Pelosi Floor Speech on Republican Proposal to Target Women’s Health in Order to Protect Big Oil
Contact: Nadeam Elshami/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks on the House floor today in opposition to House Republicans proposal to pay for lower student loan rates with drastic cuts to women’s preventative health services rather than paying for affordable student loans by removing subsidies for Big Oil. Below are the Leader’s remarks:
“Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today. Everybody knows that essential to a democracy is the education of our children, of investments in the future, so that people can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their families. But also, so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. It is a very important part of the American dream. Democrats believe in building ladders of opportunity where people can have [the] opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility.
“An important rung of that ladder is education. We all know the impact that the G.I. Bill had on America’s great middle class, [and] growing America’s great middle class, [and] the education of our returning veterans to our country; enabling them to have more education than their parents. And that has been the way it has always been in our country’s history. The enduring theme of reigniting the American Dream. And so, we have a challenge before us, because the clock is ticking on a July deadline. At that time, left to the budget of the Republicans, the Ryan Republican Tea Party Budget, there would have been a doubling of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We’ve been having this debate for a while, on how we could stop that doubling from happening. Republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate debate. Until now.
“Thanks to President Obama taking this issue public, so that the American people understood what was at stake here. And that the doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to college and be more costly for many others. In fact, seven million students would be affected and that means at least 20 million people, assuming they have an average of two people in their families. So, this has a direct impact on many people in our country. It’s a bread and butter issue. It’s a kitchen table issue where people talk about how they’re going to make ends meet. And one of those ends is the education of their children. So, all of a sudden, the Republicans in the House have seen the light. They’re willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week ago, [almost all] of them voted for the Ryan Budget, which would allow the interest rates to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Thank God they’ve seen the light. Thank you President Obama for shedding some light on this. And now they say they’re for stopping that.
“But, how do they want to pay for that? They want to take it from their favorite target: women’s health. I don’t know why it hasn’t dawned on them yet, that the health of America’s women is very important to the health of America’s families. And so they want to take the funds from women’s health and then also childhood immunizations, that’s very important, the immunization of every child in America is important to every other child in America. And that’s where they want to take the money from.
“What the motion that we have here today, is to say that: ‘instead of taking the money, instead of robbing Paula to pay Peter, we should be taking the money from the tax subsidies that go to Big Oil in our country.’ That’s what we should be doing. Isn’t that a better show of what our values are? That we value the health of our women and our children. Why would we – and not only, to make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for breast cancer, and cervical cancer, and other women’s health issues, not only are they saying we should take the five or six billion dollars from there, they’re saying we should take the additional $5 billion that would be left in the account and repeal it – repeal it. We’re not even – we’re taking twice as much money as we need for the student loan bill because we want to do away, we’re going to use this as an excuse to do away with this prevention initiative that affects women’s health so directly. It’s outrageous. It’s outrageous. We prefer tax subsidies for Big Oil rather than the health of America’s women. Once again, they’re targeting women’s health.
“And so, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Previous Question. So we will have an opportunity to at least put before the House an alternative that says: ‘give us a choice to choose between whether we want to pay for the future, our young people’s education, by removing some – some – of the subsidies to Big Oil, or we want to take it out of women’s health.’ The very idea that the Republicans would deny us a vote to do that speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women’s health as something they want to cut.
“So again, I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on the Previous Question, which would allow the House to vote on a Democratic bill that reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4 instead of raising them to 6.8 [percent], which is in the Republican budget. And if we cannot do that, I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on this ill-conceived, way out of whack, statement of values: that we would make women’s health pay for childrens’ education when you should be doing both. So, ‘no’ on the Previous Question. We’re not allowed to – at least even take a vote, ‘no’ on the bill and let’s admit that we can do better than that.”
###