Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I guess I just have a few questions that I will put out there on the table. The American people want us to work to address the Nation's most urgent priorities, like creating jobs and strengthening the economy. I wonder if the Speaker at all can inform us what jobs this particular bill creates. Under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest victims, would they have to report even if their life is in danger from the perpetrator? Curious question. Does this bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims, since 54 percent of these rape victims do not report rape due to intimidation and embarrassment? Under the definitions in this bill, what does it mean not to have protection of the life of the mother included in psychological and emotional conditions? Does the bill disqualify, again, rape victims? Is it the case that the bill redefines what qualifies as incest by only applying it to a minor? So an adult, who has been victimized by a relative since childhood and who gets pregnant, is not allowed to have an abortion or a pregnancy with that relative? We have a lot of questions. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, women across America are tired of having their rights assaulted. They're tired of having their health care decisions taken from them. We need to vote down H.R. 1797. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I joined with many of my colleagues here on the floor to urge the Congress and the Rules Committee to take seriously the disturbingly high incidences of sexual assault in the military and to act quickly and responsively to address the issue. Yesterday, on this floor, we were promised full consideration and open debate on an issue that affects, at a minimum, 26,000 individuals in the United States armed services. And yet here we are today with a closed rule, consideration of only some amendments. And, frankly, the amendments that would actually do the most to strengthen the hand of survivors and prosecutors aren't being considered on this floor, and that's really unfortunate. I feel that we have let 26,000 victims of sexual assault down. We've just let them down. And for all the good intentions--and I think that there were good intentions. The Congress has considered, for the last 20 years, testimony and information from the Department of Defense on its efforts to eliminate sexual assault from its ranks. These well- intentioned efforts are falling well short, and we know that. But we can't wake up on another day, or in another 20 years to say, You know what? We still have to solve the problem. And so I would urge us, we have to do that today for those victims. And with the estimated 26,000--that's up even 19,000 from 2011--we know that something is not working. While some of the provisions that are being considered today are good-faith efforts, the dozens, including the Speier amendment, supported by experts, advocates, and legal experts and proposed before the Rules Committee to take additional steps to show that we really do mean business are not being considered. It's really unfortunate that only half of those amendments were made in order. And with an issue as pervasive and damaging as this, where Republicans and Democrats, men and women, agree that we have to do something, why, for those 26,000 victims, aren't we doing everything that we can? We can't stand on the side of the perpetrators. We must stand on the side of victims and survivors.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, sexual assault in the military continues to be a serious problem. Given both the headlines and the reality, this is an understatement. It impacts thousands of servicemen and -women each year. And while Congress has investigated and discussed this problem for more than two decades, the issue remains pervasive. It's time for us to act. Recent reports that assault is happening by individuals who are supposed to protect and command our servicemembers make this all the more concerning. According to a recent 2012 Pentagon survey, an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults in the military occurred in that year. That's a 35 percent increase since 2010. It means that roughly 70 servicemen and - women are sexually assaulted every single day. And I know from my own long history and experience of working on these issues that where there are 26,000, there are many, many more. And we know that only a fraction of these incidents are reported; fewer than 3,400 reported incidents every year. Sexual violence has a longstanding impact on servicemen and -women and their families. According to the Service Women's Action Network, while experiences of sexual violence are strongly associated with a wide range of mental health conditions for men and for women veterans, military sexual trauma is the leading cause of PTSD among women. Due to shame, guilt, or fear of not being believed, fewer than 15 percent of these sexual assaults are reported to the proper authorities. As a former domestic violence and sexual assault advocate, I understand that coming forward is an unimaginably tough thing to do, and I commend every single one of the men and women who had the courage to come forward and name their accused. Their fear of coming forward is not imagined; it's real. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once an incident is reported. This is profound in the military and it has profound consequences. We have to act and stand together as a Congress and as a Nation to declare that the problem can't go on, and we have to work now to stamp out the violence within the military. We have to ensure that the Guard and Reserve have response coordinators available at all times regardless of their duty status, and to ensure that each service has a robust investigative team, with clarity and consistency among the services.

Ms. EDWARDS. Our hope is to ensure that zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military is the norm. I want to say that some have pointed to a culture issue within the military that contributes to the problem. You know what, that might be true; but we cannot use culture as an excuse. It has to be a challenge and a commitment to change throughout the chain of command. Some have pointed as well to say that this is just endemic within the military. As somebody who grew up in a servicemember family as one of four daughters, I can't lay this blame on the fact of service. I know that in the civilian sector a relatively small number of perpetrators commit the overwhelming number of crimes. So let's root out the criminals within the military. We have to commit ourselves to making sure that we do that and hold them accountable, hold their commanders accountable, punish people for crime, and stop promoting perpetrators and transferring the problem from one installation to the next installation. This enforceability and accountability has to happen throughout the command structure, no excuses and no exceptions. It's the service that my father sacrificed for and that millions of others do that we have to honor. We do that by protecting the men and women who serve by saying to them: We want you to serve your country, but we want to make sure that you can do it in safety and that those who are criminals are held accountable.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Connie. Now, Pete wrote this talk, and so I want to ad lib a little bit and say that, well, first of all, because it mentions my book, and I didn't put that in there. But I had the opportunity very recently to give a speech at Bradley University, and I was so proud to start out my talk by saying how honored I was to be in the home of Bob Michel and Ray LaHood. And it just meant so much to me to be able to share that with them. One quick comment to pick up on what Steny had said. One of the things I mentioned in my book is that every place you go to hear a speech, there's a lectern, except in this place, where there's a separate lectern for Republicans and Democrats. So I would paraphrase Ronald Reagan about tearing down this wall. Let's have one lectern, instead of dividing us into separate teams. Everything we do at the Former Members Association is done in a bipartisan manner. Our leadership is comprised equally of Republicans and Democrats, our delegations are led by bipartisan teams of former Members of Congress, and our projects involve both Republicans and Democrats equally. We truly are a bipartisan organization where Members from across the political aisle come together for a common purpose. We have found that, for a number of reasons, this type of bipartisan interaction has become more and more difficult for current Members, which is a great concern, I know, to every one of us. After we leave the Chamber today, we will participate in a full-day conference hosted by Senator John Breaux, where we'll attempt to analyze some of the factors that go into today's dysfunctional political discourse. This development has many causes, some of which are beyond the control of today's Members. Our association, therefore, has created the Common Ground Project, with the purpose of finding ways in which Democrats and Republicans can work together. We decided to put some thought and effort into a structured program that could serve to foster a more civil and productive political discourse in this country. We hope to reconnect America's voters with their political process and encourage a respectful and productive debate on the many issues that we face. Mostly, we achieve this outreach by working together with some of the many reputable and like-minded organizations across the country that are putting their energy and resources into this important topic. One such organization is the Concord Coalition, and we've had a number of events where former Members come together with either the public or with a university student audience to work our way through the Concord Coalition's excellent budget simulation. Another example is our collaboration with the National Institute for Civil Discourse in Arizona. Together, our two organizations connected a bipartisan group of former Members with a bipartisan group of current Members to have a dialogue about what some of the causes might be that have led to a less civil and, therefore, less productive political climate. We discussed the role of the media, the influence of campaign fundraising, the realities of our primaries. This was a very good discussion, and our goal is to continue this type of interaction, while expanding the number of participating Members. The next step in the partnership with the Institute for Civil Discourse is to identify congressional committees where there may be an opportunity for across- the-aisle collaboration and interaction. I think we call that getting back to the regular order. And our most prominent example of how the Common Ground Project can reconnect citizens with Congress is our partnership with the National Archives. This is now our third year of putting programming together at the Archives, where we invite a large audience to discuss with a bipartisan group of former Members the issues of the day. We had such an event right after the November election to look at the role of money and the role of media in the elections. We had another one at the National Archives in the spring, based on my own book, ``The Parties Versus the People,'' where we talked about the hold that party politics has on our system of government; and we're hosting one tonight examining the interaction between Congress and the White House. We can learn a lot from each other, and that is certainly what the Common Ground Project is all about. So on behalf of the organization, I invite my colleagues to become an active participant in this important dialogue, and I hope we will continue to have many opportunities to reengage the public when it comes to their representative government. Thank you.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, the deceptively-named, Working Families Flexibility Act--or, as I call it, The Working Families to Death Act. This bill--which is really an old, recycled idea from 1997--would allow employers to provide hourly workers with comp time rather than paying time-and-a-half on wages for more than 40 hours of work. Simply, for hourly workers, this bill equals more work for less pay. Republicans have stated that ``hourly workers do not have the same rights that salaried employees and all federal employees have.'' And that they are ``trying to make equity and fairness.'' Further, they highlight that ``flexible work arrangements have been available to federal government workers since 1978'' and ``it is high time that the workers in the private sector of this country enjoy the same benefits.'' Can you guess when those statements were made? Not this week or last week but in 1997 and 2003. Today's latest attempt to pass this ``comp time'' bill is part of the GOP's rebrand to become more family- friendly. The bill's sponsor stated, ``time is more precious to [a working father] than the cash payments.'' In reality, this bill creates more flexibility for employers and places workers at risk of being fired if they choose overtime pay to help meet their obligations rather than comp time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and work on policies that provide true, earned flexibility and fair wages for all workers.

Ms. EDWARDS. This really is an insidious bill. I've been listening to the debate on the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I have to tell you there are some things I heard that I think need correcting. First of all, median hourly wages in this country are $12.80 an hour. That's about $26,000 a year. And what that means is that for most workers, for some of our workers who are hourly workers, this bill really goes at the heart of the 40-hour workweek. In fact, what it does is it puts in jeopardy some of our most vulnerable in the workforce. Ninety percent of our hourly workers don't work under collective bargaining agreements, and that means that they don't have the protections that public sector workers have who get to enjoy comp time when it's available to them. They really do need the time and a half. It's not like the other side is proposing that we have earned sick leave, earned vacation, earned maternity leave. Instead, they want to take away pay and get a no-interest loan from workers instead of paying them time and a half for their overtime. There's no flexibility. The power is only in the hands of the employer who gets to decide when the comp time can be taken, whether it can be taken, and how it should be paid.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I began my morning this morning with a check of the local weather forecast. It actually helps me answer questions, important questions, such as what should I wear, do I need an umbrella, or is a storm approaching that's going to tie up traffic. The weather forecast is really important, but too often it's taken for granted. And, unfortunately, thanks to the Republican insistence that sequester cuts take effect, our access to these timely and reliable weather forecasts may be impacted negatively. On Monday, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, which includes the National Weather Service, proposed 4 furlough days, with a potential for 10. The cash-strapped Weather Service provides predictions for the ever-more-frequent extreme weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, the historic drought impacting our agricultural sector last year, and the tornados that ravished the South in 2011. On a daily basis, it impacts the lives of Americans across the country. Even today, severe storms are ravaging the midsection of the country. The Weather Service is already understaffed. Sequestration could further deteriorate forecasting abilities. So, once again, they've made indiscriminate spending cuts our top priority. We need to stop this and protect our economic safety and our national security.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to come to the floor this evening, as we do every Monday, to talk about the importance of climate change and the importance of this country addressing an issue that is so critical in front of us. But it seems tonight that it's actually quite more appropriate to offer my sincere condolences to the people of Boston, Massachusetts, but most especially to those who've been injured and lost their lives and to their families, and to offer up from the Fourth Congressional District and from all of us as Americans, that we stand united behind this city in its efforts to bring those who committed this great harm to justice, but also to stand with the families of first responders and all of those who are called to action.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Equal Pay Day. It's the day in 2013 when women finally earn what their male peers did in 2012. Put another way, women work 15\1/2\ months to make what a man makes in 12. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. Yet half a century later, women still earn only 77 cents to the dollar compared to their male peers. These gaps are even wider for women of color. African American women earn just 64 cents and Latinas earn 55 cents for every dollar. Sadly, not a single State or major metropolitan area has eliminated the wage gap. In Maryland, the National Partnership for Women and Families found that women who are employed full time lose $7.8 billion each year due to this wage gap. We passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 4 years ago to restore the right of women to challenge unfair pay in court, but here the gap persists. We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the Equal Pay Act and help gender-based discrimination end once and for all. We all benefit when women earn equal pay. Closing the wage gap must be an integral part of strengthening America's working families and our economy.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of March as Women's History Month and to commemorate the legacy of Jeannette Rankin, the first elected woman to serve in the House of Representatives on this day, March 4, 1917. Jeannette Rankin furthered women's rights, ensuring universal suffrage and protecting the poor. She began her career as a community organizer, working in low-income neighborhoods in San Francisco, New York, and Washington State, and she witnessed the troubles of women and single mothers living in these communities. Jeannette Rankin became a strong, natural advocate for giving women a national voice through the right to vote. Remarkably, Jeannette Rankin was elected to Congress when women still did not have the right to vote. The 19th Amendment was passed 3 months after she left Congress. As Rankin herself put it, ``We're half the people; we should be half the Congress.'' Today, we must continue to honor her work and legacy. With the ongoing budget crisis in mind, it is imperative that we redouble our efforts, as she would have, to come to a solution and to take the lesson of Jeannette Rankin, to fight for women and the poor who are disproportionately affected by sequestration, and to fight for them as Jeannette Rankin fought for them so hard.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, we've heard over the last several days numerous speakers who have spoken quite eloquently about the impact of sequestration on their communities and their constituents across this country; and I daresay there are many Americans who have no idea what sequestration is. But they will come to know, Mr. Speaker, exactly what sequestration is when they figure out that of the range of programs and services that impact them and their communities, the Federal Government is taking a step backwards because of Republicans' failure to bring forward a balanced approach to dealing with our budget. In fact, we've just been moving from one crisis to the next crisis. Today, in this House Chamber, we did something very special. We passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which was first passed in 1994 and had enjoyed bipartisan support up until recently. We ended up passing the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act which, frankly, we could have done about a year and a half ago but for failure in this House Chamber. In passing the Violence Against Women Act, we, on the one hand, provided for authorizing funds to support shelters, services, and programs for victims of domestic violence, many of them women, all across this country. And on the other hand, March 1 sequestration looms and, in fact, is happening, and we take away with one hand what we've provided with the other under the Violence Against Women Act that was just reauthorized today by a bipartisan vote with overwhelming support from Democrats. But tomorrow, $29 million will be cut from the very shelters and programs that we authorized today. Six million women all across this country face domestic violence, and yet the programs and services that they depend on from the Federal Government will be ripped away in a sledgehammer approach--across-the- board cuts, arbitrary cuts to the budget beginning on March 1. Workers and families all across this country have truly grown weary of watching this and past Congresses create and kick down the road fiscal disaster after fiscal disaster. Sequestration is going to rattle our very still-recovering economy and take an axe hammer to so many agencies and programs that are struggling to meet their work loads to deliver services for the American people. Sequestration is estimated to lower the U.S. economic output by $287 billion. In the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland that I have the privilege of representing in this Chamber, people are truly preparing for the drastic impact sequestration will have on them, their capacity to pay their bills and to meet their obligations. These cuts are devastating, and today we're here to talk very specifically about the devastation to women and children across this country, and specifically to women of the impact of sequestration. Whether that is the devastating cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children program that so many low-income women depend on; school nutrition programs in our Nation's schools; K-12 education; cuts to Head Start; cuts to serving children with disabilities; cuts to health care screenings like cancer, cervical cancer and breast cancer screenings that so many women rely on, and this at a time when we just discovered that, in fact, younger women are suffering from greater rates of breast cancer than ever before in our history, here we go slashing and burning a budget. I don't like to use the term ``war on women,'' but, Mr. Speaker, as a woman, it sure feels like it. Sequestration definitely has that impact. Joining me today, who I will yield to in just a few moments, is my good friend from New York, Carolyn Maloney, who has been quite a leader on a range of women's issues, and she knows clearly the devastating impact of sequestration on women.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York. Thank you so much for your leadership. You know both as a woman and a woman legislator what this impact is going to be to your communities in New York, and I know what they will be to mine in Maryland. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we throw out these numbers, and most Americans have no idea what these numbers mean in real terms. From March 1, until the end of this fiscal year, we'll have to cut $85 billion with a wide range of impacts across this country. Women are going to be disproportionately impacted by these. And there is no other word, Mr. Speaker, for these absolutely senseless cuts. It is as though as legislators we are brain dead when it comes to making decisions that impact people's lives. These deep cuts are going to slash vital investments in job training, in public health, in public safety and education and small business. We know that so many women are juggling multiple responsibilities. They are juggling the responsibilities of their homes and their families; the responsibilities of a job or running a business; the responsibilities of being active in their community and making sure that there's a quality of life for themselves and their children. They're also doing this and operating at the absolute margin. It's really unfair and completely lacking in compassion to place this additional burden of sequestration on their already burdened households. Even worse, low-income women and women of color who are toiling in the fragile economy at the lowest-wage jobs are going to be hit the hardest by sequestration. I want to highlight these cuts and the resulting fiscal instability that is in addition to the fact that we are already falling farther behind other Western World nations in providing employment protections, pay equity, sick leave, promoting child care services. These are all the things that particularly women have use of as caregivers. Is this really the way, Mr. Speaker, that we see ourselves as leaders of the free world? I don't think so. With that, I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlelady, and especially to thank her for, Mr. Speaker, pointing out to us that in virtually everything that impacts our lives as Americans, and particularly impacts women, there is a devastating impact of sequestration on a whole range of things that, you know, most of us get up every day and don't even think about. But we will think about them beginning on March 1 because the services won't be there. The gentlelady pointed out, as she was speaking and as others have as well, the devastating impacts to education. Just a few weeks ago, many of the people in this body, Republicans and Democrats, stood on their feet and cheered the President of the United States when he talked about the need to invest in early education, in Head Start, in making sure that our young people get started early in school so that they are prepared through their education years to take on the challenges of the 21st century. And yet here we are, just a couple of weeks after that great moment of a bipartisan show of support, ripping apart the very programs that the President talked about that are so important, Mr. Speaker, to the development of our children. I would note that in my great State of Maryland, and Maryland has now been named the State with the number one schools in the Nation for the fifth year in a row. Well, we've been able to achieve those great heights in Maryland because of the commitment of our governor, because of the commitment of our legislators, and because of the commitment of the Federal Government, especially to some of our most vulnerable schools. To our students who depend on investing in Head Start, to our students who are in some of our most vulnerable communities served by our title 1 schools, to the idea that we're going to educate all of our young people, even those with disabilities, so that they can achieve their greatest ability, and in Maryland we're going to see in fact very devastating cuts to the number one school system in the country--$5 million ripped out of Head Start; $14 million ripped out of our title 1 schools; $9 million, almost $10 million, taken out of funding our young people with disabilities, and that's a total of almost 300 jobs that will be lost as a result of these cuts. And that's in my small State of Maryland. You know, we've heard from Members representing New York and Texas. Well, they're going to suffer even more devastating cuts. I would note, for example, in Texas, Texas will lose $51 million from education for children with disabilities. Texas will lose $67 million from their title 1 schools. And Head Start will lose to a tune of $30 million from Head Start. This is devastating for women and children, for their families. But it doesn't end there, Mr. Speaker. Would that it would, but it doesn't end there. Sequestration, as I said, has a devastating impact and a disproportionate impact on women and children. I would note that about 600,000 children and pregnant women are going to lose access to food and health care and nutrition education, including supplemental nutrition programs that are the difference between having a meal or a healthy meal, or not. The difference for a mother who, even as she is working every day, has the ability to make sure that there is a good meal on the table for her children. Six hundred thousand children and pregnant women will lose those benefits. Let's look at child care. There's not a one of us, Mr. Speaker, who hasn't had children and had the need of child care. Now if you are a wealthy woman or if you have a high income, your needs may be very different. But for most of us who get up and go to work every day, we really do need child care assistance. About 30,000 children across the country who are in low-income families are going to lose essential Federal funding for child care services. That's about $121.5 million, Mr. Speaker. Let's just look at the Centers for Disease Control. Twenty-five thousand low-income women--and this is according to thinkprogress.org so I'm not making it up. Americans across the country can go to thinkprogress.org, and what they can find is the same information that I'm sharing with you today. At the Centers for Disease Control, 25,000 low-income women who rely on the Centers for Disease Control for their breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings are just going to be lost. So there we will have a ripple effect through the health care system as these women, potentially with cancers that are curable, will not have those diagnosed in time. In Army military construction of family housing where we have so many more female recruits who are in need of housing, they're going to lose about $424 million. How on one hand can we say that we support and honor those who serve and who are in uniform, but at the same time take away the kinds of things that would be supportive for our military families. In the area of global health care--I mean, after all, these cuts apply not just to those of us in the United States but to the support that we provide for vulnerable communities around the world. There are 1.6 million women around the globe who rely on family planning services, and guess what? They're going to be turned away, too, Mr. Speaker. We could go on and on, as we have. But the reality is that beginning on March 1, beginning tomorrow, America's women and children will see cuts to things that they had no idea about, and those cuts will be, in fact, devastating. And what are we doing here in this Chamber? We're going home for the weekend. Where else in America do you stop working, Mr. Speaker, after 3\1/2\ days, a couple of journal votes saying we approve of the business of the day, a couple of adjournment votes, a vote to rename a space center, and then devastating cuts to health care, to Head Start, to education, to food inspection, to all of the things that impact so many of our families. If it weren't true, if it weren't reality, it would seem like it was just a bad B movie, Mr. Speaker. We can go through so many other impacts to our children, 70,000 children, Mr. Speaker, who are going to be cut from Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Sixty percent of these program recipients, 60 percent of those 70,000 children, are children of color. And so I guess we're saying, Mr. Speaker, that we don't care about our Nation's children. We don't care that they go hungry. We don't care that they're not receiving adequate child care. We don't care that they're not getting the education that they need. Mr. Speaker, these across-the-board, arbitrary, senseless cuts just say to the rest of America, we don't care. And you know what? I would love it if the blame were equally shared across the board, but the reality is that Republicans control this Chamber, and this Chamber could be gaveled in tomorrow morning, straight up, and stop this sequestration. That's what could happen, and that is what would make a difference to America's women and children. You know, I would look to, Mr. Speaker, women and girls across this country and just share with them that no matter what their age, no matter, really, what their income, whether they're young children in school readiness programs or they're older women who rely on senior nutrition programs, things like Meals on Wheels, that these cuts will have an impact on them. We've already talked, Mr. Speaker, about devastating impacts to education. Can you believe that 7,400 special education teachers, their aides and other staff servicing our vulnerable kids with disabilities are going to be laid off, 7,400 educators who will be laid off because we haven't provided the resources for them to serve our children with disabilities? It's pretty shameful, Mr. Speaker. I'm thinking about the landmark Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. You know, we did something very special, actually, in this Chamber when we passed ObamaCare. But the reality is that, because of these looming cuts, these cuts that will take place just hours, hours from now, Mr. Speaker, they're going to jeopardize critical health care services, prevention initiatives, medical research to help women lead healthier lives. These sequestration cuts will affect millions of women. Four million dollars is going to be cut from the Safe Motherhood Initiative. Who knew that the Congress doesn't like motherhood? And so $4 million in cuts, Mr. Speaker, to the Safe Motherhood Initiative. And what does that do? It helps prevent pregnancy-related deaths. In this great Nation, the leader of the free world, we still have pregnancy-related deaths, and the way that we've chosen to deal with that is through the Safe Motherhood Initiative. But, beginning on March 1, these devastating cuts will have an impact on that program. In addition, 5 million fewer low-income families will be able to receive prenatal health care. And we know, those of us who've had children, know the importance of getting prenatal health care, know the importance of a successful pregnancy that goes to term. We know the importance of prenatal health care because it becomes a determinant of overall health care as that child is born. And yet, with these devastating cuts, these across-the-board cuts, these arbitrary cuts, these senseless cuts, 5 million fewer low-income families will receive prenatal health care. And this is particularly concerning, Mr. Speaker, and very serious, because two to three women die each year, each day, in fact, from complications as a result of pregnancy. I don't know if you're aware of this, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that the United States has an infant mortality rate that is twice as high as the rate of other wealthy nations. We're not a leader when it comes to prenatal health care. It is why we need the Motherhood Initiative. Eight million dollars in cuts are going to go, Mr. Speaker, to breast and cervical cancer screening. That means that there will be 31,000 fewer cancer screenings for low-income women. Now, I suppose we could just write these low-income women off the books. But you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? When they're diagnosed with cervical cancer or with breast cancer, they show up in the emergency room and they require even greater treatment, or worse, it becomes a mortality risk because they lose their lives, not because the cancer was not curable, but they lose their lives because the cancer was not diagnosed. And yet here we are, Mr. Speaker, ready to exact $8 million in cuts that will prevent low-income women from receiving cervical cancer screenings and breast cancer screenings. That's not what a leader nation does, Mr. Speaker. Now, we can recall very recently the very fierce battles to protect Title X family planning and reproductive health services. I will just remind the Speaker that sequester would cut $24 million from these lifesaving programs. That's right; $24 million that would be ripped out of Title X family planning and reproductive health services, lifesaving programs that provide care to low-income, uninsured and underinsured women, men, children, and families--$24 million. Our Nation really can't afford this. And let's talk about research. The National Institutes of Health could lose as much as $1.5 billion in medical research funding. And that means there will be fewer research projects for treatments and cures for diseases like cancer, like diabetes, like Alzheimer's, like all of these diseases where we're right on the cusp of the kind of research that will make a tremendous difference, Mr. Speaker, in the lives of so many, and particularly a tremendous difference in the lives of women. But, oh, no, National Institutes of Health, on the chopping block March 1, losing up to $1.5 billion for medical research funding. Women, Infants, and Children programs, something that's particularly important to me and to people in my community, to women and children in my community, $353 million, remind you, to begin, Mr. Speaker, on March 1; $353 million cut from the Women, Infants, and Children program. And I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you go to any State in this country, talk to your Governors. It doesn't matter whether you talk to a Republican Governor or to a Democratic Governor. Those Governors will tell you that the investment and the payoff for making investments in Women, Infants, and Children programs is enormous, that it results in great benefit, not just for the quality of lives of the women, infants, and children who are served by the WIC programs, but, really, to communities, enabling them, people, women, to go out and get an education, to get on their feet, to take care of their children. These are really lifeline programs, and they're highly effective. And yet there's no sense to these cuts, and so we will end up cutting the most ineffective programs in the same way that we cut the most effective ones. That's what sequester means. Let's look at unemployment benefits. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, really recovering from the devastation of the economy of the last 5 years, unemployment going down, but still the need for so many in this country for unemployment benefits. Now, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, about other people, but any of us who've ever received an unemployment check because of the misfortune of losing a job, it's not a big check, Mr. Speaker. And yet, even that small check, which is a fraction of what your income might have been were you working, even that check will face devastating cuts, and particularly to the long-term unemployed, to people who are out of work and who've been searching for a new job for at least 6 months, not because they don't want to work, Mr. Speaker, but because the economy is recovering and because work is hard to find. And yet we rip apart 10 percent of their weekly jobless benefits if this sequester goes into effect. Maybe the 1 percent or the 2 percent out there can get away with not having 10 percent of their income. But the families that I know, the communities I come from, a 10 percent cut in an income is the difference between paying your electric bill and your water bill and your rent or your mortgage. A 10 percent cut. No one can afford that. And yet that's exactly what happens beginning on March 1 with this senseless sequester. Child care assistance is going to be cut by $121 million. Child care. What great nation doesn't ensure child care for its nation's children so that moms and dads can go out and work and not have to worry about the care that their children are receiving? Worse yet, not have to worry about leaving young ones unattended because the choice is between going to work and staying at home because there's not quality child care available. Child care assistance cuts 30,000 children across this country who would lose essential Federal funding for child care. And we've talked about the Violence Against Women Act. But I want to get specific because I spent a lot of years before I came into Congress working on these issues of violence against women, on domestic violence, on sexual assault, on stalking, trying to make sure that the Federal Government meets its responsibilities for women. I've worked on a hotline. I've been in a shelter. I know what it means to provide those services. I know that when a woman calls and she's being abused and she's seeking help, that that phone call needs to be answered. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we've passed the Violence Against Women Act and we're running the risk that because of these cuts in this sequester-- because of these senseless cuts--that phone call from that woman in the middle of the night calling a shelter or a program or a hotline, that call won't be answered. Who's going to take responsibility when that abuse results in the death of a woman or her children because we've not done the right thing in this Congress? That's what's at stake. And that is real and it is harm, Mr. Speaker, to this Nation's women. And so we passed the Violence Against Women Act, but you can be sure that what we gave with one hand, we took away with the other hand beginning on March 1 because of these devastating cuts to domestic violence shelters and programs and hotline services, to the law enforcement officials who need to be trained about issues of domestic violence so that they don't endanger themselves and so that they provide the kind of law enforcement assistance that's needed in every community across this country. Mr. Speaker, you sit on that hotline and know that you can't pick up a call because the other phone is going unanswered. Because the other phone is going unanswered because the Congress hasn't done what we need to do to protect women and children and their families. The Department of Justice estimates that the cuts to the Violence Against Women Act is going to mean that 35,927--and I want you to hear, Mr. Speaker, every single one of them--35,927 victims will be prevented from gaining access to shelter and to legal assistance and to services for themselves and for their children, every single one of them vulnerable because Republicans in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, have not done their job. The cuts are going to mean that domestic violence training is going to be eliminated for 34,000 police officers, prosecutors, judges, and victim advocates. This really is shameful, Mr. Speaker. And for women who work and who own small businesses, the sequester is going to be a handicap as well. And we know that women work. Some of us work not because we want to. We work because we have to because we're partners in our families with our spouses, with our partners taking care of our families, taking care of our children, because we're women living on our own, because we're women as caregivers to other members of our family. That's why we work. We create businesses; and, thankfully, we've had the support of the Federal Government for women- owned small businesses, a really fast-growing sector. But these contracts are in jeopardy, Mr. Speaker. In fact, contracts that have been won by women-owned businesses dropped 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2011; and the damage that they are facing now, the harm our vulnerable women-owned businesses are facing is even more devastating. The gender gap may reflect stiffer competition over a shrinking pool of contract revenue, but it may get worse for women as women face difficulty in winning a greater share of contracts in an era of these devastating spending cuts. And that's according to Bloomberg. It's not made up by this Congresswoman from Maryland. It is what is happening in our economy, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of public sector jobs are going to be lost. That's on top of jobs that have already been lost, Mr. Speaker. And since women are 50 percent more likely than men to be employed in the public sector, just like education, these jobs are going to be cut and lost needlessly. Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that my colleagues in this Congress have the ability to exercise common sense and rationality; but these cuts don't reflect common sense at all. In fact, they don't reflect much thought, in my view. When you say across the board, that would be like in your own family budget, when you know you have to tighten up the budget, rather than looking at where you're doing your spending and going with a scalpel to cut that wasteful spending--in my household, I would probably cut the coffee expenditures--but we're not doing that. We say we cut coffee just like we cut the mortgage. We cut coffee just like we cut the groceries. We cut coffee just like we cut buying school clothing. But this is what is happening with the Federal budget. We're taking an ax or hammer to the entire budget. We're not looking at every single line and making strategic and thoughtful and important choices about what needs to stay and what needs to go. That's the danger here. And for women, the impact is really substantial. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close now, but I wish I were closing and saying I'll see you tomorrow. But, unfortunately, we won't be seeing each other tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because when you gavel out this evening, Mr. Speaker, what you will know is that we've said sequester is going to go into effect. So what? Sequester is going to go into effect and we'll just come back next week and name a couple more buildings. But we won't deal with the real issues that are facing America's families, that are facing America's women. And as I said before, I'm not particularly fond of the term, Mr. Speaker, ``war on women.'' But as a woman, when I know that there's a threat of not getting a cervical exam or a breast exam, when I know that as a woman there's a threat of not receiving family planning services, when I know as a woman that my children won't be able to go to a Head Start program or that if I have a child with a disability that that child won't receive the kind of education that he needs to get his or her fullest potential, when I know as a caregiver that a senior woman won't get Meals on Wheels, when I know that the important research that could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's isn't going to happen, Mr. Speaker, it may not be a war on women, but it feels like as women we are on the front line and we are taking all of the heavy-duty fire coming in. And so I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge my Republican colleagues to do as my colleague from Texas said: get back to work. Come back to work and let's do the business of the American people. Let's take up a truly fair and balanced approach to our Nation's fiscal problems. Let's make certain that we preserve and protect a social safety net for so many of our vulnerable families. Let's make certain that we make the investments we need to make in education, in research and development, in small business so that we really can grow our economy, so that we, Mr. Speaker, together can create growth, but create growth by making great investments. So, Mr. Speaker, I will close by just saying to you that I want to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but it does take two to tango. Unless we do that, women in this country are going to face the devastating impact of these budget cuts that go into effect on March 1. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on this coming Friday, March 1, we are going to see budget cuts that will devastate Federal workers, programs, agencies, and private sector contractors. This pending $85 billion in cuts for this fiscal year alone was intended to be so bad, just so horrible, and cause such widespread damage that they were never intended to take effect in the first place. Yet here we are with another self-inflicted wound as House Republicans continue to ignore Democrats' requests to find a sensible alternative. In Maryland alone, sequestration will hurt families, including 800 children who will lose access to school readiness programs; 2,100 fewer children receiving lifesaving vaccinations; 12,000 mothers and young children cut from Women, Infants, and Children programs; and 46,000 civilian private sector workers are going to be furloughed. And the list goes on in Maryland and across the country. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the GOP, the Republicans rule the roost here in the House, and they can stop these senseless cuts today. It's in their power and the power of the GOP to stop the cuts that are going to cost 900,000 jobs and threaten economic recession. The American people deserve better. Mr. Speaker, with that, I also ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 699, a balanced bill to replace the sequester with spending cuts and revenues.

Ms EDWARDS

Ms EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 667 has been offered to redesignate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center. The bill would also rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range. While I plan to support this bill, it is a bit unfortunate since it honors one aerospace pioneer by stripping away the honor previously extended to another worthy pioneer, Hugh L. Dryden. Dr. Hugh Latimer Dryden was director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NACA, from 1947 until the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration where he was named deputy administrator. President Johnson said of his passing that it was: A reason for national sorrow. No soldier ever performed his duty with more bravery, and no statesman ever charted new courses with more dedication than Hugh Dryden. Whenever the first American spaceman sets foot on the Moon or finds a new trail to a new star, he will know that Hugh Dryden was one of those who give him knowledge and illumination. NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, was named in his honor on March 26, 1976. The center is NASA's premier site for aeronautical flight research. At the dedication ceremony, then-NASA Administrator, James Fletcher, stated: It is most fitting that this Flight Research Center, with its unique and highly specialized capability for solving aerospace problems, should memorialize the genius of Hugh Dryden. Neil Armstrong joined NACA in 1955 following his service as a naval aviator. Over the next 17 years, he was an engineer, test pilot, astronaut and administrator for NACA and its successor agency, NASA. As a research pilot, he flew over 200 different models of aircraft, such as the storied X-15. He transferred to astronaut status in 1962 and was command pilot for the Gemini 8 mission on which he performed the first successful docking of two vehicles in space. As spacecraft commander for Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong successfully led the first manned lunar landing. His service and his famous words, ``that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' inspired millions around the world, including this Congresswoman sitting in front of a black and white television. Mr. Speaker, it's clear that Mr. Armstrong never sought the honor of having a NASA center named after him while alive. In truth, his name will live on throughout history whether or not we ever name anything for him. I doubt, in this era of declining funding for NASA, that either Neil Armstrong or Hugh Dryden would want a single precious dollar to be spent on a cosmetic facility name change when that money could be spent instead on fulfilling NASA's mission to reach for the stars. And, in fact, when Neil Armstrong appeared before our Science Committee, he almost said exactly that. While I expect that we will approve this legislation today, I hope that all the Members who vote to honor Neil Armstrong today will remember his testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee during which he said: The key to the success of American investment in space exploration is a clearly articulated plan and strategy supported by the administration and the Congress and implemented with all the consistency that the vagaries of the budget will allow. Such a program will motivate the young toward excellence, support a vital industry and earn the respect of the world. I hope we can honor his words. But his words were foreshadowed by Hugh Dryden in a letter he wrote to Senator Robert Kerr, chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences in 1961: The development of space science and technologies strengthen our whole industrial base and serves as insurance against technological obsolescence. Education will profit. The discipline of cooperation in a great national effort may well be the instrument of great social gain. If the same Members who vote to rename these two NASA facilities today will commit to working in the coming months and years for those exploration goals to which both men devoted their lives, then we will have truly honored both of their legacies in an enduring and a meaningful way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased today that we've been able to bring forward H.R. 667. Former Chairman Hall was here today, and we had an opportunity to do this in the last Congress. So hopefully, in honor of these two gentlemen, real tremendous patriots and heroes and pioneers, we will be able to bring forward H.R. 667 and rename the Dryden Center after Neil Armstrong. I'm grateful to be here to do that with our colleagues. It is sad, however, that here we are on a Monday, prepared to honor these two great patriots of NASA, of this Nation, and at the same time, by the close of the week, on March 1, enable a sequester to take effect which could result in the loss of $894 million from NASA's budget, a budget that would include science, technology, engineering, investigation of climate change, and all of the things that we need to prepare this next generation to be as inspired as our generation was with the exploits and exploration of Hugh Dryden and Neil Armstrong. Yet here we are. So I am pleased to go forward in supporting this legislation today, making sure that on a Monday we are able to take a vote to rename these two centers and to honor these two pioneers. But I am sad that here in this Congress we are also prepared to cut millions of dollars in a budget that should be spent on the kind of science and exploration that both of these gentlemen pioneered. When we think of what needs to be done for the next generation in order to inspire future scientists and those who will work in technology--our engineers, our math students--we regret that they won't see that same kind of inspiration because of the irresponsibility of this Congress. I want to say how pleased I am as I look forward to working with Chairman Smith, because I know of his commitment to science and to technology, and I know of his commitment to NASA and to moving forward an agency that's going to propel us in 21st century space science and in aeronautics, but this is not the way to do it. While we do our renaming today in honor of Hugh Dryden and in honor of Neil Armstrong, we will take an ax hammer to NASA's budget on March 1, at the end of this week, taking out $894 million from an already strapped budget. I dare say that future generations will not be inspired by what this Congress will do, will not be inspired by what the majority is doing by not allowing us and enabling us to sit down and actually negotiate in a way that is going to result in our making the kind of investment in the 21st century that our young people deserve. Again, I am pleased to be able to redesignate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Center as the ``Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center'' and to rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the ``Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range''--renaming but slashing a budget. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. I'd inquire if the gentleman has additional speakers?

Ms. EDWARDS. I'll continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. I'd inquire if the gentleman is prepared to close as well.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Christine M. Jones, a resident of Temple Hills in the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland. She unexpectedly passed from this life on January 26, 2013. As her funeral service is this coming Friday at Bethlehem Baptist Church on Martin Luther King Avenue in Southeast Washington, DC, I want to remember the legacy Ms. Jones leaves behind. Ms. Christine Jones's long and distinguished career served the people of Maryland for over 40 years both as a teacher in Prince George's County and in the Maryland House of Delegates. Delegate Jones served as a mentor and inspiration to countless individuals throughout our state. All of Maryland mourns the loss of a great woman and unparalleled public servant. Delegate Jones was born in Navasota, Texas, on Christmas Day in 1929. She graduated from the historically black university, Huston--Tillotson University, in Austin, Texas, in 1949 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Delegate Jones had a long career as a teacher and educator in the Prince George's County Public Schools system and specialized in physical education. Just as she lived her life, she stressed service to those students that were lucky enough to have her as a teacher and mentor. After a 30 year career as an educator, Ms. Jones decided to continue her public service on behalf of Prince George's County by becoming the first African American to represent the County in the Maryland General Assembly. She represented the 26th Legislative District in the House of Delegates from 1982-1994. Delegate Jones rose to the position of vice chairman of the County's delegation and was the first woman to serve as chairperson of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland. In her last year in office in 1994, she worked as the Assembly's assistant majority floor leader. The Legislative Black Caucus recognized Delegate Jones for her contributions and service to the state of Maryland and its residents in 2010. After her time in office, Delegate Jones continued to be active in her community through service in political, educational, and religious organizations. With her passing, it is my hope that Christine M. Jones has found the peace earned from such a wonderful life. Delegate Jones made a difference in our community with everything she did, and I am grateful for her life and service to Prince George's County, Maryland, and our country. On behalf of this House, I extend our condolences to her entire family, especially her son, Robert E. Jones, Jr., her three grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren, and the thanks of a grateful nation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, all Americans can recite those famous words uttered by Neil Armstrong 43 years ago as he became the first human to walk on the Moon. Those words, as all Americans know were, ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' In an effort to recognize that great man, H.R. 6612 has been offered to redesignate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center. The bill would also rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range. While I plan to support it, this is a bill that is a bit unfortunate since it honors one aerospace pioneer by stripping away the honor previously extended to another worthy pioneer. Both are worthy of recognition. Their accomplishments at NASA and for the Nation are without parallel. Dr. Hugh Latimer Dryden was director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics from 1947 until the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and was named deputy administrator of the new aerospace agency when it was created in response to the Sputnik crisis. Dr. Dryden made numerous technical contributions to research in high- speed aerodynamics, fluid mechanics, and acoustics, and published more than 100 technical papers and articles in professional journals. NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, was named in honor of him on March 26, 1976. The center is NASA's premier site for aeronautical flight research. Neil Armstrong joined NACA, the advisory committee, in 1955 following his service as a naval aviator. Over the next 17 years, he was an engineer, test pilot, astronaut, and administrator for the committee and its successor agency, NASA. As a research pilot, he flew over 200 different models of aircraft, such as the storied X-15. He transferred to astronaut status in 1962, and was command pilot for the Gemini VIII mission when he performed the first successful docking of two vehicles in space. As spacecraft commander for Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, Neil Armstrong inspired millions around the world. He inspired me. And he passed away just this past August. Madam Speaker, it's clear that Neil Armstrong never sought the honor of having a NASA center named after him while he was alive. And the truth is, his name is going to live long throughout history whether or not we ever name anything for him. I expect that today we will approve this legislation, and that's fine. But I hope that all the Members who vote to honor him today will remember his testimony before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I know that our chairman, Mr. Hall, will remember that during that testimony he argued eloquently for the critical importance of giving NASA a sustainable future and a human exploration program that can once again inspire our children and humanity around the world. It seems rather extraordinary that even as we're honoring our hero, Neil Armstrong, that we face a situation where NASA's budget would be decimated, gutting the very programs that Neil Armstrong felt so passionately about. And if the same Members who vote to honor him today will commit to working in the coming months and years for those exploration goals, to those heights to which he devoted the last years of his life, then we will have truly honored Neil Armstrong in an enduring and meaningful way. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).