Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman for his support. I now yield to my colleague from Florida, Frederica Wilson.

Ms. MOORE. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with my colleagues Frederica Wilson from Florida and Danny Davis of Illinois. This amendment is straightforward. It is protective in nature, and it ensures that high poverty schools are not adversely affected by H.R. 5's proposed change in the funding allocation formula for teacher support and development under title II of the ESEA. Now, if we don't adopt this amendment, we may inadvertently break a long bipartisan agreement that we've had regarding our fundamental need to ensure that our low-income students are not assigned less qualified teachers than their advantaged peers. The reality is that a school district serving students in poverty faces many challenges in recruiting and in retaining teachers as well as other qualified staff. I believe that the Rules Committee made this in order because it wanted the body to have an opportunity to meet this long bipartisan agreement. H.R. 5, as current drafted, would totally eliminate the current formula, which focuses on funding students in poverty, and replaces it with a formula that equally weights poverty and population. As written, we have strong reason to fear that H.R. 5 would result in Federal dollars being siphoned from States and schools with the poorest students and awarded to the States and schools without similar levels of poverty. Our amendment, again, simply requires that this change to the funding formula not be enacted if our fears are realized and if the Secretary of Education determines that such a change would reduce funding to districts serving students in poverty. This amendment would not add a penny to the cost of the bill. Our intention is only to safeguard the very teacher supports to help us close the achievement gaps for low- income students. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 5, consistently backs away from our longstanding Federal commitment to direct funding to students with the greatest need, including those attending high poverty schools. There are a lot of factors that affect a child's performance in school, and some of these we just can't control, but this is one thing that we can control--the level of quality of the people standing in front of our children. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a mother, teacher, mentor, and community leader, Bessie M. Gray. On July 21, 2013 her over 40 years of service will be celebrated and honored along with family, friends, former employees, and former students at a program entitled, ``Mother to Many, Teacher to More and Mentor to All.'' Mrs. Bessie Gray was born in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and moved to Milwaukee after graduating from high school, where she met and married her husband, Percy. She began her child care business in her home in 1973 after working as a Head Start volunteer. Gray's Child Development Center, Inc. became a nonprofit organization and was accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). It was the first African American-led program in the State to achieve this accreditation. Mrs. Gray earned her bachelor's degree in early childhood education from the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee and her master's degree in educational administrative leadership from Marquette University. She was a State certified child care trainer for many years and started hundreds of teachers on their way to successful child care careers. She served on many boards and is a past member of Wisconsin Early Childhood Association (vice president), Midwest Early Childhood Association, Black Child Development Institute, and Easter Seals Southeastern Wisconsin. She continues to be available for board consultation. In 1991, Mrs. Gray began purchasing a property on North Teutonia Avenue from the Sisters of Sorrowful Mother. After providing day care services for children at this site for three years, the Sisters gifted the property to Mrs. Gray. For the next 20 years, Gray's operated out of that facility until its closure in 2011. Many honors and awards have been bestowed upon Mrs. Gray during her career, including Milwaukeean of the Month (Milwaukee Magazine) 1981, First African American Nationally Accredited Child Care Center in Wisconsin 1994, State of Wisconsin Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Heritage Award 2001, and Black Child Development Wisconsin Affiliate/ Child Care category 2009. She has touched the lives of thousands during her 48 years of service to children and their futures. When parents could not afford to pay the child care fees, she absorbed these costs to ensure that parents could maintain employment stability or finish their schooling. Bessie Gray is a woman armed with a strong personal faith. She taught Sunday school and provided a nursing home ministry. She was married to Percy Gray, Sr. for over 55 years until his passing in December 2010, and is the mother of nine children, with 23 grandchildren and several great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Bessie M. Gray, my friend. Mrs. Gray's contributions have greatly benefited the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts America's children.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, apparently, it was not enough for the House majority to decimate the nutrition title the last time we considered the farm bill a few weeks ago with the $20 billion cut. When they couldn't get the majority of Republicans to vote for it because it just wasn't cut enough, they just eliminated the entire nutrition title--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These are fancy names and acronyms for the programs that allow seniors, young children, and the disabled to stock their food pantries. I can't wrap my mind around the shameful nature of this moment, a moment when we are moving forward with the farm bill and leaving behind 47 million of our Nation's hungry. Now, it has been asserted, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership is not attempting to starve vulnerable families but merely wants to expedite the passage of the all-important agricultural components of the bill by removing the extraneous nutrition title. Since 1965, we have reauthorized our antihunger programs alongside our agriculture- related policies in a marriage; but at this moment, the House has filed for divorce, and the primary breadwinner is abandoning two-thirds of the family, consisting of children--young, babies--the elderly, and the disabled. H.R. 2642 is a deadbeat majority's proposal to avoid child support, elderly subsidies, and food assistance to the disabled of 47 million people. What kind of message are we sending with the passage of this bill? We are telling our Nation's hungry that Congress is willing to turn a blind eye and that food is an extraneous concern of the Congress.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for the first vote on the evening of July 8, 2013. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following vote: Rollcall No. 305, on Agreeing to On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1341. I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for votes on the afternoon of July 9, 2013. I was unfortunately absent due to a medical appointment. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes: Rollcall No. 308, on the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2609, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 309, on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 288), I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to this amendment. This is really a very poorly conceived amendment that would require all non-disabled individuals to participate in a job search every month or immediately lose benefits, even if the individual is already working or even if the individual is a child, a minor. This amendment would increase the SNAP cuts by 50 percent to $31 billion, instead of the $21.5 billion. It would immediately subject 2 million jobless, childless adults to harsh benefit cuts. It would slash benefits for 2 million people about $90 a month. It would eliminate all the SNAP employment and training funds, eliminate nutrition education, impose new job search requirements on all people, even if they're working, and it would send people into a deep, deep depression. I think that this is an amendment that we should oppose.

Ms. MOORE. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. MOORE. Despite what we have heard from the author of this program, there is no work in this bill. This amendment would more appropriately be called ``The State Bonuses for Terminating SNAP Benefits for People Who Want to Work but Can't Find a Job Because They're in a Recession,'' and it ends benefits for children, disabled people, yes, and even for disabled veterans. I think the most egregious thing about this amendment is that there is no funding for worker training programs in this bill at all even though we are ordering people to do it, and there is a perverse incentive for States to end SNAP benefits for people because, suddenly, food stamps, or SNAP benefits, become fungible. We just rejected an amendment in our last series of votes that would have allowed people to get toothpaste and toothbrushes with SNAP benefits; but what this amendment does is allow the States to pocket these sanctions and use them for whatever they want to--to balance the budget with it or to convert SNAP benefits into tax breaks for corporations or for wealthy people. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. I would like to inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. MOORE. Just because we keep saying that the 1996 welfare program was successful, doesn't make it so. Poverty has increased among women and children. A quarter of all children in this country are poor. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. MOORE. We reduced welfare rolls because we literally threw people off. We did not help them find sustainable jobs, which is why poverty has increased. I yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the last 30 seconds to our good friend and colleague, Mr. Welch.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would rebut several of the arguments the gentleman has made. First of all, you know, common sense really ain't that common, and this amendment is an example of that. First of all, it uses very fallacious arguments that presume that most of the people who use food stamps also use drugs. I would just remind the body that 46 percent of the people who use food stamps are hungry children. And as the author of this amendment has suggested--quite incorrectly--this is not about hungry children, it is; because if that person in the household who is the applicant is denied food stamps, hungry children will be affected. This is unconstitutional. This has been through court. It violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against illegal searches and seizures. It costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. They found in Florida, for example, that people who don't use public assistance programs are three times more likely to be drug users; and nationwide, they have found that recipients don't use drugs at any greater rate than the general population. This is a slippery slope in violating one of the basic tenets of our Constitution. Mandatory drug testing laws are not based on individualized suspicion, and the Supreme Court has held that it doesn't pass the constitutional measure. It will cost $75 for one of these drug tests, and for what purpose? Just to criminalize and humiliate poor people. So with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Ms. MOORE. I just would like to remind the body and the sponsors of this bill that SNAP already has an option to target and punish drug offenders. States right now, without this amendment, can require individuals who have been convicted of a drug felony to submit to a drug test before they can receive SNAP benefits--totally in line with our Constitution. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great member on the Ag Committee.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not commonsensical; this is unconstitutional. The majority wants to excuse itself from taking food away from 46 million people who are hungry, and it is a proxy for criminalizing the food stamp program in order to get away with it.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I think that the majority has really raised the point that, historically, we have not allowed purchases beyond food for the food stamp program, but it's not that poor people don't really need to be able to do that. This amendment is very narrow, and I can recall from personal experience some of the things that many families run out of in a family that are directly related to their nutritional needs, like a baby bottle. You've never seen a family frantically trying to find the last baby bottle or nipple that the baby has bitten off and not be able to deliver the formula to the child because they don't have a baby bottle and it'll cost over $2 to be able to make that purchase. Certainly, toilet paper is sort of inversely related to eating. The need for feminine hygiene products or deodorant is something that adds to the dignity of being alive. It's quite true that many Americans during our Great Recession only had food stamps to depend on, not even TANF benefits. So if you're looking for a job, you really do want to have deodorant and toothpaste. I think that this is budget neutral, and it is a small concession to make given the draconian cuts we're making in the program already.