Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's disrespectful Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1406, the misnamed ``Working Families Flexibility Act.'' This bill would take away critical overtime pay from families still struggling from the effects of the Great Recession. It might provide more flexibility for some businesses, but it would create real hardship for everyone else.

Under this bill, employers could offer comp time to replace earned time-and-a-half wages for overtime. But workers who opt for that time off would not be guaranteed to get it when they want it--employers would have the right to deny comp time off requests, even if the request was needed for a personal or family emergency. Employers could dictate when you got your comp time--and they could make those decisions unilaterally. If you want to take comp time to care for a loved one or see your daughter in a school play, your employer can say no. And you have no right to appeal. And if the business closes or lays you off before you have a chance to use your comp time, you get nothing at all.

Under this bill, a worker would have the option of foregoing overtime pay and hoping that sometime in the future she can get time off when she needs it, not when it's convenient for her employer. That's option one--work more and get paid less. Or she can take option two: demand overtime pay and find out that another worker--one who is willing to accept the employer's offer of future comp time--is given the extra hours.

That unfairness is the reason that over 160 organizations representing working women oppose H.R. 1406--groups like Jewish Women International, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the National Council of Women's Organizations, Wider Opportunities for Women, the National Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce also opposes this bill. Their CEO Margot Dorfman writes, ``H.R. 1406 would reward those employees who agree to ``comp time'' in lieu of overtime payments. Employers incentivized by a reduced payroll might well give ``comp time'' employees the preferred shifts, the needed hours, and the promotions. There is no protection in H.R. 1406 against this kind of employer behavior.''

The American Sustainable Business Council and Restaurant Opportunities Center United joins in opposition to H.R. 1406, because it ``would create headaches for any employer who must track banked hours across multiple employees.'' They add, it ``becomes a scheduling and accounting challenge when employees decide to trade in banked hours, requiring business owners to make unexpected shifts in personnel and paychecks. Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and employees would be even harder hit by these enormous logistics than larger corporations.''

It's true that working women and men need greater flexibility and the ability to balance family and job obligations. That's why today we should be debating the Healthy Families Act to guarantee paid sick leave. We should be debating expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide the paid leave needed to allow working women and men to address family needs.

Instead, the Republican majority has decided to bring this bill to the floor--a bill that threatens overtime pay and gives employers more ability to determine schedules for their workers. That is no solution for working families.

Some of my Republican colleagues were raging that air traffic was slowed by a so-called political manipulation of the sequester. I joined most of my House colleagues in voting to make a special exception for the FAA because we do want traffic to flow.

But I have a news flash: cutting billions of dollars from the budget in a sequester in a meat-ax way does have real consequences.

Furloughs are also occurring at the Departments of Defense and Agriculture, at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Head Start is cutting 70,000 slots for early childhood education. In my neighboring Indiana, there's a raffle being held to decide which children are going to be kicked out of the Head Start program.

Four million Meals on Wheels are going to be cut for seniors who are depending on them.

The Medicare Anti-Fraud Division is being cut. That makes no sense. And the sequester is projected to cost 750,000 American jobs this year.

So, Mr. Speaker, I too ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 900 to the floor that would repeal the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Stephen Coats, a great friend, tremendous leader, and tireless champion for working people throughout the world.

Throughout his life, Stephen was driven by his unwavering commitment to social justice. From his years as political advocacy director for Bread for the World, where he fought global poverty, to his work at the US/Guatemala Education Project (US/GLEP) in the 1990s, where he worked to insert language to protect worker rights, Stephen's work emphasized our common humanity and international solidarity.

After US/GLEP broadened to become the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project

(USLEAP), Stephen served as Executive Director, working to protect the rights of working people across Latin America. His work has been enormously influential on U.S. policy toward Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico. He gave workers throughout Latin America a voice in Washington. By bringing delegations of workers to Congress, most recently a representative from Colombia who came to my office, he presented a powerful and personal call for justice, putting a human face on the need for action.

Stephen touched many lives through his work for worker justice, including mine. He recognized the dignity of work and the need to provide fair and respectful treatment for working men and women throughout the world, but particularly in Central America. He called on all of us to care for each other and to commit ourselves to improving the lives of people who we may never meet but who deserve our attention. Stephen was a real leader but, more importantly, he made leaders of others.

We are still reeling from Stephen's loss--but we are also even more committed to following his legacy. My heart and my prayers go out to his loving wife, Kim, herself a faithful champion of working families, his sons Eric and Benjamin, and to the rest of his family and his multitude of friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, Mayor Arlene Mulder of Arlington Heights, a Chicago suburb with a population of approximately 77,000 residents. In May, she will conclude her successful service as Mayor after two decades in office.

A longtime Arlington Heights resident, Ms. Mulder has exemplified the ethic of public service throughout her illustrious 35-year career. After establishing herself as a secondary educator and high school basketball coach, she entered public office in 1979 as a member of the Arlington Heights Park District. After twelve years with the Park District, during which time she served as commissioner and then as president, Mayor Mulder served two years as a village trustee. She was elected mayor in 1993.

Ms. Mulder's mayoral leadership has been nothing short of exemplary. Her administration was instrumental in the revitalization of downtown Arlington Heights, which now boasts a thriving arts and cultural scene. In addition, she has provided vital leadership in her capacity as the chair of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, an organization that advocates for the reduction of aircraft noise in the communities around O'Hare International Airport.

In addition to serving as ONCC chair, Mayor Mulder is the vice president of the Illinois Municipal League, an executive board member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and secretary of Metra, the Chicago area commuter rail service. She is also active in a host of other community organizations, including the Arlington Heights Women's Club, the AAUW, the BPW, Allied Arts, NWCH Auxiliary, Historical Society, the United Way, and the Boy Scouts Council. She is an established and highly respected presence in Arlington Heights, where she is known to make daily public appearances around town.

Mayor Mulder has represented her community with distinction and has been a strong voice for the Village of Arlington Heights throughout her time in office. Her distinguished service to the people of Cook County is truly commendable. Although retiring as Mayor, Arlington Heights will continue to benefit from her abundant community involvement.

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mayor Mulder on 35 years of public service and in wishing her all the best for the days ahead.

Madam Chair, I sincerely want to thank the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and express my appreciation for all of their efforts to work in a bipartisan manner and to address the concerns raised by me, by civil liberties groups, and by the White House.

However, I rise today in opposition to the bill. While I strongly believe that we need to address the serious cybersecurity threat--there is no question about that--I think we can do it without compromising our civil liberties. Despite some positive changes, I feel this bill fails to adequately safeguard the privacy of Americans. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive, and this bill fails to achieve a balance between protecting our networks and safeguarding our liberties.

Yesterday, I offered an amendment that would have made critical advances toward protecting privacy. My amendment would have required that companies report cyber threat information directly to civilian agencies, maintaining the longstanding tradition that the military doesn't operate on U.S. soil or collect information of American citizens.

Another important amendment offered by Congressman Schiff would have required companies to make ``reasonable efforts'' to remove personal information before sharing cyber threat information. Unfortunately, those critical amendments were not made in order.

Yesterday, the Obama administration expressed ongoing concerns about this legislation, issuing a veto threat. I share the President's concern--despite positive changes, this bill falls short in several key ways. As written right now, and hopefully there still may be some changes, CISPA allows the military to directly collect personal information on American citizens. It fails to safeguard privacy of Americans and grants sweeping immunity to companies for decisions made based on cyber information, prohibiting consumers from holding companies accountable for reckless actions and negligence.

I do urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. We can and should do better, and I'm hopeful that we still will do better.

Thank you so much for organizing this Special Order. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Frankel from Florida, for bringing us together. I notice we're wearing the colors of the Israeli flag today in celebration of the 65th birthday, the anniversary of the State of Israel.

I, too, when I walked over to the Capitol, our gleaming Capitol today, I saw our flag at half-mast, recognizing the tragedy that happened in Boston today; and I, too, want to acknowledge and give my condolences to those families of the two that we know that have been lost, have been killed, and I wish well the dozens more that have been injured. I do believe in what the President said, that whoever did this will be brought to justice.

So, along with Israelis and their friends around the world, we are also at a moment of celebration, celebrating the renewal of the Jewish state in the land of Israel. For 65 years, our two nations have enjoyed a close friendship as well as a strategic alliance.

Since the United States became the first country to recognize Israel a mere 11 minutes after her founding, President Truman recognized Israel as a state, and that relationship and that bond has continued to grow and strengthen. Rooted in shared ideals and dreams, as well as common global threats, the United States-Israel relationship remains as critical today as it was in 1948.

As a Jew and a Member of Congress, I have a strong personal connection to the State of Israel, and I'm committed to continuously working to grow and strengthen that U.S.-Israel relationship. And even in the face of terrorism and war, Israel has become a leader in technology and energy and scientific innovation.

Those people who haven't gone ought to go and see the spirit of Israel, despite the relentless years of war and attack and terrorist bombings. This is a resilient people looking to find joy in everyday life and looking forward to the future.

I traveled to Israel this past February, and like I had been on previous trips, I was struck for the need for a peaceful future for the Israeli people. It's my wish today, on the celebration of the anniversary, that the years to come will show a time of peace. We need peace.

Israelis paused on Remembrance Day, which ended at sunset in Israel, to commemorate the over 20,000 Israelis who have given their lives in defense of the Jewish state, as well as the thousands more that were killed in terrorist attacks. Even as we celebrate Israel's history, we remember those who gave their lives for their country.

As we continue to stand with the Israeli Government in the face of threats and terrorism, I strongly believe that the United States must also continue to work together with our Israeli partners to ensure a secure and peaceful future for Israel and for the entire Middle East. Israel is our closest friend and ally in the turbulent Middle East region, and the U.S. Congress remains committed to a safe and secure future for the Israeli people.

There aren't a whole lot of things I can say with confidence that represent both sides of the aisle, but I can say that the support for the State of Israel truly is a bipartisan, a nonpartisan issue for Members of Congress. For over six decades, the U.S.-Israel relationship has been fortified by this bipartisan understanding about the critical importance of the relationship to both countries. So today, Congresswoman Frankel, as we celebrate the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, we remain committed to a safe and secure future for Israel.

Thank you so much for allowing me to participate in this wonderful hour of celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom Hashoah, and to pay tribute to the men, women, and children murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

This week, we pause to join in solidarity to remember one of the darkest chapters in human history. During the Holocaust, six million Jews were killed, and countless others were brutalized, raped, dehumanized, and robbed. It is critical that, as nations and as individuals, we preserve the history of the Holocaust and the memories of survivors and other witnesses.

The Days of Remembrance hold a deep meaning for me, as a Jewish American, and for my community. My district, the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, is home to one of the largest concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the country. An estimated 3,500 Holocaust survivors live in the Chicago area, all of whom are elderly, and many of whom do not receive the care and services they need. Skokie, in my district, is home to a beautiful Holocaust museum opened in 2009, a 65,000-square-foot facility dedicated to sharing the history of the Holocaust and teaching the importance of combating hatred, indifference, and genocide to current and future generations across the Midwest.

We pledged ``Never Again'' but, over sixty years later, we continue to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred and intolerance, even genocide. As we reflect on the tragedy of the lives lost and honor those who survived, we need to also pledge to do better moving forward. In a world where genocide, intolerance, and neglect are far too prevalent, we need to stand up against violations of human rights. We need to continue to fight injustice and protect people everywhere.

This week, we pause to remember all those who perished, honor those who survived, and redouble our pledge to fight genocide, intolerance, and persecution wherever they occur.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Back to Work budget. The Back to Work budget puts jobs first, which is actually the best way to reduce our deficit. Jobs equal deficit reduction.

Our budget will create nearly 7 million jobs and bring unemployment down to 5 percent in 3 years. It protects Social Security and strengthens the critical benefits of Medicare and Medicaid. Our budget responds to what the American people say they want: job creation, more revenues from those who can afford to pay, and smart spending cuts that target waste, not opportunity.

A new Gallup poll released today found that more than three-quarters of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support Federal Government efforts that focus on creating jobs. Americans don't want austerity or tax cuts, more tax cuts for the rich. They want jobs, good jobs.

So you can vote for good jobs by voting for the Back to Work budget.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted: On rollcall No. 73--``yea''; No. 74--``yea''; No. 75--``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, the Ryan Republican budget reflects everything that the American people rejected in the last election: asking nothing from the wealthiest Americans and rich corporations that ship our jobs overseas, while turning Medicare into a voucher program and slashing investments that create real jobs.

Inequality is at its highest point since the Great Depression, and yet this budget would make it worse. Here's the top 1 percent. Since 1979, look at how their income has gone up--277.5 percent. This is the bottom 99 percent. You see a little bit of increase, but you see where the money has gone.

Well, households making more than $3.3 million would get an average tax cut of $1.2 million. Those who make less than $22,000 would get $40, and a third of them would get no tax cut at all. Meanwhile, critical support programs for seniors and the poor would be cut, including drastic cuts to Medicaid and the food stamp program.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ryan Republican budget. It's pure March madness, and not in a good way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. This Supreme Court case established that all Americans have a right to counsel in criminal trials--even if they cannot afford it. The Gideon decision was clear: American citizens moving through the criminal justice system deserve appropriate representation under the law.

Unfortunately, fifty years after this case was decided, that promise of Gideon has not been fully realized. Today, ever increasing numbers of American citizens fall through the cracks in our justice system, sitting behind bars because they did not have access to legal representation.

On this important anniversary, we must commit ourselves to ensuring that all Americans have meaningful access to legal representation so that they are not left at the mercy of a justice system that is difficult to navigate and weighted against them. As Michelle Alexander's explains in The New Jim Crow, ``tens of thousands of poor people go to jail every year without ever talking to a lawyer.'' An article by Karen Houppert in this Sunday's Washington Post describes how ``one man, accused of burglary, sat in jail for more than a year while waiting for an attorney to be assigned to him.'' I believe that those situations are unconscionable. Wealth should not be required buy access to a responsive justice system. All Americans should have ready, meaningful access to an attorney when their futures and interests are at risk.

We must make sure that the services aimed at assisting the poor are adequately funded. Attorney General Holder has quite accurately referred to the ``crisis'' facing services that provide legal services to the poor. Today, public defenders have caseloads that are often hundreds of cases above the numbers recommended by the American Bar Association. With staff stretched that thin, the level of service provided in any one case inevitably suffers. As is noted in The New Jim Crow, ``...those who do meet with a lawyer for a drug offense often spend only a few minutes discussing their case and options before making a decision that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.'' We must make sure that the attorneys who are assisting low- income individuals have the ability and resources to do so in a way that is meaningful and effective.

We must also commit ourselves to broadening the scope of cases that warrant a right to legal counsel. Gideon applies only to criminal cases--legal issues like home foreclosures, job loss, spousal abuse and parental custody are not covered. Individuals in these situations may lose their homes, their livelihoods, or worse, because they do not have access to representation.

While these cases are ``civil'' in nature, they often carry a very real risk of jail time. I believe that Gideon should be applicable in these situations, because individuals facing a potential loss of liberty deserve the right to representation.

The Legal Services Corporation, which provides civil legal services to people who cannot otherwise afford them, received $70 million less in fiscal year 2012 than it did at its peak funding. This comes as the Legal Services Corporation is more strained than ever, helping low- income families dealing with the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. According to the New York Times, over 60 million Americans qualify for the Corporation's services, but 80% of the legal needs of the poor go unmet. Those numbers are disheartening and unacceptable and must be addressed.

I urge my colleagues to read the attached articles and to work to restore the meaning of the Gideon decision by ensuring that all individuals have meaningful access to legal counsel.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 15, 2013]

Indigent Clients Suffer as Public Defenders Struggle To Keep Up With

Caseloads

(By Karen Houppert),

In 1961, an itinerant man named Clarence Earl Gideon was

accused of breaking into a pool hall in Florida and stealing

some liquor, as well as money from a jukebox and a cigarette

machine. He asked the judge in his burglary trial for a

lawyer. He was too poor to hire one himself, Gideon said, but

he needed help with his case. The judge said the state was

under no obligation to provide him with an attorney. So

Gideon represented himself, badly, and ended up in prison.

But he fought his conviction--all the way to the Supreme

Court, insisting that there was no such thing as a ``fair

trial'' if both sides didn't have representation.

Monday marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme

Court decision in that case, Gideon v. Wainwright, which

established the constitutional right to free counsel for poor

people accused of serious crimes. Most Americans are familiar

with this result, thanks to television and movies; police

officers say as they arrest someone: ``You have a right to an

attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be

provided for you.''

In the 1960s, complying with the ruling seemed quite

possible. Sure, it would be expensive for local governments

that had to oversee and fund such efforts. But the number of

indigent folks accused of crimes was smaller and, arguably,

more manageable. Cities and counties established public-

defender offices, staffed by salaried lawyers who were paid

by the city, county, state or some combination of these; they

also developed a roster of private attorneys whom judges

appointed on an as-needed basis, paying an hourly rate; and

some contracted with a single law firm or attorney for all

local public defense.

It sort of worked.

But over time the war on drugs, the ``three strikes'' laws

and the lock-'em-up mentality of politicians have led to

indigent clients flooding the courts. Courts are

overburdened, and across the country, lawyers for the poor

are routinely buried beneath crushing caseloads and working

in underfunded offices. Without adequate resources, it's hard

to hire the investigators, experts or paralegals to mount a

good defense. The stakes are high--for the man on death row

to the teen picked up for marijuana possession.

Attorney General Eric Holder decried the ``crisis'' in

indigent defense when he spoke to the American Bar

Association last year. Programs across the country were

``underfunded and understaffed,'' he said. Citing

``insufficient resources, overwhelming caseloads and

inadequate oversight,'' he worried about a breakdown: ``Far

too many public defender systems lack the basic tools they

need to function properly.''

The problems have been well documented. A 2009

investigation by the Constitution Project, the National Legal

Aid & Defender Association and the National Right to Counsel

Committee concluded that the system of providing counsel for

the poor was broken and that defendants' constitutional

rights were routinely violated. The groups drew from news

articles, law reviews and myriad panicked reports that

cities, counties and states had generated. Their report,

``Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our

Constitutional Right to Counsel,'' documented instances in

which public defenders carried as many as 500 active felony

cases at a time (the American Bar Association recommends 150)

and as many as 2,225 misdemeanor cases (the ABA recommends

400).

The recent economic crisis has exacerbated the problem. In

New Orleans last year, the chief public defender had to lay

off a third of his staff. Hundreds of people languished in

jail for months, waiting for a lawyer to be appointed. One

man had been there two months for possessing a joint. Another

man, accused of burglary, sat in jail for more than a year

while waiting for an attorney to be assigned to him.

These shortcomings greatly affect people's lives every day.

In Washington state in 2004,

a 12- year-old was accused of molesting his 5-year-old

neighbor after the boys had played a game that, the younger

one said, involved the older boy putting his hands down his

pants. The 12-year-old's overworked public defender advised

his client to quickly plead guilty. The lawyer carried 240

other criminal cases, never spoke to a witness, hired no

investigator, spoke to no experts, met with his client's

family for less than two hours and failed to speak to his

client alone once; the court ordered the 12-year-old to

register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, be

tested for sexually transmitted diseases and attend sex rehab

workshops. Six years later, on appeal, the state Supreme

Court determined that the boy's counsel had been inadequate,

and Washington is making strides in reforming indigent

defense.

But plenty of cases are rushed through courts around the

country, with equally disturbing results. The crisis in our

courts raises questions about how we as a nation define

``justice.'' Will we pay lip service to the notion that

everyone has a lawyer to represent them in court? Will we

provide a warm body in a suit and tie to stand next to a

defendant? Or do we equate ``justice'' with fairness--and

provide folks who are accused of crimes with meaningful

representation? Is the country committed to a level playing

field, the adversarial system of justice in which both sides

are properly armed to argue and from which truth emerges? Are

we committed to making the system work as it is designed to?

In the 1800s, Mark Twain joked that ``the law is a system

that protects everybody who can afford a good lawyer.'' In

many ways, unfortunately, that remains true today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Casimir Pulaski Day. I believe it is important that each year we celebrate and retell the story of this great Polish-American hero of the 18th century, and no one does it better than Illinois with our state holiday. But it is not just the story of one man. It is also true that when we celebrate the memory of Casimir Pulaski, we honor great principles and values that are just as true today.

Principles like the idea of sacrifice for something you believe in, something much bigger than yourself. Casimir Pulaski was willing to risk and ultimately sacrifice his life for the idea of creating a new democracy--and today, young men and women are doing that very thing around the world. When we honor Casimir Pulaski, we honor our young men and women in uniform who are in harm's way even today.

The lessons of this day include the importance of international cooperation, US--Poland friendship, and immigration reform.

Casimir Pulaski made an amazing journey, considering the difficulty of travel in those days. He became, not just a participant in an historic struggle, but a great leader, a general, and helped shape the future of the United States of America. Young Polish soldiers are serving right now as part of a US-led coalition in Afghanistan and deserve our thanks today for standing shoulder to shoulder with us. When we honor Casimir Pulaski, we honor them too.

And how many young Poles living here in Chicago are waiting for their chance to be Generals or simply wear the uniform of the United States or study so they can discover a cure for cancer or be the entrepreneur that develops the next new technology? But a broken immigration system is blocking their dreams. We can honor Casimir Pulaski by working to make this generation of Americans welcoming to the dreamers and all Polish immigrants who have embraced this country.

I don't think Casimir Pulaski was asked for his visa when he mounted his horse and picked up his weapon. Today, visitors to our country from Poland should not be asked either. That is why, once again, I am a vigorous advocate for the Visa Waiver program for Poland. And by pushing for this change, we all honor the memory and heroism of Casimir Pulaski.

I hope that this day will be one during which all Illinoisans and Americans will focus on the significance of this day and this one man on our lives in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, 80 years ago today, Frances Perkins was sworn in as Secretary of Labor. This is Women's History Month, and Frances Perkins certainly made history.

She was the first woman member in the history of the United States to be part of the Cabinet, and still holds the record as the longest serving Secretary of Labor. She brought us the Fair Labor Standards Act, giving working women and men fair wages, limits on overtime, and the right to organize. She was the architect of the Social Security Act.

Frances Perkins helped bring us out of the Great Depression. And as we come out of the Great Recession, we need to ask what Frances Perkins would do today.

She would fight to raise the minimum wage. Almost two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers are women. Many are the sole breadwinners for their families. She would defend Social Security against those who want to cut its very modest benefits.

So today, we take time to remember Frances Perkins. Her message is still relevant today. Our Nation is stronger if we give working women-- and men--fair opportunities and treatment.

Violence is violence is violence, and women are women are women.

For the second year in a row, the Republicans have advanced legislation that not only excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections which are included in the bipartisan Senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back essential protections that are already the law of the land.

We have heard from law enforcement, victims, and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan Senate bill. Last week, more than 1,300 organizations which represent and support millions of victims nationwide joined together and said to bring the Senate bill to the House floor for ``a vote as speedily as possible.''

We need to pass the Senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues two documents that outline both the dangerous impact of sequestration cuts and how we could replace them in a way that helps, not hurts, the American people.

The report, ``Protecting Our Nation from Bad Federal Budget Choices,'' from the Coalition on Human Needs, includes these key facts about the sequester's impact:

600,000 children and mothers will lose nutritional aid under WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children program).

125,000 low-income families will lose rental housing vouchers.

70,000 children will be denied Head Start.

4 million fewer Meals on Wheels meals served to seniors.

373,000 adults and children with serious mental illness will lose treatment.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to, ``Faithful Alternatives to the Sequester,'' from the Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs. I would like to quote from their document:

``We are alarmed at the growing economic divergence between

rich and poor, creating permanent inequalities that are

neither just nor socially sustainable. Over the past thirty

years, tax policy has too often been used to perpetuate

rather than address these inequalities. It is our

responsibility, both individually and collectively, to

respond to those who are in need--people living in poverty

have sacrificed more than enough on the altar of deficit

reduction. We need a more progressive tax code, where all

members of the community carry their fair share of the

responsibility, not only to ensure that we can meet immediate

need while simultaneously reducing our deficits, but also to

begin to address the astronomical growth in disparity over

the last thirty years. . . .

``There are core challenges facing our nation: rising

income inequality, persistent unemployment, historically high

rates of poverty and anemic economic growth. These challenges

must be addressed with justice. . . .

``Our approach to upcoming sequestration needs to be rooted

in our values--a balanced approach that addresses the deficit

crisis with justice and compassion. On the one hand, we need

to be good stewards of the resources we already have, making

judicious cuts to defense, earmarks, and other wasteful

spending, while preserving that which is most important for

the good of all. On the other hand, we must increase revenue,

in order to ensure that this nation can meet our need to

operate a fair and just economy, which serves all of our

human community. The nation's deficit crisis cannot be solved

through spending cuts alone--new revenues must be part of the

solution. The need is great and the resources are abundant.

The budget choices we make must reflect this reality.''

I hope my colleagues will read these important studies and act to stop these harmful cuts. We should ask those who can afford it to contribute more, not jeopardize the well-being and futures of low- income and middle-class families.