Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1478, the Policy Protection Act. I applaud my colleagues, Mr. Posey of Florida and Mr. Sherman of California, on their diligent work that they have put into crafting this legislation in the Financial Services Committee. I supported this legislation in committee. The bill, in a nutshell, ensures that insurance company assets are, first and foremost, used to protect and pay policyholders' claims. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) to further discuss this bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to thank the chairman for his patience in getting this over the line. Hopefully, the Senate will see it our way this time. I also want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Waters, for her diligence in working to get this legislation to the floor and, of course, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), for working with me on this bill. All of them have been tremendous partners. A long, long, long, long time ago, Mr. Stivers shook my hand and said that he would continue to work with me until we got this legislation right, and he made good on his word. I also want to thank my friends on the Agriculture Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson). I credit all of these colleagues with helping this bill pass the Financial Services Committee 57-0, and the Agriculture Committee by voice vote. We have a bill that sort of works for everyone: business, consumer groups, and regulators. These central treasury units, Mr. Speaker, are financial affiliates of commercial companies. They are, indeed, the corporate best practices because they permit efficient aggregation of the risk of a corporate entity and provide for a single point of contact between the company and financial counterparties. This legislation appropriately treats central treasury units like other inter-affiliate transactions in the aggregation and monitoring of risk in businesses, which is exactly what the end user exemption in Dodd-Frank always intended. For example, if you are a company, you have many inputs and outputs that require you to hedge, like wheat in beer-making or aluminum cans in beer-making, and you need to make sure that you hedge and lock in the price before production. This bill permits the CTU to transact hedging transactions under the Dodd-Frank end user exemption as principal and as an agent, which is the logic that the CFTC agrees with. The legislation enshrines that logic into statute with appropriate flexibility for the regulator and companies. So I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1317. We need to get this legislation across the finish line to the President's desk because our end users need this in order to conduct business. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so happy to join the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and Ms. Sinema in overwhelmingly supporting H.R. 3032. This bill, of course, will relieve the SEC from unnecessary administrative burdens and enable the already overwhelmed agency to focus resources to other, more mission-critical tasks, examinations, and enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) to talk about her great legislation.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, a driver's license is not only a rite of passage for many youth but also a gateway to employment opportunities and to jobs that are increasingly located far from public transportation. In my district, the majority of job openings in the Milwaukee area are beyond the bus lines. Yet, vast disparities exist in access to this critical document needed for the world of work, especially among minority youth who live in the poorest neighborhoods. According to a recent report, only 4% of over 6,500 sixteen-year-olds in some of Milwaukee's poorest zip codes have driver's licenses in good standing. In contrast, in wealthier zip codes, over 30% of sixteen- year-olds have driver's licenses in good standing. Less than 25 percent of the 19,000 black males age 16 to 24 in Milwaukee County had a driver's license in good standing in 2015, compared to nearly half of the 32,000 white males in that age group. 29% of African American females ages 16 to 24 in Milwaukee County have a driver's license in good standing, compared to 57% of the white females in that age cohort. Only 12% of 17-year-old African American males in Milwaukee Country have driver's licenses in good standing. One reason for this disparity is that in the poorest neighborhoods, there are few families that are able to afford the costs of classroom and behind-the-wheel driving instruction now required for licensing of school-age youth. My state, Wisconsin, ended state support for driver education in March 2004 after the federal government stopped supporting driver's-ed in schools. According to NHTSA, in the 1970s in all States and the District of Columbia, about 95 percent of eligible students received driver education coursework, usually in their high schools. Now, there are minimal or no funds available for effective program management in States and jurisdictions and many programs, in whole or in part, have been removed from the schools altogether, or are only offered after school, on weekends, or during summer vacation. A number of other states have eliminated funding for driver's education in schools even as they are moving to Graduated Driver's licensing requirements that impose additional costs on young people seeking to drive legally. Graduated Driving License systems often include a learner's permit period, followed by a provision license with nighttime restrictions during late night hours, limitations on the passengers teens may carry, and prohibition of use of any electronic communication device while driving, followed by a period of time when teens may drive unsupervised without crashes or citations. They often include mandated classroom instruction as well as behind the wheel time. Congress is incentivizing states to adopt GDL systems. As publicly funded driver's education declines, the only other way to get driver's training is through paying private providers. However, this becomes a barrier for low-income and low-resource teens who still need to comply with increasing GDL requirements. My amendment would allow the use of teen driving safety funds to support school based driver's education, especially to meet a state's GDL requirements. States that choose to take advantage of this option will help driving safety among this high risk populace, reduce racial and economic disparities that exist between those who hold and do not hold a valid driver's license, and help address lack of employment opportunities for youth (limited by lack of transportation). Improving access to quality driver's education classes can be an effective way to reduce the crash risk for young drivers by focusing efforts on areas of teen driving that show the most promise for improving safety. Allowing for the use of federal funds to support school-based driver's education will ensure that more young drivers can meet the new requirements and be safer drivers. It would also help reduce unlicensed driving. A 2012 report by NHTSA (A Fresh Look at Driver Education in America) found that driver education appears to do a good job in preparing students to pass State licensing examinations and that expanding driver education training beyond the current classroom and behind-the-wheel training by integrating it with graduated driver licensing may have increased traffic safety benefits for young drivers, among other findings. I also want to talk about another reason for the wide gap in access to driver's licenses for low-income youth; the growing practice by state and local government of suspending licenses for nonpayment of fines that have nothing to do with unsafe driving. My amendment initially addressed this issue but I dropped those provisions. I have introduced a bill, Young Adults Driving Safety Act of 2015 (H.R. 3792) to address this second issue. Court-ordered suspension of driving privileges for low-income residents of all ages is increasingly being used to collect municipal fines, forfeitures and fees (including violations unrelated to driving). According to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, ``what was originally intended as a sanction to address poor driving behavior is now used as a mechanism to gain compliance with non-highway safety, or social non-conformance, reasons.'' Suspending driver's license mainly to collect outstanding municipal debt rather than for public safety reason disproportionately impacts the poorest neighborhoods. In my district, a review of four years of failure to pay fines suspensions (from 2008 through 2011) in Milwaukee County for those ages 16 through 19 found 8,700 teens received driver's license suspensions for failure to pay court fines and forfeitures. Most of them (85% of the total) did not have driver's licenses so a suspension added a two year wait to them becoming eligible for their license unless they pay their outstanding municipal tickets and court fees. We need to address that issue as well as we work to ensure that more young adults, of every race, gender, and income bracket, have a fair chance to get the skills they need to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member. Here we have another Delta amendment once again. The Ex-Im Bank already, Mr. Chairman, has a process in place for providing public notice and comment. Companies can provide feedback, which the board reviews prior to approving any transaction. I can tell you that this is very dilatory again. All of Delta's lawsuits have all been thrown out. This is only another attempt to force the Ex-Im Bank to delay. The frustrating delay is doing its work. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this dilatory amendment.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, these amendments are getting more and more strange as the evening wears on. The favorite indictment of this Bank, I think, is that it picks winners and losers, and yet here is an amendment that does exactly that. It puts these artificial caps on sectors. Mr. Chairman, this Bank is demand driven, and if the world demands shifts, why would we create barriers to U.S. firms meeting that demand? These caps just mean that the U.S. can't compete for growing market trends. This is a poison pill amendment, and I urge the Members to reject this so we can reauthorize the Bank immediately.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, this amendment would not only undo all of Dodd-Frank but all financial market regulations past, present, and future. I support the cost-benefit analyses mandates that are already contained in Federal securities laws and in President Obama's executive orders. This particular amendment, of course, is dilatory, and it would mean that rulemaking would take even longer as the SEC has struggled to meet the impossibly subjective economic cost-benefit standards to stave off upcoming court battles over competing economic impact projections. Not only that, Madam Chair, but the most dangerous part about this initiative is that this would open the door to the most powerful industry participants. If it were possible to make rules, they could challenge the rules in a way that achieved their most narrow interests, and it would be to the detriment of investors or to the less affluent market participants. In this way, the most powerful industry interests would not only be able to use the courts to undo consumer protections, but they would also seek competitive advantages over competitors. Current law already requires the SEC to conduct economic analyses, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as other agencies do. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, obviously, they don't get what a sovereign wealth fund is. It just is a balance of payments between countries, and I think that it is a dilatory argument.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, this has been misnamed as a transparency bill. It is not a transparency bill. This cost benefit bill literally is a race-to-the-courthouse bill, and we would just be in an endless litigious position. We are already late with the transportation bill. We have already created great uncertainty for all of our cities, counties, and towns in America. Why would we now want to subject our broken bridges and our broken transportation system to yet another dilatory tactic that sort of slows down our ability to create good jobs and to fix our infrastructure? Madam Chair, I would urge all Members to vote against this initiative because it is wrong-headed at a time when we really need to get our transportation infrastructure improvements back on track. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, will the Chair advise me as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I, too, oppose this amendment. This amendment incorrectly presumes that sovereign wealth funds have some special linkage to export financing. Sovereign wealth funds do not have a direct link to export credit financing. The gentleman is certainly thinking about one of his favorite companies, Delta, who complains about the Export-Import Bank while ignoring the OECD and existing mechanisms established to address this, for example, the Open Skies laws. I repeat. Sovereign wealth funds do not have a direct link to export credit financing. I agree with the gentlewoman from California that this cannot be taken seriously. I urge Members to oppose it.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman has claimed that he is restricting this to the highway bill; but, again, it is problematic because it would really impose cost-benefit analyses on all rulemaking under the highway bill, as amended. It would require several rulemakings from the SEC that are related to emerging growth companies, private security transaction exemptions, and disclosure reforms. It would require the SEC to comply with this additional hurdle that is administratively burdensome and that opens up the SEC to additional litigation risks. It is not just limited to the transportation bill just in terms of its multiplier impact. This legislation is just yet another veiled attempt to stop the Ex-Im Bank, which we have discussed earlier today, because it, again, would create a sufficiently high bar to pass new rulemaking and open up every SEC rule to ongoing litigation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strident opposition to this amendment. I think that this amendment really tells the story that they really are trying to destroy the Export-Import Bank as opposed to reform it. How can you deny borrowing authority to a lending institution and say you are serious about having it stay alive? The Bank has done a fantastic job of managing risk by keeping its overall debt rate below one quarter of 1 percent, far better than most private banks, in fact. The Export-Import Bank reauthorization already includes the creation of a permanent chief risk officer role, establishing a risk management committee, enhancing the Bank's loan loss reserves, among other reforms. The underlying bill makes the Bank safer and better run than before, making this amendment transparently unnecessary. Members should oppose this anti-Ex-Im amendment.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting my amendments on the DBE prompt payment issue, and to allow teen driving safety grants to be used to help fund school-based driver's education to help our young people meet the Graduated Driver Licensing requirements. I want to talk about the last of my amendments, requiring a GAO report on the impact of MAP-21 changes on the ability of those who previously benefited from transportation services under the Job Access and Reverse Commute program to get to work. The report would examine whether services to low-income riders declined after MAP-21 was implemented, as well as efforts by the FTA, after passage of MAP-21, to encourage public transportation agencies to maintain and support these services so that low-income riders would allow them access to jobs, medical services, and other life necessities. MAP-21 ended the stand-alone JARC grant program. Instead, those activities were added as eligible uses of funds under larger formula grant programs. There was no requirement that transit agencies use any of their annual transit funding to provide services to meet the needs of low-income individuals trying to get to work--none. My amendment would allow us to know what the real-world impact of these changes are. Congress did not intend these changes to make it harder for low-income and TANF populations to use transportation to get to work. That just doesn't make sense. These hardships should not occur. I hope that adoption of this amendment sends a message to transit agencies that they must continue to provide innovative services to ensure that low-income people and the marginally employed are able to reach places of employment, educational opportunities, job training, child care, medical appointments, and other life necessities.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 586, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2643, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I want to briefly say a few words about Mr. Williams' bill, H.R. 2643, the State Licensing Efficiency Act of 2015. This legislation is extremely important. I am proud that this bill is a product of a bipartisan effort, a bipartisan effort that, in the last Congress, I was privileged to work with the Committee on Financial Services chair emeritus, Chairman Bachus, on this legislation. Unfortunately, the clock ran out on the last Congress. So I am very pleased that Mr. Williams has taken up this legislation and gotten it to the floor. It just makes all the sense in the world to streamline criminal background checks. I want to thank Mr. Williams and thank my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, for championing this legislation. I urge adoption of this bill. I have no further speakers on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Madam Ranking Member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090. I must say to Representative Wagner she is correct when she says that there were 30 Democrats--I am one of them--who supported similar legislation, but that was before the Department of Labor reproposed the conflict of interest rules, gave us sort of an unprecedented 164-day comment period during the reproposal, and they withdrew the original 2010 proposal and put forward the reproposed rule in 2015, 5 years. As we discussed it, they have committed to making considerable improvements. Now, the SEC has yet to begin the process of a related rulemaking 5 years after the Department of Labor began the process, and they have made it really clear that they don't think they will get to it. I do want to point out--since I have 3 whole minutes here--that it has been very difficult to get the majority party to agree to providing the SEC with the needed resources that would, in fact, enable them to undertake the work that the Department of Labor has already put forward on this. So I don't think we should wait until after the SEC acts to issue a rule. And this legislation before us would only delay these important consumer protections. The Department of Labor has received a lot of feedback, especially from me. Mr. Speaker, I have been extremely vocal in highlighting areas, some of them which you have heard on the other side mentioned here today--very vocal on the reproposed rule where I think it needs to be improved and, in fact, led a letter to the Department of Labor with 96 Democratic colleagues signing on to that letter. However, I do think that the time is now for Congress to partner with the DOL, with industry, and with retirement savers toward the best possible final rule to encourage and protect retirement savings. Now, I want to mention that the overwhelming majority of advisers are good people with their clients' best interest at heart. In fact, no one in this debate is suggesting that we don't support policy which puts the best interest of the client first and foremost. But when financial advisers are unscrupulous, they have a devastating impact on retirement savers. Further, when advisers are responding to skewed incentives that encourage conflicts and put clients in products, that may be okay for the client, but placement in these products are driven primarily by the adviser's bonus.

Ms. MOORE. The DOL rule that is being reproposed seeks to mitigate these conflicts of interest so that the best advisers in companies get clients and compensation based on the best interest and the outcomes for their clients. I think that this is a backdoor approach to kill the rule, any rule, and it will leave gaping loopholes in Federal laws. My advice to my colleagues is that we defeat this bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Madam Ranking Member. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support this bipartisan initiative to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank is about three things in this country that we need to be debating here more often, and that is jobs, jobs, and jobs. Getting the bill to the floor for this historic vote is about something the country also needs more of, and that is bipartisanship. I am very distressed, Mr. Speaker, to continue to hear the debate that somehow the financing of the Export-Import Bank is contributing to the welfare state and that, if we are to tackle the social welfare programs under Social Security, we have got to get rid of this corporate welfare. I am distressed to continue to hear that defeating the Export-Import Bank is a backdoor approach to ending Social Security. If you listen very carefully, colleagues, you are going to hear this over and over again. I do want to thank Representatives Hoyer, Lucas, Waters, Heck, Fincher, and the House Members on both sides so that we can now go back to our districts, look U.S. workers in the eyes and say that we are not giving them welfare, that we are giving the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people in the chain an opportunity to work for a living. This is not a Democrat or a Republican victory, but a victory for all our workers. I would ask that the body vote for the reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank. I hope the Senate takes our example and we send this to the President for his signature. Our work and our businesses should not have to wait one more day to reignite this powerful engine of job creation.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, 78 percent of Planned Parenthood's patients are at or below 150 percent of the poverty level, 41 percent of low- income women consider OB/GYN their primary source of health care, which Planned Parenthood provides, and in my own State, 14,000 women each year, many of whom are low income, do not have access to family planning services. I ask that we not pass this bill.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, since we are considering this reconciliation bill, I looked up the word ``reconciliation'' because I thought maybe I don't know what the word means. They say that reconciliation is a process of making consistent or compatible. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the bill before us that is either consistent or compatible with a woman's constitutional right to control her body. This bill is neither consistent nor compatible with a woman's human right to reproductive freedom. The only thing this bill reconciles is the majority's machismo, Mr. Speaker, the stubborn resolve to deny women--especially the poorest women in our country--access to health care. Despite the claims that you have heard here on this floor that ``there is nothing to stop women from accessing health care,'' just let me point out a few facts.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to mourn the six servicemembers and five civilians killed in the recent crash of an Air Force transport plane in Afghanistan. Yesterday, the House held a moment of silence to mark their sacrifice. One of those who died was Senior Airman Quinn Johnson-Harris, whose family now calls Milwaukee, Wisconsin, their home. He and his fallen comrades join the list of the 2,300 heroes who have given their lives in Afghanistan. As a Member of Congress, there is no more difficult moment in our jobs than this. My heart and prayers go out to family. There is no question that Quinn made our community in Milwaukee stronger and our Nation safer because of his service. This young man made a difference wherever he went. I hear it in the stories that have come out after his death from his family, his friends, his teachers, and others about his dedication to them and his country. His mother said: ``Quinn dared to be different. He beat by his own drum.'' When his family, community, or country called, this young man stood up and did not shrink back. According to his sister, when she heard he was being deployed to Afghanistan, ``he was ready to go,'' and this surprised no one. He came from a military family. His grandfather served in Vietnam. His older brother was a marine, and another older brother is a 2015 graduate of West Point and is in the Army. Mr. Speaker, I join his family, his friends, and his fellow servicemen in mourning his life, yet celebrating the life of this young hero, Senior Airman Quinn Johnson-Harris.