Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear what the opponents to my point of order have to say.

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

Ms. MOORE. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and neighbor from the great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your lack of clarity. I raise this point of order because it's important to uncover whether or not the underlying rule for this Natural Resources bill--it's a Natural Resources bill--also deems the Republican budget plan to end Medicare as we know it, slash funding for SNAP. When it comes to the Republican budget, my Democratic colleagues are most definitely not asleep at the wheel. And we want to take this moment to shed light on what's going on here. Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of that prestigious committee, the House Committee on the Budget, and a long-time advocate for sound budgetary policy. I recognize the importance of tackling our deficit and debt head-on, carefully balancing both the spending and revenue-raising sides of our ledger. But House Republicans, led by my dear colleague from Wisconsin, have put out a budget that is neither sound nor balanced. This budget finds a jaw-dropping 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve the most vulnerable of our society, the poor, and I might add in the most vulnerable, women and children, since we've just recently established in this last week that women were very important in our economy. In addition to the sheer magnitude of these raw numbers, I want to make it clear that the Republican budget contains major departures from current policy. This budget heralds welfare reform as a vital victory and plots the next chapter of so-called ``reforms'' for other areas of the safety net. Our core programs are not spared by this budgetary trick. This budget takes an aim at Medicare. We're told that by stripping Medicare of its entitled status, cutting $30 billion out of Medicare, that we're going to save it. We're going to save Medicare by subtracting $30 billion. That's not the kind of math I learned at North Division High. And we're going to set seniors adrift in the private market. Now, this budget does nothing to cut the cost of health care in the private market. It only passes those costs on to seniors. The cuts to the SNAP program have not gotten as much attention as the Medicare cuts, even though they are cause for collective alarm. As we know, over half of our citizens in the United States, working people, many of them, found themselves with no other income. They had no job. We played phony baloney with the unemployment insurance. They had nothing except SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. And so they had no other income other than the food stamp program, SNAP, but yet we're going to cut $134 million out of this program and convert it again to a block grant and handcuff SNAP's ability to respond to its increased need. Mr. Speaker, can I ask you how much time I have remaining?

Ms. MOORE. Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as I have construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress, which would include the Senate, had adopted such concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate. So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican budget, which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the entitlement under Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134 billion over 10 years, that we could be deeming this to be passed. I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of ``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also the Senate.

Ms. MOORE. The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress had adopted such concurrent resolution.'' Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed H. Con. Res. 112?

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 4089. But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 614 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. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would yield to a question.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I was so happy this week when I learned from our Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, that the Republicans are now prepared to realize that women are a very important part of the economy. And that is why I'm wondering why Romney has embraced the Republican budget which would fix Medicare by cutting out $30 billion in 10 years when 56 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are women, and the oldest of old, 85 and older, 70 percent are women. Two-thirds of Medicaid recipients who are adults are women; and of the SNAP program--formerly known as food stamps--cut of $134 billion, of the adult recipients, two-thirds of them are women. So, in an environment where he claims that 92, 93 percent of all job losses have occurred among women, why would we snatch the safety net out from under women with this cruel Republican budget?

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Representative Slaughter. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to allow us to consider the Violence Against Women Act. It is pathetic and it is disappointing that it has come to this--that we have to use procedural shenanigans to talk about an initiative that has been a bipartisan initiative since 1994. Violence against women in this country is not levied against just Democrats but Republicans as well; not blacks or whites or Hispanics but against Native American people as well; not just Christians or Muslims but Jews and nonreligious people--atheists--as well; not just rich people or poor people but middle class people as well; and not just against heterosexual women but homosexual couples as well. It knows no gender. It knows no ethnicity. It knows nothing. I'll tell you that violence against women is as American as apple pie. I know not only as a legislator but from my own personal experience that domestic violence has been a thread throughout my personal life, from being a child who was repeatedly sexually assaulted up to and including being an adult who has been raped. I just don't have enough time to share all of those experiences with you. Yet I can tell you, when this bill came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with all of the Republican Senators--all of the guys--voting no, it really brought up some terrible memories for me of having boys sit in a locker room and sort of bet that I, the A kid, couldn't be had and then having the appointed boy, when he saw that I wasn't going to be so willing, complete a date rape and then take my underwear to display it to the rest of the boys. I mean, this is what American women are facing. I am so proud to be an author of this amendment because it has been, in the past, a bipartisan bill. This bill will strengthen the core programs and support law enforcement, prosecutions, and judicial staff training. It will include new initiatives aimed at preventing domestic violence-related homicides that occur every single day in this country. It will extend the authority to protect Native American victims on tribal lands. It will ensure a strong response to the insufficient reporting and services for victims of sexual assault. It will increase the numbers of U visas for undocumented women who, because they're in the shadows, are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence. This bill will also expand services for those in underserved communities, who, due to their religion or gender or sexual orientation, have not been served. This is not a partisan issue, and it would be very, very devastating to women of all colors, creeds, and sexual orientations for us not to address this.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Cleaver. Mr. Chairman, prior to 1994, Congress acted to ensure that Americans had guaranteed support under the Social Security Act. It was a three- legged stool. The American social contract provided retirement security for retirees through Social Security, health coverage for elders with Medicare, dignified care for the infirm and disabled under Medicaid and sustenance for low-income families with children. Now, in 1994, on a bipartisan basis, this body breached the Social Security Act's contract with the people and ``ended welfare as we know it.'' Now, this Republican budget says that that is a model for what this budget should do. It recalls that victory, and I quote from the narrative under the Path to Prosperity, a blueprint for American Renewal: This budget completes the successful work of transforming welfare by reforming other areas of America's safety net to ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency. We've heard on this floor that we're going to make sure that the safety net does not become a hammock. So, in other words, Medicare and Medicare recipients are now welfare recipients. So what this budget does is it ends the guarantee of health care for retirees, turning it into a voucher program, and cuts $30 billion over the next decade. The program, Medicaid, it is now a welfare program, and Grandma, who is in the nursing home, is now a welfare recipient who is lying in a hammock instead of living out her life in dignity, and you cut $810 billion out of that fund over the next decade. Another entitlement program, food stamps, which served 45 million people during this recession, half of all Americans are now poor. You're going to amend that entitlement program by cutting $134 billion out over the next decade. The CBC budget rejects the breach of the Social Security Act and renews that contract with Americans. It rejects the 62 percent of the Republican budget that cuts $5.3 trillion--62 percent of it taken from those Americans who are most vulnerable--yet it provides deficit reduction of $3.4 trillion over a 10-year period of time. Yes, we do have different priorities. We prioritize retirees, elders, the disabled, and infirm over millionaires.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. for 100 years of service in the great State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Community Services, Inc., or WCS, was founded in 1912 as the ``Society for the Friendless'' and is the largest and oldest non-profit criminal justice organization in the State of Wisconsin. WCS' original mission has remained constant from its inception to present day: to assist people who were incarcerated; to assist the families left behind; and ``to advocate for justice and community safety by providing innovative opportunities for individuals to overcome adversity.'' During its 100-year history, WCS has helped to increase public safety and strengthen communities by giving disenfranchised residents the tools and support they need to be healthy, law-abiding, and productive. I applaud WCS for offering alternatives that have resulted in lower recidivism rates compared to incarceration, thereby providing significant savings to taxpayers. The organization takes every opportunity to provide both innovative and evidence-based programming in a variety of service areas including the following: residential re- entry and workforce development; court services; services to persons with alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA); services to those with mental health or co-occurring disorders; and services for youth. In 2011 alone, WCS has served more than 15,000 individuals. Mr. Speaker, WCS agency has made a tremendous impact and left its imprint on the historic, cultural, and civic life of the people of Wisconsin. I am proud that WCS is located in the 4th Congressional District providing support services and tools to help people successfully reintegrate into the community. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting WCS in recognition of 100 years of advocating for justice and community safety by providing innovative opportunities for individuals to overcome adversity.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. I would, first of all, like to thank Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank and, on the subcommittee, Chairman Garrett and Ranking Member Waters, Mr. Stivers and Ms. Fudge from the Ag Committee, for their leadership that kept the bill moving; other members of the Financial Services Committee--Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Himes, Mr. Miller, Mr. Dold, Mr. Gibson, among others--for all of their input on this legislation. This is a bill--and some people here today, Mr. Speaker, may be surprised to know that it enjoys bipartisan support because it ensures, number one, the vitality of U.S. and global commerce by exempting interaffiliate swaps, or those swap transactions used internally by companies in all our districts, from clearing, margin, and execution requirements. But H.R. 2779 also preserves the all-important reforms of the over-the-counter swap markets enacted as part of Dodd-Frank while providing swap end users that exemption that is responsive to their legitimate business needs for flexibility, risk management, and price stability. Now, in Congress, 4 years is an eternity; but I have not forgotten the 2008 financial crisis and the human hardship that it caused and continues to cause in Milwaukee and all across America. The work continues, and this bill is a part of that. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be part of the effort that produced Dodd-Frank, legislation that will improve accountability and transparency in the financial markets, including the pre-Dodd-Frank unregulated over-the-counter derivatives markets which played a central role in the crisis. However, I did not vote for Dodd-Frank as retribution against Wall Street or for any punitive means. I voted for Dodd-Frank to enhance the function and transparency of markets and to promote prosperity for Americans going forward. For that reason, I am happy to support H.R. 2779. A little bit of background about the critical need the bill addresses and how bipartisan collaboration produced the final bill. Now, swaps are versatile financial tools that have become instrumental for the management of risk and for allowing companies to more efficiently transact in global markets. Swaps aid companies to hedge and to mitigate things like interest rate and currency exposure, but also more exotic risks associated with unique markets and businesses. H.R. 2779 clarifies that end users, not investors, have the ability to hedge risk for legitimate business purposes. Now, the flip side of swaps are that they may also be used to acquire risk by investors. In that capacity, swaps allocate risk to parties that want to and are able to bear the risk. However, in the unregulated pre-Dodd-Frank world, over-the-counter swaps and derivatives lacked transparency and allowed risk to pool and gather in ways that would eventually help drive the financial crisis and create systemic risk. Dodd-Frank duly addressed the lessons of the financial crisis by pushing as many product types as possible to be centrally cleared and traded on electronic exchanges or other trading facilities, subjecting these swap dealers and major market participants to capital and to margin requirements, and requiring the public reporting of transaction and pricing data of both cleared and uncleared swaps. H.R. 2779 does not disturb any of those important reforms accomplished in Dodd-Frank. Interaffiliate swaps are simply transactions within a single group of affiliated entities, in other words, meaning entities that prepare financial statements on a consolidated basis. Therefore, interaffiliated swaps do not add or subtract from overall systemic risk. Therefore, H.R. 2779 simply builds on my original intent of voting for Dodd-Frank--the promotion of U.S. prosperity going forward. Through the process of drafting the bill, a number of revisions were adopted, thanks to the thoughtful input of many of our colleagues. The definition of ``control,'' which is central to the issues of a legitimate interaffiliate transaction, was clarified. Anti-evasion measures were added so that the exemption would not lead to abuse. Language was adopted that made sure Fed authority over interaffiliate banks was preserved as was language that clearly and explicitly states that the bill does nothing to disturb the existing regulatory regime for insurance companies. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It has the backing of Republicans, Democrats, and industry end users of derivatives. I urge all of my colleagues to back this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join my colleagues in celebrating National School Breakfast Week 2012. I don't have to tell anyone that 2011 was another year of difficult economic struggles for American households. Too many families are struggling to put food on the table. And when they do, kids suffer the most. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2010, 48.8 million Americans lived in households that had difficulty putting food on the table. That figure includes as many as 16 million children living in a home where food is not always available. Even worse, in over 380,000 households, one or more children did not get enough to eat--they had to cut the size of their meals, skip meals, or even go whole days without food at some time during the year. When asked by the Gallup organization in a recent food hardship survey, ``Have there been times in the last twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?'' more people answered ``Yes'' in the last six months of 2011 than in any period since the fourth quarter of 2008. In broad swaths of the country, more than one in six households answered the Gallup question ``Yes.'' In fact, at least one in six said ``Yes'' in more than half of all Congressional districts (269 of 436 congressional districts.) In my district, according to the survey, the food hardship rate is 23 percent, almost one in four households. That is heartbreaking and even more so when you think that nearly 80 of my colleagues represent districts with even higher rates. Thirty-seven million people--one in eight Americans--receive emergency food assistance each year through the Nation's food banks, a 46 percent increase in clients served from 2006. As a result, public efforts to help meet this basic need are even more important. As the recession's grip takes firm hold, for millions of vulnerable children around our Nation, federally-supported school breakfast programs continue to be a lifeline. The School Breakfast program began in 1966 as a two-year pilot program. It has become a valuable program that makes a difference every day in the lives of millions of children. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that providing availability, accessibility, and participation in the school breakfast program are some of the best ways to support the health and educational potential of children, particularly low-income children. Eating breakfast has been shown to improve math, reading, and standardized test scores. Breakfast helps children pay attention, perform problem-solving tasks, and improves memory. Children who eat school breakfast are likely to have fewer absences and incidents of tardiness than those who do not. By eating breakfast, students get more important nutrients, vitamins and minerals such as calcium, dietary fiber, and protein. These are just a few of the known benefits. The School Breakfast Program can readily be tailored to meet the needs of all different age groups, school schedules and physical environments. Schools use many creative service options in addition to traditional breakfast service in the cafeteria, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, Grab `n' Go Carts and Mid-morning Nutrition Breaks. This year, the School Breakfast Week theme is ``School Breakfast--Go for the Gold,'' highlighting how eating a balanced breakfast at school can help students shine. In FY 2011 over 12 million children were able to get a nutritious school meal because of this program. In my State of Wisconsin, school breakfast participation rates have increased from 135,000 in FY 2009 to 166,000 in FY 2011, the vast majority receiving free or reduced price nutritious breakfast to jump start their school day. However, participation in the breakfast comparison lags compared to the approximately 32 million who participate in the National School Lunch Program. Most school breakfast program students lived in impoverished families and received free or reduced price meals. For the 2009 2010 school year, to receive a free breakfast, the student needed to reside in a household earning $23,803 or less for a family of three (130 percent of the federal poverty level). For reduced price, the threshold was $33,874 (185 percent of the federal poverty level.) Efforts to make this program work better continue and they should. Last month, the Administration released new child nutrition rules--as required by Congress in the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010--that seek to make the same kind of changes many parents are already trying to teach their children at home. The new rule updates school meal standards to increase fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and low-fat dairy while reducing fats, sodium and sugars. This is a long overdue step that will get healthier foods on school plates each day. USDA built the new rule around recommendations from an Institute of Medicine expert panel, updated with key changes from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Getting the science right is critical to better nutrition and health for our children. Additionally, the President's FY 2013 budget request includes $35 million for school meal equipment grants to help school districts purchase the equipment needed to serve healthier meals, and improved food safety. These equipment grants would support the establishment or expansion of the School Breakfast Program. Lack of adequate kitchen equipment has been cited as a reason why schools are not able to initiate or expand their breakfast programs. Congress needs to support such initiatives. In the spirit of National Breakfast Week, I would encourage my colleagues--and in fact, all Americans--to participate in activities like the Share Your Breakfast campaign to combat child hunger. The Share Your Breakfast campaign--which brings together Action for Healthy Kids, the Kellogg Company, and other partners--is focused on ensuring more kids have access to breakfast by increasing participation in school breakfast programs. This campaign is only in its second year, but has already offered assistance to nearly 100 schools in 26 states. This year's goal is to provide one million breakfasts to American school children who might otherwise go without. Programs like Share Your Breakfast are to be commended and help highlight the vital role that a nutritious breakfast plays in promoting educational success. Mr. Speaker, a growing number of Americans are going hungry and federal safety-net nutrition programs, like the School Breakfast Program, are playing a crucial role in helping hardworking families, including their children, stay nourished. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that though our country is in the midst of a tough economic time, I hope there remains bipartisan support for this simple statement: no child in our community or across the country should ever go through the school day hungry. The School Breakfast Program is critical to making that a reality. I am pleased to join my colleagues in highlighting the value and success of this program and those who work every day to make sure that our future leaders, our future engineers, and scientists, and politicians or whatever else boys and girls across our Nation want to be, won't be stopped because of a growling stomach and nagging hunger.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, lately, I along with many other women have felt like we're a mere supporting cast in an episode of ``The Twilight Zone.'' I can just hear the narration of the show saying: You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. That is the signpost up ahead: Your next stop, the Twilight Zone. The rhetoric espoused over the last few weeks by many conservatives has me feeling as if I'm in an alternative political universe where men say the most oddly absurd things about what women should be doing with their bodies. In this universe, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform holds hearings on women's health and contraception with a panel made up completely of men. This may seem odd to you folks out there in the real world; but in this alternate reality, it makes perfectly good sense that a bunch of middle-aged men, devoid of ovaries and uteruses, would be experts on women's reproductive health. In this alternate universe, you wouldn't dare ask a woman to testify on women's health and what it means to be a woman. You wouldn't invite them to talk about what it means to be susceptible to pregnancy for approximately 30 years of their lives and how important birth control is to women who wish to prevent unintended pregnancies and to preserve their health. You surely wouldn't ask a woman to testify about how birth control has helped them prevent various diseases or manage diseases like endometriosis. While it would be nice to believe we're in the twilight zone, the recent ploys of Republicans against women's health are all frighteningly too real. In reality, this hearing did take place with the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee blocking the testimony of women, women like Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, who later testified during a special hearing convened by Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of a fellow female student at Georgetown University who had been denied contraception coverage because of the university's Catholic affiliation. Her friend experienced complications stemming from ovarian cysts that could have been treated with birth control. Sadly, due to nontreatment, doctors eventually were forced to remove her ovary. There are so many stories just like this that need to be told; but, sadly, you won't hear them on Capitol Hill if my Republican colleagues in the majority have anything to do with it. They are too busy silencing women's voices on these very critical issues. What if there was a hearing held on access to Viagra or vasectomies with a panel of experts being a group of six women? Could you imagine the outrage if women were allowed to legislate what happens to men's bodies? The horror. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, this twilight zone is real. This attack on women's health is real, but the battle is not over. We cannot and will not allow a few to silence the voices of millions of women across this country. We must continue to stand up for women and their reproductive health.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of Mrs. Frances Brock Starms, a compassionate leader, educator, writer and advocate for children who passed away on February 9, 2012, at the age of 97. She was considered a treasure by our community and an active member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. (Epsilon Kappa Omega Chapter), Links Inc. (Milwaukee Chapter), Town & Country Garden Club, Jack and Jill of America Inc., Delta Kappa Gamma Honor Society, Milwaukee Urban League, and a lifetime member of the N.A.A.C.P. Frances Starms was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama, and she graduated with honors from Spelman College. She continued her education at Atlanta University, receiving a Master of Arts Degree in Early Childhood Education. Her postgraduate work included scholarly research at the University of Southern California and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. In 2004, she was recognized by UWM with an honorary doctorate in Public Service. In 1948, Frances Starms moved to Wisconsin and continued her career as an educator with Milwaukee Public Schools, MPS. During her teaching career, she became the first African American to be appointed as director of the Head Start Program. Mrs. Starms was one of few living Milwaukeeans after whom a Milwaukee Public School had been named; in fact, three schools now claim her as namesake: Starms Early Childhood Center, Starms Monumental Baptist Early Childhood Center, and Starms Discovery Learning Center. Mrs. Starms was a prolific writer and received numerous awards and citations for her work. She was published in numerous local and national publications and was best known for her poems which focused on the richness and enduring strength of the African American Heritage. Her book entitled ``Love is Best'' expressed the beauty and texture of this heritage. Her poetry was described as coming straight from the ``heart'' and reflected the elegance and authenticity of her own experience, reaching out to children and adults alike. For her commitment to our children and for her many efforts and gifts, Mrs. Starms was awarded with the 1979 Award for Meritorious Service from the UW-Milwaukee School of Education; 1983 Special Citation from Governor Tony Earl for her inclusion in the Smithsonian Institute/Wisconsin Humanities Committee exhibit ``Black Women Achievement Against the Odds''; the 1984 Sarah Scott Administrative Leadership Award from the Metropolitan Milwaukee Alliance of Black School Educators for her leadership and commitment to improving educational opportunities for children; 1989 G.A.E.P. Award from Delta Sigma Gamma Society International Sigma State for the publication of her poetry; and was the recipient of St. Marks's Anvil Award for service to the church and the community. Mrs. Starms was an active member of St. Mark A.M.E. Church in Milwaukee for more than 62 years. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Frances Brock Starms' passion for education, writing and her church have served the people of the Wisconsin Fourth Congressional District well, and we need only to look at the buildings that bear her name or read her poems to be reminded of her legacy. For these reasons I am honored to pay tribute to Mrs. Frances Brock Starms, who dedicated her life toward educating and improving the lives of children. Today, I thank her and her family for their immeasurable contributions, mourn her loss and I salute her legacy.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to be a voice for the millions of women and men who are celebrating the recent decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding requiring all businesses and corporations to provide birth control insurance coverage, a lifesaving benefit for women, millions of women. Under this new rule, virtually all women would have access to birth control coverage without a copay through their employer health plan. If you listen to the political pundits in this town, you will come to the conclusion that people do not support the Obama administration's decision and that people of faith are en route to the White House prepared to storm it because of this decision. But if you talk to the average American, you will realize that there is absolutely overwhelming support for the decision on the birth control benefit. This support crosses party lines as well as religious affiliation. In fact, a poll released just yesterday found that roughly 6 out of 10 Catholics support requiring employers to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraceptives. Let's be clear. This decision represents a respectful balance between religious persons and institutions and individual freedom. It is very important to clarify that the law contains an exemption for religious institutions. What that means is that approximately 335,000 churches or houses of worship can choose not to provide birth control coverage for their employees. So if you're the secretary at the church or if you are employed by the archdiocese, they do not have to provide birth control coverage for their employees. It was very important for Health and Human Services to carve out this exception with respect to separating church and State concerns. We are not requiring that Catholic churches go out and buy contraceptive coverage for all--in spite of what you have heard over TV. But this rule does require that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals--which are operating as large businesses and employ and serve a diverse array of people--would have to follow the same rules as other businesses. This is the part that keeps getting lost in the debate: the sole purpose of these institutions is not to offer people a place of refuge and worship. It is not a place for people of faith to go to gather in fellowship and worship. The purpose of these institutions is to provide health care, is to provide an education, football teams for their clients or for their students. No one is trying to take away religious freedom but, rather, this ruling preserves personal freedom. The concept of separation of church and state protects these 335,000 places of worship. But the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that a church can use their bully pulpit to separate millions of women from critical health care benefits. Just imagine that women, on average, spend 30 years attempting to prevent pregnancy. Just think about what it means for the health of a woman, the health of her family to give birth or die trying for 30 years. I understand that some people are worried and protective of their religious freedom in part because they're being misled by what this HHS ruling actually does; but I also worry that some people in the faith community are being exploited and used to create a diversion. Another fact that people keep ignoring is that many religiously affiliated hospitals and universities already provide birth control to their employees through their insurance packages. I mean, it's standard at many of these workplaces. This is a nonissue for many Catholic and religiously affiliated colleges and universities already. And we're not talking about just a few workers. We're talking about millions of secretaries, janitorial staff, nurses aides, and lab techs of many different beliefs--some of no beliefs. So I would hope that we would not try to use religious bullying to deprive millions of women of critical, vital health care.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I've got to talk about the food stamp President a little bit--and talking about how we ought to stop spending. Well, this in fact accomplishes that purpose. By overstating the budget risk, the accounting risk that's already accounted for in the Credit Reform Act of 1990, by overstating the cost of these programs, it in effect reduces the base for our budgets. And if that is their mission, it will be accomplished with passage of these bills. It doesn't make any sense, Madam Chair, to try to put Freddie and Fannie on budget when right now in the Financial Services Committee, on which some of these Members sit, we are trying to make a major overhaul of Freddie and Fannie, and their fate has not been determined yet. The OMB, the CBO, both of the institutions that we rely upon for budgeting, are not prepared to bring this online. This is not ready for prime time, and I would urge the body to reject these proposals that have not been vetted.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise today to join my fellow Democratic members of the House Budget Committee to express my confusion and disbelief over our colleagues' decision to make a spectacle out of the so-called budget process reform bills rather than using our time to wisely address serious economic policy and make long-term, overdue process improvements. I admire my Republican colleagues for raising the issue of the need to have a better budgeting process. But these are just spectacles. This so-called Budget and Accounting Transparency Act is an example of that. H.R. 3581 would change the way we budget for government loans by requiring that estimates for these loans--examples are student loans, energy loans, housing, small business loans--be done on the so-called fair value basis. These estimates account for so-called ``market-based'' risk. Now, experts argue that so-called fair-value estimates overstate the true cost of government credit programs because the estimates include a risk premium that never materializes in the government's cash flow. It's also critical to note that in every single discussion of H.R. 3581 and fair-value estimates, that if we applied this policy not just to credit products, but government-wide--like to Medicare or to ag programs, or some of the other favored programs of the majority--it would increase estimated subsidy costs to the government for all loan programs by more than $50 billion. But you know what, that may in fact be consistent with what the authors and proponents of this bill want to see. We heard, Madam Chair, our good friend, Mr. Garrett, start his opening speech with how the country is broke. We heard Mr. Hensarling talk about the food stamp President.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 1, I inadvertently missed the vote on rollcall 20 (H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act). If I had been present I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I hear from all walks of life that a transportation budget, reauthorizing the transportation budget, would be such a boon to our economy, training people for the 21st-century skills. But yet here's another backdoor approach to include the Bush-era tax cuts into the baseline, and we already know that that's $4 trillion worth of debt. By only allowing for the dynamic effects of tax cuts--not the effect of investments in a better way of life for us all--the Republicans are showing their true colors again.

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, and I just want to say at the outset what a pleasure it is to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and the members of the Budget Committee who, I believe, are sincerely committed to try to help deal with the deficit situation. But what I find rather baffling, I'll have to admit, is that my colleagues in the majority continue to turn a blind eye to the power of investing so that we can create a major dynamic economy in human capital and in our infrastructure. Their only interest, almost to the point of a fetish, is to favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of growing our economy. And this Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 3582, is just yet another example of that, Mr. Chairman. This legislation would allow Republicans to really understate the effect of tax cuts on the deficit--hiding their impact, masking their real cost, and paving the way for extensions and new tax policies that favor tax cuts only. I mean, Republicans are trying to carve--I have to admire their persistence--they want to carve in supply-side economics and ``trickle down,'' no matter how long it's failed, into our body politic forever. As my dad used to say, money doesn't grow on trees. And this is the ``money grows on trees strategy.'' I'm sorry, but my colleagues have such a strong bias against any investments that are not tax cuts; and it shows a lack of interest in the investments, I believe, that really have the power to dig us out of this hole we're in, investments like early childhood education. Why don't we do dynamic scoring on that? Health care, what about scoring the impact of what providing health care would do in terms of decreasing the costs to our companies?

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. But I say who's really working for the least of these? Instead of hindering the American people, we need to be helping them, to provide greater access. Instead of passing these unproductive, symbolic, mean-spirited pieces of legislation, we need to create jobs and opportunities. I hope that the American people, Madam Speaker, can see the difference.