Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, let me thank the former chair of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee and now the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and the manager and the chairman of the subcommittee.

I thought, Madam Chairwoman, that we lived in a country that was a land of the free and the brave. We had a sense of pride in the progress that America has made, and we have always said we would never want to go back, whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women, whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. But I stand on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because it seems as if, with this continuing resolution, that will literally stop in its tracks the functioning of this government. We are really going back.

I rise to support the Lowey amendment because I really can't believe that this CR is eliminating $327 million in family planning. It just baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in jeopardy. It is now being part of turning the clock back. It is amazing that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been saved, lives of young girls have been saved because they've had access to family planning.

As much as we have fought to be able to ensure that around the world where indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing process now have access to good medical care--and yes, family planning--so that they can have live births, now we come here to the soil of the United States, and to take $327 million out of the mouths and the hands of women and children--yes, children who can be born healthy. Children who are part of the health care process that these women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this Nation and in this community.

I am disappointed in the games that are played with Planned Parenthood and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent tapings and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not in the business of helping people. I am disappointed in using those tactics because this is a very serious issue. Mrs. Lowey's amendment addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes that if we were to go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many, many lives that are lost.

We have a Planned Parenthood office in my community. It is mostly focusing its attention on educating the community about healthy births, about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination that is made by their faith leader with their family. They will not be left alone. In fact, family planning and Planned Parenthood extinguishes, I hope for good, the back alley procedures and, as well, the rusty hangers that were used in years past.

Just a day or two ago, we heard of a horrible abortion clinic that saw the lives lost of babies and their mothers because of the dastardly tactics that were being used. That is not what we speak of here today. We speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to accept the good health care of family planning.

We speak of the rights of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that really ensure that we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights, which allows us due process, is what is being denied in this continuing resolution for, as we speak, if that money is eliminated, clinics around America will have their doors closed. Women will be standing outside, banging on the door and asking for good health care.

So I ask my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, and I truly ask you to not take this Nation back and eliminate $327 million in family planning, benign but healthy and good health care and good policy for America and for America's women and for America's children.

Let us support the Lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination of $327 million in family planning and this continuing resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say that I rise to join with the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment and that I now rise to introduce the Jackson Lee amendment, which also addresses the question of the Pell Grant. I would hope that my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. I consider this an emergency, and I will make this point as the gentleman makes his point of order.

Mr. Chair, let me just refer to where we are today because we are needing to be engaged in creating jobs. I am not sure what my colleagues heard in the last election, but what I heard was that we needed jobs.

It is clear--and I hope that we can see this--we have been here for 5 weeks plus, and the number of jobs that have been created by the Republicans is zero. So here we are now with a 15 percent cut on Pell Grants.

What does that mean?

It means that schools all around the Nation will not be able to provide Pell Grants to the individual students who need them. In fact, in my own district, with this 15 percent cut, this 5,550 going down to 4,705 will drastically impact students in my constituency.

For example, the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell Grants in order to finance their education. 5,726 are currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at the University of Houston--16,570 in my district alone. Those from the State of Montana will lose their Pell Grants. Those from the State of Alabama, from the State of Connecticut, and from the State of Wisconsin will lose their Pell Grants. But the real insult is that this will stop the education of thousands upon thousands of students in the middle of their education.

Again, how many jobs have the Republicans created?--zero.

I always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. We are on the rise of creating jobs. In fact, the CBO said that our future is great. It will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million from the Pell Grant program. It is absolutely absurd. For example, let me share with you thoughts from The New York Times:

This CR is ideologically driven. We started with a $74 billion cut, but because the Republicans decided that it is preferable to abide by polls, they decided to move to a draconian and ludicrous $100 billion.

That means that $600 million was cut from Pell Grants.

In addition to an amendment that I did not offer, the NIH, we see that those grants that were competitive for fellowships and research have also been drastically cut at Texas Southern University and at the University of Houston, and many State institutions in Texas are impacted by the cuts of the NIH grants.

But this is the greatest sin: In a meeting that I had with my community colleges and my school districts, they were in complete panic about losing Pell Grants that will then impact on the wonderful upsurge of jobs from what we had lost in the last administration.

I would simply ask my colleagues: Why are we going down a pathway that would take away the growth that we have provided?

So I would ask, as we look to the future, that this be restored. My amendment and Ms. Chu's amendment--the one that I joined and the one that I intended to speak on--was, in fact, to restore these dollars.

A new Wall Street Journal survey of economists shows they expect the economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003 but not with these draconian cuts. Why wouldn't they do as the President's budget has done, which is to get rid of the 2 percent tax cuts for the billionaires? We might be able to provide $600 million for students. But no. We want to, I guess, stand with ideological viewpoints and with individuals who say, I was sent here to budget cut.

You were sent here to govern. You were sent here to protect the American people. Students who will create the workforce of the 21st century, you are now telling them they can't get an education.

Let me say this: The Constitution reminds us of what a wonderful country we live in--a country that believes we all are created equal. We don't have the same economic opportunities, meaning the same wealth, but we do have the ability to access education through wonderful programs like the Pell Grant program. Now you're telling poor and low-income students the door is closed; the lights are out; you're not equal, and you don't deserve an education.

I would say that this is an abomination. Support the amendments that will provide for $600 million restored to the Pell Grants. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

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

H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, minorities, the elderly, and our nation's university students. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate effect on the low-income and minority portions of our population.

As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms to those Americans who are the most vulnerable and in need of our support the most.

The proposed CR calls for a 15 percent reduction in funding for Pell grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a major hardship on students.

Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that would force them to find and secure additional funds for their schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college.

To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and relies on those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to take time off from their schooling.

In my district in Houston, TX, these cuts will jeopardize the education and future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell grants in order to finance their education--5,726 currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at University of Houston. 16,570 students in one Congressional District alone will be unfairly affected by these cuts.

In the entire state of Texas, 650,790 students currently enrolled in school will be forced to deal with unexpected financial hardships under this provision. In other words, in my state alone, the number of students negatively impacted by this drastic cut to Pell grant funding is more than the entire population of Washington, DC. Nationwide, more than 9 million students would potentially be impacted.

Mr. Chair, these cuts are an unnecessary and unfair hardship that will be forced on college students. These young men and women represent the future labor force of our country, and in these trying economic times, I believe it is extremely appalling for Members of Congress to purposefully jeopardize the educational and economic future of our country.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to strike the provision of the Continuing Resolution, CR, that would significantly reduce the level of funding used by the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to fund competitive and noncompetitive grant programs. The proposed cuts would have a direct detrimental impact on students studying at institutions of higher learning.

Majority of the fellowships offered at institutions of higher education are funded by these competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Under the proposed Continuing Resolution, NIH funding would be cut by close to $1 billion. Such a cut would have a massive and immediate impact on the ability of students to continue their studies.

Many of the fellowships funded by NIH are multi-year programs, meaning that many of the students in receipt of these fellowships are studying in expectation of a certain level of funding. These students are dependent on these funds in order to continue their studies and pay their living expenses. Drastic cuts such as the ones proposed would leave these students in a very difficult situation financially, and in some cases, may even require them to put their studies on hold.

My district, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX is home to a number of colleges and universities, amongst those, Texas Southern University--a Historically Black College, and the University Houston system--a massive institution responsible for the education of over 60,000 students.

In 2010, Texas Southern University, a relatively small institution, received $895,228 in educational grants from NIH alone. The University of Houston, a much larger school, was able to offer close to 900 fellowships to students because of over $13.9 million dollars of grant funding received from NIH. Under the cuts proposed in the CR, approximately a thousand students in my district alone would be potentially negatively impacted.

These grants from NIH enabled students in my district at Texas Southern University and University of Houston to study and research in the fields of engineering, pharmacy, optometry, education, social work and other sciences. These students, and hundreds of thousands of other students across the country, are our future. They are actively taking steps to win the future for America, and the cuts proposed in this CR creating hardships that could lead to failure.

Not only will these cuts to NIH funding affect current students, but it will reduce the number of fellowships that colleges and universities will be able to offer to students in the future. We are living in a highly competitive global economy. If America intends to remain a global super power, we must arm our students with the knowledge and tools to remain competitive, specifically quality education. Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they may be competitive in a global economy.

Just a few weeks ago, during the State of the Union address, President Obama laid out his blueprint for how America can ``win the future.'' He acknowledged the need for America to tighten its belt and make difficult cuts to address our national debt Saying, ``we need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government.'' And I wholeheartedly agree--cuts will have to be made, and some of those cuts may be painful.

However, in the next breath, President Obama stated, ``The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.'' The research grants and fellowships that NIH has been providing to students do exactly that. They allow American students to research and spur innovation, which is a long term investment in our economy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will.

I consider this an emergency, and I would ask that this point of order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, Mr. Chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the $1,000, $800 they will lose. I'm asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal. I'd ask for a waiver and I'd ask for this amendment to be accepted and the point of order to be waived.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule.

The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas violates section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5.

Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.

The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Very briefly, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If it's good, if it has been good, it's time for it to go.

I'm going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from Oregon's amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston, Texas, that compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for learning.

I might add, the National Public Radio, as well, has its challenges. So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is churning, that we will invest in our children, which the National Public Radio represents.

And as my friend from New York said, Big Bird is still alive, and other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for children who are at home, or in home daycare, to give them an exposure to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities.

So let me just say that I'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from investing in education--cutting Pell Grants, cutting NIH fellowships and scholarships, cutting public broadcast. It looks like we've just said enough is enough with job creation and let's get rid of education as well. And I ask, of course, that this CR be defeated.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source