Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Export-Import Bank, the official export credit agency of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, it is so frustrating to see this normally bipartisan effort to support the American economy get hijacked. I would bet, Mr. Speaker, that this bill could pass on suspension, that two-thirds of this House would be willing to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, if we were to put it to a vote on this floor--but no. Instead, we are forced, once again, to yield to a minority of the majority--the Tea Party--which demands the decapitation of an economic development and jobs creator giant--the United States of America's Export-Import Bank. Why is this? Is it because the Bank doesn't work? No. It is an example of how government effectively could partner with the private sector. The Bank puts U.S. exporters on equal footing when foreign competitors have foreign export aid, and it bridges the gaps in the private market. The reality is that, in the global marketplace, our competitors are aggressively using their export banks. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is my district, is still very much a manufacturing economy--the second in the Nation relying on this sector. Every day, workers in Milwaukee compete against foreign workers with extensive and aggressive foreign export credit agency backing. Today, the United States Export-Import Bank supports an estimated 205,000 export-related jobs in the United States. My fellow Republican Wisconsin colleagues--Representative Ryan and Representative Sensenbrenner--not long ago urged Bank financing because ``all steps should be taken to reinvigorate the economy and bring jobs to the United States.'' With higher than average unemployment in Milwaukee, the need for the Bank has not changed. Not only does the Bank support jobs, but it makes a profit from its operation and pays funds back to the U.S. taxpayers--$5 billion since 1990. Opponents don't acknowledge that. Instead, they call for gimmick accounting, or, as my CPA and tax attorney colleague Representative Brad Sherman calls it, ``fairytale value'' accounting. Further, opponents claim that the Bank exclusively helps big corporations, yet 90 percent of the Bank's activities help small business, and that number is on the rise. Just ask Apple Steel Rule Die in Milwaukee, a company you have never heard of because it is not a big company. In fact, new reports from The Brookings Institution show that the failure to reauthorize the Bank hurts small and medium-sized businesses the most. I hear Delta testify against the Ex-Im Bank, and then, hypocritically, turn around and use foreign export credit agencies for their fleet. By the way, Delta would qualify to use more foreign export credit to buy foreign-made Airbus aircraft if Congress does not reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. For real, colleagues, do any of us believe that Delta will turn down foreign support to buy an Airbus plane or a plane from the Chinese? Come on now. I have got a bridge to sell you. Opponents also say the Bank only supports 2 percent of exports. Exactly. The Bank's mission is limited. It does not compete when private financing is available. The Export-Import Bank's fees are higher than U.S. commercial bank fees. It is not in competition. It works in concert with banks here in the United States. This is further proof that the Bank is working. However, that 2 percent still supports a lot of economic activity in Milwaukee. When I am back in my district, unions and businesses--large and small--are hand in hand, saying reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We use the rhetoric of jobs an awful lot around here in Congress. Now is the time to take a powerful stand for U.S. jobs and U.S. workers. Actions speak louder than words. I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Bay View High School celebrating its 100th Anniversary on October 4, 2014. Bay View High School opened in September, 1914 with seven teachers and 150 students. Mr. Gustav Fritsche, a German teacher, served as its principal. The school was then a one building barrack without central heating known as ``Fritsche's Foundry''. In 1922, classes were held in a new school building, still in use today and referred to as the ``Castle on the Hill''. The high school is a visible landmark from both the Hoan Bridge and Interstate I-43/1-94 in Milwaukee. Bay View High School started a successful Student Government Association (SGA) in 1947 that led to unique programs such as honor study halls and building control. Many of the Bay View students involved in SGA have become politicians. Bay View High School has staged over 50 years of musicals. The high school has prepared many amateurs and professionals for a lifetime of music and the arts; they make up the current alumni choir and alumni band. Bay View High School's interscholastic sports program has developed champions after graduation who continue in their sport to set records and achieve a level of success up to and including Olympic gold. Bay View High School's students have become community leaders and good citizens that include such luminaries as: State Representatives Sandy Pasch and La Tonya Johnson, Milwaukee County Board Chair Marina Dimitrijevic, Esther Jones, 1992 US Olympic Gold Medalist in track and my granddaughter, Taylor Walker. Many Bay View High School students have gone on to become educators. In fact, many have returned both as teachers and administrators with some spending their entire careers at their Alma Mater. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the Bay View High School is located in the 4th Congressional District. I wish them another 100 years of success.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I will tell you, Mr. Chair, if the Affordable Care Act, so-called ObamaCare, is the ultimate tempest for the Tea Party pot, then I guess the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, is a very, very close second. Since assuming the majority in 2010, House Republicans have passed bill after bill to gut and undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Frankly, I have just lost track of all the bills and attempts by the majority to undermine our Nation's top financial consumer watchdog. It is well documented that Congress wanted its funding to be free of political influence when it created the Bureau. In order to protect the consumers, it needed to be free of political influence. So, Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes the provision in the Financial Services Appropriations bill, section 501, that the House is considering today, as it is nothing more than yet another effort by the majority to derail the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from its mission to protect consumers. Originally, I had my staff draft an amendment to delete sections 501 and 502, but after consulting with the CBO, I was informed that striking section 502 would score as a cost to the bill. I wanted to make sure that there would be no objection based on adding a cost to the bill, so in order to make my amendment in order, my amendment just strikes section 501 and not 502. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, both sections 501 and 502 of the bill before us today undermine the CFPB. They would alter the independent funding process and vision for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was established in Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This is consistent with other independent banking regulatory agencies. Other independent banking regulatory agencies are not at the beck and call of the Appropriations Committee and whoever is in control of the political environment. What has the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, our Nation's consumer watchdog, done for us lately? What has it done for consumers? Well, Mr. Chair, the agency has refunded $3 billion to 9.7 million victims of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in financial markets since 2011. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has helped millions of people and has stopped fraud. The dedicated mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to protect consumers of financial products from fraud and deceptive schemes, inspires trust in our markets, which attracts capital and promotes the allocation of capital to productive, legitimate endeavors. The CFPB is the tough cop on Wall Street, but it is also the fair cop on the Wall Street beat. The amendment before you, Mr. Chair, that I am offering affirms the current independent funding source for the CFPB, which is the best way to preserve the integrity and independence of the agency. Now, I know that Republicans plead that this provision is about oversight or transparency. But when you scratch the surface, you will realize that the claim is just not credible. It is just yet another attempt to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and, ultimately, it seeks to defund the CFPB and make it a paper tiger. It seeks a return to the bad old days, Mr. Chair, and bad old ways that set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. I really do urge all Members to support my amendment and to support the working independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so the agency may continue to ensure U.S. markets are the fairest and most robust in the world. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, Wall Street went berserk because we didn't fund the SEC and the CFTC. That is the problem. These watchdog agencies are charged with an onerous task, and we don't provide the appropriations, and this is what is going to happen to the CFPB, as well, under this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to honor Mr. Timothy J. Elverman as he celebrates 40 years of achievement. It is truly an honor for me to pay homage to someone who has contributed so much to Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. I have known Tim Elverman for over 30 years, well before I began my legislative career in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Mr. Elverman is a graduate of Marquette University Law School. Tim has enjoyed an illustrious and diverse career. After law school his first job was Director of the Student Legal Assistance Center at Bemidji State University in Minnesota. He returned to Wisconsin to serve as Home Secretary/Ombudsman for Congressman Les Aspin in his Janesville office. After leaving public service, Tim was the Wisconsin Director of Government Relations at Bank One Corporation (now JPMorgan Chase & Co.) for 14 years. While at Bank One, Tim was also responsible for the bank's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) compliance, and was on the bank's foundation board. While serving in that capacity, Tim was actively involved in a variety of organizations in the community including Chairman of the following organizations: New Opportunities for Home Ownership in Milwaukee (NOHIM) lenders' consortium, the Board for the 16th Street Community Health Center, and the Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Counsel. He also served on the advisory board for the Local Initiatives Support Corporations (LISC) and on the advisory board for the Mid-Town Credit Union which I established as a Vista volunteer. Tim Elverman joined Broydrick & Associates and later Hubbard Wilson & Zelenkova as Senior Counsel. He is now retiring from Hubbard Wilson & Zelenkova, after a long and productive career. Tim Elverman is a strong example of leadership and excellence for the Milwaukee community. He is a Milwaukee and Wisconsin treasure. I value his service and I am proud to call him friend. Timothy J. Elverman, thank you for your service to the 4th Congressional District.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, those bipartisan groups who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We, on a bipartisan basis, didn't regulate these derivatives, and we will, unfortunately, learn our lesson. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, my amendment is really rather straightforward. It preserves the ability of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives markets, while maintaining the reasonable cost- benefit provisions that are already in the law. Just to give you a little history, Mr. Chair, as we know, unregulated derivatives transactions precipitated the 2008 financial crisis, which this country is still struggling to recover. Section 203 is not something, as I have heard earlier in this debate, that will just make it more facile for manufacturers or for end users or farmers. It is a Trojan horse designed to deregulate derivatives markets by providing Wall Street favorable terms and means to sue to overturn laws and regulations, not on substance, not even on congressional intent, but by challenging economic studies in court. Regulatory gaps in derivatives regulation will put taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street excesses. Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record an analysis that I did. It was posted in The Huffington Post: ``GOP `Cost-Benefit' Bill Benefits Wall Street and Costs Americans.'' [From the Huffpost Politics, May 17, 2013] GOP `Cost-Benefit' Bill Benefits Wall Street and Costs Americans (By Rep. Gwen Moore) Republicans again have it all wrong on the substance and politics as they bring to the House floor the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, or the so-called SEC ``cost-benefit'' bill. Despite the innocuous name of the bill, Americans should not be fooled. The bill seeks to not only undo Dodd- Frank, but all financial market regulation past, present, and future. It is a bad bill for American taxpayers and for free market capitalism. By requiring an overly stringent and arbitrary accounting of ``costs'' to industry, the bill makes it impossible to properly regulate markets. It seeks to eviscerate the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to protect investors and would functionally subordinate all government oversight and regulation, including by the elected Congress, to industry interests. The bill functions as a one-way ratchet to make deregulation an irresistible gravity, while making regulation of even the worst industry practices a nearly impossible hurdle. The circumstances of the financial crisis have utterly discredited the Ayn Rand-inspired deregulatory zeal that the proponents of this bill insist on advancing. It is a model that does not work and that led to economic calamity and pain. Instead, the supporters of this bill are hoping that rhetoric can mask reality. Securities law already directs the SEC ``to consider'' the cost-benefit of rulemakings. President Obama also directs the SEC to conduct cost-benefit analysis of rulemakings. I support the cost-benefit analysis mandates already contained in federal securities law and President Obama's executive order. So what does the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act add? As former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt explains in the New York Times, the bill subjects the SEC to an impossibly subjective review of all regulations. This bill was transparently designed to allow each regulation to be challenged in court by industry, but not by consumer advocates. The primary mission of the SEC is investor protection. The bill undermines that mission by permitting industry to sue the government in order to overturn regulations. Even when Congress passes laws to protect investors, like Dodd-Frank, the SEC would be constrained in issuing rules under this bill by the mandate to prioritize even tertiary costs to industry over investor protection, or any other priority Congress sets, such as constraints on systemic risks. In other words, it creates a government for industry over the People. The bill is clearly bad for consumer protection and taxpayers as it ushers in a new world where Wall Street functionally decides the rules, and it is caveat emptor for financial services end-users. However, it is not even good for industry in the broader sense. It would mean that rulemakings would take even longer, as the SEC struggled to meet the impossibly subjective economic cost-benefit standard to stave off the coming court battle over competing economic impact projections. The ink would not be dry on a SEC rule before the race to the courthouse door to challenge the regulations would begin. Presumably, the most powerful industry participants would challenge the rules in the way that achieves their narrow interest, which may be to the detriment of investors or other less-affluent market participants. In this way, the most powerful industry interests would be able to not only use the courts to undo consumer protections, but to also seek competitive advantage over competitors. In Congress, I hear a lot from the financial industry about ``uncertainty.'' There would never be certainty in securities markets if this bill were to ever become law. However, my primary concern is not for industry. It is for the People. The bill would eventually degrade consumer protection in financial markets until no investor could have faith in U.S. financial markets. The bill would allow firms and markets to operate unchecked. The industry with the best lawyers would reign, regardless of business model, practices, or any other market consideration. Congress would be powerless to help. This legislation rejects the lessons of the financial crisis and statutorily mandates the mistakes that led to it, with the taxpayers on the hook.

Ms. MOORE. I can tell you that among the requirements of this new section 203 is a mandate for regulators to consider ``available alternatives to direct regulation.'' Alternatives to regulation? What are we talking about here? As a Member of Congress--and all of us who are accountable to voters--we should not be comfortable passing laws only to have regulators not implement them because Wall Street hedge funds or swap dealers object to a cost study issued with the regulation. The Wolf of Wall Street should not get a veto over regulations because he can produce a self-serving study that a regulation may burden him in some way. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Section 203 takes us back to the day before AIG melted down. We are moving backwards in time and not forward with strengthening our economy. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to highlight the tragic shortage of suitable housing on tribal lands, and to call for increasing funding for the highly successful Native American Housing and Self Determination Act. Now, in 1996, Congress reorganized native housing programs into NAHASDA, a block grant system administered by tribes in cooperation with HUD. NAHASDA has proven to be an extremely effective tool for tribes to help tribal members increase the quality and quantity of housing. NAHASDA not only works, but fosters tribal self-determination and affirms the trust relationship that exists between Congress and tribal nations. Mr. Chairman, a bipartisan coalition of Members, Representatives Cole, Hanabusa, Heck, Kildee, and Representative Young and I, have introduced a bipartisan reauthorization NAHASDA, which is extremely similar to a draft that Representative Pearce has introduced. Now, both bills, Mr. Chairman, make prudent changes to increase the efficiency of the delivery of the program dollars, and I strongly believe that the changes will have a very positive impact. But, Mr. Chairman, increased efficiency will not replace the need for more money. The top three poorest counties in the United States of America are primarily populated by Native Americans. However, despite overwhelming need, we are not increasing funding for the program, and the current appropriation bill does not include funding for all Native peoples. The program funding has been flat for years and, at current level funding levels, we are falling way behind. Mr. Chairman, opponents of NAHASDA reauthorization point to the slow spend-down rate of a single tribe, giving the false sense that there is a surplus. However, the overall spend-down rate in NAHASDA exceeds that of other HUD programs, indicative of the dire housing needs. The first people of this Nation suffer in crushing poverty on remote reservations, outside of the view of most Americans. The National Congress of American Indians finds that 40 percent of on-reservation housing is substandard, compared to 6 percent outside of Indian Country. The homes are overcrowded, and too many basic utilities like access to the sewer system or even indoor plumbing is missing. I call on Congress to put these first Americans in their hearts and to consider helping these communities by supporting both NAHASDA reauthorization and increased funding for this extremely successful Native housing program. By supporting funding for the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act, we are working towards increasing the quality of housing for Native Americans, and that is good for all of our districts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment of this bill. This amendment will not kill the bill nor will it merely send it back to committee, but rather, if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward and simple. It would increase funding for three critical priorities: first, our chronically underfunded Violence Against Women Act programs; second, for grants to process the backlog on rape kits; and, third, for our Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, grants program, which was slashed deeply in the appropriations bill before us tonight. Now, given the limited time that I have and the late hour that I have to discuss all these issues, I just want to focus my remarks on one of the Nation's staggering backlogs that we haven't talked about. We have talked, and importantly, about the backlog at the Veterans Administration, but we have been silent about the backlog of the sexual assault kits that have not been analyzed. We have not seen a similar amount of attention paid to the crisis in these rape kits that have been backlogged. We have all heard these harrowing tales from our communities from young women and men who have waited so long for justice--and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited some more. These victims have not only endured the initial assault, but they have also endured an invasive exam to collect DNA shortly after the attack. Mr. Speaker, these exams last for over 4 hours in some cases. It is unimaginable how difficult this is to bear. It takes so much courage for a victim to come forward and endure in hopes that the perpetrator will be caught. You know, it is the very least we owe to these victims to process all of the evidence, yet thousands of victims across the country never hear anything ever again. Police already possess the evidence that is needed to identify and convict the perpetrators of these crimes, yet criminals remain at large primarily because these unprocessed kits remain in back rooms, warehouses, and labs. And given the sad reality that most sex offenders are recidivists, it is imperative that we close the loop on these old cases so offenders don't seek out new victims. Part of the terror of being raped is knowing that the perpetrator is still out there, he can come back to get you, someone else, you don't know who he is, and it puts not only that individual in terror, but puts the whole community in terror. On the aggregate level, the Department of Justice has tallied about 400,000 rape kits that remain sitting in evidence lockers, largely because local authorities can't afford the $500 to $1,500 it costs to test these kits. Some of these kits go back to the 1980s. And even though this evidence is old, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't assume that they are meaningless. In Detroit, law enforcement personnel, as an example, are currently analyzing 11,000 abandoned kits they found in a warehouse. Six years, these kits have been sitting there for 6 years. After processing only 10 percent of these rape kits, they have identified 46 serial rapists that they have identified. In New York City, they showed that after they processed their backlog of 17,000 kits, the arrest rate for rape kits increased from 40 percent to 70 percent. The overwhelmingly scourge of backlogged kits require nothing less than a national commitment, Mr. Speaker, including a dedicated response from the United States Congress. I am pleased that the bill before us tonight fulfills the request from the Obama administration to provide funding for a new grant program to inventory and test rape kits, develop units to pursue new investigative leads, and offer support to victims during the process. The new investment through this bipartisan bill is an important first step. However, through simple addition, we can tally the pending cost of clearing the backlog. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir, in its current form.

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, my amendment adds $1 million to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR, and is offset through the Department of Justice salaries and expenses account. Now, I really do want to acknowledge the committee for their great work in increasing funding for the EOIR for this fiscal year, but even with this increase, Madam Chair, funding is still woefully short of the President's request. This bill doesn't nearly go far enough to address the crisis our immigration courts face today. This House has spared no expense--no expense--when it comes to throwing money at our failed enforcement-only immigration system. Since we are spending about $18 billion a year on enforcement, we are detaining and deporting immigrants at record levels. An estimated 1,000 deportations take place each day. Yet, Madam Chair, we have done little to nothing to ensure that our Nation's immigration courts keep up with that pace, let alone fix many of these problems. This is one more example to demonstrate why we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform this year. But that having been said, this amendment seeks to address that disparity. This mismatch, Madam Chair, between immigration review resources and aggressive enforcement efforts has created a backlog of over 366,000 cases in our immigration courts. The average wait for a hearing is over 570 days. Many justified--justified--immigration relief and asylum seekers can find themselves waiting years in limbo. And these unacceptable delays waste taxpayer dollars by keeping people in detention. Moreover, our tradition of due process is in serious jeopardy. EOIR has been forced to do everything in its power to accommodate their dockets, but only so much can be done without sacrificing essential aspects of the court. Now, Madam Chair, in February, a Washington Post article described the day-to-day world of one of our immigration courts, where a judge had, on average, 7 minutes to decide each case: 7 minutes to decide whether to deport a person who might be eligible for asylum because they could be killed if they are sent back to their home country; 7 minutes for a judge to decide if a child will grow up without that father or mother--7 minutes. One judge described it in testimony before Congress: It is like doing death penalty cases in a traffic court setting. My amendment also highlights the need to fund and expand the Legal Orientation Program. This important program gives detainees basic legal information, makes our system more efficient, and strengthens due process. About 41 percent of those awaiting hearings before an immigration judge don't have legal representation. Children, Madam Chair, would benefit from this. In March of 2014, a U.N. refugee agency report cited a strong link between instability and violence in the Americas region and the new displacement patterns of children fleeing northward. Yet these children, ranging from toddlers to teenagers, are so vulnerable, but they are less likely to have legal advice and counsel, our notion of guardian ad litem, to help them navigate the complex immigration laws. This is so important, Madam Chair. I hope we can work together to expand it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, this legislation also officially establishes a national human trafficking hotline to help connect victims with the services that they need and to allow others to pass along crime tips to law enforcement. I am so proud that this legislation has been amended to add trafficking victims to those eligible to receive Job Corps services, giving them access to job skills training that can lead them toward a better life, the Job Corps--a port in a very tumultuous storm. I am so pleased to cosponsor this legislation, and I would ask that all of my colleagues support its passage.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3610, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. Before I say anything, I want to thank Congressman Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, who has been a tremendous, superb partner throughout the process of putting this legislation together. I also want to thank the authors of all of the other four bills that are going to be considered today. This bill really incentivizes States to put safe harbor laws into place, and that is the crux of this bill, but I can tell you that solving the problem of the sexual exploitation of children is going to require a lasting commitment and a bipartisan effort. It is going to be very, very, very difficult, colleagues, because, as the FBI has told us, this is not just something that happens in Nigeria, but it is something that happens right here in the United States. It is a $9.5 billion annual business activity. There are 100,000 kids a year who are currently trafficked, and another 200,000 are at risk. A pimp can earn as much as $250,000 a year in this booming business, so it is going to take all of us to stop this. The victims are mostly girls, and on average, they are trafficked at age 13. I am embarrassed and I regret to report that my own hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has become known as the sex trafficking hub for both children and adults. As a matter of fact, the FBI reports that Milwaukee is the second highest in the Nation for recovered youth; yet trafficking is now common in communities all across the country, not just in urban, but in suburban, in rural, and from coast to coast. Predators victimize vulnerable young people, such as those whom my colleague from California, Congresswoman Bass, will talk about in the foster care system. They prey upon those who are in poverty, but they seek out higher income kids, too, going after those who may have some problems at home. They are predators against those who are LGBTQ. The victimization happens on our streets as well as online. The traffickers are everywhere, as are the consequences--social displacement, health issues, physical pain and disfigurement, infertility, PTSD, suicidal thoughts and attempts. Thirteen-year-old children need support and not incarceration. The Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act would alter our laws and our thinking about this, which is that minors are to be treated like victims, rather than as perpetrators of crime. They need direction and support for entering programs like the Job Corps, rather than to be prosecuted.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Elaine Thaney Schreiber, a teacher, wife, mother and former First Lady of the State of Wisconsin. The Silver Spring Neighborhood Center recently honored her through its dedication of the Elaine Schreiber Child Development Center. Elaine served at Silver Spring Neighborhood Center for over 20 years as an early childhood teacher, board member, donor and campaign leader; she led the Center's successful 2001-03 capital campaign which resulted in doubling the size of the Center and greatly expanding their services. While serving as First Lady of the State of Wisconsin, she championed early childhood immunizations. Thousands of children in Milwaukee and throughout the state have benefited as a result of her advocacy. Elaine Schreiber was born and raised in Milwaukee. She earned a degree in education from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, as well as a graduate degree in early childhood education. She has been married to Martin Schreiber, former Governor of Wisconsin since 1961 and together they have 4 children and thirteen grandchildren. She is the adored aunt to her many nieces and nephews. Elaine is beloved for her graciousness, kindness and deep love of children. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Elaine Thaney Schreiber for her contributions to the Fourth Congressional District. I am proud to call Elaine Schreiber my friend; she has acquired a lifetime record of accomplishment and contributed much to the greater Milwaukee community and the State of Wisconsin.