Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 107.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for organizing the ``What is Wrong with Wall Street'' here tonight so that we could have the opportunity to hail one of our true champions and sheroes this evening. I just, first of all, want to associate myself with all of the comments that have already been made. When you have served for 36 years, we could wax on forever about your distinguished career of public service, so I won't do that. I just want to focus on one thing that you have done that has really touched me in a very profound way, and that is, as a valued friend and colleague and mentor, your passion for the Great Lakes. From your seat on the Appropriations Committee, and now the co-chair of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, you have never ever, Marcy, missed a beat when it came to the Great Lakes. And I am sure that there were times when you have felt like you were a lonely voice out there crying in the wilderness. There is an old African proverb that says: Water has no enemies. So you would think, given that, that there would be just this plethora of funding and strategies, but there has not been. We have seen the crisis in lead in drinking water, bathing; sportsmen depend on water; agriculture depends on water; and truly, we need a water policy and a policy around the Great Lakes that makes sense whenever we do an infrastructure bill. Now, for every one of those 18,000-plus days of service in the House, you have been a steward and a champion for protecting not only this environmental treasure, but Marcy also recognizes how much this resource provides for our regional and national economy. If the Great Lakes region, the U.S. and Canadian provinces, were a separate country, it would have a gross domestic product of $6 trillion, making it the third largest economy in the world. That growth and development would not be possible without leaders with vision and passion like you, Marcy, and so I want to thank you. I agree with the gentleman who has said that your greatest accomplishments have not even occurred yet, as it pertains to developing the potential for these water resources in the Great Lakes. I want to thank you for your legacy of working to stop the invasive Asian carp; fighting for safe and clean drinking water; making sure that the Great Lakes get the needed support from the Army Corps of Engineers for their funding, for dredging, and to maintain the critical infrastructure to support commerce; for fighting against efforts to roll back the Clean Water Act; and, certainly, for your vigorous opposition to efforts to kill the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Thank you, Marcy, for your leadership, and I love you dearly.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen flight delays, I was absent for roll call votes 92 and 93 on March 5, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 92 and AYE on Roll Call No. 93, both naming certain post offices.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kevin L. Shafer, P.E. for being named as one of the Top 25 Global Water Leaders. Kevin has served as the Executive Director at the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) since March 2002. As Executive Director, Kevin manages approximately 230 MMSD employees and oversees a contract for the operation and maintenance of the sewerage system with a private contractor. As Executive Director, Kevin developed and implemented an Overflow Reduction Plan; completed a watershed based regional water quality management plan update; initiated a Green Infrastructure Program for the Milwaukee region; helped to found a local nonprofit organization, the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, and focused on water quality improvements. Prior to joining the District, Mr. Shafer spent 10 years in private industry and six years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Fort Worth, Texas. He is a past president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Currently, Kevin is the Chair of the Water Environment Research Foundation and of the U.S. Water Alliance's Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Council. Mr. Shafer received a bachelor's degree in science and civil engineering with a specialty in water resources from the University of Illinois and a master's in civil engineering from the University of Texas. In December 2017 he was named as one of the Top 25 Global Water Leaders by Water & Wastewater International Magazine. This designation is known as a barometer of the industry's thought leaders. The selection was made concentrating on active leaders who are driving companies forward into the digital water age with a focus on innovation. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I rise to pay tribute and congratulate Kevin Shafer on his award; I am proud that he resides and works in the Fourth Congressional District.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Luetkemeyer might have had a good idea, but what we have really seen is an arbitrary FSOC and a Republican- controlled Federal Reserve Board that operates without quorums. This may be a good idea, but until we have a financial regulatory framework where we can trust the people in charge, I think that we should not support this bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to decry a provision in this tax bill that would amount to shocking tax increases of thousands of dollars for struggling graduate students by reclassifying their tuition assistance as taxable income. These students provide research and teaching services as work to offset tuition. I mean, we are talking about assistants in the dorms, teaching assistants for undergraduate courses, researchers in laboratories--all who contribute to universities for quite modest stipends and tuition credits to avoid going further into debt and to support themselves while completing their master's degrees and Ph.D.'s. Taxing this so-called income would impose a profoundly negative impact on education. Schools across the country could lose half their current graduate students, and it would diminish the number of students who would even consider graduate school in the future. Mr. Speaker, what is to become of the vital research and development in the fields of medicine and engineering and agriculture and information technology--things that have led to innovation and invention, things that have truly made America great--with this tax provision? An example from my very own alma mater, Marquette University, raises the problems with parents. There is a maintenance mechanic who has three--three, triplets--college-age students. He receives $40,000 of tuition assistance for each of these students. I mean, for real, Mr. Speaker, we are going to deem $120,000 income to this maintenance person? Be for real. My constituent, Tim, writes: As a graduate student in the third year of a Ph.D. program, I am married, have a 4-month-old. My wife works full time as a high school teacher. My research focuses on investigating how persons who have suffered from a neurological disease such as a stroke or spinal cord injury are able to move. This tuition waiver is the only reason I can afford graduate school and do the research I am doing to help the disabled. If this becomes taxable income, my wife and I would move into a higher tax bracket, and my tax liability would increase roughly 40 percent, without a single dime of an increase in income with which I could pay that. This equals roughly $1,300 per month of taxes. At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, also in my district, graduate student Shandra is finishing her master's in library and information science. Under the Republican House bill, Shandra's income, in the eyes of the government, would effectively double. Now, you know, doubling the standard deduction, letting people file on a postcard will not offset the draconian tax cuts that these graduate students would experience. Taxing tuition credits would hurt lower and middle class, hardworking citizens who rely on this benefit to help them and their families achieve the American Dream. I urge my colleagues and people in the public, Mr. Speaker, not to fall for this trick, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose this harmful bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly present the art of the deal: In the tax deal before us, we provide permanent tax cuts for individuals who are multimillionaires and billionaires. With this deal, all middle class families will eventually face a tax increase since tax relief for them expires. All taxes, of course, go up on folks earning as little as $10,000 a year almost immediately. After all, Mr. Speaker, somebody's got to pay for the wealthy's permanent tax cuts. Now, how do we get buy-in from the middle class, you ask. Well, here is the beauty of the deal, Mr. Speaker. We will trickle down a few crumbs from the master's table to get some of them through one or two Christmas shopping seasons; and let's tell them that they can do their taxes on a postcard and that they will just love that they won't have to go through all the tedious math work of receiving thousands of dollars in personal exemptions and State income and local tax relief. They won't have to do all of that subtracting of medical expenses and student loan interest from their tax obligations. We will promise them jobs. Hey, yeah, let's do that through dynamic scoring, trickle-down and voodoo economic growth like we did during the Reagan and Bush years, back when we gave trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy and created the deficits that are now dragging on our economy. Mr. Speaker, people are so desperate that they will believe us. Of course, we will have to cut $25 billion out of Social Security immediately to meet budget rules, or maybe we can just cut some veteran benefits from mandatory spending. We are targeting $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, but don't worry, Mr. Speaker, we will just defame recipients of these benefits as unworthy welfare cheats and the general public will go for our deal. Mr. Speaker, let's adopt a better deal. Let's pursue a commonsensical means of growing the economy, like spending these trillions of dollars on infrastructure instead of a giveaway to the wealthy, by providing postsecondary opportunity and skill development to our next generation of innovators and workers instead of taxing our students into an abyss of debt. Let's fund research on medical cures instead of burying the infirm into early graves. Let us reject this abomination of a tax bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many of my constituents who are concerned about U.S. involvement in Yemen. The country is in ruins, civilians are paying the price, and there seems to be little to no interest in using our considerable heft and moral authority to search for and find a diplomatic solution. We are no closer to peace in Yemen today than when the first bombs dropped. What we do have after over two years of war and suffering is a fractured country, repeated attacks on health and other civilian facilities in a country now experiencing a deadly cholera outbreak that could eventually reach 1 million suspected cases by year's end, limited access to lifesaving humanitarian aid, including the decision last week by the Saudi-led coalition to close all ports and ground all humanitarian flights into the country that will only make a bad situation, worse. That decision was quickly condemned by the United Nations and others who warned about the dire consequences for Yemen's 27 million citizens. In the face of international pressure and condemnation, it appears the Saudi-led coalition may now reopen some ports but the situation remains dire. There are serious questions that need to be answered about U.S. involvement, direct and indirect, including what it is actually helping to achieve, and what are the costs. While participation in the Yemen civil war preceded this Administration, that fact does not remove the responsibility of the President and this Congress. The final FY 2018 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2810) that we are going to consider later this week includes a provision calling for a U.S. Security Strategy for Yemen from this Administration. That would be a step forward. Unfortunately, the bill that will come before the House this week would strip--without public debate, discussion, or deliberation--a provision from the House-passed bill that would have barred any use of taxpayer funding to deploy members of the U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the ongoing civil war in Yemen. Additionally, the House-passed version of H.R. 1298 barred the use of taxpayer funds authorized in the bill to conduct U.S. military operations in Yemen. That provision was also dropped in conference with the Senate, again with no public debate or deliberation. If we agree that the humanitarian situation is horrific, that a political solution is the only solution, then why keep the pathway open for broader U.S. military engagement? The provisions in the House-passed version of H.R. 2810 would have put strong teeth behind the resolution we are considering today and behind the concerns expressed during this debate and in this resolution regarding the humanitarian crises that is unfolding in Yemen as a direct result of this damaging conflict. Mr. Speaker, it is not in our nation's interest to make a dangerous region only more volatile. It is not in our nation's interest to see Yemen become an even more broken and divided nation and even a failed state. And it is not clear that continuing to do more of the same will not reverse those trends or bring us closer to the diplomatic solution that is almost universally recognized as the only effective solution.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to make a commonsense update to the Selective Service Registration system. As my colleagues know, our country has long recognized the moral dilemma faced by those with strong religious or moral grounds against serving in the military and engaging in war. As noted by the Supreme Court in Welsh vs. United States, there are many in our country ``whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of war.'' Historically, Congress has provided for alternative service or exemption from service for those whose scruples and conscience cannot allow them to participate in combat or in any form of military service. In today's all-volunteer military, those who have moral objections to participating in war can opt not to join the military. However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, all men between the ages of 18 and 26, including conscientious objectors, are still required to register for a national draft, should Congress authorize one. My bill would require that the Selective Service provide registrants, at the time of registration, with the option to indicate a desire to be classified as a conscientious objector. My bill would make clear that simply making that indication at registration does not bind the U.S. in any way and does not assure that the registrant will be so classified. Finally, the bill would allow the Selective Service system to also accept, at the time of registration, written statements in support of a conscientious exemption claim. I want to be clear that the legislation does not change current requirements for how such claims are handled. Under current law, those who pursue a conscientious exemption from military service during a draft can only put forward an actual claim, with supporting evidence, after they get an induction notice. Again Mr. Speaker, our nation has a history of recognizing, as noted by the Supreme Court in Gillette v. United States, ``the situation of conscientious objectors to war, who, absent special status, would be put to a hard choice between contravening imperatives of religion and conscience or suffering penalties.'' My bill simply tries to make the process of registering those objections more direct and straightforward.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize those in our military who have worked tirelessly to help Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Despite my continuing concerns about the dreadful federal response to the devastation in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, I know that the dedicated men and women of our military have been working day and night to help bring much needed relief to those in need. Without their help and aid, one can only imagine how much worse the situation would be now. In the last two weeks, the USS Wasp, the USS Oak Hill, and the USS Kearsarge have returned home or are in the process of returning home. In both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the sailors and Marines aboard these ships cleared roads to ease the flow of people and relief supplies, conducted search and rescue missions, helped deliver much needed supplies, and most of all, were a daily reminder to those they met that our country helps its citizens. Speaking to the high tempo at which these men and women were working, the Navy reports that during the 68-day period of its hurricane relief deployment, the Kearsarge ``conducted more amphibious and flight operations than would be completed in a routine six-month deployment.'' And I would be remiss if I did not mention the invaluable contribution of National Guard personnel, including those impacted directly by the hurricanes, and those from all over the United States, including my home state of Wisconsin. I would urge the Defense Department, even as these ships return home, to continue to ensure that its considerable resources and assets remain available to help Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the trying weeks and months that still lay ahead. Our citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands will need our help for many months to come and the military must continue to be a key part of that effort. And I also strongly encourage the Administration to quickly send a new disaster funding request that accurately reflects the proposals that affected communities, including Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, have put forward outlining the federal aid they need to help communities rebuild better. Again, I salute the men and women in and out of uniform who have been and continue to help their fellow Americans during this deadly and devastating hurricane season. They are doing their part; now this Administration and Congress need to do ours in the coming weeks.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the Badger State for yielding to me. I am so pleased to join him, along with Representative Mark Pocan, in support of this amendment. It is critical, Mr. Chairman. Wisconsinites value our natural resources like no other. The Great Lakes are an immense source of regional pride as well as a great economic engine for our region, and we know that these resources are constantly under attack from a variety of threats. One particularly nefarious threat is invasive species. My colleagues and I are all aware of the costs these species impose. These costs are something that, unfortunately, the Great Lakes region knows too well. From the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel, to the carnivorous Asian carp now advancing toward the region, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with the damage created when these invasive and nuisance species get into the Great Lakes ecosystem; and keeping them out of the Great Lakes in the first place is the most effective strategy. A stitch in time saves nine, so I am pleased that this is a bipartisan amendment. I want to emphasize that the amendment does not predetermine any particular outcome or decision. There is no magic bullet, Mr. Chairman, to the problem of invasive species given that there are so many pathways for them to get into a body of water, including through ballast water, but this commonsense amendment gives us a more effective tool in that fight. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the continuing urgency of providing relief and recovery aid for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which were devastated by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. While U.S. efforts have ramped up after a failed initial response, we can and must do more. In Puerto Rico, some 70 shelters remain open, access to safe drinking water is a problem, and there are dozens of waterborne disease deaths. Nearly a third of hospitals are still running off generators, bridges remain destroyed, and many roads remain impassable. Nearly 60 percent of the island is without power. The news is not better for the Virgin Islands, where many still lack access to cell service, power, and clean water. Officials estimate $5.5 billion is needed for the most essential needs there. Mr. Speaker, there are less than 20 legislative days left on the House calendar. How can we be prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy? Let's put together fair and strong hurricane relief packages for communities ravaged by these hurricanes, including those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on October 31, I was absent for recorded vote No. 591. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the ``E Pluribus Unum'' to give voice to the elderly, the children, the disabled, the most vulnerable who are once again facing your proposal, Mr. Speaker, to rip healthcare and the safety net from them. Is this the best you can do, Mr. Speaker, to once again, over and over again, propose this legislation to cut trillions of dollars from Medicaid and Medicare to fund tax cuts for corporations and for billionaires, and to do this, to slam this through the House without transparency? Mr. Speaker, Republicans like to call me a ``tax and spend liberal,'' but today we see this GOP fiscal plan as another ``borrow and spend to pay for billionaires tax cuts.'' Now, the Wharton School and the Goldman Sachs studies both show that, at best, this plan would produce a paltry one-tenth, maybe two-tenths of 1 percent growth, but we all know that it will increase the national debt by trillions of dollars. This is a horrible investment, a horrible return, a negative return on investment. It is a terrible process. This is terrible legislation. It will produce terrible results for the overwhelming majority of Americans, especially the millions who rely on Medicaid and Medicare. Now, here is the deal, Mr. Speaker, that you are trying to push: if Americans are willing to give billionaires windfall tax cuts today and also trade their health security and safety net, then you, Mr. Speaker, will give average Americans the empty promise of wage growth tomorrow and you will be able to file your taxes on a postcard. I say ``empty promises'' because studies and our experience have shown that this unicorn of wage growth from tax cuts will never, in fact, happen. It is reminiscent, Mr. Speaker, of the gluttonous Wimpy in the ``Popeye'' cartoon: ``I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.'' Now, this is a great plan if you are rich. It is dollars for fool's gold, but the American people are not fools, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the Republicans want to rush this through with minimum transparency. This is madness. Trickle down has not worked, it does not work, and it will never work. We have got deficits under Reagan and under George W. Bush to prove it. The tax cuts will not pay for themselves, Mr. Speaker. The tax cuts won't magically produce increased salaries for workers. The tax plan will not lead to these claims of economic growth. Mr. Speaker, we have all lived long enough to know that these are all lies. It is not even wishful thinking anymore, because we know better. Congress should not be considering tax cuts for the rich and opening up even more tax loopholes. Mr. Speaker, we cannot spin gold out of straw, and that is what we have here. This plan will make most Americans poorer and sicker, if not dead. I urge all my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fortify our election system from Russian further interference; build new infrastructure, that is what creates jobs; fund the Child Health Insurance Program that Republicans let expire; ensure that all 3\1/2\ million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands can have access to water, power, and healthcare this holiday season. That is what we should be doing.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise, along with the Wisconsin delegation, to honor the former Congressman, Jerry Kleczka, my predecessor, who passed away on October 8, 2017, at the age of 73. He was a very serious, hardworking legislator who served on the Ways and Means Committee. He had a strong work ethic. He was a particularly fantastic steward of our seniors, and he was proud to serve the people of Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District. I am pleased to stand here with my colleagues from the Wisconsin delegation to honor his service to our Nation, to the State of Wisconsin, and to the Fourth Congressional District, and I ask our colleagues to join us in a moment of silence.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jerry Kleczka. He was a true public servant and legislator. He passed away on October 8, 2017. He was 73 years old. Jerry Kleczka grew up on the south side of Milwaukee. He graduated from Don Bosco High School, attended the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee for two years, worked as an accountant and served in the Wisconsin National Guard. Jerry Kleczka was elected to the Wisconsin State Legislature at age 24 where he served in both the Assembly and Senate. In 1984, he won a special election to replace Clement Zablocki in Congress and served for over two decades until his retirement in 2005. I succeeded Jerry Kleczka in the 4th Congressional District and appreciate his kindness in assisting me through the transition to Washington. He gave me a gift of African cloth from one of his trips that I cherish to this day. While in Congress, Jerry Kleczka served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee; he formed a warm and lasting friendship with Representative John Lewis during that tenure. He twice voted against going to war--the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some of his signature legislation included support for seniors and preventing ``drive-through'' baby deliveries when insurance companies forced some women to leave hospitals too soon after giving birth. Jerry Kleczka was a serious, hard-working legislator with a strong work ethic. He took pride in being the guy from the south side of Milwaukee. When my alma mater, Marquette University began an internship program in Washington, D.C., in 1984 for students interested in careers in government and public service, Kleczka was a strong supporter. Jerry Kleczka donated his campaign funds of $300,000 to endow what became in 2005 the Kleczka Internship Program. He was awarded an honorary doctorate of law degree in 2005 by Marquette University. Many of the interns serving in my office were members of this program; this is Jerry Kleczka's lasting legacy to the entire community. Upon his retirement, Jerry moved to Middleton. Middleton was Bonnie's, his wife of 39 years, hometown. He lived quietly and was busy with hobbies that included gardening, woodworking and remodeling projects. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Kleczka was a valued member of Milwaukee, the 4th Congressional District, and the entire State of Wisconsin. I applaud and value his stewardship. I urge you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in a salute to the late Jerry Kleczka.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a new low for this Congress to allow the critical and bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program to expire. This program is 20 years old, and this has never happened, where we have allowed the basic safety net healthcare program for children to expire. We hear over and over again, Mr. Speaker, you talk about the ne'er do well, lazy ones of our constituents who are poor and don't want to work. But, Mr. Speaker, these are children who are ineligible for work and unavailable to take care of themselves. We are destroying the health safety net for children. But it is not that we haven't had time to extend CHIP. We have renamed post offices. We have renamed a highway. We have advanced the House budget reconciliation riddled with unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy, including the repeal of the estate tax, which alone would increase our deficit by $269 billion by 2025. Mr. Speaker, that is billion with a B. Are Republicans in this body trying to solve the budget crisis and our deficit problem by cutting CHIP? I don't think so. Even more, Mr. Speaker, last week, we spent a considerable amount of time debating the 20-week abortion ban. We heard passionate speeches about how important it was to preserve the life of fetuses. We spent all this time and speaker after speaker making emotional demands on this body that we restrict women's body autonomy, but we spent no time reauthorizing the program for little Junior, once he crowns and is born--the basic healthcare that he needs immediately exiting the womb. Mr. Speaker, simply put, it is hypocritical for you to say that life ends as soon as the umbilical cord is cut. And, Mr. Speaker, your actions prove it. You know, I am of the mindset of one of our news reporters, Rachel Maddow, that we ought to just watch what you do and not what you say. Almost 9 million children depend on CHIP for healthcare; 9 million children from low- to moderate-income families who will lose access to vaccinations, routine checkups, dental care, mental healthcare, prescriptions, and some of these children are profoundly disabled. Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to the 24 percent of the children enrolled in CHIP that have special healthcare needs, including asthma and learning disabilities? The health of our children depends on this program, yet, Mr. Speaker, all you can do to muster up a reauthorization for CHIP is to fund it by increasing Medicare premiums--Medicare, a program designed for people over 65--and cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund. All you can do, Mr. Speaker, is to pit old people against our babies in order to provide basic healthcare to children. This sounds really Faustian, and it is unimaginable, yet this is the reality that we are working with. Mr. Speaker, it is now time to put these politics aside and to reauthorize CHIP now for 5 years. This is a disgrace not only in this Nation, but internationally. I, as an American, don't want to be judged by putting our kids last.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about pain here today. Let's talk about Leslie and her husband, who found out that they were pregnant and were thrilled. Unfortunately, the pregnancy did not go well. Tests revealed that Leslie's fetus' brain never divided into two separate hemispheres, giving her child no chance for survival. Let's talk about pain. By the time the test exposed this tragic news, Leslie was over 20 weeks pregnant, but she lived in a State without an abortion ban. Now she lives in Wisconsin, where abortions after 20 weeks are illegal. Had she lived there during this time, she would have been forced to deliver a baby and be pregnant for 20 more weeks, compounding the emotional horror of the experience. Let's talk about pain. In Leslie's own words: ``I still mourn my daughter every day, but I cannot begin to understand how a position that would rather see me dead and neither of my sons ever born just to prolong a tragically doomed pregnancy can be called `pro-life.''' On behalf of Leslie, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop the bans and stop the pain.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise for a second time today in strident opposition to H.R. 36. This bill is unconstitutional, and it is an overt attempt to challenge women's constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion. It is really disturbing that funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers has expired, but yet this majority is focusing on doubling down on their crusade against women's healthcare. Let's talk about pain a little bit here. What is especially painful about this bill is that there is an exception in this bill for rape victims only when they report to law enforcement officials, thus resurrecting the debunked legitimate rape argument. Many women can't report rape for a variety of reasons, probably also including the sanctimonious social stigma that their Congressman or Congresswoman would place upon them. So this bill underhandedly revictimizes vulnerable rape survivors. Madam Speaker, I am a survivor of rape. That is painful. This bill is a cruel and ruthless attempt to undermine women and attack our rights to govern our bodies, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unconstitutional bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for leading this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, in 1971, then-President Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs, which he labeled as ``public enemy number one in the United States.'' Now, at the time of this declaration, America's prisons and jails held fewer than 200,000 people. Today, that number sits at over 2 million people. In fact, the United States incarcerates 25 percent of the world's prisoners, but we have only 5 percent of the world's population. In fact, shamefully, my State of Wisconsin has the highest incarceration rate of African-American men on the planet Earth. Now, John Ehrlichman, then-counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Nixon, admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the war on drugs was an effort to vilify African-American leaders and to disrupt the African-American community; admitted that the war on drugs was contrived to diminish the reputation of African Americans. Indeed, they were successful because the burden of this failed war has fallen overwhelmingly on African-American communities. In 2014, African-American adults accounted for just 14 percent of those who used drugs, but close to one-third of those who are arrested for drug possession. And although African Americans and Whites consume drugs at a similar rate, African Americans are significantly more likely to be arrested. Now, this disproportionate enforcement of drug laws in a nation in which racial groups use drugs at the same rate points to one fact, Mr. Speaker. It can only be explained that race has played an inappropriate role in law enforcement's priorities and tactics. It is worth noting that in the face of the 1980's crack cocaine epidemic in Black communities, the public policy response was incarceration. Here in 2017, in the face of our current opioid epidemic in predominantly White communities, public officials on both sides of the aisle have banded together to pass landmark legislation to provide drug treatment assistance to those victims. In recent years, fortunately, leaders on both sides of the aisle have found common ground on the need to reform our broken criminal justice system. Stakeholders from the ACLU to the Koch Institute recognize the crisis of overcriminalization in this country and the need for immediate action. Both the House and the Senate have made strides toward the passage of bipartisan criminal justice reform in the 114th Congress, but, ultimately, a bill never made its way to the President. Now our U.S. Attorney General of the United States, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, a most ardent opponent to bipartisan criminal justice reform, sits there and does not inspire hope that those fighting to address this obviously harmful and race-based status quo will do anything. And although our President has dubbed himself the ``Law and Order President,'' he has not taken the initiative to end this unfair policy. Just very briefly before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to list three things that this bipartisan group found would be helpful: One, we should eliminate Federal mandatory minimum sentencing requirements. We should ensure true sentencing parity among crack and cocaine offenses, and deprioritize nonviolent drug offenders and seek medical treatment.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MOORE. Oh my, my, my, Mr. Chairman, and my good friend from Michigan. The fact of the matter is that section 1502 is, in fact, working. The GAO report that Mr. Huizenga referred to actually said that the civil war and conflict is, in fact, diminishing as section 1502 is being implemented. It is working better and sooner than I thought it would be. Just a little bit of a refresher course for you, Mr. Chairman. The minerals contained in consumer electronics that we all use--TVs, cell phones--are fueling war and conflict in the Congo. And I am not talking about a little skirmish here. I am talking about, we are funding armed militias, and it is a civil war on a scale of deaths that compare with World War II, and notable for its brutality, its savagery, its mutilation, rape. I can tell you that our good GOP friends say that it is a laudable goal to stop these civil wars, but it just doesn't belong in securities law; the logic being the transparency doesn't belong in security law. Oh, okay. Well, I can tell you that companies find that it is material, a security term of art, whether their brand is tarnished with literally the blood of children and enslaved workers that are standing there, I would suspect, with some of these Congolese who want section 1502 to go away, who are running these armed militias for profit. So do consumers and so do investors. Hence, the rise of socially-conscious mutual funds that are regulated by the SEC. I notice that my comrades have not introduced--there's nothing in this amendment that would provide for ending this kind of civil war on the scale of World War II in their amendment. I want to say, because of the United States' leadership on conflict minerals, the EU and China are enacting their own versions of implementing prohibitions against the receipt of conflict minerals. This amendment puts America last in world leadership. I do realize the gentleman had the right to close, but his time having been consumed, I will go on to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that more than 75 percent of the world's smelters for the four minerals now have passed conflict-free audits. Companies are putting this in place and they are finding that they are happy with it; that the costs of implementing it are less than they thought it would be, much less than they thought it would be; and they are receiving a premium for these metals if they can, in fact, report that they are conflict-free. According to the United Nations, as of 2016, over three-quarters of 3T miners surveyed in eastern Congo are working in mines where there is no armed group standing over them. That is according to an independent study. Today, 78 percent of the world's smelters for the four minerals have now passed conflict-free audits, or 253 smelters in total. The record is abundantly clear. Section 1502 is working. Now, he talked about Congolese leaders who don't like it. These are people who are profiting from the armed conflict, but there are Congolese communities and leaders who support section 1502 because they are seeing the improvements in security and rule of law. For example, Justine Masika Bihamba, the coordinator of Synergy of Women for Victims of Sexual Violence says: ``Ten years ago, we were under the de facto control of armed groups. Today, let's admit we are a long way from that. And if we are honest, that is in part because of Dodd-Frank.'' Bishop Nicolas Djomo came before our committee and said: ``We urge the U.S. business community to account for the gruesome social costs of the illicit mining as they calculate their cost for compliance with section 1502.'' There is a moral dimension to this that we cannot ignore. If we want to make America great again, let's not cede our moral authority on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring best wishes and birthday greetings to Trudy Caldwell as she celebrates her 50th Birthday. She is an inspirational role model for those who aspire to accomplish goals that may seem impossible. She has shown a passion for public service as demonstrated through her committed and dedicated military career of 20 years. Further, Trudy has continued service to our country as a civilian employee in the Department of the Army. Trudy is one of the few individuals to have served both as an enlisted soldier and an Officer, ultimately retiring with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. This is quite an achievement; she has no doubt, overcome barriers to realize these accomplishments as both an African American and a woman. Trudy's academic achievements include completing both a Bachelor's and Master's Degree. Additionally, she has been awarded numerous civic honors. Trudy Caldwell's military assignments have taken her all over the United States and the world. She has taken command on various levels including teaching newly commissioned officers at the Quartermaster Center and School, served on the Joint Staff which is the highest level staff in the Defense Department, served with a team of staff officers to work directly with members of the Joint Staff 9-11 Commission, and served on the staff of the Army's Congressional Liaison Office. I am pleased to say this is where I met Trudy Caldwell during my first term in office. Shortly, afterward while Trudy was attending graduate school at Georgetown University, I was fortunate enough to have Trudy spend a few days a week as a ``Graduate Intern'' working in my Washington, D.C. Office. I am proud to call Trudy Caldwell my friend and I am proud that she originally comes from my district where her mother and other family members still reside. I know that this is only the beginning for Trudy; she has a prosperous life ahead of her. I know that she will continue to enrich the lives of future generations by bringing new experiences and renewed hope for those who aspire and dream of a better tomorrow through the nonprofit she has formed to assist youth. May Trudy continue to bring joy to the countless lives she has touched throughout her life. She has been a true blessing to the 4th Congressional District and this nation. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I rise to give tribute to Trudy Caldwell. I wish her a wonderful celebration on her birthday and many more years filled with good health and happiness. It is a privilege to have this opportunity to celebrate and congratulate her on this special day.