Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strident opposition to the underlying bill. I think that it's fairly cynical in these tough economic times when half of all Americans are either in poverty or at the precipice of poverty the Republicans want to impose even more barriers on families trying to access much-needed benefits. I really don't think that this bill adds to self-sufficiency of families but rather is just more mean-spirited berating of low-income people who are eligible for these benefits, much like the mythical welfare queen or even the food stamp President. This bill that includes the provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos, the proponents of this argue that there is no reason to use EBT cards in places like this. But I say it is an issue of universal access. I mean, if you want to stop to buy gas for your automobile and you live in Nevada and you work at one of the clubs or hotels, or you're living in a food desert in Chicago where the closest ATM is a liquor store, what stops people from going to Whole Foods and using the ATM card there and then going to a casino? It is just another effort to berate those people who are in the lower class. My colleague has already mentioned the additional burden that this imposes on States and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs. My friends on the right side love to use the term ``class warfare.'' And they love to say that we're just trying to pick on the 1 percent of this country.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Here we are again, ladies and gentlemen. The lights are up, the music is playing and my Republican colleagues are doing the same old song and dance for the American people. The Republicans have spread out their sand, and they're doing their best soft-shoe routine, trying to convince the American people that the repeal of this bill is in their best interest. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yet we find ourselves here debating the repeal of a law that would have sought to address the long-term crisis burgeoning in this country. Mr. Chairman, to most people, finding a solution to the long-term care insurance crisis in this country seems like a good law. It must be if 56 national groups, including AARP and SEIU, are against repealing the CLASS Act. Once again, my Republican colleagues are trying their best to distract the American people from their not seeking a solution with this repeal-the-bill sideshow. As we debate this repeal, I have heard so many of our colleagues refer to the President needing to come and apologize for introducing this provision in the Affordable Care Act. It occurs to me that the effort to embarrass the President, to harass him, to defy him, that that is more important than finding a solution to the growing challenge of the aging population. Indeed, it is an emerging burgeoning problem. Ten million Americans need long-term care. Over the next decade, another 5 million Americans will require this care, bringing the total to 15 million people. The problem is only becoming more challenging with estimates that nearly 70 percent of people--the baby boomers--will need some level of long-term care after turning 65. An additional issue is that this is a heavy burden on family budgets. This law was seeking to provide a national, voluntary, and self- sustaining insurance program for assistance services to aid elderly and disabled people. It would allow individuals to live independently at home and in the community for as long as possible without impoverishing themselves. It seems that my Republican colleagues are content to defer the dreams of millions of Americans to live with some sort of dignity as they age. As we enjoy this Black History Month, it reminds me of one of my favorite poets, an African American poet who would be 110 years old today, Langston Hughes: What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the Sun? Or fester like a sore--and then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over--like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode? Republicans want to put one man out of a job and would defer the dreams of millions of Americans. Yet, while they continue their song and dance, Mr. Chair, denying seniors the long-term care that they deserve and putting more and more Americans out of work, I hope the American people recognize who is really on their side before we see the American Dream of living and retiring in dignity explode. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal experience that I had just this last week. After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home. So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean- spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now half of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only exacerbate our already weak economy. As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already broken program worse while also restricting access for our most vulnerable families. But be careful. New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or low-income!!! The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty. Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to access much needed benefits in these tough economic times. This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store. We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods? There has been no consideration of the cost associated with implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs. Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee. Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick people who are down with further restrictions. I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for all people. [From the Economic Research Service, June 2009] Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences Report to Congress Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major public health problems. These problems may be worse in some U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas and households have easier access to fast food restaurants and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets. Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases. Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the effects of limited access on local populations, and outline recommendations to address the problem. This report presents the findings of the study, which include results from two conferences of national and international authorities on food deserts and a set of commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It also includes reviews of existing literature, a national- level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of limited access, and a discussion of existing policy interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited access. Findings Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that some consumers are constrained in their ability to access affordable nutritious food because they live far from a supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence corroborate this conclusion: Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2 percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile and do not have access to a vehicle. Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these 23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket. Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household member drove. These distance and time-based measures are national estimates that do not consider differences between rural and urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail market coverage. Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most defining characteristic. These area- or distance-based results are in line with a nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related problems. More than half of these households also lacked enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these households. Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels. These analyses use proprietary household-level data that contain information on food items purchased by approximately 40,000 demographically representative households across the United States. Results from these analyses show that when consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets. Low-income households shop where food prices are lower, when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at convenience stores make up a small portion of total food expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low- and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same food across household income levels indicates that while some of the very poorest households--those earning less than $8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent more for their groceries than households earning slightly more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income households pay significantly higher prices. The study also examined food shopping behavior and the types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low- income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a supermarket. Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining increases in obesity. Many studies find a correlation between limited food access and lower intake of nutritious foods. Data and methods used in these studies, however, are not sufficiently robust to establish a causal link between access and nutritional outcomes. That is, other explanations cannot be eliminated as the cause of lower intake. A few studies have examined food intake before and after healthy food options become available (either within existing stores or because new stores opened). The findings are mixed--some show a small but positive increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, while others show no effect. The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI. Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining increases in BMI and obesity. Understanding the market conditions that contribute to differences in access to food is critical to the design of policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the demand for some foods may account for differences in the types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to developing stores in underserved areas may also explain variation across areas in which foods are offered and what stores offer them. If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods, contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide the basis for a better understanding of the types of interventions that may work best. Food has been used as a tool for community development. Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens, promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities and Native Americans, local food production and promotion, youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many other types of programs have all been implemented in a variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience in funding and nurturing such programs. The current state of research is insufficient to conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access have inadequate access. Future research should consider improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research is needed to understand how access, availability and price affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers. Data linking information on the types of foods consumers purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access and the prices they face could help explain the economic consequences of food access. Studies that use improved methods and data to determine how food access affects diet, obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help explain the health consequences of food access. Methods To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a comprehensive database was developed that identified the location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the continental United States. Food access was estimated as the distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store. The analysis was refined by examining households without vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low access to supermarkets and large grocery stores. Research also examined national-level data on questions of household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current Population Survey. This information was complemented with national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores from the 2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the economic consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed demand for certain nutritious foods for a sample of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), using data from the National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997. Variation in prices for similar foods purchased at different store types, as indicated by hedonic models and data from the 2006 Nielsen Homescan panel, was also estimated. ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) compiled information on an extensive body of work examining food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects and lessons learned in the administration of the projects. The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by a review of existing literature and the commissioning of additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from community development organizations, grocery retailer organizations, other government agencies, congressional members and staff, and related public interest groups. The workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts, implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts. USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by experts in food access to better understand concepts of low access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to which access varies across different types of areas. The intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the food environment and the demographic, economic, and health conditions that typify areas with low food access and to complement the national-level findings with more detailed and local-level information. Results from studies were presented in a conference. USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January 2009 on the public health implications of food deserts. Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods, such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high- energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In addition, presentations covered promising strategies for mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The workshop provided the basis for the review of the public health literature.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659. This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT cards. But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer card. Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this language from the bill--with no success. The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Iran activities are troubling and our Nation must continue to work to build an international coalition to pressure and isolate Iran until it verifiably ends such activities. The policies we use to effect our goals are as important as the rhetoric about being tough on Iran. I vote for this legislation while noting it has flaws that must be addressed in the other body, in cooperation with the Administration. I will speak to some of those needed changes in a minute. However, I think other provisions such as language targeting government officials who commit human rights abuses and the provisions aimed at stopping Iran's Revolutionary Guard from trying to evade current U.S. and multilateral sanctions make sense. When the U.S. and our international allies work together, our efforts on Iran, including sanctions and diplomacy, are more effective and stronger. The same can be said when the Congress and the Administration are working together. We should not confuse support for this bill with the fact that there exists a vast divergence of views in this Congress on the best policy to deal with the threat posed by Iran. However, the Republican majority determines the schedule and has made a choice to bring this bill up under a procedure that prevents any Member with other ideas (either to make the bill stronger or weaker depending on your view) from making further changes to it. Even with my yes vote, I believe this legislation is in need of improvement. Sending a strong message is one thing but enacting an effective policy that supports that message is another. And this bill must be improved so our policy can match the strong message. Where can this bill be improved? I have long been concerned and I have expressed those concerns on this floor before about unilateral sanctions. Treasury Secretary Geithner said last year, ``to be truly effective in ending Iran's proliferation activities and Iran's support for terrorism, we need to have in place a concerted, international approach. This is not something the United States can do alone. We need other countries to move with us.'' I concur wholeheartedly. Yet, I know that the Administration has warned some provisions, like mandatory Iranian Central Bank Sanctions, may end up splintering the international coalition that it worked relentlessly to build as exemplified by passage of last year's UN Security Council Sanction Resolution. In a recent letter, Secretary Geithner made clear his concerns that sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran could negatively affect ``many of our closest allies and largest trading partners.'' Again, the most likely to be adversely affected by this bill are our closest allies, the ones we depend on to pressure Iran. Why would this be so? According to Secretary Geithner, ``rather than motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure on Iran, they are more likely to resent our actions and resist following our lead--a consequence that would serve the Iranians more than it harms them.'' The Administration has suggested ways to achieve the goals of this bill while ensuring we don't cripple the international coalition and consensus that it has worked so hard to build against Iran. Congress should listen. A piece of legislation that results in fewer countries working with us to isolate Iran and bring a verifiable end to its troubling nuclear activities is not a victory in my book. Another provision in the bill--added in Committee--would prohibit U.S. diplomatic or other contact, whether intentionally or incidentally, with certain Iranian government officials. Whether intended by its authors or not, concerns have been raised about negative impact on our diplomatic efforts. I urge the Senate to remove this provision. It adds nothing to the bill's effectiveness but brings unnecessary confusion and controversy. H.R. 1905 would also require the President to report, after its enactment, on negative impacts the bill would cause on our relations with friendly nations and on the U.S. economy. I think this gets it backwards. We need to get a better bill that addresses those concerns up front, rather than wait until after we have shattered the international coalition. Again, I support a strong and unified international effort against Iran with U.S. leadership but my continued support for this legislation requires those in Senate (who will have the opportunity to amend it unlike the House did) to work with the Administration to address possible negative impacts on our diplomatic efforts, economy, and the Iranian people. This occured last year to get CISADA passed and I hope we repeat it again this time. Lastly, no one should take passage of this legislation as a sign that diplomacy is off the table and that the only option going forward is a military strike. We need to invest in diplomacy--maybe now more than ever--and to continue to work with our international allies and others interested in peace and stability in the region.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 491 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. I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, we're here once again with my Republican colleagues who are trying to ram through this fat-cat tax extenders legislation, providing mere crumbs from the master's table for working people that will neither help the American people weather this economic malaise nor create a single job. To add insult to injury, the Rules Committee has rejected all attempts to allow any amendments to this horrible piece of legislation. I proposed four amendments, which were not considered, and in fact, the Republican majority rejected a Democratic substitute. There is a song by the group Cameo--and I know Mr. Dreier will appreciate this--called ``Talkin' Out the Side of Your Neck.'' The lyrics are: So you can see we're back into this same old mess. Seems like every time we get out of one situation we're back into it all over again. All you people that watch you talk, you better get it together or we won't get it done. We sit down while you cuss and fuss. But guess who's suffering. Nobody but us. That's exactly what the Republicans are doing--talking out of both sides of their necks. They talk and talk and talk, making false claims to the middle class, false promises, when they're really trying to protect the interests of the 1 percent; and like the song suggests, those in the middle class are the ones who are suffering. Once again, through this sham piece of legislation, the Republicans claim to be creating jobs when the cruel thing is that, when 160 million workers are given a small payroll tax holiday, the cost is they are held hostage with the tax breaks for the fat cats. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reports that this legislation adds over $25 billion to our Nation's deficit. But those grinches don't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to steal the holiday spirit from hardworking Americans. How? With this legislation. Our overall unemployment rate did drop recently from 9.1 percent to 8.6 percent, and I am happy to be joined this afternoon by some of my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus who will talk to you a little bit more about how this pertains to black unemployment. Briefly, though, while unemployment dropped for white men from 7.9 to 7.3 percent, black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent. Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic group within the white community but increased for every demographic group within the African American community. Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts the Federal unemployment program by more than half in 2012, eliminating 40 weeks of benefits, cutting benefits so drastically for those workers and communities that have been most hurt by this recession. One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is that it promotes State drug testing for workers in order for them to qualify for unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, did the authors of this provision know about the Constitution of the United States? This bill also imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting the benefits that employees have paid for. This is just outrageous. It is time to stop the doublespeak and to give them real talk, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to one of my good friends from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Marcia Fudge. (Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MOORE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time on this side.

Ms. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. MOORE. That is very kind of you, Mr. Dreier. I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Oakland, California, Representative Barbara Lee.

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

Ms. MOORE. I would yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. MOORE. That is quite generous of the gentleman. And so I will yield a minute and a half to my very eloquent colleague, the gentlelady from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. MOORE. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing our side to have some voice in this matter. He yielded me time in the name of the season; so I will frame my remaining remarks in that frame. The season is the reason; 'Tis almost treason to extend full benefits to corporations, who are people, And leave those who are unemployed feeble. The season is the reason to extend full benefits to the unemployed. It is almost a ploy to provide tax breaks to corporations and to leave the people with no resources. I ask my colleagues to support my point of order. It would be egregious if we were to move forward on this bill, on this resolution, without considering the plight that we would put the unemployed in.

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore an educator, author, minister, foster parent, mother, wife and visionary. In 1996, she founded Ceria M. Travis Academy, where she is CEO and President. The institution named in honor of her mother was started utilizing her personal savings to fund her passion to serve both the community and children. The school serves approximately 900 students enrolled at three campuses. Travis Academy began by educating central city boys in grades 6 through 8 with one student and one teacher. The school incorporated a girls program 10 years ago and has now expanded to grades K4 through 12. Dr. Travis Moore is a veteran educator with over 35 years of experience and known nationally for her work with at risk students, both as a teacher and administrator. She was formerly a National Educational Consultant with the National School Safety Center. She fostered more than 11 children and has welcomed into her home international students from England, Mexico and Africa. She is the author of six books with the most recent project entitled ``From Violence to Victory--The Passion to Educate.'' Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore is a licensed minister and member of New Testament Church of Milwaukee. During the past 29 years, she has served in various capacities including Youth Fellowship Director and Sunday School Teacher. Currently she serves on the Associate Minister's Team. Dr. Travis Moore loves to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and served as Director of Christian Education for the Wisconsin Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship. She is an international speaker at women's conferences, workshops, seminars and churches in the United States, the Caribbean and Europe. Dr. Travis Moore received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, earned her Master of Arts Degree from Ball State University, Muncie Indiana and received Master's and Doctorate degrees in Christian Counseling from Grace Theological Seminary. Dr. Travis Moore's honors include: ``Top Principal of Leadership,'' ``Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals in the United States,'' ``The University of Wisconsin Distinguished Alumni Award,'' the prestigious ``Rubies Award'' from the Women of Excellence at Greater St. Stephens Full Gospel Baptist Church in New Orleans, LA, ``The Women Who Shape Our World Award in Education'' and the ``2007 Pamela Bates Porch Outstanding Educator Award'' from Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Mr. Speaker, this is why I pay tribute to Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore, a trailblazer who celebrates 15 years as CEO/Founder of Ceria M. Travis Academy and over 35 years of educating our youth. She has stated that her greatest joy is in serving the Lord and has truly followed one of her favorite Bible verses ``I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'' I am proud to call Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore a lifelong friend to me and my family and proud that she works and educates children in the 4th Congressional District.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I tell you, that is a very moving letter. You say she had to move with a teenage daughter back into her mom's house. I mean, teenage kids need things other than food. Something like toilet paper becomes an issue when you're sharing a household and when you don't have enough money to make those contributions. The other thing that makes me very curious, Representative Levin, is the rhetoric around the desire to help small businesses. Do you realize if we don't extend this unemployment benefit, economists have calculated that, in 2012, this will take $90 billion out of the economy? You won't buy that teenager shoes because you're unemployed.

Ms. MOORE. Absolutely, Representative Levin. Let me start out by thanking you for this Special Order. And that letter is just one in 58,000 people, off the top of my head, that will be immediately affected by our inability to expand unemployment insurance. That's one story. As you indicated, it's a person who is from Madison, Wisconsin, well educated, and cannot find a job in this recession. I just think it is really curious, and I guess I would like to engage in a dialogue with you about this, you being the ranking member on Ways and Means, maybe you can help me understand a little bit better. Our colleagues in the majority, the optic and the narrative in the country for them is they want to preserve benefits for millionaires and billionaires. They want to preserve corporate tax expenditure benefits for corporations. They want to maintain foreign profits for expatriated funds. They want to maintain a very high tax exemption for estates over $5 million. They want to maintain capital gains benefits, benefits on dividends. So I'm just curious, Representative Levin, why they don't want to provide this governmental benefit for unemployed people. This is very distressing to me when I consider who the unemployed are. When I think about the people the majority party wants to preserve benefits for and then when I get an optic of the people who would most likely benefit from this unemployment insurance, there is a stark contrast. Perhaps that starts to explain why there is a reluctance, an unwillingness and an unreadiness to provide this benefit. Now, as you know, the overall national unemployment rate dropped from 9.1 percent recently to 8.6, which is something that I think we can claim some victory for; but when you peel back the curtain and disaggregate these numbers, you're going to see that there's a sharp and problematic racial undertone as it pertains to black unemployment. When you look at the unemployment for white men, Representative Levin, their unemployment dropped from 7.9 percent to 7.3 percent, which is very high; but black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent in unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent in unemployment. So those lowered unemployment rates certainly do not reflect what's happening in the African American community. Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic within the white community--for teenagers, men, women--but it actually increased for every measured group within the African American community--for men, women, teenagers. Even worse is after the fact, when the recession is over, when black unemployment won't be any better than white unemployment is right now. I guess that's sort of racial inequality 101. When we peel back the layers of this improved economy, what we find, Representative Levin, is that single mothers--women--are suffering, that they're some of the hardest hit. As you will recall, Representative Levin, this institution on a bipartisan basis--and I understand I was not here when Mr. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House--decided that the most important legislative initiative that they could undertake was to end aid to families with dependent children and to put women and children under the vagaries and vicissitudes of a cyclical economy. So now that we have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Great Depression, we can look at the unemployment numbers among women, especially among single women, and we can find some very, very distressing data. Poverty among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. According to a recent report by Legal Momentum, recent Census data on poverty paints a bleak picture for single-mother families. This report finds that the poverty rate for single moms, for people who by definition have to feed their kids every night, reached 42.2 percent last year, up from 38.5 percent in 2009, and way up from 33 percent in 2000. It is chilling to contemplate the predicament of women and children when there is no aid to families with dependent children and no entitlement. When you consider that you've got folks like the gentleman you described in your letter who has a master's degree and who cannot find a job, a mom with kids is competing in that same job market. There is a great deal of need in these populations. Even as the economy begins to show growth, they're forced to make cuts in the family budgets. They're living with food insecurity--not enough food-- and the quality of the food is not good. They're eliminating health insurance. I know families in my district who are taking medicines every other day, doing without transportation, clothing, and where utility cutoffs are very prevalent.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is very straightforward. It would exempt our Nation's veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 10 imposes and adds to the administrative rulemaking process and would specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called ``reining'' provisions that require a joint resolution of Congress before an agency puts forth a major rule to help our men and women in uniform when they become veterans and after they return home from service. Many of my colleagues and I disagree with this bill for a variety of reasons, including the author's premise that reducing the administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result in job creation. But whether or not we agree on the direction and approach to best help and promote America's future, we all agree on some things. We all agree that the last thing we want to do is to pass legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of assistance we can provide them when they come back home. Veterans deserve educational opportunity, rehabilitation for sometimes very severe disabilities, Mr. Chairman, mental health treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities, and housing opportunities. Delaying rulemaking authority will have dire consequences for our veterans. For example, Mr. Chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the high rate of suicides among our servicemembers. We can't delay this kind of assistance. In fact, last year there were more deaths among our troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat. We're facing an epidemic here at home, too. A recent report from the Center for New American Security noted that 1 percent of the population has served in the military, and yet those servicemembers represent 20 percent of all of the suicides in the United States. Resources for the military are sparse. According to a recent Veterans Health Administration survey of mental health providers, 40 percent responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their clinic within 14 days; 70 percent of surveyed facilities cited an inadequate number of staff to treat veterans; and 70 percent said that they just simply lacked space. We also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our veterans as they return to civilian life. The unemployment rate among vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1 percent, substantially higher than the national average that we're so concerned about now. Unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in Iraq. The last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the year from Iraq. We can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from Afghanistan to come home before the end of the year, and 23,000 by the end of 2012. We just can't delay assistance to our veterans. This has been an area, Mr. Chairman, where Democrats and Republicans have typically come together and agreed. Yet H.R. 10, the REINS Act, will have unintended consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who, of course, have received our undying gratitude and support. I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services to them. We don't want to subject our vets to the politics of Washington and a gridlocked, hyperpartisan Congress that struggles even to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or the payroll tax to middle class people, let alone a credit default by something ``so historically difficult'' as raising the debt ceiling. I just think that Americans will agree with me that our Nation's veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will invariably cause. Let's come together once more to adopt this amendment, Mr. Chair, not just for the troops that need help, but for the troops that will be here in the near future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for responding, even though he doesn't agree with me. I'm just looking at about at least 14 rules that have been implemented very expeditiously on behalf of our veterans since September 11. It is chilling to think about the delays that may be caused by an extra process. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MOORE

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