Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. President Obama has really curtailed more regulations than George W. Bush, so it is really mistaken that this President has not taken into account the needs of industry; but I think that when you get to a point at which you just want to abolish all regulations in favor of the so- called bottom line, then someone has to draw the line. I think that this amendment draws the line at subjecting those people who are particularly vulnerable--seniors, veterans, and those of low-income--to air pollutants. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, my amendment to H.R. 3010 is quite simple. It would ensure that an executive agency takes into account the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable, at-risk subpopulations, including veterans, low-income individuals, and the elderly, when considering new action. This so-called Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine at least 25 health and safety rules, which would have a disparate impact on the subpopulations. The authors of this bill continue this sideshow by bringing bill after bill to this House floor, claiming that they will create jobs by limiting the size and scope and reach of government and by repealing regulations that help and protect millions of Americans--balancing profit over people. Like magicians, they try to convince the American public with sleight of hand and deception that the cost to industry far outweighs the cost of health and safety protections. Once we get past all of the flashing lights, smoke, and glitter, we see that this bill, like others, that we're considering today is just no different, Mr. Chair. H.R. 3010 would do far more than simply ``modify'' the executive rulemaking process. It would require agencies to adopt the least costly regulations--a race to the bottom--instead of taking the most protective steps necessary to ensure the health and safety of Americans, especially those who are most vulnerable. It would add dozens of new procedural hurdles without any promise of additional resources. It would tie up agency action for years when we know that so many Americans desperately need help right now. These tough economic times are hard for everyone, especially those who are disproportionately affected by the economic crisis. We no longer have times for tricks, illusions, or silly gags. Study after study shows us that low-income communities live in the most toxic areas of our country. We must stop this bribery, trickery, and we must come back to reality. We must agree that it is good policy for executive agencies to consider our Nation's veterans, who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, face an 11.7 percent unemployment rate, substantially higher than the national average. We must consider the disproportionately damaging health effects that air pollutants have on our low-income communities, on people who can't afford to move to wealthier areas, as the EPA considers implementing provisions in the bipartisan Clean Air Act. We also must agree that the executive branch take into account the needs of our Nation's seniors, who have become the subject of a dangerous debate in Washington over the future of entitlement programs. It's time to put down the magic wands, to pick up our voting cards and support legislation that protects the least of these. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Recently and even today, we've heard a lot from both sides of the aisle about the extension of unemployment insurance; but I think the voices that we need to be listening to are the voices of the American people. So, if you would indulge me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents: ``Ms. Moore, I am writing you today to request that you pass the extension for unemployment insurance benefits. I am a single mom and experienced a layoff at my job this past summer. My benefits are about to run out, and I am still looking for a job. Last week alone, I applied to over 20 jobs online, and received only one call-back for an interview. I have $600 left to claim on unemployment. After that, I do not know what I am going to do. I pray every day that this extension will go through before the holidays. That is all I want for Christmas. ``Being unemployed has left me with a sense of low self-worth. And I find that I cry all the time. I hope that my interview next week is successful. Nonetheless, I am trying to be proactive on the job hunt. I have a webinar scheduled today for successful interviewing skills. And I am hoping to apply those skills in my interview next week. I just want some peace of mind that I will continue to receive the extension before the holiday.'' Sadly, this young woman is just one of 58,000 Wisconsinites who will lose benefits if we don't extend the unemployment insurance. And, of course, there are millions of stories like this across the country, hardworking Americans, Mr. Speaker, who just want the opportunity to have an opportunity. And as the holidays approach, the harsh realities of our failed economy become more and more prevalent. I, along with all of my Democratic colleagues, have been calling for the passage of an extension of UI benefits for what seems like an eternity. Yet some would turn their backs on their fellow Americans during the holidays and in these most trying of economic times. Like the Grinch who stole Christmas, the Republican majority with devilish grins are tipping through Whoville or, in this case, across the country attempting to steal the holiday cheer from hardworking Americans with these tortured rationales as to why they oppose these much and desperately needed benefits, while continuing simultaneously to work to ensure that the rich get richer through maintaining tax cuts. The Unemployment Insurance Program serves as a lifeline for millions of unemployed Americans and their families, their children, who are now at the mercy of the worst job market since the Great Depression. Millions of hardworking Americans, nearly 2 million in just January alone and over 6 million in 2012, will be cut off from the emergency lifeline that is unemployment insurance unless Congress acts. Mr. Speaker, these are Americans who have been laid off and are desperately searching for work. But the jobs just are not there. That is why we must pass the Doggett-Levin Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act is just common sense, and it will continue the current Federal unemployment programs through next year. The extension of these benefits will not only strengthen the safety net for the unemployed, but it will, most importantly, promote economic recovery by preventing the loss of a half-million jobs. Additionally, relieving insolvent States from interest payments on Federal loans for 1 year will help the States, including Wisconsin, which were forced to borrow funds from the Federal Government in order to pay for unemployment benefits for the thousands of unemployed or laid off. Never, never before now has this been a partisan issue where Congress, controlled by either party, has denied this life-sustaining unemployment benefit. Right now we need a holiday miracle. We need a miracle to help these grinches grow hearts and vote immediately to extend the Unemployment Insurance Program. I call on my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to come together this season and bring some holiday cheer back to the American people.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I am not asking for a quorum call. I am just asking for a rollcall.

Ms. MOORE. Yes.

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to make this motion today because I am opposed to the underlying bill, the so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. Mr. Chair, I hope that all of my colleagues have gotten their tickets for this show, because once again my Republican colleagues have turned these hallowed Halls of Congress into a place for political theater or, better yet, a circus, and the joke is on working class Americans. Today's so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is another scene in this unfolding plot to undermine American workers. It would be comedy if it weren't such a tragedy for the American people. Every day, the American people are forced to play the part of the clown Pagliacci. They watch Republicans put on this performance, claiming to want to protect American jobs and workers while behind the scenes they work to dismantle the rights of the American worker and, like Pagliacci, the American people must learn to laugh with tears in their eyes. Today's installment of tragic theater stars a bill which has been more appropriately renamed by my Democratic colleagues as the Election Prevention Act. This bill would permit employers to delay indefinitely a union election by mandating delays in the union election process and failing to place limits on how long an election can be delayed. These delays would allow more intimidation and harassment of employees, including hiring union-busting companies. This bill perverts the notion of employee free choice in the face of the power of an employer to indefinitely postpone an election. In Wisconsin, Mr. Chair, we have seen this song and dance before under the guise of deficit reduction. Governor Walker undermined the workers' rights, rammed through legislation that cut State employee benefits and stripped unions of their collective bargaining rights. Ohio, too, has seen this horrific curtain call. Governor John Kasich and the Ohio Republican legislature's passage of S.B. 5. But what Governors Walker, Kasich and so many others are not prepared for is the second act of this drama. When the curtain opened on November 8 in Ohio, voters flocked to the polls in record numbers with a resounding voice and repealed S.B. 5. The staging continues in my State of Wisconsin, where in just 2 weeks we have garnered 300,000 signatures poised to recall Governor Scott Walker. Mr. Chair, the American people will not be upstaged by this anti- union, anti-worker, and anti-family play. Our Nation's middle class is demanding to bargain for more of the wealth that they created. Mr. Chair, this clear attack on workers' rights departs from a long- preserved tradition of American democracy in the workplace. It's time for us to close the curtain, pull the hook out on this circus act, and bring up the lights on real legislation that creates real jobs. Mr. Chair, I would now yield to my colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, Betty Sutton.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I would note that there is no quorum, and I request a rollcall.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Lynn Breedlove, a disability advocate, community activist, leader on disability rights and change agent. After 31 years of service, Mr. Breedlove, Executive Director of Disability Rights Wisconsin (DRW), formerly Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, has announced his retirement effective at the end of December 2011. Disability Rights Wisconsin is a state-wide resource for individuals, families, service professionals, elected officials, government agencies and others concerned with disability issues and systems change. This private non-profit group is part of the federally mandated national system of disability protection and advocacy agencies across the United States established to ensure the rights of individuals with disabilities. Lynn Breedlove has been an extraordinary leader of DRW, growing the agency from a staff of five in a small Madison office with a budget of $160,000 to an agency with a staff of 65 in three offices--Madison, Milwaukee, and Rice Lake--and a budget of over $5.5 million. The list of DRW accomplishments during Lynn's tenure is impressive and includes involvement during the inception and implementation of the life changing Community Options Program, COP, Community Integration Program, CIP, and making strong lasting partnerships with agencies serving the disabled, aging and those needing long term services. DRW helps people across Wisconsin gain access to services and opportunity through advocacy and legal expertise. Mr. Breedlove and DRW regularly challenged systems and society to create positive change and improve the lives of people with disabilities. Lynn Breedlove has served on a variety of boards at the local, state and national levels including: President of the National Disability Rights Network, Co-Chair of Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations, and Member of Wisconsin's Long Term Care Council. He has also been the recipient of numerous awards as a result of his deep passion for disability and other civil rights, and his commitment to the inclusion of people with disabilities as full partners in society. People with disabilities and their families, along with all citizens throughout Wisconsin are deeply indebted to Lynn Breedlove for his years of dedicated service. I am proud to call Lynn my friend and for the privilege of having the opportunity to work with him and the DRW staff on legislation to better the lives of Wisconsin citizens. I wish Lynn well in retirement and the next stage of his career. We will all miss this ``treasure of Wisconsin'' and Lynn's strong commitment ``to do what is right for the people.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so-called--so-called--balanced budget amendment. I also rise, Mr. Speaker, to point out the nefarious, cynical intergenerational warfare that has been raised as an argument for passing this misguided so-called balanced budget amendment, to say that we want to extract $2 trillion over the next decade from programs that benefit seniors, like Social Security and Medicare, and say we're doing it to keep from imposing a burden on our children and grandchildren, as if this balanced budget amendment benefited those children. Mr. Speaker, this program will devastate public education. It will devastate the Federal Government's current mandatory spending in Pell Grants, a program that's designed to help us meet the global challenges of the future by educating our assets--our children. It's a program that in the next decade will take a half trillion dollars out of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It's a program that will exacerbate hunger that children face right now through WIC and our SNAP program, our food stamp program, and the earned income tax credit. We have now one in five children today that are going to bed hungry. So when we say we want to balance the budget, we are balancing it on the backs of our children. And those children that we are trying to save--or we say that we are trying to save--must be the children of those heirs, those 1 percent that we are now enriching.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Later on today we will be considering the so-called balanced budget amendment. And while I join my colleagues in sharing the view that we need to gain control of our national debt, I rise to commiserate our loss of a balanced perspective on what we, as elected Representatives of the people of the United States of America, regard as assets and liabilities on our American Government balance sheet. I am appalled, Mr. Speaker, at our loss of perspective on what good government really means as we balance our policy priorities in this moral document, our budget. Mr. Speaker, we have perverted the concept of a healthy balance sheet as we worship at the feet of a religion that tones that government should be limited and, perhaps, have no role in the health, welfare, and safety of the American people. Balancing the budget sounds so simple, so appealing, but that's not a truthful description of what this balanced budget amendment would do. This amendment is nothing more than a Trojan horse hiding the Republicans' true ambition, which is requiring major cuts to vital programs, dramatically shrinking the legitimate role of government, and enshrining this agenda in the United States Constitution. A balanced budget? A balance sheet contains both assets and liabilities. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a perversion of our American values to see our children, our future, as mere liabilities; our students, who need the government to invest in their higher educations, as mere liabilities; our communities, the economic engines of our economy who may be subjected to natural disasters such as hurricanes and other liabilities, who need to rebuild modern transportation systems, to see these as mere liabilities; and American folks, who need to breathe clean air and drink clean water, as mere liabilities on the Federal Government balance sheet. According to an analysis released this week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the amendment we are considering today would force cuts to all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018. And if revenues are not raised, which there seems to be an anathema to doing that, all these programs will be cut by the same percentage. Social Security cut by $184 billion in 2018 alone; Medicare cut by $117 billion in 2018; Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program cut by $80 billion in 2018. We have constructed a balance sheet where our people are not viewed as assets. Our American universities, our students, the next generation of inventions and innovators are seen as welfare recipients when we provide them with Pell Grants. Seniors who have earned retirement security are now seen as a drain on our system. These seniors who built our economy through their ingenuity and sweat, Medicare and Social Security for them is seen as socialism. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the constant drumbeat demanding that we severely restrain the benefits and the rights we provide to our seniors and our people. And what do we regard as our assets on our balance sheet? Our bloated, cold war-era military buildup. And what kind of balance sheet, Mr. Speaker, expends trillions of dollars on tax breaks to millionaires and expatriate corporations and treats revenue loss needed for the legitimate operation of the government like assets? This is a balance sheet reminiscent of a corporate raider that strips down all of the assets and leaves the company limping lifeless in the dust. What kind of country lauds a balanced budget that achieves this balance on the backs of children, students, working class families, the disabled, the hungry, the infirm, the elderly, the environment, victims of natural disasters, and wounded veterans returning to unemployment and a jobless economy? Is this a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker, or is this our unbalanced priorities? Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in listening to me today.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concerns with the Huizenga amendment to H.R. 2838 and my fear that it could result in great damage to the efforts underway here in Congress to protect the Great Lakes from the many threats it faces, including invasive species and pollution. There is no question that addressing the invasive species in ballast water is needed to protect the Great Lakes and other water bodies from these aggressive nonnative species that can destroy the natural ecosystem. Once these species are introduced, the costs to the environment and taxpayers only grow. Just look at the costs to the Great Lake states and the federal government to fight the sea lamprey and the current battle to keep the Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes. A strong federal ballast water treatment standard protects both the environment and the taxpayer. We know ballast water is a primary vector for the introduction of invasive species. The bill before us would set a needed national ballast water treatment standard to protect our nation's waters. However, the Huizenga amendment would create one large loophole that would allow ``historic'' vessels to be excluded from complying with the new standards. No science has been put forward to this body showing that these vessels--because of their historic nature--are not an avenue of introduction for aquatic invasive species. We should be less concerned about the historic nature of the vessel and more about the potential menace caused by hitchhikers in their ballast water. I don't have a problem with recognizing history or historic vessels. I just have a problem with absolving them from making efforts to prevent a historic invasion of nonnative species. Invasive species do not care about the character of the vessel through which they are brought into the Great Lakes and neither should any national ballast water treatment standard. I note the recent editorial by the Chicago Tribune about the failings of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to work to make sure that this amendment is not included in a final bill as it would undermine long needed efforts to create a strong and effective national ballast water standard and ensure strong protections for our nation's bodies of water, including the Great Lakes. [From chicagotribune.com, Nov. 15, 2011] Sink the Badger (Proposal) Every day from May to October, the SS Badger, the last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes, ferries cars and tourists across Lake Michigan on a picturesque four-hour journey from Manitowoc, Wis. to Ludington, Mich. Along the way, it leaves a souvenir in the lake: a total of about 509 tons of toxic coal ash, laced with arsenic, lead and mercury over a 134-day operating schedule. That's far more pollution than all the other 125 freighters plying the Great Lakes collectively leave in a full year, according to Coast Guard records. In 2008, the U.S. EPA set a four-year deadline for the Badger's owners to sharply limit its pollution, the Tribune's Michael Hawthorne recently reported. Didn't happen. Instead, the Badger now is one step away from being protected--in all its polluting glory,-- as a National Historic Landmark. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar must decide. Hmmm. Let's see here. The Badger had four years to clean up. It failed to secure a $14 million federal grant to convert its engines to diesel. Now it argues that those engines are a ``historic propulsion system,'' so precious as artifacts that they should be protected from the EPA. The 410-foot ferry wants to join the rarefied world of protected nautical national treasures, joining The Potomac, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's yacht, and the Nautilus, the world's first atomic-powered submarine. We say, sure, drape the Badger in the cloak of treasured icons--provided it becomes a museum for tourists to tromp through, docked forever in a harbor. ``We cannot let Historic Landmark status be used to evade the federal regulations we rely on to protect public health and the environment,'' U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin recently wrote to Salazar. ``This Great Lake cannot take any more toxic dumping, no matter how historic or quaint the source may be.'' Exactly right. The Badger pollutes the lake every time it makes the 60- mile crossing. A Badger spokesman tells us the ship's owners are exploring the possibility of converting its engines to run on cleaner natural gas. That would be an excellent move, but it is far from certain. Republican U.S. Reps. Bill Huizenga and Dan Benishek, of Michigan, and Tom Petri, of Wisconsin, recently added an amendment to the Coast Guard budget that would prevent the EPA from imposing more stringent pollution limits on any ship that is ``on, or nominated for inclusion on'' the list of national landmarks. Guess how many ships fit that criteria? Just one. This is classic special-interest legislation that benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. The answer here can't be a shrug over polluting the lake, the region's most precious natural resource. That was the way of the world in the early 1950s, when the Badger first started sailing Lake Michigan. That's not acceptable now. The Badger, as Durbin says, was ``quaint'' back then. Today, it just fouls the water.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mayor Jeffrey Slavin on being named the Community Foundation for Montgomery County's Philanthropist of the Year. Mayor Slavin is among the most generous people I have ever met. He donates his time, his money, and his tremendous wisdom to others on a daily basis. Mayor Slavin's persistent dedication to the needs of the underserved in his community, in addition to his invaluable role supporting dozens of non-profit organizations and service on the boards of many charitable organizations have made him such an incredible asset to Montgomery County, the State of Maryland and the nation as a whole. It is with great honor and privilege that I congratulate Mayor Jeffrey Slavin for his work as a public servant and philanthropist.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I understand that some are arguing that maintaining the ``status quo'' in states can set disparate ballast standards is better than moving any legislation establishing a stronger national ballast water standard, which is widely agreed upon as a necessary tool in our fight against waterborne invasive species. While I share their concerns about the need to address this issue, I cannot support that stance. We need a national ballast water standard and if the House does not take a position in this bill, I am afraid that this issue will once again fall off the Congressional agenda. I feared a yes vote on the Slaughter-Dingell amendment--which would strip out the ballast water section altogether--would take away the last realistic chance for the House to consider this issue. This concern is relevant given that the ``Super Committee'' is set to dominate the legislative agenda in both Chambers, and after that, the upcoming elections. The House last passed legislation setting a national ballast water standard in 2007. We can't wait another four years to even begin this discussion. I also recall, at that time, just like now, ballast water legislation was attached to Coast Guard reauthorization legislation. I hear concerns about the need to protect and improve states' rights to protect their waters and the citizens and industries that depend on them. For this reason, I supported an amendment by Congressman Tim Bishop that would strengthen the provision of the ballast water section of the bill to allow states' to enact stronger protections, with federal approval, to ensure they meet key standards. No legislation is perfect. However, we have a legislative process by which we can work to improve and address concerns. I know that a number of my colleagues spoke during the debate about continuing to work together to improve the ballast water provision. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Senate further on this issue. I cast my vote on this amendment reluctantly. I am concerned that simply sending the ballast water issue back to Committee, rather than to the Senate, would have likely been a death knell for further action in the 112th Congress. We have waited long enough. The Great Lakes can't wait. Wisconsin can't wait any further.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Representative Fudge, for putting together this Special Order to talk about voter suppression laws. I was first elected in 1988; and 2 years after that, in 1990, I began a career from that point on, up until this very day, fighting against these voter suppression laws. And the reason that I began my career that early is because our now-Governor of the State of Wisconsin led the effort to require voter ID, very strict forms of voter ID, in order to suppress the votes of certain members, certain populations in the Wisconsin community. So I am ashamed to announce today, Representative Fudge, that Wisconsin has joined the map of shame. It is one of seven States in red here on the map of shame that have very stringent voter ID laws in order to be able to vote. Having debated this issue for many years, I know what the basic arguments for this are, and they're all discredited. We have heard such arguments from our Governor, who was then a State representative, that if you need a voter ID to buy liquor or to buy medicine or to get a Blockbuster's video, surely you should need a voter ID for something as important as voting. I think that that is demonstrably a problem with that line of thinking. There is no more fundamental right than the right to vote. You don't have the right to drink liquor, Representative Fudge. You don't have the right to get a video from Blockbuster. And, shamefully, you don't have a right to health care. You don't have a right to get a prescription drug. But you do have a right to vote, so the bar ought to be extremely high to disenfranchise voters. Now, we are discouraged on this floor and in this House from questioning the motivation of people who offer legislation. And in that same light, I question the motivation of those people who say that we must have this kind of legislation. The Wisconsin attorney general's office found that in a 2-year election fraud task force investigation that there were 20 instances of possible voter fraud out of 3 million votes cast in 2008, the year that President Barack Obama ran, which is 0.0007 percent, and not a single one of these cases would have been prevented had the person had a voter ID. If it was a felon who had voted, your driver's license doesn't say ``felon'' on it. There was not a single case where a photo ID would have prevented these discrepancies. So I began to wonder about the motives of those who have said that we must have this law. Who are they trying to disenfranchise? In the State of Wisconsin, 17 percent of white men and women don't have this kind of ID; 49 percent of African American women don't have this kind of ID; 55 percent of all African American males don't have this kind of ID; 46 percent of Hispanic men don't have this kind of ID; 59 percent of all Hispanic women don't have it; 66 percent of African American women ages 18 to 24 don't have this ID; and 78 percent of African American males ages 18 to 24 do not have this kind of ID. In addition to this, there's a cost to getting the paperwork, the underlying paperwork to get a photo ID. You have to pay $20 for a replacement birth certificate, and in some States, you have to have a photo ID to get a birth certificate. And there are other costs. In Wisconsin, a place where the largest number of these African American and Hispanic men and women who don't have this photo ID reside, there is no Department of Motor Vehicle station, Congresswoman Fudge, that is open, has evening hours or weekend hours, so the burden of getting this kind of ID is great. I do realize that I need to yield back my time, but I just want to mention that this would also have a terrible impact on our young, college-age student voting population. This bill would require that they use a college ID that doesn't exist in the State of Wisconsin. There have been no moneys provided for the universities, none of which have this kind of ID to do it, and it would be a terrible burden on our elderly population who may want to vote absentee and would have to provide a Xerox copy of a photo ID. So for all those elderly Wisconsinites who have Xerox machines in their homes, you will be able to vote absentee from your home. With that, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank you for this Special Order.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I'm here today to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I wear my purple ribbon because I'm incredibly supportive of the goals of this commemorative month and yet painfully aware that domestic violence does not confine itself to one singular month. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage all of us to keep our focus on this pernicious issue year round. It's not an exaggeration to say that domestic violence is an epidemic in this country. It affects nearly one in four women. This violence has far-reaching effects, not just for women and sometimes men who experience it, but for their families, including their children, as well as their employers and their communities, for generation after generation. The statistics and stories from my home State of Wisconsin provide a small snapshot of the impact of this violence. The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families reports that between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2010, nearly 41,000 women, children, and men received services from domestic violence victim service providers in Wisconsin. And over 6,600 people sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter. The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence publishes an annual homicide report detailing domestic violence-related homicides. They've done this since 2000. And in this time span, at least 532 people have lost their lives in incidents related to domestic violence. Last year, in 2010, there were 39 domestic violence homicide incidents resulting in 58 deaths, 51 homicides and seven perpetrator suicides. These deaths represent nearly one-third of all homicides in 2010 in Wisconsin. Victims in these incidents came from 17 counties across the State and included both the young and the old--the youngest was less than 1 year old and the oldest was 87 years old. And as a result of these homicides, at least 12 children were left orphaned or without a mother. In Milwaukee County, where the Fourth Congressional District is located, there were 21 domestic violence-related homicides last year. And they include Mae Helm, 58, brutally stabbed by her boyfriend in her own apartment; Shannon Dorsey, 44, strangled with a belt by her boyfriend, age 46; and Sabrina Junior, 43 years old, who was stabbed to death by her partner while the couple's 11-year-old daughter cowered in a closet with her two younger sisters. Children are too often left with neither parents nor appropriate treatment for the collateral damage of domestic violence. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus of Women's Issues and a longtime supporter of domestic violence-related legislation--and as a survivor of domestic violence--I want to take this opportunity to reiterate my pledge to work towards greater, stronger, and more public policy initiatives to meet the overwhelming need that remains for victim services and a range of domestic violence programs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. We simply cannot continue to stand by and tolerate the ongoing funding gap for victim services while lives are at risk. Three women a day die as a result of domestic violence. We must continue to maximize our opportunities for intervening in ways that fit individual victims' needs. We need culturally competent services. We need services for children. And we must make the most of every opportunity for education and advocacy and prevention services. I sure hope my colleagues will join me this month and every month in the fight to support victims of domestic violence through funding more programming.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. I would reserve my right to close.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order that the rule, H. Res. 430, 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. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order that H.R. 358 contains several potential unfunded mandates that would burden the States, burden private insurance companies, and burden women. I am also raising this point of order because it is a powerful vehicle to register my concern that this bill is a misguided ideological distraction from what should be our top priority--getting people back to work and protecting working families who have been hit hard by economic circumstances. It is so clear to me that in spite of what our colleagues may say across the aisle, this bill is not about public funding for abortion. It's really crystal clear, Madam Speaker, that the Affordable Care Act already explicitly prohibits Federal funding for abortion. It reaffirms the Hyde amendment. It even includes the Nelson amendment to ensure that there's no commingling of funds. H.R. 358 would bring back the infamous world of Stupak-Pitts. But this time it adds even more restrictive language to the proposal. This bill would essentially ban insurance coverage of abortion in health care exchanges, not just for women who are being publicly funded or subsidized in the exchanges, but even for women paying with their own private dollars, Madam Speaker. In addition, H.R. 358 would create a system that plays Russian roulette with pregnant women's lives when they enter a hospital. This would mean that any hospital could refuse to perform an emergency abortion--even if a woman would die without it--without violating the Federal law designed to prevent people from being denied emergency medical care. It goes even further by paving the way to allow State refusal laws that are not limited to the provision of abortion services, but to anything that would be considered controversial--treatment for STIs, birth control services, screening services, and counseling. With that, I would yield time to my good colleague from California, Representative Speier.

Ms. MOORE. I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois, Representative Jan Schakowsky.

Ms. MOORE. Thank you for that compelling story. How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strident, strident opposition to this bill.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my strident opposition to H.R. 358, proposed by our colleague, Representative Pitts, which we will be considering later on today. H.R. 358 includes several truly unprecedented restrictions on abortion coverages--coverages which, by the way, our Supreme Court has determined are rights of women. And it would limit access to abortion services for all women, regardless of their health status, economic circumstances, age, or any other considerations. This bill would also impose sweeping refusal provisions that not only undermine women's health care and women's rights, but actually endanger women's lives. It's not hyperbole to say that the provisions of the Pitts bill represent an extreme and callous attack on women's health. First, H.R. 358 would effectively end abortion coverage for women in State insurance exchanges, both for those who receive subsidies to buy coverage and for those who use their own private money to buy coverage. This would mean that millions of women--contrary to what we have promised them through the Affordable Care Act, that they would be able to keep coverage they currently have--would actually lose the coverage that they currently have. The Pitts bill represents an unparalleled restriction on the use of private funds and an insurmountable impediment for women who simply want to be able to choose a health plan that will cover all of their potential health needs. Second, H.R. 358 would codify and expand the vast refusal clause currently in law, the Weldon amendment, granting people with only a tangential connection to abortion services--such as receptionists who make appointments or claims adjustors at insurance companies--the right to refuse services to women who seek abortions. Not only that, but the Pitts bill would make it possible for States to pass a whole new slate of refusal laws that could allow insurers to opt out of covering not just abortion care, but birth control, screening, counseling for sexually transmitted diseases, mammograms, and much more. But the most shocking expansion of our refusal laws is the provision in H.R. 358 that would exempt hospitals from treating or referring women, in case of emergency abortion care, even if women will die without it. Hospitals would no longer be forbidden from abandoning patients on the doorstep of emergency rooms and providing treatment to at least stabilize the medical condition of such patients. This provision heartlessly puts the preferences of hospitals above the lives of women. And finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 358 even establishes restrictions on people's ability to get information about their coverage options. The Pitts bill would prevent the Federal Government, States, or any other entity implementing the Affordable Care Act from requiring access to abortion services. This means, for example, that people may not get impartial or even accurate information from the patient navigators who are designated to help them choose coverage. The advocates of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin sent me a story that truly encapsulates the emotion, the real-life consequences of what we're talking about today. This is Judy's story, not a woman who wanted an abortion so that her bikini line would not be ruined, but a woman whose mother had died when she was 4 years old. She and her husband agonized about their decision, but her health was in jeopardy, and they knew that preserving her health and her life was the best choice for her family. And she painfully, painfully, agonizingly decided to terminate her pregnancy to save her life and to preserve the quality of the life of the one child that she has so that she could rear him. To protect the right to safe, legal abortion care takes a serious commitment to Wisconsin's health, and it takes courage, Mr. Speaker. Politicians who want to end private health insurance coverage of abortion have neither of these qualities.