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's the devastating cuts to women and infants children that so many 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 he we just discovered that -- when we just discovered that younger

women are suffering from greater rate of breast cancer than ever before in our history. and 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. and sequestration definitely has that impact. joining me today, and i will yield just a few moments, 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. mrs. maloney: i want to thank my colleague for leading this very important special order and to note, too, women's issues that will be introduced next week. one of the women's museum, it will cost no extra money and will create a commission to put a women's museum on the mall. we have it for postage stamps,

flight, it should be there for half the population. it's something we can move forward with in a bipartisan way. next week i'm reintroducing the equal rights amendment that we really lag behind the western world in not having that important provision in our constitution. but regrettably this country has a habit of sweeping women's herb shoes under the rug and ignoring them, and this meat cleaver approach through sequestration will disproportionately hurt women. tomorrow $85 billion will be cut from our budget, sequestration will go into effect, economists predict that over 700,000 jobs will be lost. chairman bernanke testified yesterday before the financial services committee, and he testified that the sequester

could make it harder to reduce the deficit, not easier. the whole purpose of sequestration is to reduce the deficit. but as he pointed out in his testimony, and i will quote him directly, he said that it would have adverse effects on jobs and income. and a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction , end quote. so here we are hearing from the head of the federal reserve, and many economists that sequestration will literally hurt the deficit, hurt our economy, and hurt jobs. why we can't agree on a measured, balanced approach that targets certain areas, such as tax loopholes, why in the world are we giving tax deductions to companies that move jobs overseas?

we should be getting tax incentives to people who create jobs in america not those who move their companies and their jobs overseas. why are we giving up to 40% subsidies to very profitable oil companies that are making profits? why are we doing that when we are going to be turning around and because of the sequestration cutting teachers, the very investment that we need for the future? and teaching is one of the professions that is disproportionately headed by women. so it's disproportionately these cuts are not only going to hurt the future of our country, but women teachers and male teachers in our country. i am particularly concerned in one area that my friend mentioned, and that's research. this country has invested in research and it is one of the areas that has moved us out of our recession with innovative

ideas, but there are across-the-board cuts in research, n.i.h. may face as much as 40% cuts, that's the national institute of health. right now one in seven women contract breast cancer. because of the research in our great country, the lives are being saved. 2% more lives are saved each year because of new breakthroughs in breast cancer therapy, breast cancer treatment. i venture to say there is not a person in this body or america who doesn't have a sister, a mother, a grandmother, or friend who has not suffered from breast cancer. yet the treatment, the research, the medical facilities that are there to help women confront this disease will be cut back in the sequestration. then also there are new reports

that men, it is a disease that men are suffering from, and also prostate cancer, but the cures, the cures that we break through every year to save lives are going to be cut. this past week i had a meeting with some of the teaching hospitals in the district i'm privileged to represent, and they had a survivor there who tshtsh his life had literally been saved with a new breakthrough and treatment in technology that they had developed while at cornell. he testified that the doctors there, with their new research, had literally saved his life. it is this lifesaving, cutting-edge research that we will be cutting away along with many other important areas. why are we passing the violence against women act and then turning around and cutting it dramatically with sequestration? i join my good friend from the

great state of maryland in really protesting sequestration, the aproacht -- approach doesn't work, even chairman bernanke said it's wrong, wrong-headed and will not help us reduce the deficit, and it particularly is disastrous to programs, research, health care that impacts women. i yield back to my vent gentle friend and thank her for organizing this special order. ms. edwards: i want to thank the gentlewoman from new york, and thank you so much for your leadership. you know both as a woman and woman legislator, but as a 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 we, mr. speaker, we throw out these numbers and most of us, most americans, have no idea what these numbers mean in real terms. but just this year, from march 1 in the end of this fiscal year, we'll have to cut $85 billion in

a wide ranging of impacts across this country. women are going to be disproportionately impacted by these, and there is no other word, mr. speaker. these absolutely senseless cuts. it is as though as legislators we are brain-dead when it comes to making decision that is impact people's lives. these deep cuts are going to slash vital investments in job training, in public health, in public safety and education, 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. and they are also doing this 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. and 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 childcare services 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. and with that i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague from texas, sheila jackson lee.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from maryland and thank her for her leadership. this is a very important statement today because i was on the floor earlier this morning and said that we should not go home, we should stay here. i'll say it again, we should not go home. we should stay here. all the chatter of disagreement and accusations and blame games, what should be the message to the american people is, in fact, that we are committed to find some form of common ground. common ground is enormously challenging when there is no give from my republican friends. i do want to applaud congresswoman today that the violence against women act was passed because of democrats championing the right direction so that immigrant women, so that

lgbt community, and so that native americans could be specifically covered, which as a lawyer is what the law is all about. fuzzy legislation cannot work, but when you specifically designate in law the protection of these groups, then you have brought about a change. i say that only because i want to thank our republican friends who voted for that ultimate senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan way in the senate now in the house. that should be an example for what we can do in this dastardly act that is going to occur tomorrow, the sequester. most americans don't even understand, and i'm delighted to join and to be able to be part of this special order led by the gentlelady from maryland on explaining how vulnerable women can be impacted. we did a good act today, vulnerable women have been in

the eye of the storm since this legislation was not re-authorized. and women's centers and shelters all over america were feeling the ax of the nonfunding of the stop grant. but today we made a difference. i want to make a difference in stopping the onslaught against women and children that sequester will bring about. and i'm going to use as an example of the impact on a state like mine, the state of texas, that has a diverse, if you will, congressional delegation. more republicans than democrats, but frankly the people of the state of texas are not interested in what party we are, they simply want to find out why he we can't come to the floor to vote to block the sequester and find common ground. to my state of texas let me tell you what you will be facing and why i want to say stay and work, stay and work. and find some kind of common ground. in the alternative all of us are willing to be called back this

weekend, we are willing to be called back friday night, saturday morning. i want that to be on the record. we are willing to get back in a short order of time to come here an solve this problem. specifically i have worked extensively with our teachers in schools and school districts. 68.8 million for funding for primary and secondary education. terminating 950 teachers and aides jobs are at risk. meaning they may ultimately be terminated. 172,000 fewer students can be served in approximately 280 schools. that's not just in houston, that's throughout republican and democratic districts in the state of texas. that is shameful. texas will lose approximately $50 million in funds for about 620 students and aide to help children with disabilities. work study jobs will impact our college students, 4,720 fewer

low-income students will be able to have those jobs. and, of course, it will eliminate the opportunity to finance the cost of college to around 1,450 students who will not get work study jobs. head start, many of my head start leaders advocated and asked me as i was in austin this past week to stop the elimination of their funding. i'll be meeting with those next week, approximately 4,800 students of texas reducing access to critical early education. law enforcement. part of the violence against women act specifically speaks to the question of helping the victims, crime victims. when i had a gun briefing in texas, i made sure that the gun victims, victims of gun violence, were in the room. what we'll be stopping is over a

$$1 million in justice assistance grant which specifically deals with our crime victims. this is an example of what will happen in america. if you are looking for jobs and you want assistance from the federal government -- and it's interesting how people make light that the federal government does nothing. my friends, the federal government is you, it is the tax dollars used wisely to ensure that it is a bridge, a complement, a collaborator with state government. so you'll be losing in the state of texas for those of you serving for jobs and do you it every day -- searching for jobs and do you it every day, some $2.2 million in this goes through. . children may lose their access to childcare. that impact women who go out every day, one possibly to look for a job, but more importantly, to go out to look for a work. -- to go to work. vaccine, that's a mother's responsibility, that's a parent's responsibility to make

sure their children are getting vaccines and the public health system will collapse because of the lack of resources. 1.1 million dollars will be lost in particular for our h.i.v. tests, which is devastating among the african-american community, particularly women, and we have encouraged them now to get tested. we've tried to remove the stigma, when they go up to the door to the public health entity to get tested, you going to tell me there are 1 million less and the doors will be closed. on the stop violence against women program, which is now re-authorized, texas could lose $433,000, 2,100 more victims will not have this. let me come to a close and look at it generically across america, as i cite what congresswoman edwards just cited about small businesses, and i would indicate that on the nationwide impact, 2/3 of all new jobs we know have come from small businesses. and as i listen to the news

this morning, a woman-owned business that does work with the defense department was being -- she was being interviewed, and she says about five days from now she's literally shut down. and so with a we're talking about is losing $900 million across the nation in helping small businesses. that is a travesty, and when we travel internationally, one thing we sort of look at is the question of food safety and what we proud ourselves here in the united states that stops disease, stops contamination. well, my friends, 2,100 food inspectors for the nation who deal with helping to ensure the kind of safe food for our women and children, this will be shut down and that means that billions of food protection will be shut down. i heard a mant manufacture, a food manufacture -- a plant manufacture, a food manufacture, a packaging company they said they literally couldn't do anything without a food inspector saying yes. let me indicate something that

is very close to my heart and that is the services for those who are needing mental health services. do you realize with sequester, congresswoman, 373,000 mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children will lose public services for their needs? that is a travesty and asks the question, why are we going home? why don't we stay here and find the compromise that we did for the violence against women act? let me close on work dealing with homeland security. i'm the ranking member of the border security on maritime security committee. we have responsibilities with ranking member thompson and our chairperson who we noted in our hearing as recently as this week that we would lose some 2,750 customs and border protection officers, c.b.p. they meet individuals at the airports.

and we would lose 5,000 border patrol officers at our borders, where we're talking about the question of border security. we talking out of two sounds of our mouth. here we're making the argument that we want border security and we're willing to allow 5,000 border patrol agents willy-nilly to just go away. we're allowing difficulties with the f.a.a. and as well t.s.o. officers of whom we've critique, as i serve on the transportation security subcommittee, these officers every day face trials and tribulations of ensuring safety on our airlines and airplanes and we're telling them that we don't care about security and right now we have a sequester and you're out and we don't know how long the lines are and frankly the statement is being made by my republican friends and leadership that they simply don't care. we have an opportunity to work together. we can work with the senate. we can work with the white house. we can understand the underlying -- underpinnings of

this whole debate. and that is revenue and cuts. revenue and cuts. why do i want revenue? because i want the victims of hurricane sandy for the money not to run out when they are desperate. that's why i want revenue. i want the head start programs be funded and i want our military in a balanced way to be funded. so i support the utilization of the buffett rule he has been offered by the senate and aspects of many other proposals, they are out there. we can do it and we can do it with the kind of grace and mercy and understanding of the needs of the american people and protecting the middle class and as congresswoman edwards started, we can do that with the eye on women to make sure that women whom many are heads of households, do not face these devastating cuts that would literally shut them down -- their small business, head start, teachers, make sure there's money for the violence against women act. all i can say to congresswoman edwards, thank you for allowing

us to have an opportunity to share our concerns today. i am pained by what we're seeing today, but i'm extending a hand of friendship to my friends on the other side of the aisle that leadership can call us back. we're ready to be called back. we can huddle somewhere. we can find a way to get consensus by email that when we come back on -- next week we got an immediate vote because we have been willing to do so. i will close by saying i'm supporting -- mr. conyers offered an alternative that will be coming next week that ends the sequestration. i believe that's the way to go to allow us more time to debate, collaboration. i hope others will join us in this legislation we're introducing today, and i want to thank him for his leadership on that. i think that speaks for the fact that all members, congresswoman, are following the leadership of this special order which is to protect women from this devastating impact of sequester. and thank you so very much for the opportunity to speak today.

ms. edwards: i want to thank the gentlelady, and especially to thank her for, mr. speaker, pointing out to us 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 schools 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 weeks after that great moment, 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. what 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 since 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 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, that 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 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. but it doesn't end there. sequestration, as i've 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's working every day, has the ability to make sure that there is a good meal on the table for her children. 600,000 children and pregnant women will lose those benefits. let's just look at childcare. there's not one of us, mr. speaker, who hasn't had children and had the needs of childcare. now, if you're 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 childcare assistance. about 30,000 children across the country who are in

low-income families are going to lose essential federal funding for childcare services. that's about $121.5 million, mr. speaker. let's just look at the centers for disease control. 25,000 low-income children -- 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. but at the centers for disease control, 25,000 low-income children who rely on this centers for disease control for their breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings are just going to be lost. and so we'll 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 female recruits that are in need of housing, they'll 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. 1.6 million women around the globe 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. 60% of these programs' recipient, 60% of those 70,000 children are children of color. 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 childcare, 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, the reality is republicans control this chamber, and this chamber could be gaveled in

tomorrow morning straight up and stop the sequestration. that's what could happen and that is what would make a difference to america's women and children. you know, i would love to, mr. speaker, women and girls across the country, just share with them that no matter what their age, no matter, really, what their income, whether they are young children in school readiness programs or they are older women who rely on senior nutrition programs, things like meals on wheels that these cuts will have an impact on them. we have already talked, mr. speaker, about the devastating impactle to education. and you believe that 7,400 special education teachers, their aide, and other staff servicing are vulnerable kids with disabilities are going to be laid off?

7,400 educators who will be laid off because they don't -- because we haven't provided the resources for them to serve our children with disabilities. pretty shameful, mr. speaker. i'm thinking about the landmark affordable care act, obamacare. we did something very special, actually, in this compameber -- 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 are 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. $4 million is going to be cut from the safe motherhood initiative. who knew that the congress doesn't like motherhood? 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 have 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, five million fewer low-income families will not be able to receive prenatal health care, and we know those of us who have had children know the importance of getting prenatal health care. know the importance to 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, five million fewer low-income families will receive prenatal health care. 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. and i don't know if you are aware of this, mr. speaker, but the fact is that the united states has an infant mortality rate that is twice as high as that rate of other wealthy nations. we are not a leader when it comes to prenatal health care. it is why we need the motherhood initiative. $8 million in cuts are going to go, mr. speaker, to breast and cervical cancer screening, that means 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. you know what happens, mr. speaker? when they are diagnosed with cervical cancer or with breast cancer, and they somehow 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. it's not what a leader nation does, mr. speaker. now, we can recall very recently the very fierce battles to protect title 10 family planning and reproductive health

services. i would 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 10 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 are 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 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, infant, and children programs. something that's particularly important to me and people in my community, to women and children in my community. $353 million reminds you to begin, mr. speaker, on march 1. $353 million cut from the women, infant, 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 payoff

for making investments in women, infant, 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 w.i.c. program, but really to communities. enabling them -- 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 are 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 five years. unemployment going down, 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 have 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 have been searching for a new job for at least six 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% of their weekly jobless benefits if this sequester goes into effect. i don't know -- maybe the 1% or

the 2% out there can get away with not having 10% of their income, but the families that i know, the communities i come from a 10% cut in an income is the difference between paying your electric bill and your water bill and your rent or your mortgage. 10% cut. no one can afford that. yet that's exactly what happens beginning march 1 with this senseless sequester. childcare assistance, going to be cut by $121 million. childcare. what great nation doesn't ensure childcare 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 or staying at home because there is not quality childcare available. childcare assistance cut, 30,000 children across this country who would lose essential federal funding for childcare. and we have 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 have worked on a hot line. i have 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, here we

pass the violence against women act and we are 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, program, or hotline, that call won't be answered. who's going to take responsibility when that abuse results in death? of a woman or her children because we have 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. 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. you go sit, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, you sit on a hotline. you sit on that line 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 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 shelters and to legal assistance and to services for themselves and for their children.

every single one of them vulnerable because this congress , 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 are partners in our families with our spouses, with our partners taking care of our families, taking care of our children. because we are women living on our own. because we are women as caregivers to other members of our family. that's why we work.

we create businesses. thankfully we have had the support of the federal government for women-owned small businesses. it really -- 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% in fiscal year 2011. . and the harm they are facing, vulnerable women-owned businesses are facing is happening. the gender may shrink over a different pool of contract revenue but it may get worse for women. 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% more likely than men to be employed in the public sector, just like education, these jobs are going to be cut and lost needlessly. you know, 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 that 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'd 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 cough just like we cut school clothing. but this is what's happening with the federal budget. we're taking an ax hammer with the entire budget. we are not looking at every single line and making strategic and important and thoughtful choices about what needs to stay and what needs to go. that's the danger here, and for women -- for women, the impact is really substantial. you know, mr. speaker, i'm going to close now, but i wish i were closing and saying i ale see you tomorrow, -- and i'll see you tomorrow, but unfortunately we won't be seeing each other tomorrow, mr. speaker, because when you gavel out, sequester will go into effect. so what? sequester will going into effect and we'll just come back

next week and, you know, 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 as a woman there is 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 the senior woman, i know this as a

caregiver 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 colleagues, 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 the 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, in

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. and so, mr. speaker, i will close by just saying to you, i want to work. i want to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. but it does take two to tango, and 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. and with that i'd yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

majority leader. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. today i rise as a father of five -- without objection. mr. wolf: and a grandfather of 16, many of whom are of the age to play video games, to express my deep concerns about the lack of discussion on mental health issues and violent media and the role they play in mass shootings. as we continue to seek ways to end mass violence, in addition to gun safety, we must address the impacts of mental illness and of equal importance violent video games, movies and tv. i have supported legislation that would keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. i voted for the brady bill in 1993. safety lock requirements and provisions that help police conduct effective background checks. my father was a philadelphia

policeman. as chairman of the house appropriations subcommittee that funds the justice department, i have increased funding for the national background check system to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals. in fact, my bill provided more than double, more than double the funding requested by both the president and the senate budget plan. in january, i wrote to ask the attorney general holder to use existing funds to improve the nation's background check system. in addition, i asked the obama administration to create a national center for campus public safety, with strong support from lawmakers on both side of the aisle, and the virginia tech families outreach foundation, a group of families of victims from virginia tech. in fact, my idea to create a bill to create campus public safety came from the virginia

tech families and with congressman bobby scott of the state of virginia. i'm expecting a response from the justice department soon. the shooter at the virginia tech massacre lived in my congressional district, and a number of the victims were from my district. i met with the families and understand they are hurting. dealing with mental illness has to be, has to be a part of the solution. i have long advocated for measures that prevent health insurers from placing discriminatory restrictions on mental health and addiction treatment. and i continue to remain hopeful that the nearly 20 million americans who suffer from mental illness receive the treatment they need. mr. speaker, though i was disappointed, president obama did not seize the opportunity to address in depth the role of mental health and media violence as factors of mass

violence during his state of the union address. the only focus on guns on just one piece of a very large and complicated puzzle is simply irresponsible. the president said that the victims of mass shootings, including congresswoman gabby giffords, the college students at virginia tech, the children at sandy hook, the high school students at columbine, the moviegoers in aurora, all deserve a vote for gun control proposals. how in good conscious could he call for that but not acknowledge the fact that each one of these shooters in these events was mentally disturbed? how could he not say that violent media played a role in some of their lives? the president is failing the american people and the families of the victims by remaining frustratingly silent on these crucial issues and ignoring the other central factors related to mass violence of this kind.

as i mentioned in a number of tragic shootings, there have been a pattern of the shooters playing or even imitating violent video games. let's begin with anders, the norwegian who shot 69 people at a youth camp in 2011. "forbes" magazine reported that anders used the video game "call of duty: modern warfare 2" as a simulator to help him practice shooting people. anders said, and i quote, i just bought "modern warfare 2" the game. it is probably the best military simulator out there and it's one of the hottest games this year. he goes on to say, i see "modern warfare 2" more as part of my training simulation than anything else. you can more or less completely simulate actual operations, end

of quote. who could forget at columbine when eric harris and dylan murdered 13 classmates and wounded 23 others by turning the guns on themselves? simon -- a center found in its archives a copy of harris' website for the version of the first-person shooter video game "doom" that he customized. in harris' version there are two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition. and the other people in the game cannot fight back. for a class project, harris and klebold made a videotape of "doom." they dressed in trench coats, carried guns and killed school athletes. they acted out their videotaped performance in real life less

than a year later. an investigator said that they were, quote, playing out their game in god mode, end of quote. in another videotape, harris referred to his sawed off shotgun as arlene, a favorite character in the "doom" video game. harris said it's going to be like -- expolice tif" "doom. and now we have an interview about the sandy hook shooter said he may be -- during the search of the home after the deadly shooting -- school shooting, police found thousands of dollars worth of graphically violent video games . the paper goes on to say, and detectives working the scene of the massacre are exploring

whether adam may have been emulating the shooting range or vadio game scenario as he moved from room to room at sandy hook, spewing bullets, law enforcement sources said. then he goes on to say, mr. speaker, before he killed his mother and set off for sandy hook elementary, adam destroyed the hard drive on his computer which probably kept some of the records of the games he played and who he played with. he also may have destroyed any chance to see if he had a manifesto or had written down anything indicating he planned the shootings or why he chose the elementary school, end of quote. let me repeat. adam may have been emulating the video game shooter or scenario as he went room to room of sandy hook. what parent cannot see this problem? this week i had the opportunity

to meet with a few elementary school principals from my congressional district. during the course of our discussion, the issue of media violence, particularly violent video games, came up. one principal said that when children misbehave in school, and he asked them why, they were frequently say they saw it in a video game. another principal with him said the problem with video games is that when young children are playing violent ones where they shoot or kill other characters, there are no repercussions or punishment and usually the characters will even come back to life. this gives children and adolescents whose brains are still developing no sense of reality. he also said that video games descent tieses kids to violence. how can we continue to ignore what common sense is telling us? just take one look at the movie trailers and how violent they

are. some of the video games on the market today like "call of duty" and "halo" give points for killer another player. people are rewarded for shooting people. the level of violence in "grand theft auto" is astonishing. they pick up prostitutes and then kill them. there is also a racial element to it also. . soon after the newtown shooting i asked the national science foundation to pull together experts from across the country to look at the impact of all three contributors to mass violence. these experts include dr. bushman from ohio state university. along with several of the scholars from top tier universities across the nation, including johns hopkins, georgetown, columbia university, university of pennsylvania, penn

state, carnegie mellon, and the university of california berkley. we'll have the list at the end of this statement. earlier this month the n.s.f. released the report compiled by these experts who, as i said, names will appear at the end of the statement. it draws on reliable evidence and a number of theories to explain youth violence have emerged from decades of research, including research supported by the national science foundation, the national institutes of health, the national research council, and other federal agencies. according to the report, violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, psychological arousal, and aggressive behavior and decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. the report compiled by those experts showed that ratings systems have not kept up with the increasingly violent content of popular media, and there is

no standard or any system in the u.s. across varying media platforms. dr. bushman, who holds the margaret hall on robert randall chair at ohio state university is widely respected in his field offers a solution to this issue. there can be universal rating system on all media, but universal systems that are easy for parents to understand. the pan european game information system, for example, has five-age based ratings, three plus, seven plus, 12 plus, 16 plus, and 18 plus. six well recognizable symbols for potentially objectionable material. violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear, gambling. the current rating system is confusing to parents. for example, there is r for movies, tvma for tv, and fv, for

fantasy violence in video games. another possible idea which is something i have long advocated for is to put warning labels on violent video games. the report also quotes, will i quote it, most research, more research is also needed on what types of individuals are more strongly affected by violent video games. many of the spree voters have been described as social outcasts or such individuals more likely to behave aggressively after playing a violent video game, or are such individuals more likely to play violent video games? end of quote. a copy of the national science foundation report can be found on my website at ww w.wolf.house.gov. let me say that again because parents my want to look at this and hopefully the members of the body on both sides will look at it and hopefully members of the administration will look at it.

a copy a pier at www.wolf.house .gov. these are the views of these experts. i am not naive enough to think that video game violence is the only issue here. we need to have an honest discussion about media violence, tv, movies, and video games. we need to have an honest discussion about mental health. and we need to have an honest discussion about guns. it is easy for the president to go after the n.r.a. he doesn't support the n.r.a., and the n.r.a. doesn't support him. but will the president of the united states ever, ever ask the entertainment industry to get involved or will he continue to be silent? while media violence is not the only factor of mass violence, it is one of the easiest factors to

change and it needs to be addressed. in addition to looking at access to firearms and mental health. don't we owe it to all the victims who have been killed to look at everything? with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. many --

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?

does gentleman have a motion? mr. wolf: i yield back the balance of the time. i now move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday next for morning hour. >> the house sent to the president of violence against women act today. makes a number of changes to allow. here is a look at the debate from earlier today on the house floor. thank you, madam speaker. as i stand here, i pray that

this body will do as the senate has done and come together as one, to protect all women from violence. as i think about the lg victims that are not here, the native americans that are not here, the immigrants that are not included in this bill, i will say, ain't they women? they deserve protections. we talk about the constitutional rights. don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? ain't they women? and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized.

mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i recognize a champion and prosecuting those with domestic violence in domestic violence situations, pat meehan from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: what time does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two mites. mr. meehan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside this rhetoric a to find a way to work together to pass the violence against women act, to move this important legislation forward in a way in which we can reach a resolution. i come to this as a former prosecutor who has seen firsthand the implications, come to give voice to people who do not have an opportunity to speak for themselves, because one of the things that we realize is that a woman will be victimized 12 times, beaten 12 times before she has the courage to come forward to speak to somebody who needs to be there to be able to help

give them a sense of comfort and dignity to be able to retain control over the circumstances. the violence against women act enables the kinds of resources to be there to have the trained personnel who can make a difference. i had a chance to visit sane nurses who work in emergency wards, giving victims of rape the dignity to be able to do an examination in the privacy of a room as opposed to being violated a second time out in a public space in an emergency ward, to reduce the time they have to spend for that examination from 13 hours after a rape to two hours to be able to collect the evidence and help that victim to be able to make their case if they so choose in court. i have seen the chance to work with victims of -- on college campuses, women on college campuses who have reported the have been victims of rape or attempted rape. so unquestionably, we must find

a way to pass the violence against women act in the same way we must reduce the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and the shameful misrepresentations on both sides about the good intentions to try to do this. there are differences of opinion in small areas. we must find a way to get over those. i rise today to make sure we give a voice to those >> joe biden released a statement today. he said congress was able to put politics aside.

the house is done with business for the week. the chamber returns monday at noon for morning our speeches, 2:00 p.m. for the legislative work. one bill to be considered, a continuing resolution that will fund the government for the rest of 2013. follow the house live on c-span when monday's -- when members return on monday. tomorrow congressional leaders will meet with president obama over the automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin tomorrow. here is more about that now with speaker john boehner. it is 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. americans know washington as a spending problem. it is hurting families and small businesses and must be address. there are many people in

washington who believe that the government -- who do not believe the government has a spending problem. the minority leader, the minority whip, who do not believe we have a spending problem. the president said to me in december we do not have a spending problem. in the four years since the aenate democrats last passed budget, government debt has ballooned to $16 trillion. i do not believe that that is a result of insufficient taxation. this year the federal government will bring in revenue more money in from taxpayers than any year in our history. the debt is a result i believe of spending that is out of control. i think the spending problem we have in washington is threatening the future for our kids and grandkids and is

threatening the american dream. republicans have offered solutions to promote economic growth and address our long-term debt crisis, and we will again as part of our upcoming budget deal with these issues in an open and honest way. in contrast, senate -- president obama and senate democrats are demanding more tax hikes to fuel more stimulus spending. republicans have voted twice to replace the president's sequester would smarter spending cuts and reforms. the president and democratic leaders have failed to pass a solution of their own. it is time they do. my message at the white house will be the same as what i am telling you today. it is time for them to do their job and pass a bill. this week we announced that hr1 will be reserved for tax reform legislation. the tax reform that lowers

rates, and closes loopholes, will help create american jobs and promote more economic growth in our country. the president talked about closing loopholes, but only as a sufficient to fund more government spending. do we want to close loopholes? we sure do, but if we are going to do tax reform that focuses on creating jobs, not funding more government. last year when we proposed generating new reform to tax reform. we did that as an alternative to the president's demand for higher tax rates, and ultimately the president got revenues and got it his way to higher rates. given those facts, the revenue issue is now closed. any revenue generated by closing loopholes should be used to lower rates across the board for american families. that will create jobs and make america more competitive. that choice is simple. should tax reform focused more often the government or on

creating jobs? i am for more jobs to. >> mr. speaker, if the cuts in sequestration are not smart, why was there never even talked of a bipartisan negotiation to avoid those? >> the house has acted twice over the last 10 months to replace these cuts with smarter cuts. we have done our job. the president has not offered a plan. it is time for them to pass a plan. [indiscernible] the house did its job. i am happy to talk of the president and senator reid, but the way things happen around here is the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, we disagree, we go to conference. >> it looks like the sequestration will go into effect. are you open to one on one the gratian's with president obama

which many outside analysts think it is the only way this can be resolved? >> i am talking -- i am happy to talk and work with the president, but the house has done its job. it is time for the senate to do its job. [indiscernible] to any extent possible we should follow regular order to arrive here. it does not happen as long as it should. regular order around here is we have done our work. they have not done their spirit the house should not have to pass a third bill to replace the sequester, before the senate passes one. >> the clock on all of this debate over debt reduction did not start at christmas time when the president did get his revenue. it started a couple of years ago. the overall debt reduction that you all have done has been roughly 2-1 the cuts to revenue. why is the revenue discussion closed now? >> the president got his tax

hikes. the american economy is going to create more tax revenue this year than any year in our history. which do not have a revenue problem. we have the spending problem. it is time to get serious. >> you are up two to one. why is the revenue discussion over? >> you are asking the question, how much more money do we want to steal from the american people to fund more government? i am for no more. >> what the central parts the president's sequester. if that is true, which you and bob woodward the industry about how much does that matter since he accepted it and you ushered it through your chamber and got his signature? >> look, listen to what is the president must sequester, it was his team that insisted on it, and let's remember why we have to sequester and why the president insisted upon it. because the president did not like the agreement that senator

reid, senator mcconnell, and i had to deal with the first tranche of cuts and to move the debt limit out a year. he wanted to make sure he did not have to deal with a debt limit before his reelection. this is about his convenience. in not wanting to go to refight of the debt limit again. that is why he came up with a sequester as a backstop to the supercommittee. >> but the possibility for accepting that? >> it was a negotiation. i did not like it any more than anybody else. when the president and harry reid told me they would work with us to get an outcome of the supercommittee, i felt confident we could get an outcome. unfortunately, we did not. but mr. boehner mcculloch the state -- >> mr. brunner, you said you have worked to get an

agreement. are you concerned about the optics of not even doing that and the house being out? >> i will be here tomorrow. i will go down to the white house and accept the president's invitation to me. we have made our cards on the table. we have shown that we can pass a bill to replace the sequester. that is why we did it twice. it is time for the senate act. >> [indiscernible] there is a lot of buying going on macarena, but few people have blamed the supercommittee. those were the ones who were charged. do they not share blame and if they do, why do we not hear from there? >> i do not blame the supercommittee members or their leaders who worked with the members of the supercommittee. it is unfortunate they did not come to an outcome. there were an awful lot of others influencing the

supercommittee to not come to an agreement unless their goals were met. i would start there with the president of the united states. thanks. >> democratic women in the house joined nancy pelosi for her weekly press briefing the guessing on the effects of this automatic spending cuts. >> are we set? good morning, everyone. i am so honored to be here with some of my wittman colleagues in the house of representatives. others are on the floor as we debate the violence against women act. it is important to come together today because tomorrow is fraught with meaning on the

calendar. it is march 1, it is a day that the indiscriminate across-the- board spending cuts will cause unemployment, instability, and uncertainty in our economy. it is a day when soon people will be getting a pink slip. we might as well get a pink slip from the office of the speaker and the republican congress -- conference. the 750,000 american workers laid off because of sequester implementation. unless the house stops the- across-the-board spending cuts, you too could lose your job. tomorrow also march 1 is the beginning of women's history month. when elected ticket as women's progress month, acknowledging our history, seeing what more we have to do, and why mention these two points is because of the impact of sequestration on women. it is specific, it is large, it

is substantial, and it must be avoided. my colleagues are here detail some about it, but consider this -- cuts to women's health from prenatal care to cancer screenings and cuts the services to victims of domestic violence -- $20 million will be cut out of the violence against women account, $20 million for it cuts to initiatives to support children and to supportwic and head start, cuts to women's jobs, democrats want solutions, republicans want sequestration. some of them have called it a home run. that does not sound like anybody is on team america if they think sequestration are a home run. there is no time to waste. you know that. we are at once again against a

time limit. we should stay here -- how could we have been gone for 10 days just leading up to coming in now for a few days? we have a positive solution. chris van hollen has put forth an initiative that recognizes that he must cut spending, that we need revenue, and we want growth with jobs. it is similar to the proposal in the center and is -- in the senate, is positive, and had a good suggestions that some republicans have made themselves in the past. our priorities are clear. creation of jobs. i have sent you before, others have told me since last week when we talked about what is the root of the word sequester. sequester is really to hold hostage, and that is exactly what this does pick if hold --

and that is what this does. >> it holds hostage. we will go to the white house tomorrow and everyone will be with an open mind to deal with a wider range of issues so we do not have these minute to minute, month-to-month crises, manufactured crises. for the sake of our country, for the sake of america's women, the health and security of our economic security for our families, democrats and republicans must work together to protect the middle class, create jobs, and reduce the deficit in a very, very sensible way. with that i am pleased to yield to a champion for women, whether paycheck fairness and the lowly ledbetter, the distinguished chairman of the policy committee, rosa delauro of connecticut. >> thank you very much, and i am again honored as you are to stay here with our colleagues today

to address these issues. if i may quickly paraphrase from a report by the national women's law center, when it are more likely than men to be poor at all stages of their lives because of the ongoing employment discrimination and greater responsibilities for unpaid care giving. these dangers indiscriminate and across-the-board cuts threaten vital services for women and their families and the services they rely on every single day in order to make their way. they also threaten our economy and will cost women thousands of jobs. while there will be a ripple effect throughout the economy, many of the jobs destroyed by this sequester will be public sector jobs that are disproportionately held by women. when it make up 57% of public sector jobs. while the private sector is has continued to gain jobs of the past year, the public sector has

lost 74,000 jobs, 85% of these being 63,000 jobs held by women and they were lost by women. cuts to headstart could cost 14,000 teachers, a teacher's assistants, and staff their jobs treat cuts did have a one education grants would mean to a thousand 500 where teachers and aide jobs lost rate cuts to special education would force the layoffs of 7500 lower jobs, and wic, you will see a loss at the state and local level because we know who are working in workingwic office. you take chowder, where 86% of families serve our single parent households and we know who the child care providers are in this country. they're mostly women. allowing these cuts to pass is reckless, irresponsible, and it

is specially harmful to women, to their jobs and to the services that they rely on. what do women want from this economy? what do they want for their families? they want and accommodate -- an economy that creates jobs and that gross the middle-class, and provides an opportunity for themselves and for their families to succeed. he should not be going down this road. the democrats have an alternative. we need to take hold of it and move forward and make sure that economic security is not further eroded. let me introduce jan schakowsky. >> warning -- sequestration is dangerous to women's health. for example, sequestration will

cut essential initiatives, including $8 million from the breast and cervical cancer screening program and $24 million for reproductive health services in title 10. the national institutes of health will to get it of 1.5 $6 billion, cutting back research in areas such as alzheimer's, environmental health linnks to breast cancer and mental health services. sequestration hurts mothers. what the united states lags behind other industrialized nations in preventing maternal and infant mortality, sequestration cuts $4 million from the safe motherhood initiative. $50 million from the maternal and child health services, and incredibly, will denied life- saving in immunization to 30,000 children. 3, sequestration hurts women as

care givers. women are typically the care givers, not just to children, but to aging parents. sequestration would cut $12.6 million from the national family caregivers program. reducing services to 700,000 family caregivers. sequestration will hurt the many women who work in health care professions. sequestration look at the national health service corps, education assistance and training for direct care workers, nurses, family physicians, and other health- care professionals. warning -- sequestration is bad for the health of women and their families. now it is my pleasure to introduce someone who i have the pleasure of co-chairing the seniors task force of the democratic caucus, someone who is a champion for women of all ages, and that is doris matsui.

>> they get -- thank you for bringing us to get here. all of us here today understand we should be focusing on moving us it for, but the ugly word of sequestration trends to cripple our economy. with severe cuts that will be devastating to our country's women, children, and families. sequestration occurs, 70,000 young children will be kicked out of head start programs, and in my district of sacramento gonna -- in sacramento, 300,000 children will lose access. these kids did not know what sequestration is about. they only care about learning their colors, there abc's, getting their snacks, and perhaps learning how to play with each other. the mother's care about the safe nurturing environment that head start provides and the resources

available to them to get back on their feet. this includes someone that i recently talked a. a sacramento resident who knew she had to make changes in her life when she became a mother. thanks to head start, her daughter receipt nutritious meals and early education, and ashley was able to finish her education while also working. sequestration will force cuts to the women, infants, and children's program. wic connects low-income and women with services, parental care to healthy food options pitwic is a helping hand to women who needed the most. i have seen the lines of wic. there are two wic programs in my

district. these are not cuts that we can afford at all. i stand here with my colleagues today to urge the majority to work with us to prevent them. that is my pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, donna edwards from maryland. >> thank you bringing us all here together to focus our attention on how these harsh and arbitrary, an across-the-board budget cuts will harm millions of women across the country. here today, after months of failure to pass a violence against women act, a bipartisan act, it is quite the irony that later on today the house is going to finally reach authorize -- and hours before they take a sledgehammer to the already strapped budgets of a mystic violence per month, causing disruption of

services. more than 6 million women each year are harmed by domestic violence. their children and every single congressional districts across the country, millions of children live in homes where they witnessed domestic violence, and as a result of the republican failure -- and it is their failure to stop the sequestration -- services these women rely on for their lives and safety will be cut by $20 billion. 112,000 victims of domestic violence, including 3500 in the small state of maryland, will not receive the critical services they need to escape domestic violence hit and harm israel. 230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines, and those calls will go on and answered. 230,000 calls a crisis hot lines around the country. knu imagine that in the middle of the night a woman is being

battered, she has her two children, she wants to get the safety, she places a phone call to a hot line, and that line goes on answered. that is what sequestration means to the victims of domestic violence. and so i think this is shameful. we all do. we know it can be stopped. here we are on a thursday, set to go home for the weekend, first of all, working in america they do not go to home on thursday. there's time for us to stop this. the republicans hold the devil. the republicans have the ability to stop sequestration. it is really very shameful that they are going to go home this weekend without doing that. and so, for the women who are forced to stay in their homes with their abuser because there's no place to go because shelters have been cut, because shelters -- because hot lines go

on answered, that is on the hands of the gop here in the house of representatives. and so i would urge our colleagues, even at this late moment, that there is something that they can do about that. their crafts have put forward a fair and balanced proposal that balances spending cuts with revenue so we can deal both with the deficits, but also with how we grow our economy, and it is time for them to do this. with that i would like to turn the microphone over to my colleague who is a leader on small business, from new york, nydia velazquez. >> sequestration is bad for our economy. these types of cuts that are subject will be detrimental to our country, and particularly to the job creators, small

businesses. when i want to remind you, that women's own businesses are the fastest-growing sector in our economy. 8 million strong, while they generate over $1 trillion in say a street these businesses are some of the most innovative, and unlike their corporate counterparts and they did not have an army of attorneys, they do not have a gigantic -- and they do not have ready access to the capital markets. filling this void is the small business administration, which it feels our commitment to win it and to class of entrepreneurship. the sequester has the potential to undermine this very promised by reducing sba funding. as a result, loands to women

will be reduced by two and a $50 million, translating to an increase of 2500 jobs. this means fewer women will be able to access affordable capital to turn their ideas, their dreams come into reality. when it comes to contract in, we have been fighting for so long -- we even took the bush administration to court to implement a contracting women program, and now that it is up and running, we're going to shut the door, preventing a level playing field for women's businesses to act as federal contracts. we have not achieved the mandating contracting goal of 5%. these will translate to $1.30 billion in small business contracts that will be lost for women entrepreneurs. this will jeopardize at least 15,000 jobs.

when combined with the closure of business centers that serve mainly women across america that will provide technical assistance so that they could turn those dreams and those ideas into a financial plan and then go to a bank that is matched by this small business center, the women's small business center, they will not be there to assist and provide the technical know-how to help these women. given the challenges they face, women-owned businesses rely on these programs. by slashing this initiative, years of progress can be undone in an instant. this is not only bad for women, but it is bad for the u.s. economy. and now it is my pleasure to

introduce a new member, a great asset, congresswoman brownley. >> thank you very much. i want to thank madam leader for holding this important press conference and for your leadership on this very important issue. as a member of the veterans affairs committee, as an american, and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant that turned community. i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrifice, and defended our country great if congress fails to stop the across the board and unnecessary cuts at this time, so many programs that help veterans,

like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced. war veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is that time to be doing more, not less. for our veterans sake, we need to come together to stop the sequester now. thank you very much. >> thank you. while congresswoman brownley was speaking about veterans, i was thinking of examples of pink slips that will go out among psych director nurses who are there to help our returning vets with ptsd. that will be cut. mindless cuts. i am so proud of our members,

all of our house democratic caucus, but i express a special pride in our women today. as you can see, they have knowledge and experience of these issues, working as legislators, and in their community. i know they would agree that all the talk about here, as serious as it is, is just only more on top of other cuts and other impacts. $1.60 trillion in cuts agreed to in the last congress that have had an impact on everything from the hhs committee, cuts in research across the board, and now we have these additional cuts, and lord knows what is in store for us in the future. women are calling a halt to all of this. we have to change in this environment. take these cuts and

they get home at the kitchen table of our families, where in many cases women are single- parent homes, and it is not only bad for them, but for our economy. i have said earlier, i was just saying sequestration equals unemployment. i am proud of congresswomen , lesquez's committee slaughter of the rules committee has been such a leader on these issues. we talked about that chair of the science and technology committee, the list goes on of leadership. and one of the ranking members of this very important exclusive committee in the house, maxine waters come and report to us on the testimony in her committee yesterday.

this is about the economy. we talked specifically out about how it affects people and women in particular, but could you tell us what came from your committee yesterday. >> certainly. thank you very much, leader policy. i find that we appeared to be coming to this room more and more as women, as you leave us in addressing many of the issues that are are rising in this conference and our -- in this congress and our need to push back on the negative impact of watch that has been done by our friends on the opposite side of the aisle. yesterday we had mr. bernanke in our committee, and he came to tell us what he is doing with quantitative easing, and that is trying to stimulate the economy the bond purchases that he has been doing, because he is trying

to keep the interest rates low and create jobs. he said that it sequestration takes place, that is going to be a great setback. we do not need to be having something like sequestration that is going to cause the stock losses, over 170 million jobs that could be lost. he made it very clear, he is not opposed to cuts, but cuts must be done over a long period of time, and in a very planned way, rather than the blunt cutting that will be done by sequestration. as you know in this committee, we have all of hud, which is responsible for so many programs that determine the quality of life for women and families. our formula grant program will be cut by $153 million. these are grants to cities that help with women and children and low-income programs.

we also will cut the home program by $52 million if sequestration takes place treat native american housing grants, but $34 million t. public housing, mostly single wegman in public housing, another $304 million, and homelessness. everybody claims to be concerned about homelessness and a growing number of women and children who are out there homeless, but they will take a $99 million hit, and on and on and on. we are here today one more time talking about women and children and families and how we can protect our women, children, and families and have a decent quality of life. sequestration will set us back. all gains we have made will be lost sequestration. >> what is interesting is the purpose of all this is to reduce the deficit, and cutting these

investments does not do that. in fact, maxine, from my understanding from chairman bernanke, it is reported he said if you take too big cuts too soon, you can halt the jobs of the economic growth, and you can increase the deficit. you do not reduce the deficit. what is the purpose of all of this? it is gone to increase the deficit, increased unemployment, are people in their individual lives, and have an impact on the education of children, safety at our neighborhood, and we will increase the deficit while we are doing that. it is mindless, it does not make sense. in this month of march, by the end of march, people will see the light and understand that we

are not standing for this pre every single day you will be hearing from us on this subject, and my colleagues are resources for questions for you. i am trying to remember who had a question last time. >> [indiscernible] also the fact that top democrats said that pushing major pieces of legislation through. what do you think the role of house robins has been in the legislative -- house republicans has been in the legislative process? >> i wondered why i did not realize it sooner. we come to washington to be legislators, to the rest of presented as of our districts, and the legislators. that peace is missing -- that piece is missing here.

they're just making noise, saying that the something that may have good domestic consumption back home, but they did not come here to legislate. either did not want to or cannot legislate. there is a boy here in terms of what is our -- there is a void here in terms of what is our purpose. they are not here to get something done because their caucus is dominant but anti- government ideologues. you're right. the only thing they have been able to pass with their boats is the destructive brian bell and the more destructive -- ryan bill. other than that we have had the supply of votes. if we have the supply of votes, which should write the bill.

the annapolis slated branch. we're not the central committee of our -- we are the legislative branch. we are a series body. we all have -- bring to a level of commitment to the issues of knowledge that the ideas come judgment on the subject, and become her to make compromise because none of us is elected as the only one to make a decision. that has not dawned on them. >> i want to make sure that gets into the record. >> at least 750,000 jobs lost. next and then we will come back. i got to keep a list here. >> what has the president told you and leaders such a day, -- yesterday, and what are you waiting until the deadline happens to talk about this? >> the president said how thrilled he was to be there to

unveil the statue of rosa parks. this was such an exciting day for us. it was such an exciting day, and i shamelessly announced it in my pirro,s that rosa parks' i announced that legislation had been introduced that there be a statue in the capitol. funeral was november 2. president bush signed the bill december 1. it was the 50th anniversary of her not giving up her seat on the bowsprit she was a genius. she timed her passing in a way that gave us a month to pass the bill, house and senate, get it signed, and it took some time because her funeral was seven hours long. he did tell us after he

expressed his personal joy at being there for rosa parks that he hoped we all came with the idea we would find solutions. >> why are you waiting until tomorrow at the deadline? >>, why am i waiting? we have been saying you cannot go home, you cannot go home cannot we will not be a drive-by congress. the mindlessness of the sequestration, combined with a complete cavalier attitude that we do not have to be here to work on a solution, necessitates us saying -- but he thought something would happen, but how could it happen if we were not here? that is a question you have to pose to the republicans. why do you keep putting up roadblocks? my staff will not like it if i say to you what i said the other day. everybody talks quest the speaker talks about they are

kicking the can down the road, that would be at least some distance. they are nudging the potato across the line. they're not making any progress whatsoever. they are setting us back. ask them. yes. >> [indiscernible] we have heard from both sides of the aisle about a sequester. jim gordon said yesterday we do not like the sequester, but those on the republican side, we're getting some of the cuts that we want. we are making progress what do you say about comments like that about this question being a success? >> he said it was a home run and a success. perhaps to take a different point of view, we believe the budget is a statement of our national values, that a vision

for our country should be represented, and our vision and values should be represented in how we put a budget together. it should be something that creates jobs, and reduces the deficit. understand the difference between investments for the future and just across the board mindless cutting. that is what is called the democratic process. they have a view of anti- government ideology that says cuts no matter what for the sake of cuts. we do not share that view. that is the debate we are engaged in. i would say that it is a false economy to think if you cut education, that you are born to reduce the deficit. nothing brings more money to the treasury, nothing, than the education of the american people. these are investments, innovation begins in the classroom, our competitiveness depends on that, and so i think

-- i do not know if they understand the role of government is and how the budget plays into that, but we agree we have to reduce the deficit and we want growth with jobs and we have these spending cuts. i will go back to my endangered species, where we were two weeks ago, they did not give a hoot, these endangered species, when president bush was racking up this deficit. my colleagues? >> the deficits has increased during the obama years, they're trying to put at, where in fact we have seen the% of deficit related to gb go from 10% down to 5%, and we have seen real dollars in cuts from the

deficit. we are making progress, and we can continue with our fragile economy to make more progress. this is not only unnecessary, but completely counterproductive in the direction and the past we're taking right now. >> a very quick point. some of the folks who are talking about how we must deal with the spending side of the question, versus revenue side, and i will be happy to provide you with this report. they may have not followed what has happened here over the last 10 or 12 years. there is substantial data that will tell you -- and this is just from the labor, health, education perspective, which is where i and the ranking member, although it has the broadest expense of programming after defense and the largest expanse

of resources -- over the last 10 years -- there has been $12 billion in cuts to labor, education, and health programs. if you add what we cut to the budget control act, it is another $9 billion. this will be cut between now and 2021, 2022. if you add one year, it will be another $7.5 billion in cuts to work force training, head start programs, title 1, biomedical research, every program that has the opportunity for jobs that will make sure that people can live a life and be able to have that opportunity. they have not read the bill. the have not read what has

actually happened in spending cuts, and they need to do that. this is not cause of the deficit. we know what the cause of the deficit. >> we do not have time for one more question, but i promised. >> do any of you feel confident or see a positive side to this question, in that you will have a chance to rein in some of the defense spending has grown rapidly over the past decade? >> subjected every dollar that we spent the scrutiny, that is what we have to do to make sure we get our money's worth. the mindlessness of these cuts, it is-when it comes to domestic and defense. what is our mission? what is our national security mission? that is where we should be making the evaluation of what we need, what we must have, and what we can do without. not in the matter in which i have -- i have met with generals about the subject.

this is a horrible way to go about this. this is not about discussing our policy and how can we save. it is about mindless cuts that are harmful to our national security right now in terms of the training and the rest that we provide for our troops. to go back to the question -- to review what we spend and how we have raised revenue and how to create growth. it is important to note that these tax bonanzas for special interests are a spending cut. we talk about expenditures for education, health care, and the rest. these are called tax expenditures. if you want to cut spending, want -- some of the spenders you could start with, as the president has suggested, are some of these loopholes in the text block against tax breaks to special interests. you can begin with $38 billion

given to big oil as an incentive for them to drill when they can make a trillion when we talk about expenditures look at tax expenditures too. we made the argument about rates, we're not going to that place. what we're saying is, if you address the tax expenditure issue it will limit the amount of deduction that people can take and you will have a fair tax system and you don't have to take the food out of the mouths of seniors and the males on -- meals on wheels. the strength of our country is in our military and it is in the health, education, and the well being of the american people. our budget must we flect that. you can to cut expenditures, let's start with tax expenditures. thank you very much.

>> on the senate floor this hour, votes are under way for two sequestration bills from republicans and democrats. about midday today senate democrat leaders spoke to reporters. this runs 20 minutes or so. >> it is very clear that the american people want a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we, of course, have to do smart spending cuts and we can do that. we want to ask to close the tax loopholes and ask billionaires to pay a little bit more. that is what our proposal is that we're going to vote on this afternoon. again, that's what the american

people want. by almost 80% margin this is what america wants. even about 60% of republicans want this. it is hard to comprehend but as i said before, the only republicans in the country that disagree with this proposal are the republican who is serve in congress. today to make it worse, they once again, said they would filibuster any proposal that we have. i went to the floor. they said they want to have a vote on a new proposal, one that they can't get an agreement in the caucus so they want something else. mccain, graham, and i don't know who else, they want another proposal to cut federal employees and other things. i said fine. let's have a majority vote on all three. objection, another filibuster. so it is unfortunate that is where we are.

they are determined to protect the wealthiest of the wealthy. our proposal, this buffet rule, says that if you make $5 million in one year, that you should may a minimum of 30% taxes. yes, that is pretty fair and that is why america agrees with our approach. i believe that the american people deserve better than what the republicans in this building believe is the right thing. they have endured too much economic uncertainty and now the economy is poised for a long-term growth. the stock market is near all-time highs. our job in congress should be to provide a found for our economy in these next steps. it is a shame that our republican colleagues have decide to protect special interests is more important than the right thing for our economy.

>> two months ago a sequestration buy down had republican support. sequestration would be replaced with a 50/50 split with new revenues and smart spending cuts. we voted for it and so did speaker boehner. and so did paul ryan. i voted for it and so did chuck. 84 of our colleagues in the senate voted for this balanced approach. look around today, the house republicans, speaker boehner, congressman ryan are nowhere to be found. they claim they passed two bills to solve the problem, sadly they have expired. instead of trying to again the house has decided to sit it out. that's why we were sent here.

house republicans deserve to be called to task for leaving american people in the lurch. we've all heard about the dire effects of sequestration. i just left a meeting with ashton carter, the secretary deputy secretary of defense on this issue but there are other cuts too. medical research, think about that for a second. we're going to cut back on medical research? research to find cures for heart disease, alzheimer's, cancer. they are going to lose $800 million in funding. 374 illinois women will be screened for cancer. 575 fewer children will receive vaccinations. $764,000 less for seniors for meals on wheels in illinois. 70,000 children will be expeled

from the head start program because of sequestration. instead of them embracing these cuts as republicans have our bill would ensure that millionaires are not paying a lower tax than the secretaries that work for them and the janitors who keep the lights on. our plan closes tax loopholes that reward companies that move factories overseas. our bill eliminates wasteful spending. let me spotlight that because illinois is one to feel major recipients of direct-spord payments. we voted to eliminate them because they are not defenseable any long perp we're calling to end waste in the last several days. they will have a chance to vote on this afternoon. let's see if they do. we want to make sure these defense cuts don't jeopardize our national security or harm the men and women who volunteer

to serve america. for over 200 years our national values have reflected our commitment to infrastructure, innovation, let's hope the votes today will do the same. >> thank you. for the last several weeks, washington has been consumed with the debate over the across the board spending cuts due to take and effect tomorrow. but the disdiscussion is not productive. rather than hash out the best way to replace sequestration, the conversation has been involved around with who came up the idea in the first place. the blame game is a side ceremony both sides have their fingerprints on sequestration but only one side is trying to hard to solve it. amazingly enough, the republicans dancing in the streets, happy with the thought

that sequestration will happen. the cuts were always intended to force the two sides to the table to revive a grand bargain on deficit reduction. we democrats, are longing for that balanced approach. we're willing to make the tough choices to get a grand bargain. we need a dance partner. we've had trouble finding one. in the house, the leadership is running out the clock until sequester hits. they welcome the cuts, no matter the consequences for our national defense, for middle-class families. they are pointing to two votes they took in the last congress, as if those votes have any bearing now. in the senate, the other side can't agree on a single plan to deal with sequestration, that's because they are divided over the central question on whether we should try to stop the cuts. many of them want the cuts to go forward as damaging as they are to average americans to our

economy, to jobs. now they have tried to unite their caucus around a measure that does not turn off the cuts but try to pass the buck to the president. it has been fairly remarkable watching so many republicans who so distrust this president, willing to see the power of the purse to him. this shows you, no matter what they say republicans are actually quite worried about the unpopularity of these across the board cuts. they want the president to own the consequences. later today we will have two votes. these votes will not be the last word on the issue. the debate is only beginning. in the coming weeks under chairman murrey's leadership, we will continue the budget that will keep this debate front and center. it will show the contrast in the two sides approach. with that i turn it over to the

chairman. >> what i hold in my hand right here is a warn notice. this is a frightening piece of paper that many families will get in the next several weeks and months. this is a notice that is given to employees, families, that they will be laid off or furloughed. it is a piece of paper that will spell serious economic setbacks for our families to their ability to send their kids to college, for their ability to go out to restaurants and keep the local businesses thriving. if the republicans formal follow through on their threats notices like this with hundred go out to more and more workers across the country. it doesn't make sense. it does not need to happen. our bill to replace sequestration is fair. it is good for middle-class families, it is good for our economy, it will prevent these

notices from being handed to workers across america. republicans ought to join us and allow it to pass. democrats are united to replace sequestration. republicans are all over the map, on the one hand some are saying sequestration is terrible, it is all president obama's fault. on the other hand, you have tea party republicans cheering for these cuts. many republicans have said would "hollow out our military and cause our workers to lose their jobs." on the other hand republicans seem to think that closing loopholes for the richest americans is too high a price to avoid the serious consequences to this defense. the only thing they agree on is they refuse to compromise, even a little bit. senate republicans have spent days fighting among themselves on the bill that they are going to offer to vote against ours.

republicans could not be bothered to take a vote. maybe because speaker boehner knows his members can't pass anything. the republicans are going to be under a lot of pressure to explain to their constituents back home, why they would prefer the pain of sequestration to our responsible compromise replacement. hopefully, when they realize there is no good explanation we can come to the table and work to solve this problem. speaking of republicans in the house finally working with us, i want to say i'm so delighted that the house leadership, after 500 days after we enacted the violence against women act expired passed today on a vote of 286-138. 8 republicans joined with us to -- 87 republicans joined with us and i'm excited for the women

that have been abused and nowhere to go and many immigrants that were left out of the process in the past. when the president signs this bill they will be part of this process again. >> ok. >> today's vote notwithstanding with house republican leaders waiting saying over and over they are waiting for the senate to do something. what has been the substance of any talk between you and senator mcconnell over sequestration replacement? has there been any real substance on moving a vote? >> this takes a lot of pa zazz for the house republicans to say they are waiting for the democrats to do something. they have done nothing. they did not allow the republicans to have a vote. they are falling back on

something that they did in last congress. i would hope is that the republicans there, both of them, would agree with their republicans around the country, that we should have a balanced approach to get rid of this and look forward to the sequestration, which is the 27th of next month. get it done at once. it would be so easy to do. there are things they agreed to in the past on getting rid of some of the tax loopholes and of that nature that we could have a balanced approach. >> so far there is no substance between you and senator mcconnell, it all starts tomorrow? >> senator reid, by this point leaders would have gotten in a room even tried to work this out. why didn't you do that this time? >> it is not like we haven't talked about it. i've had meetings with the speaker. we have had lots of efforts made

by individual senators and republicans in the house and the senate. the republicans want sequester to go forward. they want the sequester to go forward. they said so. any efforts to get reasonable approach to this, they won't let us do it. >> couldn't they say the same thing about you because you're working to pass a bill one day before the sequester is supposed to kick in? >> i don't understand how you can say the same same thing about us. we have a balanced approach. all they are doing -- the caucus on tuesday said their proposal we're going to cut off three fingers and we want to send to the president about which finger goes first. we tried everything we can. they will not budge on anything, period. >> doing in the c.r. next month,

changing the way the cuts are being implemented? >> yes, we're open to any reasonable approach. yes. but remember, we cannot solve the problems of this country with cuts, cuts, cuts. we cut $2.6 trillion. we need to do more but we're going to do it in a balanced approach. we cannot continue to hurt the middle-class and the poor. >> you said that revenues is part of the -- are you going insist on rches as part of the c.r. talks? >> we have to wait to see what the house sends us. we'll wait to see what they send us. we have had different proposals from them, even this week. is it going to be a straight c.r.? it is going to be defense and

veterans in it? we don't know. we'll wait to see what they send us and we'll work on it. >> can you understand the frustration of the american people that you're blaming the republicans and the republicans are blaming you. nobody is talking until the day it kicks. >> i read today that the writers said, let's call it the way it. the republicans aren't willing to deal with the democrats. all this stuff, democrats aren't doing anything, republicans aren't doing anything. i believe that you guys have an obligation to report it the way it is. this did not happen yesterday, we have been fighting this for a couple of days. they are unwilling to do what the american people want done. it is as simple as that. we do not believe that sequestration is appropriate. we do not believe that the appropriation process, which the

nonexistent is a good approach. that is why i'm appreciative of chairman mccull ski, we need to get back to regular order. >> voting here, ready to work, even tomorrow? or the house and senator won't be here the day these cuts kick in? >> we're in session, we're not going any place. if the republicans are willing to let us vote on our bill on a simple majority vote and we're vote on their, we're ready to work. but at this stage, we don't have a partner to dance with. >> when you draft your bill, are you willing to put spending levels at sequester levels or you going to assume there won't be a sequester going forward?

>> in our budget resolution that we will put out in a few weeks, we will replace sequestration with responsible deficit reduction. >> one more time on the c.r. if there's a choice, -- is the choice over here to shut down the government or continue the sequester for the rest of the year? >> let's see what they are going to send to us. we're going to move forward. we're working with republicans to come up with a bill. she will be ready to do that. there's republicans who want more than a c.r. we have republicans who believe we should do an appropriations bill. we have to wait to see what they send us. thanks, everybody.

>> and that news conference from about midday, the senate wrapped a couple of votes on two plans, two plans to avoid the sequester. the republican version failed 48-62, and the democrat plan failing 51-49. they needed 60 to move forward. leaders for the house and senate will be meeting at the white house, speaking with the president obama to try to avoid the sequester that is set to take effect at midnight on friday. speaker boehner ruled out any tax increase as part of the deal in the house. >> the clock on all of this debate over debt reduction did not start at christmastime, it started a couple of years ago. the overall debt reduction that you all have done has been

roughly, 2-1 spending cuts to revenue. why is the revenue discussion closed now? >> the president got his tax hikes. the american economy is going to create more tax revenue this year than any year in history. we don't have a revenue spending problem, -- >> you're asking a question. how much more one do we want to steal from the american people to fund more government? i'm for no more. >> one of the central parts of the debate has been you're calling the president's sequester, even if that is true, which you and bob woodward think it is true. how much does that matter since you accepted it and ushered it through your chamber? >> it is the president's sequester. it was his teams that insisted upon it. let's remember why we have the

sequester and why the president insisted on it. because the president didn't like the agreement that senator reid, senator mcconnell and i had to deal with the first problem, the $1.2 trillion in screr -- discretionary cuts. this was about his convenience. him not wanting to go over a fight over debt limit again. that is where he came up with the sequester as a backstop to the super economy. >> but you bear responsibility for sepping it, accepting that deal? >> it was a negotiation. i didn't like it more than anybody else liked it. when the president told me and harry reed told me they would work to get an outcome out of the super committee, i felt confident we could get an outcome out of the super

committee. >> he will be one of the leaders meeting with the a white house to talk about the $85 billion automatic spending cuts, the sequester that go into effect on friday. senator mitch mcconnell says it will focus on ways to reduce federal spending but he says he won't back down on his position on new revenues. they join with speaker boehner, senator reid, and nancy pelosi tomorrow. jack lou was sworn in by -- lew was sworn in by vice president biden. at the white house earlier today, spokesman jay carney was asked a number of questions about the sequester in the meeting tomorrow at the white house.

>> you just get me today. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. a couple of things i want to bring to your attention before i take your questions. you should have seen a statement from the president on the house passage of the violence against women act. the president says in this statement "i was pleased to see the house of representatives come together to vote and reauthorize and strengthen the act. over two decades this law has saved countless lives. today's vote will go further by continuing to reduce domestic violence, improving how retreat victims of rape and extending protection to women. it the bill also reauthorizes retrafficking protection act providing support for

international and domestic victims of trafficking. i want toing a thank leaders from both parties for everything they have done to make this happen. renewing this bill is an important step to make sure that no one in america is forced to live in fear and look forward to signing it into law as soon as it hits my desk. the vote in the house was bipartisan" 87 republican yes votes and 138 republican no votes. secondly, i would like to mention the republican bill in the senate that is supposedly provide flexibility with how to or implement the sequester. we put out policy on this and i

think you will note that we believe no amount of flexibility changes the fact that these severe cuts threatened thousands of middle-class jobs and slash programs for children, seniors, and military families. there is no way to cut this over a seven-month period without drastically affecting the programs. it protects pork barrel projects and every single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy but things on the table like medicare. this doesn't solve the problem. it makes the problem worse. this bill was an effort to shift the focus away from the needs of the congress to work towards a bipartisan compromise that would avoid sequestration. the congress must act responsible to advert sequestration through balanced redugses and stop endangering

the america's economy. >> the meeting tomorrow, is this a meeting focused on solely on dealing with the sequester or does the focus turn now to a big el deal to deal with the spending cut, the c.r., and the debt ceiling? >> that is a good question. the senate will vote on the proposal put forward by democrats that would deal with the sequester, postpone the sequester in a balanced responsible way. we expected that bill will get majority support in the senate. the only reason it might not pass the senate is a minority republicans will filibuster that bill. a stark indication of the state of things when a bill has a

majority vote and blocked by the minority. we'll have to see what the senate does, whether republicans filibuster this bill. that has not happened yet, maybe they will have a change of heart. that will, obviously affect the topics of conversation tomorrow and the meeting with the president. the president believes we need to come together and deal with the sequester and the sequester is just, one piece of the broader challenge here, which is reducing our deficit in a balanced way. that is what the sequester was part of when it was included in the budget control act. it was deziesed as policy that would never come into effect so it would compel congress to reach a compromise and reduce the deficit by further delrls 1.2 trillion. the president put forward a tpwhaunlts is balanced, that

continues the progress we've made. more than $2 spending cut are if every $1 of revenue. the kind of balance we haven't seen, unfortunately, from republicans. he hopes whether it is action by republicans to deal with the sequester in a short term in a balanced way or take up the project of a bigger deal. or more deficit reduction that helps us reach that goal, he is hoping that the republicans whether it is the short term or long term are ready to talk seriously about compromise and making sure that washington is not inflicting wounds on the economy, right when the economy should be growing and creating jobs. >> are there any --

preconditions from the president or the republicans, like taxes or something that is not to be part of that discussion tomorrow? >> there are no preconditions to the meeting like this. this is a meeting with the president and leaders of congress, both parties. obviously, any topic is up for discussion. if one member of the group decides he or she wants to approach it then the immediate purpose of the meeting is to talk about the eminent sequester deadline and how to advert it. we to take action in a balanced way in a way that does not burden seniors or parents with children with disabilities, that asks everyone to bear the burden. by doing that, it allows the economy to continue to grow in a

way that we've seen it grow in the last three years. it still has a long way to go. the president is firm in his conviction that we need to include balance in our deficit reduction. it is unacceptable, it is my away or the highway approach to say that revenue shouldn't be part of it. as it is true of the proposal republicans in the senate are putting forward today, what is true of that is the republican's position is they would rather see sequestration take effect. instead of asking jet americans to pay a little bit more, ask some big corporations to forego their loopholes or limit their deductions and this is not a position that is sustainable, we believe and it is not fair to the american people. >> the deadline for the

administration -- will the administration -- [inaudible] >> decisions about filing breefs are legal and constitutional matters. best to address those questions to the department of justice. >> back to what you said earlier. why is the president so concerned about closing loopholes now when six weeks ago during the fiscal cliff deal he was interested into signing into law loopholes that protected certain industries like the wind industry and nascar. >> that is part of the end of the year negotiations, we were focused as were the republicans the process of taxes going up on middle-class americans. that had to be resolved and was resolved. we had to return the top

marginal rate that it was under president clinton, 39.6. that produces now in the 10-year window a certain amount of revenue. that is positive. the fact is, the loopholes we have identified are similar to some of the ones that the speaker of the house have identified, as worthy of closing, not good for the our tax code, not good for our economic fairness. those are the ones we believe should be closed. additionally, in our proposal we put forward a provision that could cap deductions at 28% for millionaires and billionaires that would produce a certain amount of revenue. a combination would achieve the level necessary of revenue as part of an overall deficit reduction package that, includes savings from entitlements.

it would complete the job in getting $4 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years. that proposal, as the president made speaker boehner, most people recognize as an effort by the president to compromise, make tough choices for democrats. it is still on the table. we hope that the speaker would consider taking up that proposal. it was yesterday or the day before, the speaker talked about how we could and should reform the tax code. the fundamental difference here is not that we shouldn't close loopholes and cap deductions for the wealthiest individuals and corporations that are given special treatments in the tax code, the speaker greece with that. the disagreement -- agrees with that and the disagreement is now that closing those loopholes should be funneled back to the

wealthiest people and tax cuts. we believe that should be applied to deficit reduction. by applying the savings to the deficit reduction, we're not asking seniors and middle-class families to bear the burden of deficit reduction by themselves. that is a pretty conservative position. that is a middle of the road, common sense approach to tax and entitlement reform. >> -- agreeing to some but now they are saying the other ones are bad? is there any contradict that you have to square in your message on that? >> if you're asking me the wind energy tax credit, it helps to support thousands of jobs and importantly, contributes to the develop and growth to this country, so the jobs are created in this country, i would say yes and a number of republicans agree with us. if you ask me an industry like

clean energy that subsidies that are in effect for 100 years for the oil and gas industry, taxpayer subsidies given to an industry that is doing quite well. whether those should be continued, the answer is no, they are bad policy. that is something that ronald reagan agrees with. he said a number of times he wanted to close the tax break and loophole for the oil and gas industry back in 1985. he thought at the time that the subsidyization had run its course. that was almost 30 years ago. >> briefly, is the u.s. government helping to train syrian opposition? >> i think you saw secretary kerry announce an increase in our assistance in rome today and

reaffirmed the commitment of president obama to help the syrian people. assad has lost all legitimacy and we stand united with the syrian people and we will offer support to syria even though countries make assad possible or the campaign against his own people. secretary kerry announced today to translate our support into tangible aschist answer we will offer $60 million in immediates that comes on top of $50 million already provided. it is separate from the $385 million that we've been providing to the syrian population. >> i just wondered if the

president took note of your arguments before the supreme court in the rights act. lively could be one way to describe it. >> i haven't spoken to him about it. i have not spoken with the president so i don't have a reaction from him on the arguments. i can't comment on the specific litigation and comments, i would refer you to the department of justice. it is the president's position and the white house's position is that voting is a right. the prokesproteckses offered in the act are critical in reducing the discrimination in voting since the law was first passed and continue to play an important role. the president said "we must

remain individual leapt in guaranteeing access to the ballot box." >> why is it so far behind schedule? >> i don't have a date. >> what is the new delay? >> i don't know about this. i don't have a date certain, i don't think we provided a date certain when the budget will be put forward, but i think it will be in march. i think the serious of manufactured crisis around budget issues certainly has resulted in part of those experts working on those issues having to spend a lot of time dealing with the crisis rather than on that. that is part of the job and they are working on a budget. >> the education secretary was here yesterday and he said some things that didn't prove to be true about the immediacy about -- school district in west virginia, they are not sequester related at all he made a suggest

that they might not be. how confident are you and the administration that the portrait that you're presenting is accurate and will sustain the scrutiny. >> we're very confident. >> there was a note of factual inaccuracy. >> i don't know that the secretary of transportation was giving you a minute target for how much the delays will be. if there are going to be delays in result of man hours. that is a fact. i hope you keep this that in mind on your next commercial flight. i will refer you to the department of education and the superintendent of schools that you mentioned about specifics about that.

i'm not familiar with it. i can tell you that the impacts of sequester are real and to diminish them -- >> the [inaudible] >> i will refer you to the superintendent of the school district about it. i don't have it. what i can tell you -- >> came from your podium. it came from this room. >> i'm not in contact with individual school districts. >> but you're asking us to check with a local school? >> let me remind the tape, i will refer you to the department of education that is here in washington, d.c. for more information. obviously, the school district is a good place to go. >> you're saying that is wrong. >> i don't have any more for you on it. i encourage you make moan falls in an old-fashioned reporting. the fact is, the impacts of

sequester will be real if they take place. in ohio, ohio will lose about $25.1 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting jobs at risk. 34,000 fewer students will be served and 100 fewer schools will receive funding. if you don't think this that is real, if that happens, go out of ohio and ask the families who will affected if they think it is real. around 129,000 people will not get the help they need to find employment in california. if you don't think the sequester is real, fly to california, find the people who are not getting served and ask them if they think it is real. ask the family whose child won't have a slot in head start, if

they think it is real. ask the employee who has already gotten a notification if he or she will be furloughed. that might lose 10%-20% of their pay for the month or the year. to suggest otherwise -- >> no one in this room suggested otherwise. i asked you about the education -- >> i told you to go to the department of education. i don't have details on the whole argument that -- right -- again, let's rewind the tape. what you said after that, do you think that we're exarge rating the effects of sequester. i just gave you concrete examples of what is going to happen. those are real people with real impacts. i think they wonder when they sit around their kitchen tables why washington can't compromise. in this case, compromise is

willingness to accept policies is not 100% of what you want. the president has done that again and again and unfortunately, republicans are unwilling to do that. >> even the president said last night, that this is a downward. in the first few weeks that a lot of people may not note the full impact of the sequester. are you concerned that you overstated -- >> it is our responsibility to be upfront about the fact that you cannot responsible cut $85 billion out of the budget in seven months in the way that law is designed without having dramatic effects on the defense industry, civilian workers, national security readiness, teachers, kids in head start. that is a fact.

>> for example, the attorney general said is this going to have an impact on the safety of the country and people who say otherwise they are lying. >> if you reduce the number of border security guards that has an impact on our safety. i think the reporters are the ones that suggest that all of this is going to happen a stroke after midnight. we never said that. we've been clear about, you know, when you talk about furloughs. notices go out. once you receive a notice, it is a 30-day warning before the furloughs actually begin. we've been very clear about the different impacts. when the secretary of education was here yesterday, he made clear a lot of the actual affects in the education world won't be felt in the fall because that is when the new school year begins. there are some school districts outside of military bases or on indian reservations that will

feel the impact immediately, because they will be forced by the nature of their grants to cut the budget for this school year. what the president said last night and other people have said, this will be a rolling impact and it will build and build. as the c.b.o. has said and outside organizations have said we'll see a contraction in the amount of g.d.p. growth, the reduction in the amount of grp growth by a full .15% or more. that is the c.b.o. and moody's and macroeconomic advisories. we agree with those assessments. >> on a different topic. the president says he values a free press that is not afraid to ask questions, examine, and criticize. has he spoke about the tone when talking to the press?

>> i think the president expects us to fully explain his policies , to answer questions about his decisions and to make clear when we believe errors are being stated, which is what we do. look, i think as anyone who has done this from either side of this podium can tell you, you know, these are about real issues. these are about the concrete effects of policy on people's lives, ourn national security, on our children's future and everybody who is involved in these issues feel passionately about them. but we are enormously respectful of the work that you do, the work i used to do. it is important to make clear when we think, as we have in the past, somebody is out there getting the facts wrong. >> what was intended by that? >> don't you think the

responsible thing to ask that in the full context until the e-mail? he was incredibly respectful, referred to mr. woodward as his friend and pozzed for raising his friend. you can't read those e-mails and come away with the impression that he was threatening anybody as others have observed. the point, i wish reporters would pay attention to the policy of the e-mail. this is really important policy and one thing that is irrefuteable is that the president from day one has been clear. in dealing with deficit reduction going forward and eliminating the sequester, he bleaved we have to have balance.

-- believed we have to have balance. i think that is the fact that he was concerned with. that is a fact we're all concerned with. >> i will stop after this. as you remarked your position because you've been on both sides, any regret about the erosion of trust between sources and reporters? does it hurt the public? >> look, i think -- i've seen this play out before in white house's i've covered previously. the relationship between the press core and the white house means that you guys are appropriately demanding more information and holding our feet to the fire. that is how it should be. you go out and report everything that we're doing and what the congress is doing and what the agencies are doing. we get out there and try to

explain the president's positions and articulate why we think his positions are the right positions. that's, you know, that serves us and that is the way it was when i got here and when i was covering the clinton white house and the bush white house. i don't think it is different now. i would suggest that the atmosphere in this room was a lot more tense in 1993 then it is today. >> the tone of that e-mail was respectful, last night on twitter david recently, the senior advisory in the white house put out a tweet compared bob woodward to an aging baseball player who lost their talent. is that respectful? is that something the white house supports? >> the fact of the matter is, there was an accusation that he was threatening and everyone who

knows him that is hard to believe. two, he has been working on these issues all his life, he's passionate about them. he works 20 hours a day, often in for the american people. the president tries to help middle-class americans and he'll continue to do that. look, i have respect for the work that bob woodward is famous for. a lot of us got into the business because we saw the movie or both. we had a factual disagreement, that i think, you know, we stand by. the president was very clear from the beginning that he would push balanced deficit reduction. how is that a mystery? that has been his position since the day he signed the budget control act.

so the phrase moving the goal post is not one that we agree with. >> so concerned about the facts and the debate about the sequester. in the back and forth about arrestny, are you acknowledging that some of the things he said yesterday are not true? >> i have not looked into them. >> how can the public believe what you are saying if you're not checking it out? >> i'll have the secretary of transportation come up here on the impacts on the f.a.a. then we'll have the secretary of education come up here and they'll we can have the secretary transportation back up here. you need to take it to them. i think the broader point setting aside that issue was strongly made. there will be substantial

effects on school districts around the country, budgets to help poor children, budgets to help disabled kids, which as secretary duncan described two of the biggest proportions of his budget and will be affected when sequester is implemented. those are real people out there who will suffer if sequester goes into effect and stays into effect for, you know, a substantial period of time. >> when you were asked about i.c.s. and -- i.c.e. and there were were some reporting that i.c.e. is rethinking this and has the white house, since yesterday's briefing intervened with i.c.e. and said this is not a good idea? >> not that i'm aware of. this was made by officials without any input from the white house.

i have no more information today about it than i did yesterday. >> when you were talk relationship with the press, today secretary of treasury was sworn in today. why was there not press allowed in? >> it was a private ceremony. secretary lew has served president obama in four positions. this is his fourth and he and the president have become close through his service together. the president wanted to have this ceremony for secretary lew because of that relationship. >> the associated press reported that the last secretary geithner was sworn in by the vice president and made remark about the financial crisis, we need to get our team in place. why would the president not open it up -- >> again, it was a family

ceremony that the president addressed the looming sequester challenge as recently as last night. he took questions on it from you guys on friday. i'm sure he will talk to you about it in the future. it is not as important as who he is playing golf with but he will be talking about this very important policy issue and engaging with you in the future. >> you're going to be forced to cut security guards and that is because of the nature of the sequester. why not accept flexibility so you don't have to do that? >> at the top, no amount of flexibility that these severe cuts threaten thousands of middle-class jobs and slashes program for seniors, children,

and our troops and their families. you can't -- there is no way to mitigate the damage that cuts made that deeply and that swiftly go away. >> but it would force you to make a choice. >> when the homeland secretary was here and explained that was not the case. in these personnel intensive agencies when you have to deal with the cuts you have to apply them to personnel and furloughs and the like. that's the problem. the fed chairman made clear that no changing of the nature of the $85 billion in cuts would change the affect on the economy, which he described as negative. talking about the affect on our fiscal situation, so the best

way to go about this is to postpone the sequester or agree to a bigger deal that eliminates it entirely in a balanced way. in a way that doesn't ask seniors or the border security guards or middle-class families who depend on important services for disabilitied kids or help sending their kids to college. if you ask them to bear the burden, the burden is onerous. if you spread out the burden to the wealthy to give up those advantages. if you ask industries and corporations that have special exceptions written into the tax code because they have really good lobbyists here in washington, you can spread the burden and make it less onerous on regular folks.

>> i have one question on arrestny duncan. are you saying that one inaccurate example should not under cut -- >> i'm saying they don't know the specifics of the example. i'm saying the larger a argument remains true. it is irrefuteable. it has been attested to by republicans, until they changed their strategy was shouting from the rooftops about the terrible affects of sequester. >> what about the specifics -- >> i don't know the specifics. >> i know you want to leave questions about the prop 8 but i wonder if you could tell us about this deliberation on this? >> we don't have anything for you on this. the president has expressed an opinion in the past but when it comes to legal and constitutional issues around it,

that's the jurisdiction that resides with the department of justice. i don't have anything for you on it. >> wouldn't the policy be made by the president? >> i refer you to the d.o.j. john? >> jay, just a bottom line on the sequester. what is it going to be like tomorrow? barring a miracle, how is what is going to happen tomorrow? what happens at 11:59? >> i think we've been clear about various areas where these cuts, once implemented go into effect and the impacts they will have. not all of them will be felt immediately, i think we've been clear about. but there will be immediate effects. if you doubt that, -- well,

let's talk about g.d.p. it was granted upwards .2% for the fourth quarter but it was as low of a figure as we got as any economists will tell you because of the defense spending. a 40-year drop in anticipation of the sequester. we saw it again yesterday in the figures that showed all of the drop in the goods, reductions in spending, reductions in orderstn business and jobs. we will see it -- we have seen it already in the notices that have gone out, warning people that furlough notices will be coming. i believe if you are a middle- class family and the father or

the mother gets a notice in a couple of days or has gotten a notice already that they will be getting a furlough, that does not have an impact on your family in 30 days, it has an impact right now, as you begin to contemplate life with less money, to make ends meet. these are real consequences. there will not be a slot any more for their child in head start, families that will have to reduce hours if they are a border security guard or an air traffic controller. these are real in packs, which did not all happen on saturday, but the cumulative impact on the cluster will be significant to our economy and to the individuals affected. >> what do you say to mayor bloomberg who was asked about the warnings that have come out

of the white house, when he says a lot of posturing, spare me, i live in that war, that's it's serious there. he was dismissive there. is mayor bloomberg wrong about it? >> i was not there, i did not hear what he said today. different cities and regions and states will have different effects, depending on what kind of funding they get in the affected areas from the federal government. i cannot speak to what the impacts will be on new york city, but there will be real- world impacts. it is a fact that if you are at the receiving end of a notice that you are going to be furloughed or laid off, that is nothing small, that is huge, and people who get those notices will have washington to blame, and in particular, the attack jets, the refusal to compromise and do something reasonable and

balance that we have seen on capitol hill. >> will you comment on the woodward thing, a long time respected washington journalist talked about woodward and said talked about his son's story about the has received many vulgar and abusive emails and phone calls from white house officials. have you heard of anything like that? >> i have been on the receiving end up in it u.v. -- in a few previous white house and it did not trouble me, and i did not have any specific comments on that. look, this is a situation where people feel passionately about the policies that the president has and the president pressed previous presidents have put forward. and my predecessors have felt about also. reporters are under competitive pressure, not just to get scoops, but have the most

noticed opinion observation. there are court to be disagreements about whether those facts or opinions or observations are on the mark. it should be that way. i never took it personally when my former boss here would get on the phone and give me an earful of something he did not like. it did not affect my relationship with him and did not stop me from talking to him. i happen to know that was rahm's way, and that was to in the bush white house. >> will the white house concede this was a miscalculation to put forward the sequester as a forcing message? >> let's go back to -- >> in some capacity, with the president or jetblue -- >> republicans who shouted from

the rooftops, and i could read pages of quotations from republicans is that sequester should never become law, the worst possible thing for national security and other aspects of the government, who now think that's a question is a political tool and they are happy with the consequences of sequester. they weren't right that sequester was designed purposely to be bad policy. it was designed that way, and to be equally onerous for both republicans and democrats said that the prospect of its implementation would compel congress to make tough choices crape unfortunately, despite some, going back to the off -- the argument about goalposts, the arguments by republicans that revenue be included in packages, deficit reduction that would achieve our $4 trillion goal, republicans refused to do that although the president put

forward proposals to do that. it is unfortunate that the sequester may come to pass, and we would point you to statements not by democrats for the president, but by republicans who warned about the negative impacts of sequester, and we have to do something responsible to avoid it. we have seen unfortunately cannot from the leadership, but from a number of republicans, including senator mccain and house republicans, comments from then suggesting that it would be wise to close a few loopholes or tap a few deductions or eliminate some special breaks for corporations as part of a package to avoid sequester. >> given the intransigence, is there no plan b? >> you have seen numerous economists say that $85 billion -- you cannot wish away the negative effects that will have

on our economy if it comes all in cuts. the way to deal with this cannot responsibly, is to balance it with revenues, a gain from tax reform, closing loopholes, eliminating special tax breaks for industries that no longer need them, and maybe never did, and asking millionaires and billionaires to carry some of the burden. that is a proposition that people overwhelmingly support. >> tomorrow we will see a meeting between the president and congressional leaders. is this a new phase where we will sooee more direct negotiations, or do expect a president did make his case to the general public, or will we see more -- >> we will -- a has never been and will never be an either-or proposition. the president will continue to travel and talk about the shoes

he thinks are important and the priorities he has put forward in his agenda. the suggestion that that is a bad thing to do i think it implies that republicans to criticize the president for talking about sequester with the american people do not want the american people to know about what is really happening here. this is not an approach we take. lobbyists continue to engage with congress, congressional leaders and rank-and-file members of both the senate and house in an effort to try to resolve this, and we have an opportunity here for congress to take up a balanced deal that will complete the job and then some of achieving more than $4 trillion in the best production in the balance with that helps our economy, helps it create jobs. >> [indiscernible] in the midst of all this, as the president had an opportunity to get with your team to talk

about what will happen in two weeks? >> i do not have a preview of that trip begone -- beyond what we have said already. the timing is good. he believes, as he begins his second term and as there is a new government coming into place in israel, he looks forward for the trip both to israel and jordan and to ramallah. >> what is your understanding of how and when this thing is got to kick in tomorrow? there are people on the hill who think at 12:01 tomorrow morning, you mentioned 11:59, there is also wording that the president has to sign -- >> my understanding is that the law has a provision that requires the president ordered the sequester on march 1, which

is tomorrow, and that means it has to be done by 11:59 p.m. tomorrow. >> [indiscernible] >> he is ever hopeful. i do not know what time tomorrow. [indiscernible] >> i would not expect that. we have not made a scheduled yet for tomorrow. i think it will be a private meeting. >> [indiscernible] >> also today at the white house in the treasury secretary was sworn in. joe biden swearing in jack lew the 76th treasury secretary in the oval office. the senate intelligence committee is getting to vote early next week on john brennan 's nomination to be cia director.

democratic leaders of the committee had hoped to hold the vote today, but republican senator saxby chambliss said consideration of his nomination has been delayed because he has other committee members have not received all information they requested from the white house. we're looking at our prime-time schedules on the c-span networks. starting at it 8:00 p.m., congressional briefings on automatic spending cuts set to begin tomorrow. on c-span2, a senate hearing on medicare's progress in implementing changes to the u.s. health care delivery system carer the affordable del act. all that starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span network. >> i think eisenhower handle a crisis so well was the fact that he was a very decisive man. people think of him as this grandfatherly, very pleasant

man, the winning smile and a rest picked up behind that smile were some very icy blue eyes, and when eisenhower looked at the crisis, he looked at it very coldly, and, therefore, made decisions that the not have the liabilities that some decisions have when they are made at the top of the head or an emotionally. he never made an emotional decision. he never allowed his emotions to control him when big decisions had to be made. >> richard nixon reflects on his years as vice president, sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> u.s. house has finished its work for the week, but earlier today, the reauthorized the violence against women act to 2018. it passed the house by 286-138.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: today as we consider the violence against women act, aid like to start by thanking our majority leader, eric cantor, and many republicans in the house for their time and commitment to this important issue. the violence against women act first passed on the floor of this very house nearly two decades ago. and it has long enjoyed bipartisan support. years later after two re-authorizations, a pivotal supreme court case, and a nationwide expansion of laws condemning violence against women, republicans are committed to protecting victims of violence and putting offenders behind bars. that's why we are bringing it to the floor today. it's important to protect all women against acts of domestic violence and other haven't crimes, and ensure that he resources go directly to the victims. because that is what this bill

is really about. it's about people. it's time to remember why this bill passed nearly two decades ago. protecting women was our first priority then and it should be our first priority now. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, when congress enacted the original violence against women act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very clear and immediate message to the american people, no, and i emphasize, no woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. no one would ever be forced to fear for their lives or the safety in their own homes because of necessaryic violence. -- domestic violence. that promise formed the

foundation of our work then and it has served as a cornerstone of our efforts in the years since to authorize and strengthen this landmark law. even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same and strong. over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. today on the floor of the house we will have a very clear choice. we have a choice to support the bipartisan legislation that has passed in the united states senate. it passed with a 78-22, 77% of the senate voted for this legislation. the majority of the republicans in the senate supported this legislation. all of the women in the senate, democrats and republicans alike, support the bipartisan legislation that i hope we will

have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the house. in contrast we have the house republican proposal which, while described in so lovely terms, are a step backward for the women of america and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault. it's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the republicans looking through that they do not see the followy of their -- folly of their ways on this legislation they are proposing. not only is it much weaker than the senate bill, it is much weaker than current law. and that is why, that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from a to y. we don't have a z. any groups that have anything to do throughout our country in

every state oppose the republican legislation that is on the floor today. that is why the american bar association has stated in its letter to members in opposition to the republican bill, it says, the house substitute eliminates certain critical improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the law that has been successful. so let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today. our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the senate, says to all of america's women, you will be protected. the republican bill says to the men and women of america, we want to protect america's women. everybody step forward who is an american woman, not so fast if

you are an immigrant -- from the immigrant community, if you're a native american, if you happen to be part of the lgbt community. it's just not right. america has always been and our constitution demonstrates a country of expanding opportunity and protection and diminishing discrimination. today on the floor of the house the republican bill discriminates against a woman if she is lesbian or gay or whatever, lgbt, any member of that community, discriminates against the woman if she lives on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation. discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status. exactly the women who are the most vulnerable who have a situation where there is a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever, the

most in need of this bill are excluded by the republican, the republican proposal. so this is nothing to be proud of, this republican proposal. it must be defeated. and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the senate party overwhelmingly passed and supported legislation which strengthens current law not weakens it and expands the legislation, which was -- i was here when the bill passed before. i saw the great work of pat schroeder and louise slaughter who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the rankling democrat on the rules committee. i salute the work of joe biden

who was the author without vice president biden at that time, there would not have been a violence against women act. and i was so proud of the work of our chairman and a leader on this legislation then and now, chairman john conyers, former chair of the judiciary committee , now ranking member. we'll be hearing more from him shortly. but he has been there steady and strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. thank you. our legislation today, the house propose -- the democratic proposal, which is really -- is a bipartisan proposal from the senate, but it's authored and presented by congresswoman gwen moore of wisconsin. congresswoman gwen moore has shared her own personal story

with us and the strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. and when we pass this legislation, and we will, it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in the legislation means in the homes of america and for women who are at risk. now, who thinks this is a good idea? i don't know. i hear the gentlewoman who commands great respect in this body describe this bill as if it's a good thing. it is not. when -- why would this take so long? it's been over 500 days, madam speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration

of the violence against women act. last spring, almost one year ago, april of last year, the senate in a bipartisan way passed violence against women act. in a bipartisan way. months have gone by with no re-authorization, congress ended a new congress came in, the senate once again voted, again, in a strong bipartisan way, for legislation. the house republicans want to be odd man out on this, or odd person out on this. and have a bill that is weakened -- has weakened current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the senate bill does. other of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it, and i -- it's just too much to put into the record of all the groups who oppose the house bill. it is almost unanimous.

the only people holding out were those hopeful that something, light would be shed on this on the republican side of the aisle. but this is a remarkable day because we have clarity between the two proposals that are coming forth. one of them has the support of democrats and republicans in the senate. democrats in the house. the president of the united states stands ready to sign it. the other is opposed by almost everybody who has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we have the documentation to prove that. and it goes into the specific -- that go into the specifics. but i just want to say that -- how proud i am of congresswoman gwen moore. she comes from wisconsin. she is a respected leader in the house. she has made this -- i would say

her life's work, but she has a number of things on her agenda, but she has made a tremendous difference. not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of america's women. all of america's women. with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: just to make a couple of clarifications. number one, the house, led by the republicans, passed legislation in early may last year to re-authorize the violence against women act. number two, funding has continued. $599 million. at this time i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from north dakota, kevin cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields how much time to the gentleman from north

dakota? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, madam speaker. just under three years ago, a 2-year-old little boy in bismarck, north dakota, watched for half an hour while his stepfather beat his mother to death. today that little boy is my 5-year-old son. chris and i were blessed and are blessed, have been able to adopt, where we work every day to dilute the memories of that awful night with new memories of love and affection. i know the scourge of violence against women personally. it is not an abstract concept to my family. it's very real. that is why i support and will vote today for the violence against women act, because i want the shelters and programs that keep women safe to be well funded. i want the advocates of change to have the resources, to turn victims into victors. i want the law enforcement

officers and the prosecutors to have the tools to impose justice on behalf of my son and other women and children. it's not just theoretical to me, it's personal to me. while i support the violence against women act because it's personal, i support this amendment because it's principled. our constitution in its genius guarantees due process. due process to the accused. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is known as the cornerstone of american justice. it is what gives moral authority to our system of justice. by codifying language like acknowledging inherent sovereignty, i fear we risk giving up the moral high ground for a political slogan that does nothing to protect the victims of violence. even if you are willing to rationalize trading justice through due process, guaranteed in the fifth and 14th amendments of our constitution, we pledged

to uphold, please consider the damage we will have done if a court overturns this act and its protections all so that we want -- because we want add good political slogan more than a good law. friends, let's vote for the violence against women act. it not only protects the vulnerable in our society, but also protects the civil liberties upon which our system of justice is built. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. . the gentlelady from california. ms. pelosi: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin, congresswoman moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. as i stand here, i pray that this body will do as the senate

has done and come together as one, to protect all women from violence. as i think about the lgbt victims that are not here, the native americans that are not here, the immigrants that are not included in this bill, i will say, ain't they women? they deserve protections. we talk about the constitutional rights. don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? ain't they women? and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i recognize a champion and prosecuting those with

domestic violence in domestic violence situations, pat meehan from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: what time does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside this rhetoric and to find a way to work together to pass the violence against women act, to move this important legislation forward in a way in which we can reach a resolution. i come to this as a former prosecutor who has seen firsthand the implications, come to give voice to people who do not have an opportunity to speak for themselves, because one of the things that we realize is that a woman will be victimized 12 times, beaten 12 times before she has the courage to come forward to speak to somebody who needs to be there to be able to help give them a sense of comfort and dignity to be able to retain control over the circumstances.

the violence against women act enables the kinds of resources to be there to have the trained personnel who can make a difference. i had a chance to visit sane nurses who work in emergency wards, giving victims of rape the dignity to be able to do an examination in the privacy of a room as opposed to being violated a second time out in a public space in an emergency ward, to reduce the time they have to spend for that examination from 13 hours after a rape to two hours to be able to collect the evidence and help that victim to be able to make their case if they so choose in court. i have seen the chance to work with victims of -- on college campuses, women on college campuses who have reported they have been victims of rape or attempted rape. so unquestionably, we must find a way to pass the violence against women act in the same way we must reduce the rhetoric

and the misrepresentations and the shameful misrepresentations on both sides about the good intentions to try to do this. there are differences of opinion in small areas. we must find a way to get over those. i rise today to make sure we give a voice to those victims, to work together to find a way to pass the violence against women act. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington state, congresswoman delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: i want to thank the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor for a debate, at a time when we must resolve some real disgrments on how to move our country -- disagreements on how to move our country forward. i am glad we're going to pass the landmark violence against women act. however, i cannot support the house substitute amendment

because it fails to improve critical improvements passed by a large bipartisan margin in the senate that would strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women. i'm particularly disappointed that this amendment owe mitts provisions that would enable tribes to address domestic violence in indian country. this is an issue that's critical in my district. the lumme nation, comprks, which i visited just last week in bellingham, washington, have seen an increase in violence against women over the past several years. the house substitute would require mistreatment of indian and non-indian offenders while the bipartisan senate bill fill this gap. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment and support the senate re-authorization bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from

west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. cap it toe: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, violence against women act -- mrs. capito: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, the violence against women act. i witnessed firsthand the good work that they do and that other statewide advocates do in this area of sexual assault and violence against women, and i realize this is way long overdue and necessary. in west virginia every nine minutes a call comes in, is made about our domestic violence on the doosk violence hotline. -- domestic violence hotline. i'm here to talk about an incident that we don't want to see happen again. i want to talk about jalele. he was in a car with his mother and his mother's boyfriend and his mother's boyfriend began

beating his mother. and he got so afraid, and the car stopped on the interstate, jalele got out of that car and started running across the interstate to get help for his mother. and he was hit and killed in the interstate because he was witnessing firsthand one of the most horrible acts of domestic violence. his mother was in danger, and he wanted to help her. and if we don't intervene, if we don't find help, if we don't end the cycle of violence for the jalele clements of this country, we're doing a great disservice to our country. i'm going to be voting no on the house bill and yes on the senate bill for jalele clements and all the jalele clements in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i yield one minute to the chair of the house democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: i thank the leader

for yielding. my friends, every single day in america, three women die at the hands of domestic violence. yet, this congress allowed the violence against women act to expire more than 500 days ago. every one of those 500 days, three women dying at the hands of domestic violence. there's been a balanced bipartisan solution passed in the senate by a vote of 68-31 that has been sitting on the table for almost a year to re-enact the violence against women act. the failure or reluctance of this house to do its work for the american people seems to have now become business as usual. this should not be the new normal. the 113th congress has now been in session for 56 days in 2013, and it has only now that a debate on an up or down vote on the bipartisan senate bill will have an opportunity to be had. every woman in america deserves a clean bill to come before

them to re-enact the violence against women act, and those three women in america who today desperately seek to beat the odds and live to see another day deserve a vote. we must defeat the republican substitute amendment and pass the senate bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congressman from california, a physician and a new member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bera: today i rise as a doctor to talk about the patients i've taken care of who suffered as victims of domestic violence. as a doctor, we don't choose to treat one patient or another patient. we choose to take care of every

patient. we choose to protect all women in america. that is who we are as a nation. we choose to protect protect all women in america. i urge this body to reject the house version of this bill and pass the bipartisan senate version. that is a reflection of who we are in america and our values. as the father of a daughter, this is personal. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where we value and respect every woman regardless of background, ethnicity, creed. this is personal, and let's do the right thing. i urge this body to do the right thing today and pass the senate version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, congresswoman jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: violence is violence is violence and women are women are women. for the second year in a row, the republicans have advanced legislation that not only excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections that are included in the bipartisan senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back the central protection that are already the law of the land. we've heard from law enforcement, victims and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan senate bill. and last week more than 1,300 organizations who represent and

support millions of victims nationwide join together and said to bring the senate bill to the house floor for, quote, a vote as speedly as possible. we need to pass the senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to remind the body that the house amendment actually increases protections for everyone. no protection is denied. at this time i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady from indiana two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, thank you. i rise today to urge passage of the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. let me start off by saying that

i support this bill because it's the right thing to do. i'm committed to ending violence against all women. this bill takes the necessary steps to protect the rights of all of our mothers, our daughters and wives. the statistics are appalling. it's reported that in the united states alone more than 24 people each minute are victims of some sort of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. mrs. walorski: that equals more than 12 million individuals each year. these types of crimes happen to individuals from all walks of life. no gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status is immune. this bill provides protection for everyone who may be victim of sexual violence. this bill makes programs more effective. these reforms prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. they ensure that more money is

being used to assist victims and reduce the amount of violence that happens against women. by eliminating a amount of money that can be spent on salaries anded a minute straightive costs, this bill -- and administrative costs, this bill maximizes the amount of funding that goes directly to the victims. madam speaker, it's time for us to do the right thing and pass this bill. a constituent of mine from south bend, indiana, recently wrote my office. she said, and i quote, as a woman who has experienced domestic violence and stalking in my own home and as a physician who has cared for persons affected by domestic violence, i see this as an important tool to improve the quality of life in our nation. i urge the members of this chamber, both republican and democrat, to do the right thing and pass this bill today. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, and the gentlewoman from washington state reserves.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, freshman member, congress woman -- i'm glaming everybody in california -- from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. frankel: i rise in opposition to the house substitute amendment and urge the support of the bipartisan violence against women act sent over by the senate. . i do so on behalf of women like olga who thought she entered into a dream marriage for herself and her two small children. the marriage turned into a nightmare when her husband became insulting, aggressive, controlling, and like a stranger. imprisoning olga and her children in their own home. not even allowing the children to go to school.

she fled to south florida and nurtured back to emotional and financial health by an organization in my home area called women in distress. the senate's re-authorization of the violence against women act will save even more lives across america, lives like olga and all women who have been abused by their spouse or partner. so today, colleagues, let's stand up for our mothers, sisters, and our daughters and pass the bipartisan senate bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington investigate. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congressman keating of mass marks former prosecutor and champion on fighting for america's women. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: one meant to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, madam speaker.

i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. keating: thank you. madam speaker, i was a d.a. for 12 years. i solicited and actually used these funds. so as we talk about issues, people see issues, i see faces. i see faces of innocent women who are victims. and i see faces of the perpetrators themselves, the rapists, the batterers, the abusers who sought to isolate these victims. strip them away from their friends, their family, social service agencies, law enforcement. i used these funds to create a life line to these victims. breaking down walls that exist in terms of people who spoke a different language, had a different culture, had a different national. -- nationality. madam speaker, this amendment creates walls, creates these barriers that make the victims more vulnerable and strengthens

the hand of the perpetrators. please, all of you, join me in voting against this amendment. and then, then let's all join togetherle with a piece of legislation that does not punish the victim -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. keating: behind bars. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to another champion for protecting women, mr. larsen of washington state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larsen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the bipartisan senate version of the violence against women act that we vote on today. we wouldn't be here today without the courage of victims from all of our communities. women and men, rich and poor, immigrants, native american, folks from the lgbt community. all those who spoke out about

their experiences. domestic violence does not discriminate. and with this bill domestic violence protection will no longer discriminate. this bill improves protections for immigrants, for native americans, members of the lgbt community. in my district a vice chair explained why the protections are so critical. she told me that for far too long native american women have lacked serious protections on our reservations. this bill will make it easier for them to seek justice. and it also includes important amendments to improve enforcement of the international marriage broker regulation act, a law that i sponsored in 2006. those amendments strengthen protections congress put in place for immigrant women like ms. king who was murdered in my district by her husband in 2000. i urge my colleagues to he oppose the house vawa substitute and to pass s. 47. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from

washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomans to reserve. we recognize the gentlewoman from california. ms. pelosi: may i respectfully request the time of the:00. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 22 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has -- washington has 20 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you. madam speaker, member of congress who has been really a champion on this issue for a very long time, congresswoman lois capps of california, health professional in her own right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the leader for yielding and i rise today in opposition

to the republican amendment that would undermine key provisions in the violence against women act re-authorization. and to urge strong support for the underlying senate bill which protects our young people on our school campuses. vawa is a vital program addressing violence women holisically through prevention programs, survivor supports, and provisions to hold perpetrators accountable. but also a symbol that relationship violence and sexual assault is real and that it's unacceptable. has been a symbol until this congress we can put aside our differences and come together to do what is right for violence victims and survivors. we saw this in the senate. and we'll hopefully see it here in the house. this is still true. our daughters, our sisters, mothers, no matter where they are, including on our school campuses, deserve to live without fear of abuse, and we cannot delay their safety any longer. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the senate bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves.

and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise this morning to speak in favor of s. 47, the senate version of the violence against women act. i want to thank speaker boehner and leader cantor for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. the bombom line is the programs health save lives in new jersey and across america. we need to expand the current success of vawa so that we can get even more women, help even more women escape the nightmare of domestic violence. mr. runyan: while we are long overdue in passing this bill, i am glad we are here today and i urge my colleagues to support s. 47, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized.

ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congresswoman kirkpatrick of arizona, who has, again, every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: i was born and raised on the white mountain of apache nation. the necklace i wear was made by an apache woman. i have seen firsthand the troubled and hardships our tribes experience. now i represent 12 native american tribes and i'm here standing on the floor of congress to give them a voice. our native american women who need resources and protection face great hardships. they often live in very remote areas. unfortunately native american women are 2 1/2 times more likely to be assaulted in their lifetimes than other women.

as a prosecutor i also saw firsthand the need to protect those who are vulnerable. that's why i pushed so hard for the bipartisan senate passed version of this legislation. this legislation strengthens protections for native american women and so many others. my district needs this legislation. i urge my colleagues from both sides to come together and pass the senate version of the violence against women act today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all let me thank leader pelosi and congresswoman gwen moore for their tremendous

leadership to re-authorize the violence against women act. today we have the opportunity to really stand up for tribal women, the lbgt community, imgrant women, women all across the united states and finally pass the strongly bipartisan senate version of the violence against women re-authorization act. we should have done this a long time ago. after much grandstanding, feet dragging, and shameful politicking over protecting the right for all women to feel safe in their homes and workplace, i hope today that finally we can come together to say that violence against any woman is never an option. when i was in the california legislature, i authored the violence against women act for the state of california, and it was signed into law by a republican governor. it was indeed a bipartisan effort. as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, i know how traumatic it is, and i know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a

survivor. that is what the senate's vawa re-authorization will accomplish for all women. i don't mean for some women. i mean for all women. i urge us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the champion on our side of the aisle for the re-authorization of this important legislation, our majority leader, eric cantor, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady. and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. as chairwoman of our conference, as a strong advocate for families for women, for children in our conversation -- conference salute her and her efforts to improve the ability for individuals, women who are subject to domestic abuse to get the relief that they need. and in that spirit today, madam

speaker, i come to the floor in support of the substitute and the amendment that we are offering today. today, madam speaker, a mother and her daughter will go to a shelter seeking safe harbor because they are scared. another young woman will walk into a hospital emergency room seeking treatment from sexual assault. in some cases women will wait to report haven't crimes because they don't feel there is a support system in place to help them. our goal in strengthening the violence against women act is simple. we want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive, and dangerous situations. we want to make sure all women are safe and have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children, and their families. we want them to know that somebody is there and willing to help. and we want them to know that those who commit these

horrendous crimes will be punished and not let go. madam speaker, that's why we feel so strongly about providing the proper support system and needed relief to thousands ever victims and survivors so that they can get on with their lives. for the past several months we have worked hard in this house to build consensus and to put together the strongest bill possible to improve on that which came from the senate. today i encourage my colleagues to support the house amendment to the violence against women act in order to end violence against all people, against all women, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, who has been a champion for ending violence

against women for all, all, all women in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: madam speaker, last congress it was with great disappointment that for the first time since the violence against women act was signed into law in 1994, house republicans failed to give us a vote and congress failed to re-authorize this important legislation that has reduced domestic abuse and provided victims of violence with vital resources. the effort to re-authorize vawa failed despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate because house republicans stripped the bill of critical provisions to help women, especially native american women. sadly we are seeing this effort repeated on the floor today. once again house republicans are trying to weaken a bill that passed by a vote of 78-22 in the senate in order to deny native american women important protections. sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. the republican substitute is an attack on native american women

and does not respect sovereignty. studies have found that three out of five american indian women will experience domestic violence yet the republican substitute makes it harder to prosecute abusers and full of loopholes. i urge my republican colleagues to drop their opposition to the senate bill and pass legislation that gives all women, including native american women, vital protections against abuse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentleman from washington is recognized. . mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: i rise to support the underlying bill. the programs funded have proven effective over the past two decades in achieving real and meaningful reductions in domestic violence. victims' advocates in my

district and around the country use this funding for battered women shelters, support for runaways. in my home state, the peff coalition against rape currently operates 50 rape crisis centers that provide services to victims of sexual violence. these centers utilize public awareness campaigns and prevention education to combat the root causes of sexual assault. essential institutions such as this are counting on us in this body to ensure that vawa funds remain available to support their often life-saving work. i'm proud to serve as a council of a nonprofit organization that provides financial assistance to victims of violence crime and their significant others. another outstanding institution in my district is turning point in lee high valley, which maintains as a 24-hour help line which provides a constant

resource for victims and their loved ones. it provides safe houses, court advocacy, prevention programs and transitional programs to help them into independent life. our community depends on these organizations and these organizations depend on vawa. vawa is also improving law enforcement's response to domestic violence. in 2007, the pennsylvania commission on crime and delinquency conducted an evaluation of vawa services training for officers and prosecutors' program, stop grants. this program is designed to promote and enhance approach to improve the criminal justice system's handling of violent crimes against women. the final report indicated that police with stop training will work with victims' advocates. court personnel, including prosecutors and judges, are demonstrating a heightened level of sensitivity toward victims' abuse. employing personnel from beginning to end has resulted beginning to end has resulted in an improved arrest policies,