Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, you've heard the so-called ``experts'' predict the economic consequences of default on the debt, but your question is, what does this have to do with me? And Gwen, can you please tell me what this means in plain English? For example, the Federal Reserve analysis that default would cause point increases in Treasury yields. Translation: Every point increase means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs--your job. The economist William Seyfried said a 1 percent change in GDP growth correlates with .4 percent total employment change. Translation: Every percentage loss of GDP means 640,000 lost jobs--your jobs. Default permanently raises the interest rates, says J.P. Morgan, and they estimate that interest rates could rise 75 to 100 basis points. Translation: Mortgages rise $1,000; credit card interest rises by $250. And the decline of the value of the dollar. Translation: $182 extra on your utilities, $318 a year on food, $100 a year more on gas. Do you get it?

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, when I became a Member of Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And I rise today to affirm that commitment by speaking out against State efforts to undermine the basic right to vote--a right that has been affirmed by no less than three amendments to the Constitution: the Voting Rights Act; over 150 years of litigation, blood, sweat, tears, and lies. No right under the Constitution has been more defended by the American people. Yet Wisconsin just passed a very restrictive voter ID, photo ID card in order to vote. I can remember when then-Representative Walker and I, the Governor of Wisconsin, debated this issue. And he, like so many other people, said, Well, what's the big deal? What's wrong with having a photo ID? You need a photo ID to go to Blockbuster's and get a video. You need a photo ID to drive. You need a photo ID to get medicine. Well, getting a video from Blockbuster's is not a right. The right to vote is a very, very important badge of democracy in this country. We need a very high bar before we make it more difficult to exercise our rights as U.S. citizens. And what's the bar that Wisconsin uses to justify its law? The Wisconsin Attorney General's office found in the 2-year Election Fraud Task Force investigation that there were 20 instances of possible voter fraud out of 3 million votes cast. That's seven-thousandths of 1 percent. And a photo ID would not have prevented any of these discrepancies. People of color are singled out for disenfranchisement when you consider in Wisconsin that 55 percent of African American women, 49 percent of African American men, 59 per of Latinas, 46 percent of Latinos don't have this kind of ID. And when you consider the 18- to 24-year-old group, 78 percent of African American males don't have this ID and 66 percent of African American women don't have the ID. I wonder who they're trying to disenfranchise. We implore the Department of Justice to intervene and prevent these extremely transparent efforts to burden likely Democratic voters at the polls.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I emphatically agree that a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only viable path forward for the parties and for those in the international community and region who seek peace and stability in this contentious area of our world. I want to be clear: unilateral actions by the Palestinians or Israelis, including seeking recognition at the U.N., are not helpful to the peace process. It seems to me that there have not been many successful unilateral acts undertaken in this region that have resulted in more peace and less violence. Why would anyone want to go down that road again? Limiting this resolution to the sentiment expressed in bullet number one of the resolution that reaffirms Congress' ``strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition'' would have won my enthusiastic and full- hearted support. It was the presence of this language that kept me from voting no on this resolution. I again reiterate my condemnation of this House continuing to bring resolutions that only seem to relitigate every wrong committed by one party to this conflict. Whatever happened to the grandiose ideal that the United States of America would be an ``honest broker'' in this process? The fact is that both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have tough choices ahead of them that will affect the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. As I stated in a letter to President Obama last year in support of strong U.S. engagement in renewed Middle East Peace talks, allowing actions by either party that undermine the process to go unchallenged serves to fan animosity and mistrust, which feeds a cycle of conflict and violence. This neither serves the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, nor the Palestinians. We must avoid ending up in a situation like Canada reportedly faced last year when it cut funding for activities of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees only to have the government of Israel, among others, push for a reversal of that decision. It's an example of an action that looks ``pro-Israel'' on the politics, but failed the more important test of whether it actually advanced or hindered the interests of our allies in the region. The Palestinian people don't want symbolic statehood, they want an actual state with borders and the ability to enjoy a livelihood in peace and security. The same for the Israeli people. They want real security and real peace. Both peoples would gladly trade resolutions from the U.S. Congress for real progress on the ground.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would ensure that we have the proper data to identify and work with sectors of the U.S. economy that are participating in the patent process at significantly lower rates. Specifically, my amendment allows the USPTO to develop methods for ways to track the diversity of patent applicants. It also specifically prohibits the office from using any such results for any preferential treatment in the application process. I certainly do applaud the USPTO for their outreach to the Women's Chamber of Commerce and to the National Minority Enterprise Development Conferences to try to increase diversity with utilizing the patent process. But some recent data have raised concern that minorities and women-owned businesses are just not keeping up with the patent process. Preliminary data from a 2009 Kauffman Foundation survey of new businesses show that minority-owned technology companies hold fewer patents and copyrights after the fifth year of starting than comparable nonminority businesses. In fact, the Kauffman data show that minority- owned firms with patents hold only two on average, compared with the eight of their counterparts. Another survey uses National Science Foundation data to suggest that women commercialize their patents 7 percent less than their male counterparts. Now, the best example I can think of this is the late great George Washington Carver, who we all know discovered 300 uses for peanuts and hundreds more for other plants. He went on to help local farmers with many improvements to their farm equipment, ingredients, and chemicals. However, Carver only applied for three patents. Some historians have written on whether or not Eli Whitney was, indeed, the original inventor of the cotton gin or whether the invention could have originated from the slave community. At the time, slaves were unable to register an invention with the Patent Office, and the owner could not patent on their behalf because of the requirement to be an original inventor. Now, African Americans and women have a long history of inventing some of the most influential products in our society, but we also simply do not have enough information to further explore and explain these results. And as our government and industry leaders look into these problems and possibly fix these deficiencies, they run into a major hurdle. Currently, the Patent and Trade Office only knows the name and general location of a patent applicant. In most cases, only the physical street address that the office collects is for the listed patent attorney on the application. Such limited information prevents us from fully understanding the nature and scope of the underrepresentation of minority communities in intellectual property. Until we can truly understand the nature of this problem, we cannot address it or do the appropriate outreach.

Ms. MOORE. I certainly again want to commend efforts from Director Kappos and the Patent and Trade Office that, despite their not having to do it, they do reach out to women and minority communities to try to get them to utilize the Patent Office. I can say that the ability to innovate and create is just one part of the equation. The key to success for minorities in our community as a whole also depends upon the ability to get protection for their intellectual property. I urge the body to vote for this amendment. I would yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I can tell you that one of the most heartbreaking experiences that I have had as a Member of Congress is to watch this Congress attempt to balance the deficit and the budget on the backs of infants, on the backs of children who need their educational opportunity, and on the backs of seniors. We have seen gargantuan efforts to cut Medicare, the main program to prevent poverty for our seniors; Medicaid; the Women, Infants, and Children program; nutrition programs for children; efforts to decimate educational opportunities for young people, while we refuse to end tax breaks for Big Oil. The Big Five companies made nearly a trillion dollars--$1 trillion-- in profits in the last decade, and yet we continue to insist on providing tax breaks for these profitable companies. Every year, we provide subsidies to oil companies that they pocket. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we are cutting food from babies. I saw numerous, numerous amendments to cut moneys for lactating moms, pregnant women, and newborn babies, while we refuse to end the tax breaks for millionaires. We cannot afford another $800 billion in tax cuts for the top 2 percent in our country. This is backwards. This is un-American. I join my Democratic colleagues from the House Budget Committee to express--in no uncertain terms--the basic principles we are fighting for in this budget agreement. I also want to state my support for my colleagues from the House of Representatives who are working hard to negotiate an agreement that demonstrates both decency and fairness. I have had the honor of serving on the Budget Committee for two-and- a-half years, and I have learned a thing or two through my service. I also brought my own budgetary expertise to the table--as a former legislator for the State of Wisconsin, as a former community leader, and as a former (and current!) head of household. I know--and all of us here know, though we are not all admitting it--the fundamental truth that any budget agreement must take a balanced, reasonable approach towards deficit reduction. We cannot simply slash spending while preserving every nickel and dime of tax breaks for giant corporations and multi-millionaires. As we stand here today, the leaders from both parties, and their staff, are working round-the-clock to chart our path forward. The American people have expressed their concern about our national debt and deficit, and the Congress has responded. We are on the brink of making new and historic policy changes that will be very difficult to un-do. We have the unique opportunity to make the right choice to end a wide array of gratuitous tax loopholes that will save billions upon billions of dollars--and in the end, will help us to preserve the priorities that are so crucial for Wisconsin's Fourth District, and for people all across this country. We have the opportunity to choose to trim down the debt by cutting tax subsidies for oil companies--instead of cutting nutrition programs for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC. We have the opportunity to choose to reduce the deficit by cutting ethanol subsidies--instead of cutting Medicare. This is nothing short of an historic moment in time. We cannot turn our backs on these opportunities. My Democratic colleagues at the budget negotiation table have assured us many times that revenue-raisers must be part of the solution. Unfortunately, their Republican counterparts have not offered us similar reassurance. We're already in desperate need of a just and decent tax code that actually requires our Nation's most successful, wealthy people to pay their fair share. We recently learned that one of the largest U.S. corporations, General Electric, paid no federal taxes in 2010. GE claimed a $3.2 billion tax benefit on reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, including $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States. And that's just one example. Other corporations are able to pick from a long menu of tax breaks that allow them to reap profits while shipping jobs overseas. We just celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the Bush tax cuts--so we have timely, concrete data showing us what happens when you slash income tax rates. Then-President Bush promised that his tax cuts would ``starve the beast,'' reducing revenues and thus forcing members of Congress to reduce the size of the Federal Government. He claimed that low taxes would stimulate the economy, and increase the prosperity of our Nation. He vowed that tax breaks would create jobs and generate wealth for all. Well, we now know the truth: Most of the benefits accrued to the rich. The tax cuts didn't spur job growth. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II--a rate that was just one-fifth the pace of what we saw in the 1990s. High-wage earners' income increased, but inequality just got worse. Government didn't get smaller: in fact, we saw massive expansion, in the form of new programs like Medicare Part D, and two new wars. In addition to the cautionary tale of the Bush years--what we've seen over the past 30 years is that lower marginal tax rates have not led to particularly impressive economic growth, labor markets or revenues. Growth was actually more impressive back when marginal tax rates were higher. The verdict is in. We need to reform our tax code now, for the sake of fairness, and for the sake of our economy. We cannot continue to fight tooth and nail for special interests, for the sake of justifying unprecedented cuts to everything from education to health care to infrastructure to public safety. We cannot protect the wealthy few at the expense of tens of millions of low-income and working-class families. There is no excuse for this. We can, and we must, do better. We all know we'll have to make hard choices to come to an agreement. But my Democratic colleagues also know that we must do all we can to preserve our economic progress, create jobs, and preserve programs that serve struggling families. We must reduce the deficit--but we must do it while adhering to basic principles of fairness and morality.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give tribute to Dr. Sudie E. Tatum who passed away on June 1, 2011. On Sunday, June 5, 2011, services were held at Greater Galilee Missionary Baptist Church. The church had long planned to celebrate her life on this date; they felt no need to change it and held her funeral as part of ``Dr. Tatum Day.'' Dr. Tatum was born as Sudie Ethel Ware in Harrell, Arkansas and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She was a high school dropout, who became an educator. She graduated from UW-Milwaukee with qualifications for both teacher and social work. Dr. Tatum earned a master's degree in education administration and a doctorate in theology. Dr. Tatum taught adult basic education at Milwaukee Area Technical College. She was active in church leadership and for 38 years served as president of the Women's Auxiliary of the General Baptist State Convention of Wisconsin. As president, she was a strong advocate for women, raising funds for mission work and was quite able of reminding men in authority that women kept the churches going. Dr. Tatum's work with the church led her to distant La Hatte, Haiti, where she felt compelled to build a new church and school. She asked her family for money to help build the church and school. She contributed money that she had saved to purchase a car and family members donated the rest of the needed $18,000. Dr. Tatum was preceded in death by her husband of 57 years, Earl Tatum. She never gave birth but raised her late sister's children as her own. Survivors include the children she raised, David Hollins Sr., Jynette Hamilton, Pastor Sudie B. Jones, Shirley Owens, Ruthie L. Darrough and James Hollins Jr.; and their children. Instead of flowers, she requested an offering for home and foreign ministries; therefore, a collection was taken as people left her service. Mr. Speaker, I rise because Dr. Sudie E. Tatum is an example of the best of what Milwaukee and the Fourth Congressional District has to offer. She will be remembered as a woman who packed plenty of life into her 92 years and, who took the opportunity to combine the joys of her life: love of family, education, social work, guidance and missionary work.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise in strident opposition to the underlying bill. We've all heard Michael Masser and Linda Creed's lyrics, ``I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.'' The song is sung by every megastar and quoted at every whistlestop by every politician. Well, if we believe this, then our most basic and most fundamental obligation of a civilized society is not only to teach them well but to feed them. The WIC program is the USDA's largest discretionary program that provides assistance to children up to 5 years of age, to pregnant women, post-partum women, breast-feeding women who are nutritionally at risk because of inadequate nutrition and income. We've heard a great deal from the other side--just recently the previous speaker--talk about the importance of letting the free market system work, that we need jobs. Infants cannot work. They are helpless. And according to the most recent census, almost 20 percent of the Nation's children are living in poverty. A recent report estimates that the annual estimated cost of domestic hunger is $90.4 billion, the cost of hunger, the consequences of hunger. According to the American Community Survey, almost half of the children living in single, female-headed households in my district live in poverty and about 39 percent in Wisconsin are poor. This program represents in any decent society the basic obligation we have to our fellow citizens. Half of the babies born in our country each year rely on WIC. This bill cuts a devastating $650 million from the WIC program; and in my State, this represents about 4,800 people who would lose the WIC program. The Ryan budget cuts an astounding $833 million from the WIC program; and if you compare this to the Bush cuts, which gave the average millionaire a $139,199 tax break in 2011, or $2,700 a week, that comes up to a total of $866 million to the wealthiest people in 1 week. One week of the Bush-era tax cuts would pay that WIC for a year for the 20 percent of our kids in this country who are hungry. So that really, in my mind, demonstrates what the priorities of this body are. One week of the Bush-era tax cuts could feed and fund this program. Now, if you truly believe that children are our future, note that numerous studies have shown that pregnant women who participate in the WIC program have longer pregnancies, lead to fewer premature births, fewer low and very low birth weight babies, experience fewer fetal and infant deaths, seek prenatal care earlier in pregnancy, and consume more of such key nutrients as iron, protein, calcium, vitamins A and C. Now, if you're not moved by the whole children are our future bit, at least be persuaded that not investing in WIC is a costly proposition, and I know the other side is very concerned about costs because several Members have pointed out that we have all these multiple feeding programs. They're concerned with fraud, and God forbid some of these kids might be getting three, four, five meals a day based on funding of all these programs. But pre-term births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year, with the average first-year medical costs of the premature, low birth weight baby roughly costing $49,000 compared to $4,500 for a baby born without complications. WIC prenatal care benefits reduce the rate of low birth weight babies by 25 percent. Now, for those of you who support these gargantuan ag subsidies, moneys for the various wealthy, I commend to you the words of Theodore Parker, a minister and abolitionist in the early 19th century who's been quoted by both Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, and by Dr. Martin Luther King, in their epic speeches. Theodore Parker said, ``The miser, starving his brother's body, starves also his own soul, and at death shall creep out of his great estate of injustice, poor and naked and miserable.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much for yielding. I just wanted a few seconds to clarify something I have heard over and over again. We continue to say that first they have come after the seniors with Medicare and Medicaid and now they are coming after the children. No. We ended the entitlement to AFDC back in the nineties, and WIC is not an entitlement like the SNAP program, the food stamp program. It is not an entitlement like school lunch programs. So what this bill does is it double-downs on not providing food to infants and children. No, we have already cut the entitlement and snatched the safety net from underneath kids. This double-downs on that. We have torn the safety net for children, and now we are pulling it through the shredder for the second time. As a person who has personally had sugar sandwiches, mayonnaise sandwiches and mustard sandwiches, I can tell you that funding this program at only 87 percent of its value will mean we will see a lot more malnourishment in our communities.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much to the gentleman from Georgia. I rise to support this omnibus amendment and for the purpose of directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine its practices on how it plans to rehabilitate and reuse national landmarks that are aging, outdated, or in obsolete condition within the VA infrastructure and issue a report to Congress no later than January 1, 2012, on any actions taken or planned to be taken to rehabilitate and use these national landmarks, to fulfill its responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation and to our veterans. An example of these landmarks is the Milwaukee Soldier's Home, built in 1867, one of the original soldier's homes established by congressional legislation and approved by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1865. The soldier's home reflects how our foresisters chose to care for and honor the soldiers who fought to keep the country united as one Nation. I say foresisters because it was the ladies of Milwaukee's West Side Soldiers Aid Society whose tenacity and dedication made it possible to raise the funds necessary to create the Milwaukee Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers which they generously gifted to the soldier's home system, a forerunner of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This summer, on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, the soldier's home will hopefully be dedicated as a national historic landmark. I urge the Department of Veterans Affairs to send a report to Congress.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I rise to support this amendment. In fact, I had an identical amendment to strike this restrictive language with respect to the Urban Area Security Initiative. In fiscal year 2010, over 60 urban areas, including my own City of Milwaukee, were eligible for formula assistance under this grant because they met the Department of Homeland Security's risk assessment analysis. But the legislation before us would arbitrarily tie the Secretary's hands from distributing these funds to any cities that fall outside the top 10 so-called most vulnerable. Since 2004, the city of Milwaukee and the surrounding counties that surround Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and Waukesha have obtained nearly $400 million in this UASI funding to enhance the safety of over 2 million residents. And even though this assistance has been small, we are very, very proud of what we have been able to accomplish in terms of securing the area. For example, in Milwaukee, my constituents are safer because we have used this assistance to train emergency medical teams, train and equip hazardous material and bomb squads, create continuity of operations plans, and to analyze intelligence. It also helps to fund our Intelligence Fusion Center, a place to collect and exchange information from government, public safety, private sector, and all levels of enforcement. And I have heard concerns from our mayor, police chief, fire chief about whether or not we could continue to manage disaster funding without this funding. And the concerns aren't just limited to being prepared for acts of terrorism. The loss of this funding would disable us from being prepared to respond to large-scale emergencies such as flooding or tornadoes. I can tell you that it is pennywise and pound foolish to simply arbitrarily limit this funding. It just doesn't make any sense to go backwards. You've heard here already on this floor that officials have reported that Osama bin Laden's documents even schooled his followers to avoid U.S. counterterrorist defenses. He said don't limit attacks to New York City. Consider other areas, or smaller cities. Spread out the targets. We just might as well fax al Qaeda the list of urban areas that will lose Federal support, areas like Phoenix, Anaheim/Santa Ana, Riverside, Denver, Miami-Dade/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Portland, Pittsburgh, Norfolk, Seattle, Tucson, Bakersfield, Oxnard, Sacramento, Bridgeport, Hartford, Jacksonville, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Louisville, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kansas City, Omaha, Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Columbus, Toledo, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, San Juan, Providence, Memphis, Nashville, Austin, El Paso, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Richmond, and Milwaukee. This amendment is simple, budget neutral, and gives the administrative power back to the experts who are there solely to keep our cities and country safe. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague and friend, Mr. Conyers, regarding Libya. I share the gentleman's concerns about the prospect of U.S. troops being dragged into a third war. Eight years after our ill-advised misadventure in Iraq and a decade after sending our troops to Afghanistan, we have extensive evidence of the many failings of a military only strategy to address the world's ills, including fanatical dictators bent on harming their own citizens as in Libya. However, while I share the gentleman's concerns, I am also troubled that the amendment, as written, would have unintended consequences and would unnecessarily hamstring the use of the military for a host of non-combat purposes in Libya. For example, the amendment would prohibit U.S. ground forces from being used to provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people. Whether we like it or not, one of the things our nation's military is very good at is providing humanitarian aid to people in need around the world. We saw this after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2004 and again when massive floods hit Pakistan in 2010 and again in Haiti after last year's earthquake. The U.N. has warned of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Libya with hundreds of thousands of people lacking access or in danger of losing access to basic necessities. Unfortunately, the amendment makes clear that the only authorized reason for U.S. troops in Libya is to rescue U.S. military personnel that are in danger. Such a narrow exception unduly hampers the ability of the President to conduct a range of efforts well short of occupation that our military may be in the best position to undertake. Additionally, under this amendment, our military could not be used to rescue allied NATO personnel, to help rescue U.S. citizens whose lives may be in danger in Libya or to conduct an airlift of U.S. citizens out of the country, or even to help provide aid to a U.N. or African Union peacekeeping mission should a political solution be found to remove Colonel Qadhafi from power. Let's be clear. My vote against this amendment is not a vote for sending U.S. troops to Libya to fight a civil war. Having voted a number of times for resolutions and legislation to restrict the use of and/or remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, my record is very clear that I am not in support of occupation of foreign nations. Yet, even those efforts allowed a broad range of commonsense exceptions which I think are missing here. If the Constitution still lives, the introduction of ground troops for the purposes of combat--which my colleagues are concerned would occur in Libya--in any nation would clearly require an authorization of war by Congress. If that were to occur, Congress should and must hold an up or down vote to either authorize the use of such troops for combat or call for their withdrawal. The U.N. Resolution authorizing international efforts to protect civilians in Libya explicitly rules out the use of foreign ground troops. The President has made very clear that U.S. ground troops will not be sent to Libya. I will take him at his word.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and work of John Gilman, a social justice and peace activist, author, decorated veteran and business owner. Mr. Gilman died on April 26, 2011, at the age of 90. Mr. Gilman was one of ten children born to Jewish immigrant parents in Chester, Pennsylvania. John Gilman put his beliefs into action at an early age, leading his high school classmates in a strike. They demanded a new school building due to overcrowding that caused students to attend in shifts. Mr. Gilman served as an infantryman in World War II and saw combat during the Allied advance into Germany. He was nominated for a Medal of Honor and awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars in addition to the Distinguished Service Cross for his exemplary service including ``taking out'' a German pillbox and tank. A social activist throughout his life, he served as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Civil Rights Congress fighting against racism. He was one of the pioneers of humanitarian aid for Cuba, worked for nuclear disarmament and was an early local protestor against the Vietnam War. Mr. Gilman marched with Father James Groppi, Father Dismas Becker, and the Rev. Lucius Walker during Milwaukee's civil rights struggle. The flooring store he operated was firebombed in retaliation for his work. The grand dragon of the Illinois Ku Klux Klan was convicted in connection with the bombing. Mr. Gilman's politics came under scrutiny in the 1950s; he was twice called before the House Un-American Activities Committee for his involvement in organizations deemed to be Communist. Gilman refused to testify or implicate anyone else pleading the 5th Amendment and displaying his military medals in a large frame to the ire of his questioners. John Gilman's autobiography, Footsoldier for Peace and Justice details an amazing life and in his own words ``standing up against what he thought was wrong''. Mr. Gilman is survived by his wife Helen; daughters, Rose Corso and Jennifer Gilman; 2 sons, Herman and Glenn; a brother, Jack; and a sister, Edith Silverstein; grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Milwaukee and the country has experienced a profound loss with the passing of John Gilman. Mr. Gilman remained active almost until his death; I am proud to have called him friend. John Gilman was a true patriot understanding the turmoil of war firsthand through his honorable defense of his country but still fighting for peace because of his service. Today, I thank him and his family for their immeasurable achievements, I mourn his loss and I salute his legacy.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rev. Robert A. Wild, S.J., President of Marquette University in Milwaukee, whose leadership has resulted in groundbreaking new educational and research facilities, innovative academic programs, increased donor support, and strong relationships with students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the community. Rev. Robert A. Wild, S.J., began his duties as president of Marquette University in Milwaukee on June 17, 1996, and will retire on July 31, 2011. During his tenure, Father Wild has built upon the university's core strengths of an academically rigorous, values-centered curriculum; solid, practical preparation of students for work in a world of increasing complexity and diversity; and formation of individuals as ethical and informed leaders in their religious, cultural, professional, and civic communities. Father Wild has also promoted the Catholic, Jesuit identity of Marquette by inspiring its mission of the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, the fostering of personal and professional excellence, the promotion of a life of faith, and the development of leadership expressed in service to others, all for the greater glory of God and the common benefit of the human community. Father Wild has committed Marquette to making a higher education accessible to all students, regardless of financial means, such that more than 20 percent of the student body is now comprised of first- generation students. He has been a tireless supporter of student financial aid and academic support, including the Educational Opportunity Program, which enables low-income and first-generation students to enter and succeed in higher education via four Federal TRIO Programs. Father Wild has inspired the formation of diverse leaders at an institution that was the first Catholic university in the world to admit women to be educated alongside men in its regular undergraduate programs in 1909. Marquette now receives more than 20,000 undergraduate applications each year to continue to provide a transformative experience for our nation's young men and women. Numerous faculty and staff have provided their time and talent to serving the city of Milwaukee under Father Wild's leadership including three dental clinics operated by the School of Dentistry that provide oral health care particularly to underserved residents. Father Wild's leadership of the Near West Side of Milwaukee recognizes that the university's success and that of the community are one and that it is important to invest Marquette's work, wisdom and wealth in neighborhood goals. His community involvement has spurred neighborhood investment by numerous others, making a more vibrant and safer community the lasting result. Father Wild has also been a champion for the Milwaukee community through the Milwaukee Water Council, where he serves on the board, and service to the Greater Milwaukee Committee and the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce. Under Father Wild's leadership, Marquette became the first university in the country to partner with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America for full-tuition scholarships; offered the first online master's degree program in Wisconsin; established its first endowed deanship; and received its first eight-figure contribution from an individual. He led Marquette's entry into the BIG EAST Conference in 2005, where intercollegiate athletes vie with the most competitive teams in the country. In the 15 years of Father Wild's tenure, Marquette completed the most successful comprehensive campaign in its history, raising a total of nearly $800 million. More than 36,000 individuals have received a Marquette degree during Father Wild's tenure, individuals rooted in the university's pillars of excellence, faith, leadership and service. I extend my thanks to Father Wild upon his retirement from Marquette University for his unparalleled leadership in transforming not only the university and its students, but Milwaukee and Wisconsin in so many ways that will have lasting impact for decades to come.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, health care costs are a crisis in every American family. Every family is one surgery, one heart attack, one cancer diagnosis, one aging spouse away from financial ruin. But health care costs are also a crisis for business, both small and large. General Motors pays more for health care than for steel. That is why the Affordable Care Act is needed, to bend the health care cost curve downward for all American health care consumers. Americans, including those who are consumers of Medicare and Medicaid, simply cannot afford the insurance and drug companies' runaway profits. These companies are reaping record-breaking profits. In 2009, while we were debating the bill, the Nation's five largest for-profit health insurance companies saw a combined profit of $12.2 billion, and that's just for five companies. Their executives did well, too. The top execs at these companies pulled in almost $200 million in compensation. At the same time, there were double-digit premium increases. So no matter where you get your health care, through Medicare, Medicaid, your employers's policy, wherever you get it, you can't afford that kind of rate increase year after year. These rates are going up faster than any other part of the family budget. For many people, these costs are crowding out housing and other basic needs. In 2009, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies made over $60 billion in profits, and the profit margin in this industry is out of control. In 2007, profits ranged as high as 36 percent. The health care reform law also curbed some of these outrageous profits of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are large portions of our Federal budget, but we can only rein in their costs if we fully implement the Affordable Care Act and tackle outrageous profiteering in health care--something the Republican budget refuses to do.

Ms. MOORE. The Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, rejects cuts that wage war on the poor and war on the working class. There are 43 of us from 21 States, and we represent over 30 million people. We are aggrieved that two-thirds of the Republican budget cuts come from programs that serve low-income and working class people while there is no sacrifice from the uber-wealthy class. It is our job to be a voice in the wilderness and to point out that it is downright immoral to choose tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and billions of dollars of tax breaks and tax subsidies rather than preserving the dignity of a life with decent housing, food security, and access to health care for all Americans. The gentleman who spoke previously just pointed out that they're cutting welfare because they believe that people need self-esteem. Well, you cannot eat self-esteem, and you cannot live in a house built on self-esteem. We want you to know that half of all Americans in this country are barely making it without any governmental support, and they need Medicaid. They don't need you to block grant it. ``Block granting'' means a cut. ``Block granting food stamps'' means a cut. Privatizing Medicare is a cut. Inflicting deep cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and denying extended benefits to the unemployed is a cut. Yet the Congressional Black Caucus prioritizes controlling the debt and deficit. We cut it by $4 trillion over 10 years. We, the CBC, submit that conservative fiscal policy is compatible with compassion for the invisible, voiceless majority of Americans who need their government to respond.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 253 Senate amendment to H.R. 1363, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37, a resolution of disapproval regarding the Federal Communication Commission's recent Internet and broadband industry practices ruling. It is very telling that as we count down the hours till a likely government shut down, the majority party decides to focus their energy on net neutrality principles, rather than the American people. I was elected into Congress to represent my constituents, including the 3,600 Federal employees in Wisconsin's fourth congressional district. The same constituents who want answers to the very simple questions, ``Will I get paid?'' and ``Can I make my mortgage payment?'' A Government shutdown is not free of consequence. Let me take a minute to explain how serious this is to our country. Some estimate that a week-long shut down could cost America's economy $8 billion. This would be a crushing blow to our economy as we have been seeing job growth, with more than 200,000 jobs added just last month. Beyond that, many services will be delayed or stopped all together, including: Tax refunds that families have budgeted for will be delayed; Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces will still be fighting for us, but will be paid late; Environmental reviews underway for new construction projects that create jobs will be stopped; Federal Housing Administration would stop approving loans, threatening the housing market; The Small Business Administration will stop giving loans to qualified small businesses that are ready to expand and create jobs; Enrollments in programs like Social Security will be slowed; Our national parks and museums will close affecting families who have saved up for vacation and the communities that rely on a strong tourism economy; and 800,000 Federal workers may be furloughed, which could ultimately cost the government about $175 million a day in back wages. Now the question is--what are we doing right now to prevent it? The answer is: Nothing. The majority has deemed it necessary for the American people to debate whether or not to disapprove of the FCC's net neutrality rule. The bill funding the government will expire tonight at midnight. Democrats have been working with Republicans and have met them more than halfway on the cuts they proposed in their 6-month continuing resolution. Yet, Republicans are refusing to compromise--not on the spending cuts--but on what are known as ``policy riders.'' The bottom line is that this debate isn't about numbers anymore, it's about ideology. Republicans are willing to shut down the government over debates we have been having for years over family planning services like birth control. House Speaker John Boehner has acknowledged that House Republicans need to compromise when he said they are clearly ``one-half of one- third of the government.'' Yet, he is beholden to the fringe of his caucus. I urge my Republican colleagues to put the ideological partisanship aside and work together for the sake of my district and the American people.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an advocate, community leader, wife, mother, and mentor. On May 5, 2011, Kit Murphy McNally, Executive Director of the Benedict Center, will retire after 23 years of distinguished service. The Benedict Center is an interfaith non-profit criminal justice agency with a 37-year history in Milwaukee of justice advocacy. Ms. McNally advocates for positive change in the criminal justice system by demonstrating best practices through the Center's education and treatment programs. An example of this approach is their holistic, gender-responsive, Women's Harm Reduction Program, utilized by both the Milwaukee County district attorney's office and Milwaukee County judges as a diversion to prison program. The community partnership style promoted by Kit McNally is reflected in the Community Justice Center for Day Reporting Program. In 1998, this successful education and treatment alternative was established through the Benedict Center's advocacy as a partnership between many community treatment providers and Milwaukee County. Further, under the direction of Ms. McNally, the Benedict Center has been a state-wide leader in assisting to draft a model Community Justice Act for Wisconsin. The model would return money to local communities that succeed in reducing state incarceration costs through implementation of effective treatment and diversion programs. Ms. McNally is deeply involved with issues of mental health and racial and economic disparities in criminal justice. She has served on local and national advisory boards, committees, task forces and commissions. She served as the citizen representative on the Executive Committee of the Milwaukee Community Justice Council. The council consists of top leaders on criminal justice issues, including the mayor, county executive, police chief, sheriff, district attorney and chief judge. Ms. McNally also served on the national boards of the National Alliance of Sentencing Advocates and Mitigation Specialists, and theInternational Community Corrections Association. After graduating from Indiana University in Journalism and Criminology, she worked as a part-time reporter for the Milwaukee Journal and later directed corporate communications for Kohl's Food Stores and public relations for Mount Sinai Hospital and later Aurora Health Care. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Kit Murphy McNally, who has worked with victims, offenders, and the community toward achieving a system of justice that is fair and treats everyone with dignity and respect. Ms. McNally's contributions have richly benefitted the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District, the State of Wisconsin, and the Nation.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Arnold Mitchem, who is being honored by my alma mater, Marquette University, on April 29, 2011, as Alumnus of the Year. Over a 40-year career span, Dr. Mitchem, the first and only President for the Council for Opportunity in Education has been a voice for low-income, first-generation college students and individuals with disabilities. In fact, his career began on the History faculty at Marquette University in Milwaukee. In 1969, he was named director of the Educational Opportunity Program at Marquette, serving in that role until 1986, when he relocated to Washington, DC to represent low-income and disabled students nationally. Thanks to his work, the federally funded TRIO Programs (the largest discretionary program in the U.S. Department of Education) have expanded by nearly 400 percent and now serves more than 872,000 students at 1,200 colleges and universities. Dr. Mitchem graduated from the University of Southern Colorado in 1965. Before receiving his Ph.D. in Foundations of Education at Marquette University in 1981, he studied European History as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow at the University of Wisconsin. He is married to his soul mate, Freda Mitchem, and has four children and seven grandchildren. Dr. Mitchem is a member of the Executive Committee of the European Access Network as well as a former trustee of the College Board, and past-president of the Committee for Education Funding, a Washington- based coalition of national education associations. He currently serves on the Board of Trustees of Marquette University. Dr. Mitchem has been awarded honorary doctorates from eight universities, including: St. Louis University; CUNY-Lehman College in New York; DePaul University; and the University of Liverpool, England. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my friend, Dr. Mitchem. He recruited, nurtured and continues to mentor me and countless other former Marquette University students who had the privilege of coming under his influence. Dr. Mitchem's true legacy is the millions of students who have achieved an education due in no small part to his advocacy on their behalf. The citizens of the fourth congressional district, the State of Wisconsin and the nation have benefited tremendously from his dedicated service. I am honored for these reasons to pay tribute to Dr. Mitchem.