Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise today, along with my colleagues Frederica Wilson of Florida and Danny Davis of Illinois, to offer an amendment. This amendment seeks to protect our most vulnerable students by ensuring that high-poverty schools are not adversely affected by provisions in H.R. 5, which propose changes in the funding allocation formula for teacher support and the quality of educational services under title II of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Chair, if we don't adopt this amendment, we may inadvertently break a long bipartisan agreement on our fundamental need to ensure that our low-income students are not assigned less qualified teachers and less quality educational resources than their more advantaged peers. The reality is that a school district that serves students in poverty faces many, many hurdles and challenges in recruiting and in retaining teachers as well as other qualified staff. Current law prioritizes teacher development funding to States and schools serving the greatest concentrations of students in poverty. Specifically, the No Child Left Behind title II formula for school districts focuses 65 percent of funds on students in poverty and 35 percent on the number of students, which is students in poverty versus just the number of students. The State formula focuses 80 percent of its funding on poverty and 20 percent on student population. H.R. 5 completely upends this. It eliminates this critical prioritization by equally weighting poverty with mere student population, sort of cutting the baby in half, 50/50. This removes substantial Federal support from schools and States serving the poorest students and gives these funds to schools and States without similar levels of economic need. This, of course, Mr. Chair, has an impact on every single State in the Union where there are disparate levels of income in our communities. It undermines teacher training and student achievement for students in poverty. My amendment simply would delay the implementation of this formula until the Secretary of Education certifies to Congress that students in poverty are not adversely affected by this change in service, quality, and level. This would provide the appropriate caution before eliminating that critical safeguard of funds for students in poverty. As written, we have strong reasons to fear that H.R. 5 would result in Federal dollars being siphoned away from States and school districts with the poorest students and being awarded to States and schools with higher affluence. In fact, data from the U.S. Department of Education released earlier this week show that H.R. 5 translates into billions of dollars of cuts in school districts serving high populations of Black and Hispanic students. Mr. Chair, since all politics is local, I must decry the loss of these educational resources to the largest school district in my jurisdiction, and that is the Milwaukee Public Schools system. They would lose upwards of $160 million in Federal funds for impoverished students over a 6-year period if we ratify H.R. 5 in its current form. Our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has called this kind of a reverse Robin Hood--stealing from the poor to give to the rich. While we are discussing this, I just want to point out one last thing. This is budget neutral. This amendment doesn't add one dime to the cost of this bill. Its only intention is to protect the very teacher supports that help close the achievement gaps for low-income students. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 159, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act, which has been so diligently pushed through with the superb partnership of Congressman Erik Paulsen of Minnesota. It has been a thrill to partner with him throughout this process. This is a bipartisan collaboration because, unfortunately, this is a bipartisan problem. Solving the problem of sexual exploitation of children will require work on all of our parts because it is a financial boom. People become multimillionaires in this illicit trade. Also, the gentlewoman from Texas has worked so diligently to combat sex trafficking in places like Nigeria, and I joined with her on that initiative. It is very disheartening to know that right here, within our own borders, the FBI estimates that at least 100,000 children in the United States of America are currently trafficked and another 200,000 are right on the cusp. They are at risk of sexual exploitation. These victims are not ``women of the night'' or sexualized women who are doing it of their own free will--no. The average age of these victims is 13. It is an embarrassing statistic. It is embarrassing to report that my own hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has become known as a sex trafficking hub for both children and adults. In 2013 alone, just on a random day, the FBI did a sweep and rescued 10 juvenile girls from sex traffickers in Milwaukee. Trafficking is all too common in communities across the Nation--from urban settings, rural settings, suburban settings, and from coast to coast. Predators victimize vulnerable young people such as those in the foster care system. They prey upon those living in poverty; but what we do know is they also seek out higher-income children, going after those children who may have problems in their own homes. Some are LGBT identified. There is no safe harbor for children unless we create it through laws such as this.

Ms. MOORE. I am proud of this legislation, I am pleased to cosponsor it, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 159.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, and it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If this amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, will immediately proceed to final passage. As the Clerk has indicated, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit would merely protect the medical privacy of millions of women, including those women who are victims of rape and incest. It would ensure that nothing in H.R. 7, the underlying legislation, could be construed to allow any entity to violate the medical privacy of any woman, including these victims, when it comes to her choice of comprehensive health care services. Madam Speaker, we have heard a great debate here today, and we have heard, Madam Speaker, the majority party insist that we need to codify the 1976 Hyde amendment prohibiting poor women from having abortions. I can assure you that, as we have looked over the past 42 years here on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we have seen that low-income women-- particularly women of color--have been disproportionately impacted by the very successful implementation of the Hyde amendment. Women have been forced to choose between food and shelter. They have been forced to choose between the best interests of their health, and they have given birth, on many occasions, even despite their poor health status, their poor economic status, or their poor emotional status to children who are poor. We have heard data and statistics about the number of unborn persons as a result of abortion. We have not heard one single statistic about the number of children who are born in dire poverty only, Madam Speaker, to be humiliated in this Chamber over and over again, being called ``products of the culture of dependency,'' who are killed by cuts, death by 1,000 cuts--cuts to food stamps, cuts to WIC, cuts to Head Start, cuts to educational opportunity. Death by 1,000 cuts. We have not heard anyone on the other side speak about that misalignment. But with this legislation, it is not enough to stop low-income women, poor women, particularly women of color--African Americans, Asians, Native American women, Latinas--it is not enough to prevent them from abortions. Some of them have become pregnant because of rape and incest and forced trafficking who have diabetes and other underlying health problems. That is not enough. This legislation is so nefarious as to try to prevent the women who have been lucky enough to get a job in a small business, lucky enough to be able to afford to buy insurance and use their own money to buy insurance--they have been lucky enough to do that--to prevent them, by some extraneous nexus--supposedly health care-funded payments through the Affordable Care Act--from seeking this health care. This is really, really a backdoor approach to really trying to undermine the law of the land, Roe v. Wade. Many women, Madam Speaker, know on a personal level the history of shame and stigma that come forward when they are trying to seek the best remedy for their life at that time, for whatever reason that they need to have an abortion. I know personally, Madam Speaker, of young women who have been 13 years old and who have become victims of statutory rape, and the best solution for their lives at that time and for their health is an abortion because their life is truly in danger. This is the kind of bill that would prevent them from having that opportunity. Madam Speaker, I hope that you will accept this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Yes, Madam Speaker. I am opposed to it in its current form.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on January 9, 2015, I underwent emergency surgery to repair a broken bone and, therefore, was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the Motion to Recommit to H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and no on Final Passage of H.R. 3.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really rise to congratulate and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) for championing this bill and bringing to our attention a real tremendous cost savings in this HUD program with H.R. 2790, and really providing, using the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to provide services to the homeless rather than just additional legal fees, operating costs, additional insurance issues, establishing new internal controls and tracking systems. This is really innovative in terms of how it maximizes the McKinney-Vento moneys. The bill does not include more money, Mr. Speaker. It just allows us to use the small ``c'' that we have more effectively. I yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), the author of H.R. 2790.

Ms. MOORE. 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 strongly, strongly support Representative Pittenger's Reg D Study Act. Again, as my colleague from Missouri has indicated, this is a technical bill, but it is extremely important. Commentators have argued that the maintenance of these reserves imposes opportunity costs on depository institutions, namely, by requiring them to hold funds in abeyance that could otherwise be lent out, and I think that it is worth GAO studying the issue and reporting back to Congress. I just want to make a point, Mr. Speaker, and to stress this: reserve requirements are separate and distinct from capital requirements, liquidity, and leverage rules, which protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. This bill does not take away those important protections. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the Democratic cosponsor of this bill, who is the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of Mr. Garrett's bill, H.R. 4569, which was favorably reported from the House Financial Services Committee, and championed by my friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney). I would like to associate myself with the long and extended explanation by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, and just to say, Mr. Speaker, that, in short, this bill will make disclosures that public companies make more streamlined, manageable, and user friendly. I really appreciate the participation of my good friend, Representative Maloney, who really worked hard to make sure that this legislation was balanced and it included language to emphasize that we needed to reduce burdens on companies, but we need to preserve investment protection. So, given the changes that Mrs. Maloney made with the Maloney amendment, I strongly support the legislation, would urge all my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Again, I just want to thank everyone who was involved in this process. This is something that is going to protect thousands of jobs across our country. People often criticize us for not doing things in a bipartisan manner, but I think this is exemplary of what we can do when we really work at it, even though it has taken a couple of years. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, in urging my colleagues to support H.R. 5471; however, before I get into why we should support the bill, I need to thank all of my partners in this effort. As has been mentioned, Mr. Stivers has been fantastic throughout this entire process. I knew going into this that I had a great Republican partner. I can't say enough about Representative Stivers, but time will not allow me to do it. I had another great bipartisan partner in Representative Gibson on the Agriculture Committee. Of course, it is always a joy to work with a good friend and colleague on the Ag Committee, Representative Marcia Fudge. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5471 is a true ``end users'' bill. The bill is targeted as it applies to centralized treasury centers, or CTUs, of nonfinancial end user companies. The CTU model enables an end user corporation to efficiently centralize hedging risks for the entire consolidated corporate group, and it is, in fact, a corporate best practice. It permits companies to more efficiently hedge commercial business risk, which was always the intent of Dodd-Frank. The CFTC agrees with the underlying policy of the bill as they have provided no-action relief on this point; however, H.R. 5471 is still needed because, as a practical matter, no-action relief is no substitute for statutory fixes as it creates legal uncertainty when deciding how to organize your global business structure. Corporate boards may be hesitant to approve a decision, as they are required to do, that violates the law based only on an assurance that CFTC staff will not recommend enforcement. H.R. 5471 fixes the quirky result of treating companies that use a CTU model differently than companies that do not accomplish the same result. The bill also solves another far more technical issue with the no- action relief that relates to CTUs issuing swaps as a principal, as opposed to as an agent. There is simply no good reason to not address these issues. In fact, CTUs are considered a corporate best practice. I can offer you, Mr. Speaker, an example of one company in my district, MillerCoors. They summarized it best in written testimony before the House Financial Services Committee: Though it may be tempting to view all derivatives as risky financial products that were central to the credit crisis, we must remember that these are important tools upon which thousands of companies depend to manage risks in the real economy. Just remember that we all have companies in our districts that use swaps legitimately to mitigate risk. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Ag Committee.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who came here in his running shoes and really came here because of his relationship to his uncle who is one of our former retired colleagues, Mr. Kildee of Michigan, and the younger Mr. Kildee has been a tremendous asset in terms of putting this bill together.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), who is one of many people who participated in getting this bill to where it is today.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), who is not a member of the committee but weighed in heavily on the final draft that is before us today.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy), a member on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who has really put a lot of time into this bill. As the ranking member, she serves on all of the subcommittees, but she has been particularly passionate about her stewardship over this bill.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?