Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 592, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 593, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I was once one of those 47 percent--a welfare recipient. I have seen firsthand the successes and failures of this safety net in my community and across the Nation. I support the administration's strategic efforts to guarantee that TANF is a more effective program. I encourage all of my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 118, this resolution of disapproval, and to, instead, work together to build a strong workforce and economy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully raise a point of order against H. Res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield whilst he has too much time?

Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield to a question?

Ms. MOORE. I am asking you if you would yield to a question, not for me to speak.

Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order, not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some in the underlying bills under consideration here today, H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Rather, I am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice my adamant opposition to the TANF-related resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 118, given the strict closed terms of our debate today. My goal here today, Mr. Speaker, is to be a voice of reason, and certainly a voice of truth in this debate, because we are all undoubtedly about to hear an astonishing array of half truths and, Mr. Speaker, even lies about the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program or TANF--the lie, for example, that the TANF program was this raving success that took people out of poverty, gave them dignity and put them in good jobs. Well, what it really did was to really kick poor people off the rolls. You know, under President Clinton, 1996, when we passed the original TANF bill, it was a time of prosperity; and those people, primarily women, who would normally get off the rolls within 2 years, found jobs which were readily available. But even more, primarily women, just simply languished in poverty as a permanent underclass. Despite the creation of the so-called ``safety net'' under TANF, many, many women have languished in poverty and are still in poverty today. We're not just talking about the poor. We're talking about deep poverty. Mr. Speaker, did you know that between 1996 and 2011 the numbers of U.S. households living on less than $2 per person per day--the measure of extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank for developing nations--has more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46--nearly 1.5-- million people and that the number of children in extremely poor households has also doubled from 1.4 million up to 2.8 million children living in poverty--children, by the way, who cannot work? We are talking about the poorest of the poor. These numbers are startling given that we are talking about the United States of America, not some Third World country. Now let's get to the big lie that these resolutions relate to. The Republicans claim that the work requirements have been gutted under the Health and Human Services' guidance. These lies have already been debunked by the media, by Fact Check checkers, even by the original architects of TANF--for example, by Ron Haskins. Apparently, our colleagues find it convenient to ignore the facts; but, of course, we have heard throughout this election cycle that the GOP is not going to be dictated by facts. Sadly, I'm not at all surprised that we are forced to engage in this TANF battle on the House floor. I knew that the GOP would challenge the administration's proposal at the earliest opportunity; but, frankly, House Republicans' timing on this could not be worse. Do you think that the American people are demanding more attacks on the poor from your party this week or that doubling down on a strategy of vilifying the poor is a wise choice--trotting out the mythical, lazy welfare queen who doesn't want to take responsibility for her own life, who is part of the 47 percent who would rather have a so-called ``government handout'' than a job? I think that the insistence on considering this bill at this moment in history when we should be considering critical issues like the farm bill for our drought-ridden States or the Violence Against Women Act-- or how about this one, Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Act?--rather than political message bills is remarkably tone deaf. TANF was written at a time when our labor market and our economy were radically different than they are today. I didn't support TANF in 1996, but I certainly don't support it now that I have seen what it has done. It has become a hollow shell of a safety net program. It is not going to be allowed to evolve with the times, and it is now nothing short of completely broken. TANF recipients have been poorly served by the program, which too often locks people into a cycle of poverty through rigid guidelines and red tape while allowing them no access to real opportunity. In its current form, the program makes it extremely hard to move from welfare to work, which is supposedly the goal of the program, an honorable goal of the program. Mr. Speaker, check this out: States can meet their work requirements even if none--zero--of their recipients find a job. States are only measured by whether or not recipients participate in certain activities for a set number of hours, like if they just job search and never find a job. Not only are we not moving people from welfare to work in this program, but we are not allowing people any opportunity to get the education and training they might need to compete in the labor market or to learn valuable skills. We are trapping them in so-called ``job- search activities'' that are poorly designed and add up to nothing. TANF just does not provide real opportunities that could translate into better lives for beneficiaries. There are others who are unable to get help at all because the program is not designed to allow them in the door. Shockingly, States are rewarded for simply lowering their caseloads rather than for moving people into jobs. There is, indeed, an incentive for States to create barriers that prevent the individuals and families with the highest need from even participating. We've heard the horror stories of people who have been kicked off TANF or who couldn't get in in the first place and of the desperate things they've had to do to feed and shelter and clothe their children. By now, those of us who have been paying even the bare minimum of attention realize that the Republicans have been playing politics with the Obama administration's waiver program and have been playing fast and loose with reality. I would venture to guess that every Member in this Chamber knows the truth, that Republicans and Democratic Governors have been requesting increased flexibility in implementing the welfare reform for many years. In fact, in 2005, no fewer than 29 Republican Governors asked for increased waiver authority, and given my limited time, I will only name a few of them. We have such socialist Governors like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Texas Governor Rick Perry. How about Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and none other than--drum roll, please-- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney? Like these Governors, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing States the flexibility to craft welfare systems that meet the specific needs of their job markets and their participants. I know--and I know that many of you know, though you refuse to acknowledge it--that the waiver proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services would meaningfully strengthen our ability to move people from welfare to work. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think Mr. Dold has dealt very well with very many of the specifics of H.R. 2827 relating to the regulations of municipal advisers. So, before I lose people, I want to briefly talk about the process that brought the bill to this point, and I want to thank a lot of people for their contributions to the final legislation. As you've heard, the bill that passed the Financial Services Committee by 60-0 reflects the legislative process at its absolute best. It was a collaborative effort between Republicans and Democrats, issuers and market participants, and very, very diligent staffers on both sides of the aisle. If there is a single element that is most responsible for the bill's getting to this point, it is the integrity of the people involved. It speaks to their professionalism in that they stayed at the table and negotiated with the singular purpose of getting to the best result for the municipal market. There were times when the issues were tough and the disagreements real. There were times when it would have been very easy for people to just give up and walk away. But to the credit of all involved, everyone kept talking and kept searching for solutions. Mr. Dold deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his leadership of this bill. He was consistently willing to engage tough issues in an open and thoughtful manner. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues on the committee, Republican and Democrat alike, for their invaluable input as we negotiated the bill. Finally, I think it is important that I mention the important contributions of Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters. At many critical points, both were instrumental in providing guidance. H.R. 2827, which passed the House Financial Services Committee 60-0, almost didn't pass at all as there was so much confusion generated from the SEC promulgating a rule that initially was very confusing. It's only the second legislative effort related to Dodd-Frank to pass the committee unanimously. Prior to the passage of Dodd-Frank, non-dealer advisers to municipal governments were unregulated. These unregulated parties were involved in a number of municipal market scandals that ultimately defrauded taxpayers. Section 975 brings municipal financial advisers, swap advisers, placement agents, and GIC brokers under Federal securities law. It is a goal that is not partisan. Unfortunately, in 2010, the SEC released a proposed rulemaking related to section 975 that created massive confusion in the municipal market regarding how section 975 would be applied in the real world. H.R. 2827 seeks to clarify section 975 to provide certainty to the market so that the rules can be implemented and taxpayers can benefit from the protection it brings. This bill takes a fundamentally different approach from the SEC and the definition of municipal advisers. It makes ``municipal adviser'' an exclusionary definition, rather than trying to outline and define certain transactions which end up being very vague and overly broad. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. I just want to say again that I think we need to credit Mr. Dold, who is a fairly new Member. We actually listened to Members who were senior Members and didn't base it on our partisan differences as so often occurs. We really respected people's experience, and listened to their advice very earnestly. Again, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. It doesn't unnecessarily sweep in the universe of other professionals or impinge on the relationships of issuers and other market participants engaged in legitimate and necessary market activities like underwriting, providing accounting services, engineering advice, or offering traditional deposits and cash- management services to municipalities. It is a straightforward approach that effectuates the goals of 975 while meeting the real world needs of market participants. I want to urge all my colleagues to support this important regulatory legislation. Again, I cannot thank the participants enough who participated in this bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for one vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon (September 13). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 575-- H.R. 1775--Stolen Valor Act of 2011.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following. Whereas, Jacqueline C. Allen, the reigning matriarch of our family was born seventy-five years ago on June 26, 1937, in St. Louis, Missouri; and Whereas, in the early 50's ``Jackie'' and her family made the decision to move from Missouri to Wisconsin. ``Jackie'' and her family resided in what I call the ``center of the universe'' Racine, Wisconsin for approximately three years before moving to what is now the 4th Congressional District of Wisconsin, which includes the City of Milwaukee; and Whereas, Jackie continued her education in Milwaukee receiving certification in Early Childhood Development from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; and Whereas, not only did Jackie work creatively and lovingly with children from infancy to K-5, but Jackie also distinguished herself in the following careers: as a Housing Counselor for the City of Milwaukee where she assisted hundreds of residents in peril of foreclosure; Jackie was also a compassionate and competent Special Liaison with the Milwaukee District Attorney's office in outreach and support of battered women; and Whereas, Jackie was honored by being selected as ``Queen of Protocol'' for the opening ceremonies of Milwaukee's historic African World Festival; and Whereas, in the early 70's Jackie was one of the original organizers of the Welfare Warriors, a group that empowers predominantly women of every race, creed and color and continues to impact our country and community to this present day; and Whereas, a portrait of Jackie has been on display in the Milwaukee Public Library system for several decades as a tribute to Jacqueline C. Allen as one of Milwaukee, Wisconsin's most ``positive people''; and Whereas, as a family we are well aware that not only is Jackie positive but she is also persistent and powerful. Jackie has positively impacted her family decade after decade and generation after generation. Therefore, it is with the utmost pride that I will stand on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington, DC and convey to my colleagues and residents across the country the love and joy that I shared on July 22, 2012 on the occasion of the 75th Platinum Birthday Jubilee of my loyal constituent and my loving sister, Ms. Jacqueline C. Allen. To God be the Glory!

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 4264 will further strengthen and protect the MMI fund, and I would urge all Members to adopt this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I am so happy to be able to speak affirmatively about this legislation. I'm really impressed with the storied history of the Lions and their dynamic history, where they serve in more than 200 countries and geographic areas. I am particularly struck by their service and stewardship to our young people across the world, and I'm so proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I would urge all Members to support this resolution. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by expressing my deepest appreciation to the manager of this bill, Representative Biggert, and also a cosponsor of this legislation, in addition to Representative Bachus and Representative Waters, a bipartisan initiative. As Mrs. Biggert has indicated, this study was originally included in the flood insurance bill that passed the House but was later dropped for reasons of expediency. It was not controversial in negotiations with the Senate. I believe that a community-based flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving option for communities within the framework of the overall National Flood Insurance Program. The potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. H.R. 6186 would require FEMA to study voluntary community- based flood insurance options and examine how such options could be incorporated into the National Flood Insurance Program. The idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a National Flood Insurance Program-participating community or a FEMA-designated flood plain so that everyone in the community would pay the same rate. Now, this approach has merit because it means not only potentially lower rates due to increased participation, but there is also the option of providing lower-income households with access to vouchers to purchase flood insurance as part of the group. The group rating, of course, would spread the risk to an affordable extent for each individual homeowner. An analogy for this concept is group or employee health insurance coverage versus individual coverage. We all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to the economies of scale of streamlined underwriting. The difference is, in this case, a community, not an individual, would be the policy holder. Now, this brings me to a very important potential benefit of this approach: increased incentives for communities to take affirmative actions to mitigate the threat from floods in the community. Now, while an individual flood insurance holder has absolutely no incentive or means to, say, build stronger levees or dikes, a community policyholder would have the means and incentives to take those kinds of precautions. In theory, under this model, the homeowner would pay insurance like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis. Finally, I want to point out that there is precedent for this idea. Under current regulations, FEMA could issue group flood insurance policies. The program was limited, but it was successful. This bill only adds that FEMA examine the cost and benefits of using this approach on an ongoing basis as an option for communities. I urge all my House colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House Tuesday afternoon (July 31). My flight was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington from Milwaukee, WI due to bad weather. Had I been present-- (1) I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 537--S. 679-- Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. (2) I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 538--H.R. 828--Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2011, as amended. (3) I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 539--H.R. 3803-- District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Ms. MOORE

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

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to restore $3 million to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. This amendment would simply level fund this account at the fiscal year 2012 level. Mr. Chairman, it troubles me to see the continued rollout of Secure Communities and increase in funding for these 287(g) programs in the underlying bill, especially juxtaposed with a 13 percent decrease in funding for the office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Experts and officials across the country have concerns about these programs that shift Federal immigration laws into the hands of local police. I have a letter from 88 civil rights organizations urging the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ``end its facilitation of the fundamentally flawed Secure Communities deportation program.'' The letter states: Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy because it threatens public safety, encourages racial profiling, undermines community policing, and serves as a deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into police custody. As cochair of the Women's Caucus, I am particularly concerned when I hear stories of the effects this program has on victims across our communities. Women and their children are increasingly afraid to go to local police to get confidential help, to call 911 during an emergency because they are terrified of being caught in this dragnet. For many, suffering through an abusive situation is better than watching their families being torn apart. Mr. Chairman, these are real people who are victims or witnesses to domestic violence or other crimes, but they cannot come forward. According to an October 2011 report by the UC Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute, more than one-third of individuals arrested in this program report that they have a U.S. citizen spouse or child. In other words, an estimated 88,000 families with U.S. citizen members have been impacted by Secure Communities. The same report found that Latinos comprise 93 percent of the individuals arrested in this program, despite only compromising 77 percent of the population. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is not the America we want to create. We should all be able to agree that we don't want to see an America where victims are afraid of the police or an America where racial profiling is encouraged or tolerated. Now, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that increasing enforcement policies is the right approach to solve our broken immigration system. With that being said, I appeal to my colleagues to support efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to ensure adequate oversight of this program. Steps that the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties have taken and will take to: Analyze arrest data to make sure that there are no serious indications of racial profiling in any of the participating communities; Help improve training for local law enforcement officers to reduce confusion and ensure that there are clear guidelines to prevent misuse of the program; To inform the public about options they have and recourses they can use if their civil liberties are violated by department action; and, finally, To help investigate and resolve cases where an individual alleges that their rights were violated. I support these important efforts towards promoting accountability and oversight over these enforcement programs, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is fully offset, as is required of this appropriations process, and it is not an increase in this program, but it simply level funds it at 2012 levels. With that, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully yield back the balance of my time. March 8, 2012. R. Scott Trent, CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Trent: We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to end its facilitation of the fundamentally flawed Secure Communities deportation program. We urge the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board (APB) to adopt the attached proposal to mitigate the damage this program has done to public safety and community policing. The proposal would respect the wishes of states and localities that chose not to participate in ``Secure Communities'' and would prevent the implementation of the program in jurisdictions with a documented pattern of civil rights abuses. Secure Communities is a wide-sweeping deportation program launched in 2008 by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. It has been sharply criticized by the governors and state legislators of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts; local officials from numerous cities and counties, including the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco; dozens of Congressional representatives; many prominent law enforcement officials; hundreds of immigrant rights, criminal justice, and privacy advocates; religious leaders; and community members. As described in more detail in the attached proposal, Secure Communities has caused widespread controversy because it threatens public safety, encourages racial profiling, undermines community policing, and serves as a deportation dragnet, ensnaring anyone who is booked into police custody. The FBI plays a large role in Secure Communities by automatically initiating the immigration background check that sets the deportation process in motion for anyone booked into police custody. The CJIS APB approved this process almost two years ago, well before the problems caused by Secure Communities came to light. It is urgent that in the upcoming August 2012 meeting, the APB Working Groups consider the newly disclosed information regarding the fatal flaws in this program, and adopt the attached proposal to mitigate the damage. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact Jessica Karp at 213 380 2214 or jkarp@ndlon.org with any questions or information about the status of this request. Sincerely, Alliance for a Just Society; American Friends Service Committee; Angels For Action; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian Law Caucus; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Blauvelt Dominican Sisters Social Justice Committee; Bronx Defenders; CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities; Casa Esperanza; Casa Freehold; CATA The Farmworker's Support Committee; Center for Constitutional Rights; Central American Refugee Center--New York; Central American Resource Center-- Houston; CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; Coalicion de Organizaciones Latino- Americanas (COLA); Community Service Organization; Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility; Defending Dissent Foundation; Detention Watch Network; Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug Policy Alliance. El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas; Franciscan Action Network; Grassroots Leadership; Graton Day Labor Center; Hayward Day Labor Center; Hispanic Resource Center of Mamaroneck; Houston's America for All; Houston Peace and Justice Center; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immigrant Defense Project; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Immigration Circle of Justice, Sisters of St. Dominic, Blauvelt, NY; Immigration Justice Clinic of John Jay Legal Services, Inc.; inMotion; IRATE & First Friends; Ironbound Community Corporation; Junta for Progressive Action; Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, Cardozo School of Law; Labor Council For Latin American Advancement Central Florida Chapter; Labor Justice Committee; Latino Foundation; Legal Aid Justice Center's Immigrant Advocacy Program; Make the Road by Walking New York; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. Mennonite Central Committee East Coast; Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office; Muslim Legal Fund of America; National Day Labor Organizing Network; National Employment Law Project; National Guestworker Alliance; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Neighbors in Support of Immigrants; New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice; New Sanctuary Coalition NYC; New York Immigration Coalition; Passaic County Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Presente.org; Prison Activist Resource Center; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Progressive States Network; Pueblo Sin Fronteras; Puente Arizona; Queer Women of Color Media Arts Project (QWOCMAP); Rights Working Group; Rockland immigration coalition; Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York; Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network; South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT); Tenants and Workers United; The Reformed Church of Highland Park Immigration Committee; The Workplace Project; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; VivirLatino; Voces de la Frontera; Voces Unidas Por los Inmigrantes; WeCount!; Welcome Everybody Organization; Wind of the Spirit, Immigrant Resource Center, NJ; Workers Defense Project; Young Workers United.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. I am so pleased to join you here today to support this motion to instruct. I was, of course, one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which provides the authority for the Treasury to take action against foreign governments and financial institutions that significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement. Treasury already has similar authority to combat money laundering, so the infrastructure and the know-how already exist. Congress has an opportunity in this transportation bill to transport this very important debt reduction initiative into our proceedings here today. It will stop sophisticated tax avoidance schemes that add to the national debt and ultimately the burden for that debt that honest taxpayers must bear and are concerned with. In my home State of Wisconsin, it's estimated that every single honest taxpayer in Wisconsin paid an extra $372 in taxes in 2011 to make up from the revenue lost from corporations, criminals, and wealthy individuals utilizing illegal tax-avoidance schemes. These numbers are even more offensive for Wisconsin small businesses that pay an additional $2,165 due to these abuses of the Tax Code. That may not seem like a lot of money to anyone--$372--but you multiply that by taxpayers and by 50 States, and according to a GAO study, that turns out to be $100 billion. That's a really nice piece of change. I have heard this Congress often harp on the percentages and the numbers of United States taxpayers who are so very low income that they have no tax liability, people who make $10,000, $11,000 a year, and are so poor that they have no tax liability. Yet 83 of 100 publicly traded companies have one of these offshore tax havens and avoid $100 billion in tax payments. Compare that with someone trying to get an earned income tax credit. I've heard from Republicans that this is not germane to the bill. I hope you'll remember that when you put some gun provision in every bill that comes around or some effort to minimize and take away a woman's right to reproductive health in one of your bills, which uses transportation for all of those kind of initiatives. This is an opportunity to act on the deficit--$100 billion is not small change--and to stand up for taxpayers. It is not spending, as the gentleman has indicated that it is. All it is is not levying a new tax. It's not spending; it's not imposing additional burdens. It just empowers our Treasury to stop tax-avoidance schemes. Again, thank you so much for this opportunity. I hope my colleagues will stand up for honest taxpayers and support this measure.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some unfunded mandates in the underlying bill, H.R. 4970; rather, I am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice opposition to this bill, given the strict, closed terms of our debate today. It is baffling to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would be so shut out of today's debate and that House Republicans would so completely abandon any pretense of bipartisanship on a bill like the Violence Against Women Act. This bill has always been a bipartisan effort, and I would argue that on an issue like this, it is incredibly important to have a well-rounded discussion. We obviously disagree about the key elements that are critical to include in a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Well, why not allow us to have a healthy debate? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, why not allow us our chance to try to improve the legislation before us? Our allies in the domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy community have literally spent years compiling input and data from service providers, law enforcement, and victims themselves about what we must do to update VAWA in a reauthorization. And I am here to be a voice of protest because their input is invaluable; yet, for the very first time, their input has been cast aside. Last night I offered a substitute, along with Representative Conyers and Representative Lofgren, that would have allowed us to consider the Senate-passed version of the Violence Against Women Act, a version which I proudly introduced in March here in this House of Representatives. This legislation was passed in the Senate with sound bipartisan support and includes the improvements that have been endorsed by a broad array of individuals and organizations, including law enforcement agencies. But, unfortunately, today we will not be allowed to vote on the Senate bill. We will have to vote on the Adams bill, which is now officially opposed by over 325 organizations. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard it right--325 organizations. I would like to share my time with my colleagues who are here with me today and would like for their voices to be heard. So, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent, the first of whom is Ms. Yvette Clarke from Brooklyn, New York.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit simply clarifies that the preservation of confidentiality to protect the victims' identity to avoid retaliation and even loss of life shall not be weakened as compared to current law. We have debated the need to expand this bill beyond what the author has put in. We have lost that debate because the Rules Committee has put forth a closed rule, and we do not have the opportunity to present the Senate version of the bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate 68 31. So we have lost that battle for the Violence Against Women Act to include all women. In this motion, we are simply trying to reestablish one little sliver--one little piece--in this bill that we are hoping the majority will recognize will greatly enhance the safety of all women. This motion simply protects the victim's identity to avoid retaliation and even the loss of life, and it makes sure it is not weakened as compared to current law. Now, we are going to be told that the manager's amendment does that, but it does not. Under current law, abused women are able to seek help and come forward to authorities under the condition of confidentiality; but H.R. 4970, as amended, does a couple of things. For example, it delays the protection of battered victims by staying adjudications before pending investigations or prosecutions are completed. It creates a negative inference against the victim if law enforcement does not open a formal investigation or if prosecutors fail to prosecute the perpetrator. I can tell you that, notwithstanding the due process rights of abusers, current law provides a very delicate balance between the due process rights of abusers and the confidentiality of those accusers. The fact that the bill was amended in this way restimulates me to remember an incident in my own life when the balance of rights was tipped in favor of the abuser. I am reminded of a time when I got into an automobile, with a man whom I thought to be a personal friend, to go get some fried chicken. He pulled in behind some vacant buildings, and he raped me and choked me almost to death. When I went to the hospital, I was encouraged by an advocate--this was in the 1970s, long before there was a Violence Against Women Act, long before there was a Rape Shield Act--to take him to court. Indeed, I was on trial because, like this bill--and just like what I experienced--I had to prove as a victim that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. Oh, they brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed, and they carried me through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops. Ultimately, he was found to be not guilty; although, I had done everything that I was told to do in terms of prosecuting this. I cannot stress the solemn nature of this issue. It doesn't surprise me that she had the cell phone in her hand but that she lost her life because she couldn't escape this man. It doesn't surprise me that she was shot four times behind the police station. The most dangerous time for a woman is when she is trying to escape her perpetrator, when she is trying to do something about it, when she is trying to turn her life around, hers and her children's. When the perpetrator is given the tools that this bill gives him to have an abuser's rights prevail over the rights of the victim's, she will have the cell phone in her hand, but she will lose her life anyway because she cannot escape this man. The manager's amendment does not fix this. We have heard from 325 groups and organizations that oppose this bill and say that the manager's amendment does not fix it, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.