Devastating Effects of Sequestration Cuts to Maternal and Child Health Programs and Research

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. Well, I thank you so much, my good friend from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. You have always, even before your tenure as a Member of Congress, been an advocate for good, healthy, nutritious food. It really occurs to me that kids can't wait. It's not as if we malnourish them now, that somehow when the economy picks up, we can supply them with calcium and vitamin A and vitamin C, protein and iron that they need retrospectively and say: well, let's just pick up where we left off. Here's this pregnant woman who, if she can just manage to get that child into the world, by the time they are three or four, we'll back up and provide them with that nourishment.

I can tell you that, Jan, you have for a long time been a shero in this. And so has my good friend, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, who will be joining us very soon as well.

We've got to take a balanced approach to this deficit reduction. There is just no question that these programs, which serve women, infants, children, will lose if sequestration takes place as scheduled. We know that every year, millions of women and children depend on health, nutrition, and other services that are provided through their State and local public health departments because of Federal funding.

These services not only include nutrition but well-child and well-mother checkups, basic immunizations, education on healthy eating and nutrition, and referrals, when appropriate, to programs like WIC, which help ensure a healthy start for women and children. Let's not fool ourselves, sequestration will cripple these efforts that help women and children.

According to one estimate, sequestration will eliminate nearly $1 billion in Federal funding for research and programs designed to promote and protect the health of women and children. Many of these programs have already been subject to two straight years of funding cuts and left flat or near-flat funding prior to that. Sequester will cut even deeper and for much longer.

So when we start saying we have to have a balanced approach in terms of raising revenue and cuts, we have already cut $1.7 trillion from these programs. You can cut to the bone and into the bone when you start talking about cutting these programs any more.

Some make the argument that our Nation can no longer afford to invest in programs that support the health and well-being of women and children. I would argue that we cannot afford not to make these investments. We sure hear a lot about ``family values'' that, quite frankly, isn't reflected in the support of funding for programs that aim to provide the most basic of necessities for women and children in need.

I want to talk about one of these programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC serves over 9 million mothers and young children every month, including a majority of infants throughout our Nation, and about one in four pregnant women. The program focuses on low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children under age 5 who are at nutritional risk. We're talking about women and youngsters who are low-income and at risk for some very troubling health and developmental outcomes and very expensive outcomes for our Nation down the road as their health deteriorates because we did not do basic preventive things like giving them a decent meal.

Research has consistently shown that participation in WIC improves nutrition, resulting in overall healthier pregnancies, healthier birth outcomes, and better growth and development of young children. Yet, this hard-fought progress and the lives of at-risk women and children are at risk due to pending budget cuts.

Administrative costs for these programs is just a steal, only about 7.5 percent, meaning that the vast majority of these funds go to getting healthy food, education, and referrals to women, infants, and children in need. So when we talk about the cuts that are called for under sequestration, we aren't talking about trimming overhead or waste. We're talking about taking away food--food, people--and vital services from vulnerable populations. We're talking about denying an infant access to good, healthy breast milk and the food package that they need to help develop normally.

WIC is a short-term intervention that makes a lifelong difference. On average, a woman participates for 13 months, but science tells us that those 13 months make a heck of a difference to mothers and children over a lifetime.

If we can't agree as a nation that ensuring pregnant women, infants, and children are adequately nourished is a must, then what can we agree on? We will not balance the budget by cutting WIC and other Federal programs like the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy Start, and HIV/AIDS programs.

WIC represents less than two-tenths percent of the Federal budget. Funding immunizations for children did not put our Nation in this fiscal mess, but it is these proven, cost-effective innovations that help us all which are poised to bear the brunt of these cuts. In allowing sequestration to occur, we put lives in jeopardy in spite of the considerable evidence that these programs are making a difference and saving costs to the taxpayers down the line.

Thank you so much for this time, Jan. Thank you for doing this Special Order. When we start talking about food, we're talking about a very basic need. And if we're talking about cutting food from infants, we're talking about not making a hard choice, we're talking about making a cruel choice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source