Bay View in Wisconsin, were killed, and four were wounded, attacked by troops called on, sicced on them by the then-Governor Jeremiah Rusk, fighting for the 8-hour workday.

Workers in unions have won the weekend, safety conditions in the workplace. Workers have won these benefits, and they have inured to the private sector. And those people who are in the private sector need to respect the sacrifice, the blood and the tears.

You know, Wisconsin was a State where the first workers comp law passed, the first State to have unemployment compensation. It was the birthplace of AFSCME. This has been a progressive State.

We have 14 very brave State Senators who have left the State so that they would not have to vote on these draconian union provisions. And the governor has said that because they are leaving that there are going to be massive layoffs and firings, and it will be their fault.

Well, I just wanted to point one thing out. He revealed his budget just yesterday afternoon, and he has reduced State aid. He has reduced shared revenue to all of the counties, villages, cities, and municipalities to the tune of $6.9 million. He has reduced aid to schools, kindergarten through 12th grade and technical colleges, to the tune of a billion dollars.

So these local communities, school districts, will have to lay off snow shovelers and teachers. Teachers will find themselves in classrooms with, they predicted, as many as 60 kids in them.

They are cutting Medicaid in this State, and I will get back to that later, because they are draconian cuts.

In the meantime, we are providing $7.6 billion for roads. That's local money and Federal money together. We are providing a total, 100 percent tax relief for capital gains taxes for businesses that locate in the community for up to 5 years. We are providing, his special sessions bill provided at least $200 million worth of tax breaks at the same time we are reducing school aid by a billion dollars.

I see that the gentlewoman from Washington D.C., also a very esteemed attorney, has come to join us here. We are talking about the loss of the collective bargaining agreements in Wisconsin, something that has no fiscal impact, but that the governor insists must be a part of his budget.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

You know, you have made a very good point. If you going to downsize and if you are going to make those sacrifices, number one, our workers have said we will negotiate that. We will try to help our State.

But if you are going to downsize at least you ought to think that you are doing it for the public good. You don't want to think that you are doing it so that could give $200 million in tax cuts so that you could privatize the nuclear power plants in the State. You would think that if you are going to pay 12.8 percent of your own health care that that would mean that at least the Governor was going to protect the most vulnerable who are on Medicaid.

But I am sorry, it's sad to be able to share with you, Dr. Christensen, that in his budget he is limiting a family care program, it's a Medicaid program to pay for in-home services for seniors and people with disabilities, to only those who are currently enrolled; all the 2,000 people on the waiting list, no services. He is going to seek permission from the Federal Government to cut eligibility standards, to cut off certain categories of nonpregnant or nondisabled adults or lower eligibility, and he is not a fan of Planned Parenthood. He wants to cut off family planning services for men.

He is expecting--right now, they are forced to continue their maintenance effort, at least until July, when the enhanced FMAP runs out. But he is again seeking those waivers so that he can cut off categories of people.

Backwards instead of forward, $900 million from our school system, $250 million in State aid for the University of Wisconsin system, $71.6 million from the technical college system, low-income children and families requiring women who receive TANF, temporary assistance, they are cutting them by $20 a month, 3 percent of the TANF check.

The check is small.

There is some talk of requiring them to move from 28 hours of work a week to 30 hours of work a week and reducing the amount of child care that they can get.

Again, the theme for this budget, our Governor's budget, is that Wisconsin is open for business. Well, no State can be open for business by slamming the doors of educational opportunity and denying babies, poor people, and seniors health care. It is more a case that we're selling our State to business interests.

I would yield to the gentlelady from D.C.

In January, our economy nationwide gained 36,000 jobs, hardly anything to brag about. But I can tell you this: this Wisconsin State budget fires 21,600 State employees alone. And when you consider the cuts to municipalities, cities, villages and counties, there are thousands more that are going to lose their jobs. So you talk about hurting the recovery, how can you recover when people don't have jobs to consume and those who do have jobs find their income cut by 6 and 7 percent because of these givebacks in their pensions and for their health care?

Not only that, they're balancing the budget on the backs of children and on the backs of seniors, but they're also penny wise and pound foolish. I live on a Great Lake. Twenty percent of the Earth's fresh water is in those Great Lakes. And what does this budget do? It reduces the ``burden'' that municipalities have in cleaning the water. It reduces standards for water cleanliness. It ends the recycling program. So it is penny wise and is probably going to destroy the environment, reduce educational opportunity and reduce health care to the most indigent and vulnerable in our population.

But we're giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Wisconsinites to encourage them to invest, 100 percent forgiveness of capital gains taxes, $7.6 billion for roads, and we are going to privatize the nuclear power plant. One of the great contributors to the Governor's campaign happens to be in the nuclear power plant business. And we're all doing this in the name of balancing a budget.

I hope that the people in Wisconsin don't fall for this trick.

I thank you so much, gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, for pulling this hour together.

As my aunt used to always say, the truth will set you free. And I hope that those who have watched this debate will try to see through some of the partisan bickering that has gone on.

Just to reinforce a few points that we've made, the effort to take away the ability for union members to not only collective bargain for themselves, but when they win those rights, so-called freeloaders, the people who are not in the union, benefit from those gains. That has nothing to do with budget issues. It has nothing to do with money. Those rights are things that have something to do with your conditions of employment, your ability to relate to your employer and to negotiate with him on non-economic issues as well economic issues.

This budget crisis is a creation of this Governor. We started out with a surplus budget in Wisconsin, and the first thing he did when he came into office was to provide at least $300 million in tax benefits to the very wealthiest and then declare that we now have an emergency.

I would yield back to the gentlelady for closing.

Exactly. That is the same reason that the Governor, then-

county executive, lost his case by firing those 26 guards because he is creating, once again, the same pattern, creating a false emergency.

Exactly.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I would plead with my colleagues to reject the Pence amendment and not to defund Planned Parenthood. And I mean that as a double entendre; to not defund the ability of women to plan parenthood. I know of what the previous speaker, the gentleman, referred.

To all those well-meaning people who want to speak about the value of life and not funding contraception and not wanting to make an abortion, which is the law of the land, available if people would choose that. I am really touched by the passion of the opposite to want to save black babies.

I can tell you, I know a lot about having black babies. I've had three of them. And I had my first one when I was 18 years old, at the ripe old age of 18. An unplanned pregnancy. And let me tell you, I went into labor, unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, had not even one dime. Phone calls cost a dime at that time. I didn't have a phone in my home and didn't have a dime to go to the phone booth to call an ambulance, an ambulance which is a waste of money using Medicaid dollars, but I didn't have a car and didn't have cab fare.

I just want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to not have Planned Parenthood. You have to add water to the formula to make it stretch. You have to give your kids Ramen noodles at the end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they won't cry. You have to give them mayonnaise sandwiches. They get very few fresh fruits and vegetables because they are expensive.

It subjects children to low educational attainment because of the ravages of poverty. You know, one of the biggest problems that school districts have in educating some of these poor black children who are unplanned is that they are mobile; they are constantly moving because they can't pay the rent.

And, yes, I heard many of you talk about sexual predators. It subjects them to sexual predators, as when you try to go out and do a little work you have to leave your kids with just anybody because you don't have $800 to $1,200 a month for child care.

And let me tell you, you know, the public policy has treated poor children and women who have not had the benefit of Planned Parenthood with utter contempt. These same children, it has been very difficult to get them health insurance through CHIP.

When you go to the grocery store to buy them a little birthday cake with your food stamps, everyone stares at you in contempt.

And, yes, on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans ended the entitlement to Aid for Families With Dependent Children; so that when we have a recession like we have now, women, who are alone typically, poor, of color, with these poor black children, have no money, go months and months and months with little or nothing to sustain themselves.

And you know, I recall that the first item on the YouCut Web site was to cut temporary assistance to needy families. And let me tell you what it does to women who cannot plan their parenthood. It derails their ability to complete education and training so they can get a job.

The TANF law is very harsh. It won't even let women complete high school diplomas. It sends them into work fair programs and very low wage service industries, often jobs with no unemployment benefits. And of course, they are treated with contempt and disdain when they apply for any aid. They are humiliated.

And so I would beg my colleagues, I would beg them to not defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it's healthy for children, and it's healthy for our society.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last words.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Lowey amendment, which would restore nearly $318 million in title X, and I rise to vehemently oppose the continuing resolution which completely eliminates title X funding.

Title X funding provides low-income women with access to contraceptive services; but it also provides coverage for primary care services, prevention services, including screenings for breast and cervical cancer, STD and HIV testing, screenings for high blood pressure, diabetes, anemia, pregnancy testing, health education and referral for other services. It has nothing to do with abortion. Title X, of course, prohibits recipients from expending these monies for abortions.

Madam Chair, I find this CR particularly troubling because I know that the overwhelming majority of title X patients are very, very poor. In fact, 70 percent of the these patients have incomes at or below the Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $10,830 a year; 92 percent have incomes at or below 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $27,075 a year.

Now, you know what? We begrudge these patients Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, so that if they would become pregnant and have an unintended pregnancy, we would call them welfare queens and begrudge them welfare benefits. And these patients, who are disproportionately poor, women of color, would not be able to receive the economic support they need and, with this cruel continuing resolution, would not be able to receive the primary care that they deserve and that they need.

We talk about the need to have jobs in this tough economic time. How can women who have no family planning dollars sustain a job or get a job when there are unplanned pregnancies?

As a co-chair of the Women's Congressional Caucus, I want to take a final moment to note that access to family planning services has been nothing short of revolutionary for women in the United States. Women's ability to control their own reproductive destiny has changed the landscape at home, at work, and in the community. It's fundamentally altered women's role in society, and researchers tell us that it's helped to decrease infant mortality, child mortality, and maternal deaths. These are all incredibly worthy goals for women, men and families.

We've heard the cry of those who want our country back. We've heard the cries of those who want limited government. We've heard the cries of those who want to cut spending.

Well, I say, we want our bodies back. We want to govern our destinies, and we want to cut suspending our choices.

And so, therefore, I urge all of you to join me in supporting Congresswoman Nita Lowey's amendment to restore title X funding.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think that the point of order should not be considered in order because this continuing resolution looks at striking waste, fraud, and fat out of our budget. And I would argue that amendment No. 490 is in fact the bone, the nerve, the blood, and the sinew of our economy.

I am, Mr. Chair, making the point that this amendment is in order because it deals with the continuing resolution which would slash the Pell Grant funding by $845 and that the purpose of this continuing resolution is to slash funding that is unnecessary in our budget. I would argue that this amendment should be made in order because the Pell Grant is the cornerstone of our Federal financial aid programs.

Will the gentleman restate his point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment for the continuing appropriations act, H.R. 1, because we're deeply concerned about the cuts to the Pell Grant funding contained in the continuing resolution which would slash funding by $845, a 15 percent cut, and, of course, this amendment would preserve the Pell Grant program and maintain the full award level.

I am, you know, again, just a little bit perturbed, Mr. Chairman. This cut, like so many cuts in the resolution, would disproportionately harm traditionally underserved communities. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Pell recipients are more likely to be female, first-generation college students, and less likely to be white than those who don't receive the grants. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they kind of look like me.

Minority students also face disproportionate unmet need, meaning the amount that they still need to pay for college even after family contributions, parties, raising money from their churches, grants, nonprivate loans still will not meet their needs to go to college. Women sometimes come into college with more precarious financial situations. They're already parents and mothers.

Now, you know, if this country is prepared to just slide into irrelevancy in the global economic community because we don't educate our workforce, this would be the loss leading legislation to do that. Cutting the program is so counterintuitive to our remaining a first- rate power.

And what is our secret weapon in this country for staying on top? It's our diversity, our diversity to be competitive. We're women. We're blacks. We're Asians. We're Hispanics. We're Indians. We're Hmong. We bring different talents and abilities to the table, and our ability to educate these young people comes with our ability to provide a Pell Grant which levels the playing field for all students.

There's not a politician in this country that doesn't make part of their platform that this country has got to have a highly educated 21st century workforce. There's not a politician, Democrat, Republican, Independent, or any other stripe, that doesn't say and pronounce that education is the key, and yet we're not willing to provide the lubricant so that key can fit into the lock, and that is the resources to make sure our students can go to school.

This Pell Grant is that opportunity. Don't deny it to students. Don't deny it. Don't deny it, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission created an uninhibited voice for special interest spending in our elections and unlimited corporate speech in our public policy debate.

Special interests were heard loud and clear this past election cycle to the tune of $281.6 million, almost five times greater than the previous midterm election of 2006. By eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund where everyday Americans can have their voices heard, special interest groups will be able to shout from the top of the mountain and dominate Presidential elections even more.

Currently, between 7 and 8 percent of Americans choose to direct $3 of their tax liability to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. My amendment is simple. Instead of directing that amount, that $3 of their tax liability by checking that box, citizens would be able to check that box and voluntarily make a donation in the same amount to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

What's important here is not whether a President uses the fund or doesn't use the fund. What's important is to preserve the opportunity for the average American to have that speech and the opportunity to say loud and clear that they support clean, good, and fair elections.

My amendment, instead of eliminating the entire program, lets Americans make a donation out of their own pockets. Good government groups are against the underlying bill, such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen. Rather than eliminating the public financing system, we should be working together in a bipartisan manner to reform it and improve it.

Now, I understand that a point of order is being reserved against my amendment because CBO has scored my amendment as saving only $400 million over 10 years, while the underlying bill saves $600 million. So I think given that my amendment does contribute to deficit reduction, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Understanding, Mr. Chairman, that a point of order has been reserved, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Moore

Amendment No 6: Strike all after the enacting clause and

insert the following:

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise as the incoming co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that repealing this health care law will have on women.

As you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent upon their spouses for health care, and they are less likely than men to have employer-sponsored insurance. For single female heads of household, this has a devastating impact on the entire family when there is no health insurance. Of course, all of us have heard stories from our districts about the devastating impact the repeal of this law will have on women, and I heard such a story just yesterday:

Meet Nicole Lipski. She is 25 years old, is working part time, and is going to school part time; but, because of the health care law, was able to remain on her dad's insurance. Lucky for her, because just last week she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder removed in emergency surgery, which cost $13,000 that, fortunately, was covered by her parents' insurance.

You know, this law outlaws gender rating as insurance companies, of course, charge women higher premiums than men for coverage. It also has a disparate impact on women with respect to preexisting conditions-- when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is considered to be a preexisting condition.

Now, you don't have to be a Harvard economist to know that this law is not a job killer, but we do have a Harvard economist to back us up.

David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard, released a new study on January 7, finding that repealing the health care law would destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually, and many of these jobs will be women's jobs--CNAs, LPNs, x ray techs, RNs, and the cleaning woman who cleans up the emergency room.

This law is a game changer and a lifesaver for women's health and employment opportunities for women.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the one year anniversary of the horrific earthquake that struck our neighbor Haiti last year, killing over 200,000 men, women, and children including U.S. citizens. I join my colleagues in commemorating this somber event and in reaffirming the commitment of our nation to continue to work with the Haitian people and government to not only rebuild Haiti, but make a better Haiti.

There has been progress in the recovery from the devastating earthquake and I applaud the individuals within the State Department, USAID, the U.S. embassy in Haiti, and the many people from communities throughout our country, including my district in Wisconsin, who have volunteered, donated money, and gone to Haiti in the past year to try and make life a little better for those who have suffered so much. I also want to highlight and applaud the brave men and women in our military who were our nation's first responders during the deadly and dark first days of this catastrophe and in the months following the earthquake. For many Haitians, these men and women were the first face of hope in a hopeless situation.

Nonetheless, we are all aware of the various challenges that Haiti continues to face and will face for the foreseeable future. We all see the tent cities. Over a million people are still waiting for both ``temporary'' and permanent housing solutions. Dozens of issues, from resolving disputes over land ownership to rubble removal still need to be addressed. For far too many, permanent housing solutions are no closer today than they were on January 13, 2010.

Other challenges remain. A cholera outbreak has killed over 3,500 people and affects over 150,000 more. Millions of cubic meters of rubble still remain in Port Au Prince. Add to this mix the controversy and ``irregularities'' surrounding the recently held Presidential and Parliamentary elections and there are plenty of obstacles to rebuilding Haiti. These come on top of the challenges existing pre-earthquake.

Additionally, I am distressed and disgusted by the recent reports about the continuing sexual violence and assault being committed in these camps against women and girls. When displacement occurs, whether because of conflict or natural disaster, women almost always suffer the most severe deprivations and consequences. According to UNICEF, a lack of security and the ``hard living conditions'' in the camps have been major factors increasing the risk of violence against women and girls.

Our Haiti efforts must prioritize--less with words and with more deeds and actions--the rights of vulnerable Haitian women and girls. And first and foremost, must be their immediate protection against these despicable assaults which violate basic human rights. We must strengthen the UN peacekeeping mission and the Haitian police so they can make stopping these attacks a priority.

According to Amnesty International, the risk of rape and other forms of gender-based violence in Haiti's camps has increased ``dramatically'' in the past year and ``Women and girls, already struggling to come to terms with the grief and trauma of losing their loved ones, homes and livelihoods in the earthquake, are living in camps in tents that cannot be made secure, with the constant threat of sexual violence. Without access to medical care and with little prospect of receiving any support or seeing their attackers brought to justice, survivors see no end to their plight.''

The U.S. and international community then must drastically increase their attention and focus on preventing this violence against women and girls immediately. It is also critical for the U.S. to push the Haitian government and other international donors to include women and girls in the rebuilding and recovery decisionmaking process and plans.

Their have also been reports of significant delays in moving the aid that Congress approved for Haiti relief, recovery, and rebuilding out of the federal agencies and into the hands of partners on the ground in Haiti. What we need to see in 2011 is not a trickle of assistance but a downpour and I hope that these unnecessary delays have been resolved and the Administration will move to ensure that this relief gets to the Haitian people.

We also need to continue to make efforts to strengthen the ability of the Haitian government to take the lead in responding to the long-term rebuilding and recovery needs of the Haitian people. U.S. aid to Haiti, to the maximum extent possible, must be directed through or with the input of the duly-elected Haitian government. While the well-documented problems with recent elections make this goal even more difficult in the short term, I think we all understand that the future for Haiti depends on it having an effective, accountable, and transparent government that responds to the needs of its people.

Ramping up housing efforts is also critical at this moment. More than 1 million people--approximately 380,000 of whom are children--still live in crowded camps. USAID has reported that it has spent over $100 million for emergency and transition shelters, including temporary shelters designed to last up to three years. By the end of 2010, its temporary solutions were able to house almost 60,000 Haitians. It is an understatement to say more needs to be done.

Additionally, in the mix of all this, sometime this year, the President must also decide whether to continue Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians in the U.S. After the earthquake, at the urging of a number of Members of Congress including myself, President Obama extended TPS for Haitians in the U.S. preventing them from being deported to the devastated country citing among other reasons, that these individuals ``personal safety would be endangered by returning to Haiti.'' That original order will lapse in a few months. It is clear however that Haiti is still in the midst of the earthquake caused crisis that led to TPS being granted.

Lastly, even with the best intentions and the most diligent of efforts, problems and challenges will continue to affect the rebuilding efforts in Haiti. A cholera epidemic, Hurricane Tomas, highly controversial recent elections, you name it, it appears it will happen to Haiti. Therefore patience is crucial. We must rededicate ourselves to a long-term commitment to our neighbors in Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, we all have an important role to play in Haiti's recovery as it continues on this long road from tragedy to triumph. We know that many hard months remain ahead and much hard work needs to be done.

I want to make clear to the Haitian people that the U.S. government commitment to helping them rebuild is no less clear or strong today than it was on that terrible January day one year ago. This is a key moment for Haiti and for testing our commitment that was so evident in the days following January 12, 2010. Normal will not come soon enough for the Haitian people. As we commemorate the tragic events that took place one year ago, let us redouble our commitment, support, and efforts to rebuild Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm about the hypocrisy and reckless budget policies the Republicans have rolled out this week.

The Republican leadership has declared that a new day is dawning--a day of so-called ``fiscal discipline.'' But even a child could see that their new ``cut-go'' budget loopholes just compound irresponsibility with more irresponsibility. Republicans want free rein to cut taxes but not pay for them and to ignore the fact that health care reform saves us $143 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

These GOP accounting gimmicks will not get our fiscal house in order, but instead will move us closer to the precipice. Before we know it, safety net programs for our most vulnerable populations--like Social Security, and Medicare--will be first on the chopping block. We saw their opening gambit last month when Republicans held the unemployed hostage to win bloated tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, adding billions to the budget deficit.

Now they are saying that when they give more tax cuts to the super rich, they don't have to pay for them. The gimmick should be called ``cut-go, tax cut go-go-go.'' I voted against the tax cut package because it was irresponsible, and it was inequitable. These new budget loopholes will only accelerate the erosion of our social safety net. I thought that the Republicans wanted to balance the Federal budget. But this trick takes us in the opposite direction. I urge you to vote against these rule changes.