Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am prepared to close if my colleague is.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back away, but we'll get into that in the general debate. Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1- megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location. Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would save and create thousands of jobs. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow our economy and create American jobs, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health, MARCH, for Military Women Act, legislation that will help our servicewomen gain the same access to reproductive health services as all other American women. It is deeply unfair that women who put their lives on the line for this country are denied the rights of the Constitution that they honorably defend. Recent changes in policy have brought the treatment of military women more in line with the rest of women in America by allowing insurance coverage of abortion in the case of rape or incest. However, servicewomen are still not permitted to pay privately--using their own personal funds--for an abortion under any other circumstances. This policy is discriminatory, denying women in the military a Constitutionally protected right. Furthermore, it endangers the health of our servicewomen, who depend on their base hospitals for medical care, especially in countries where local facilities are inadequate or unavailable. More than 200,000 women (active service members, spouses, and dependents of military personnel) live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their health care. Prohibiting access to abortions on military bases means that servicewomen may be forced to rely on unsafe local facilities. Failing that, a servicewoman would need to request permission from her supervisor to leave her combat mission and return to the United States. This impairs the readiness of our forces who are quite literally on the front lines, and it should not be allowed to continue. Our servicewomen deserve the right to determine their own destiny, without risking their health unnecessarily. I want to be clear that if this bill became law, no taxpayer dollars would be spent for abortion care at overseas military facilities, and the military's current ``conscience clauses'' would remain intact so that no doctor would be forced to provide abortion care against their will. Passage of this bill would simply mean that our military women have the same rights as all other American women when it comes to reproductive health services. It is an issue of equality and fairness. Our servicewomen deserve to be treated as full equals, and to have the same access to safe reproductive health care as any other American woman. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support the MARCH for Military Women Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Lead Hazard Title X Amendments Act. Although the prevalence of lead poisoning in children has dropped dramatically since the 1970s, the number of children suffering from lead poisoning remains unacceptably high. Over half a million children under the age of 6 in the Unites States, disproportionately from African-American or low-income communities, are suffering from elevated blood lead levels. There is no safe level of lead exposure for children, yet an estimated 37.1 million homes still have lead-based paint somewhere in the building. Lead poisoning, which can occur at very low levels of exposure, causes brain damage in infants and toddlers, resulting in poor educational outcomes and widening the achievement gap. Lead poisoning robs children of IQ points, causes cognitive and behavioral issues, and a results in a lifetime of adverse health effects. Each year, lead poisoning costs the United States more than $50 billion in lost productivity. Educating children suffering from lead poisoning costs public school system special education programs an extra $38,000 per child every three years. When it costs less than that to eliminate lead from a home, it hardly makes sense that we permit any of our nation's children to be the victims of lead poisoning. The bill I am introducing today, the Lead Hazard Title X Amendments Act, modernizes the Department for Housing and Urban Development's Lead Hazard Control Program. By making much needed updates to the program, we can better protect our children and allow for more efficient lead eradication from homes. This Act will allow families living in all housing, including efficiency apartments, to be eligible for Lead Hazard Control grants. It will broaden the categories of eligible grant recipients, it will allow non-profit agencies and tribal governments to apply for lead abatement funds, and it will simplify the grant application process by allowing Lead Hazard Control grantees to use eligibility information from other government programs to qualify for funds. Finally, this Act will enable grantees already receiving Lead Hazard Control funding to easily and efficiently tap other resources for additional Healthy Housing repairs, including addressing asthma, carbon monoxide, and other safety concerns. We cannot afford for any of our children not to reach their full potential. I urge my colleagues to stand with me to protect all our nation's children from lead poisoning.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Through numerous budget resolutions and campaign pledges and appearances on Sunday talk shows, the majority has made clear that their vision for America is a vision that says the Nation can no longer care for our seniors, that we must halt vital scientific research and that we should let our bridges and schools crumble because we can't afford to invest in the future. In short, I believe that it is an extreme and cynical version for America and one that I strongly reject. For more than a decade, the needs of our country were neglected while the majority led two unfunded wars and gave unaffordable tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and we now have the cost for the last war in Iraq of $3 trillion borrowed. In all the discussions on the deficit and what bad shape we are in, nobody ever talks about that war and how that has kept us from rebuilding the infrastructure in the United States that cries out for it. These two decisions unraveled the balanced budget achieved by President Clinton and exploded our Nation's debt. Now after a decade of reckless financial management, the majority is proposing another budget that is as unserious as it is extreme. Take, for example, the field of scientific research. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to the development and adoption of new technologies, yet the budget proposes drastic cuts to research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others. As any scientist will tell you--and I am one--you cannot turn research on and off like a faucet. Across the Federal Government, researchers are on the brink of discoveries that could cure diseases or open entire new fields of commerce. But under the majority's budget, that valuable research will be ended and these important discoveries will probably not be made in the United States. The majority wants to impose such cuts on top of cuts contained in the sequester, even though the effects of the sequester are just beginning to be felt. For example, in the coming weeks, airport control towers will begin to close, affecting flight schedules and stranding travelers. Many of these towers are located in the rural parts of our country where there are no other alternatives for long-distance travel. In addition, border patrol agents will be furloughed, which not only affects security but the success of our economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than $1.3 billion a day in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This trade is dependent upon the effective operation of our border security agents. The effects of the sequester are already impacting trade by causing backups at the border and leaving goods and supplies stranded en route to their destination. Furthermore, it is often forgotten that 5 years after I-35 collapsed above the Mississippi River, we have still failed to repair our crumbling infrastructure. Earlier today, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a 2013 report card for America's infrastructure. They found that one in eight bridges in my home State of New York is structurally deficient and one in nine bridges across the United States is the same. A very prominent engineer stated just this past week that there are bridges in major cities in areas of the United States which he would not cross for fear of falling into the water. At the same time, more and more engineers and transportation experts are warning that our bridges will soon be too unsafe to cross unless we act. These bridges aren't alone. Everything from schools to airports to train stations and highways are literally crumbling before our eyes. Water systems in many of the major cities in parts of the United States are almost a century old and almost unusable. Think, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, think of the jobs that would be created, as badly as we need them to put people back to work, if we could not decide to starve again our country's needs and instead start to rebuild the needs and put people back to work. I think it's inexcusable that instead of responding to the crisis that we have, the majority spent the last 2 years lurching from crisis to crisis and repeatedly introducing legislation such as today's budget legislation that guts investment in the Nation's infrastructure instead of putting us back to work rebuilding the country. A telling illustration of the failed approach is that they have included the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as the central tenet of their budget proposal. During the 112th Congress, the majority held more than 30 votes in the last 2 years just to repeal the Affordable Care Act, eating up valuable time and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. Despite this expensive folly, the majority wants to do it again. In order to balance the budget, the majority believes we should repeal the lifesaving law and once again legalize health insurance discrimination based upon preexisting conditions, force young adults off their parents' health insurance and open the doughnut hole for our Nation's seniors. Mr. Speaker, before we were able to pass the health care bill, eight States and the District of Columbia in the United States considered domestic violence to be a preexisting condition and insurance companies were not required to cover victims. Are we going to go back to that if this repeal is achieved? The majority also wants to cut financial assistance to students in need. The budget cuts Pell Grant assistance by $83 billion over the next 10 years and allows the interest rates on need-based student loans to double. In a time when we are falling so far behind all other industrial countries in the number of persons who go to college, the United States that used to be first now is about 12th. By all objective measures, drastic and extreme cuts such as these can be seen as unnecessary cruelty not needed to balance the budget. Indeed, just this past weekend both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Sunday television shows that this Nation does not face a debt crisis. When asked about it yesterday, Chairman Ryan indicated that, yes, he had said that. So despite saying that to everybody, scaring America half to death, keeping businesses from being able to plan the future, they continue to promote a dystopian vision of the future in order to convince Americans that we have to adopt their extreme policies today. It is under this guise that the majority proposes their most extreme transformation of America's social safety net in today's budget. Once again this year, the majority proposes to end Medicare as we know it and turn the promise of guaranteed health care into a voucher program. Unlike Medicare, the majority voucher program would not guarantee seniors access to the health care they need. I think we thoroughly discussed that last year when it failed and certainly during the last election when it failed. This would drive senior citizens into the market with a defined income that they could use to buy their own insurance if they were physically or mentally able to do so. This is the same failed proposal, and it has been opposed by Americans, as I said, at the ballot box. But we continue today to defy the wishes of the American people with a quest to end Medicare as we know it, and it should be a telling reminder of where priorities lie. These extreme cuts stand in sharp contrast to the tax reform contained within their budget. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in order to enact the majority's tax reform and to not increase the deficit, middle class families would have to pay $3,000 more a year and the wealthiest Americans receive a $245,000 tax break. Once again, the majority has shown they would rather take away vital programs from our Nation's most vulnerable than raise a single dollar in taxes on America's wealthiest citizens. Mr. Speaker, such a budget is neither original nor serious, nor is it acceptable to the American people. We've been down this road before, and it is discouraging and dangerous that the majority insists that we go down it yet once again. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget proposal and today's rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee on the budget, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm pleased to yield another minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire from my colleague if he has further requests.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. In closing, Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues and I have spoken at length today about the dangerous shortcomings of the budget proposal of Mr. Ryan. Fortunately, Representative Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has an alternative proposal that significantly reduces the Nation's deficit while creating jobs and protecting programs like Medicaid and Medicare. And unlike the majority's proposal, Mr. Van Hollen's budget repeals the sequester, which is estimated to cost the Nation 750,000 jobs this year. Mr. Van Hollen has repeatedly tried to avert the sequester. He has come to the Rules Committee numerous times with proposals to replace the sequester with responsible budget cuts and has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the House floor. By voting for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, every Member of this Chamber can vote to do away with the sequester. On behalf of the thousands of Americans who are facing pay cuts, furloughs, and job losses, I urge my colleagues to repeal the sequester today and vote to balance the budget in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker, while the majority would like you to believe that a looming debt crisis is imminent, it is simply not true. Even this last weekend, both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on television there is no immediate budget crisis facing our Nation. Please think of that, my colleagues, as you vote. In acknowledging this reality, it is important to realize that it is possible to make investments in our economy today, create jobs, repeal the sequester, and still reduce our deficit in a responsible and balanced way. In closing, I urge my colleagues not to be scared by the rhetoric that sometimes we hear. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support one of the multiple budget proposals that reduce our deficit responsibly while creating jobs today and protecting the important programs like Medicaid and Medicare for generations to come. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013. We are on the verge of losing one of the greatest medical advancements in history, the development of antibiotics, by wasting them on healthy animals. Antibiotic resistance is a major public health crisis. Every year, two million Americans acquire bacterial infections during a stay in a hospital or long-term care facility. In the past, these infections were easily cleared with antibiotics. Now, as many as 100,000 people will die each year from these infections because 70 percent of them are resistant to one or more of the drugs commonly used to treat them. Alarmingly, multidrug-resistant bacteria, called CRE, have recently been found in 1 in 20 American hospitals and 1 in 6 long-term care facilities. These ``nightmare bacteria,'' so termed by Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, are resistant to all antibiotics, including our antibiotics of last resort. A full 50 percent of patients who get sick with these infections will die. As Dr. Frieden recently warned, ``we have a limited window of opportunity'' to fix this problem. In many cases, even ``our strongest antibiotics don't work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections.'' We must act now to ensure that antibiotics are not being made obsolete. Yet, in a time when our most important medicines should be preserved and protected, they are routinely used in massive and indiscriminant quantities in agriculture, with little oversight. These precious resources are used at sub-therapeutic levels on healthy animals as a way to compensate for crowded and unsanitary living conditions or to promote growth. According to an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration, 13.5 million kilograms of antibiotics were sold for use in livestock and poultry in 2010, compared to 3.3 million kilograms sold for use in humans. It is unacceptable that 80 percent of the antibiotics sold in this country are used in agriculture on otherwise healthy animals, rather than being preserved for the treatment of critical human illnesses. The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been conclusively shown to harm human health. A 2002 publication in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal analyzing more than 500 scientific articles concluded that ``many lines of evidence link antimicrobial resistant human infections to food-borne pathogens of animal origin.'' In fact, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged the threat of antibiotic resistant disease and called for a reduction in the use of antibiotics in agriculture, in 1977. Yet, despite nearly 40 years of evidence, there has still not been any substantive action to halt the abuse of antibiotics. For this reason, I am again introducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This legislation would phase out the use of the eight classes of medically important antibiotics that are currently approved for non-therapeutic use in animal agriculture. The bill clearly defines the term ``non-therapeutic use'' to ensure that sick animals may be appropriately treated, but that any use of medically important antibiotics outside of treatment of a sick animal is not permitted. Penicillins are commonly used to treat illnesses from routine cases of strep throat to highly dangerous and infectious meningitis. Tetracyclines are used to treat people exposed to anthrax. Macrolides and sulfonamides are used to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. We must maintain these weapons in our arsenal against illness, or we will soon find ourselves in circumstances such as those described when World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan warned that ``Things as common as strep throat or a child's scratched knee could once again kill.'' When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medical treatments. Unless we act now, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria. It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences to do something to stop the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Protecting the public's health is one of the greatest responsibilities of this body. I urge my colleagues to stand with me to support The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the retirement of Mr. S. Gerald Davidson. Mr. Davidson is an accomplished attorney who has dedicated his life to helping his community of Rochester, New York, and making our country a better place to live. Mr. Davidson was first drawn to our area while attending the University of Rochester, graduating in 1952. After earning his law degree at Cornell, Mr. Davidson moved back to Rochester where he opened his own firm, Davidson Fink LLP in 1968, and focused on practicing matrimonial and family law. Since its inception, Davidson Fink has dedicated itself to tailoring to each client's individual needs, expectations and time constraints. Under Mr. Davidson's tutelage, the firm has become one of the fastest growing business operations over the last four years while attracting some of the best attorneys to Upstate New York. With 44 years of expertise, Mr. Davidson is very generous in sharing his knowledge through lectures at the Monroe County Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. By setting this precedent, employees at Davidson Fink LLP are also expected to share their experiences throughout the legal community through publishing, forums, and seminars to meet the challenges of an ever-changing profession. In addition to fully immersing himself in the legal community through the Collaborative Law Association of the Rochester Area, Inc., and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, having previously served as the chairman of the Family Law section in New York State Chapter Board of Managers, Mr. Davidson has dedicated himself to upholding the highest level of professionalism. Mr. Davidson clearly enjoys remaining a student of a field he loves where families themselves have grown more diverse. With all of these remarkable accomplishments, perhaps the most illustrative of Mr. Davidson's commitment to his profession is the prestigious honor of consistently being named one of the Best Lawyers in America, beginning with their initial rankings in the 1980s. For families facing monumental changes in their future, this experience can be overwhelming, stressful, and confusing. Even if the make-up of these clients' families may be altered, what remains the same is Mr. Davidson's unparalleled abilities to navigate these complex relationships. His dedication towards others also extends to our community. Mr. Davidson has served on the Board of Directors for the Jewish Home of Rochester and was a member of the Town of Brighton's Board of Appeals for over a decade. Davidson Fink LLP has continued to follow in his footsteps as a staunch supporter of community outreach by participating in events hosted by the Ronald McDonald House, Habitat for Humanity, and the Ibero-American Action League and advocating for others through pro bono work. Mr. Davidson's actions have had long lasting impacts on our community, and we are so fortunate that he has chosen to call Rochester his home. In tribute to a lifetime of service to community and country, I stand to acknowledge Mr. Davidson. There is no better way to commemorate his retirement than to honor a man who has committed himself to families and upholding the law to the best of his abilities. I am proud to honor one of the finest residents of New York's 25th Congressional District, the incomparable Mr. S. Gerald Davidson.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act. This legislation significantly strengthens the ability of federal regulators to make rapid, science-based decisions on whether non-native fish or wildlife species pose a risk to ecosystems within the United States and cause economic damage or threaten public health. Invasive species are a persistent and costly thorn in the side of the American taxpayer. In Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, the federal budget allocated approximately $120 million to control the Asian carp. Meanwhile the U.S. is spending tens of millions more dollars to control other invaders, such as wetland-destroying nutria and two python species established in south Florida. Yet, federal regulators are frequently slow to respond to emerging threats. Invasive species are currently regulated by the Lacey Act, a 112-year-old law that gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) only limited power to declare non-native animals as ``injurious'' and prohibit their importation and interstate sales. In fact, it takes the FWS an average of four years to officially list a species as injurious and take appropriate action. Experts and interested parties repeatedly describe this regulatory approach as reactive and ineffective. Alternatively, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act would give the FWS streamlined authority to prevent invasions using modern scientific approaches. The bill also creates a category of ``Injurious II'' species, which are not suited as private pets or aquarium species, but can be held safely by qualified zoos, aquaria, research facilities and other institutions without any need for a Federal permit. This exemption is broader than current law, which requires a Federal permit for transactions in all listed species, a requirement that is becoming unworkable as more animals are listed. We must take critical steps now to prevent the next Asian carp, Burmese python, or red lionfish crisis. These destructive invaders will continue to come into our country via globalized trade until Congress steps in to make a difference. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I joined my former colleague, Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado, to write the original Violence Against Women Act, it didn't occur to us to exclude or discriminate against anyone. And in the multiple times the law has been reauthorized, we, as a legislature, have always tried to ensure that all victims of domestic violence receive the protections under the law. As my colleague pointed out, up till now they have. Unfortunately, the latest attempt to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act has been different. This time, the majority has alternately tried to pass extreme legislation that would weaken current law and rejected calls to pass bipartisan legislation that would strengthen the current law. On February 12, with 23 Republican Senators voting in favor, including every Republican woman in the Senate, they approved a reauthorization that is both comprehensive and inclusive in nature. Unfortunately, instead of allowing a clean, up-or-down vote on this bipartisan bill, the majority leadership proposed a substitute amendment that removes key provisions from that bill. For example, the leadership's amendment fails to explicitly protect LGBT victims, and limits protections for immigrants. At the same time, the amendment fails to close the legal loopholes that leave Native American victims of domestic violence with nowhere to turn. Additionally, despite the high rate of dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses, the amendment entirely omits protections for young women who are victimized in college. And that's why the majority's amendment is opposed by groups including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, among many others. It's dismaying that some in the majority want to weaken a strong bipartisan Senate bill, and it's vital that this Chamber reject their alternative partisan amendment. With the votes we are about to take, we will be asked to choose between an amendment that fails to protect some victims of domestic violence, and the bipartisan Senate bill protecting all victims. The choice is so clear. We'll be asked to choose between an amendment opposed by victims and victims' rights advocates and a bipartisan bill. And when looking at those options that are before us, it is clear what we must do. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute amendment tomorrow to the Senate bill, so the original Senate legislation will receive a vote in the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and talk about the incredible impact the Violence Against Women bill has had since it was enacted. Thanks to that Act, instances of domestic violence have fallen by 67 percent, and over 1 million people have obtained protective orders against their batterers. Before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, police officers were not trained to separate a victim and abuser when they responded to a domestic violence call. Thanks to the law, the police officers are now trained to do just that, a most important change that stopped violence from resuming the moment the police left and the front door closed. But perhaps the greatest victory of the Violence Against Women Act is that the law finally brought millions of victims out of the shadows and gave them a place to stand. In 1994, domestic violence in our country was not even discussed, and its scars were never acknowledged. And as a result, the victims often became abusers in a cycle of violence that simply wouldn't end. We wrote the law to stop that cycle of violence, and we think we have achieved much of that. For 18 years, this law gave victims a choice and made incredible progress in ending the cycle of violence. Every time we've renewed the law, our goal has been the same: to ensure that all victims of domestic violence, no matter their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their age or their gender, are acknowledged and helped and protected by the law. It has been now more than 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act expired. Today is the day that ends, and we act in the name of justice. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the exclusionary substitute amendment tomorrow so we can vote ``yes'' and get this bill to the President right away. Now, in addition, I want to mention on the previous question, today we're going to have an opportunity to stop the sequester, which is scheduled, as you know, to take effect in just 2 days. We all know all the harms. We know very well what the sequester is going to do to the economy and to the workforce in the United States. And most importantly, we know that we cannot afford such a slowdown. Now, today we're going to give Members of the House an opportunity to vote on a sequester solution. If we defeat the previous question--and please pay attention: If you want to go on record against having the sequester go into effect, we are giving you an opportunity to do that. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will allow the House to vote on a measure that Mr. Van Hollen, ranking member of the Budget Committee, has come to the Rules Committee three times with to try to achieve the end of saving us from ourselves. Mr. Van Hollen's legislation would reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way but stop the devastating sequestration cuts. Today is the last chance for the House of Representatives to stop the sequester. Despite what some have said, this Chamber has not passed a solution to the sequester during this Congress. It is vital that the inaction of the majority come to an end. We must take a step to stop the sequester today. So let me urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question if you wish to be on record saying you do not support the sequester, you do not want to see this damage done to the economy and to the United States and, incidentally, to our reputation in the country and in the rest of the world. Doing so will allow Mr. Van Hollen's legislation to have the serious debate and vote that it deserves. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).