Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. The check is small. There is some talk of requiring them to move from 28 hours of work a week to 30 hours of work a week and reducing the amount of child care that they can get. Again, the theme for this budget, our Governor's budget, is that Wisconsin is open for business. Well, no State can be open for business by slamming the doors of educational opportunity and denying babies, poor people, and seniors health care. It is more a case that we're selling our State to business interests. I would yield to the gentlelady from D.C.

Ms. MOORE. Backwards instead of forward, $900 million from our school system, $250 million in State aid for the University of Wisconsin system, $71.6 million from the technical college system, low-income children and families requiring women who receive TANF, temporary assistance, they are cutting them by $20 a month, 3 percent of the TANF check.

Ms. MOORE. Reclaiming my time, you know, I will tell you there are a couple of other myths I want to bust before I turn to the gentlelady, the doctor, physician in our caucus, to talk about Medicaid a little bit, because that links in with this union-busting effort. You know, Congresswoman from Maryland, you talk about trying to pit private sector workers against public workers, I am happy to say that those unions in the private sector in Wisconsin have stood firm with the public sector employees. I am happy to report to you that the firefighters and the police, those unions that were exempted from this collective bargaining fiasco, stand firm with public employees. Why? Because they get it. They get it that the gains made by organized labor inure to all workers. In Wisconsin in the 19th century, May 5, 1886, five people in my district, in Bay View in Wisconsin, were killed, and four were wounded, attacked by troops called on, sicced on them by the then-Governor Jeremiah Rusk, fighting for the 8-hour workday. Workers in unions have won the weekend, safety conditions in the workplace. Workers have won these benefits, and they have inured to the private sector. And those people who are in the private sector need to respect the sacrifice, the blood and the tears. You know, Wisconsin was a State where the first workers comp law passed, the first State to have unemployment compensation. It was the birthplace of AFSCME. This has been a progressive State. We have 14 very brave State Senators who have left the State so that they would not have to vote on these draconian union provisions. And the governor has said that because they are leaving that there are going to be massive layoffs and firings, and it will be their fault. Well, I just wanted to point one thing out. He revealed his budget just yesterday afternoon, and he has reduced State aid. He has reduced shared revenue to all of the counties, villages, cities, and municipalities to the tune of $6.9 million. He has reduced aid to schools, kindergarten through 12th grade and technical colleges, to the tune of a billion dollars. So these local communities, school districts, will have to lay off snow shovelers and teachers. Teachers will find themselves in classrooms with, they predicted, as many as 60 kids in them. They are cutting Medicaid in this State, and I will get back to that later, because they are draconian cuts. In the meantime, we are providing $7.6 billion for roads. That's local money and Federal money together. We are providing a total, 100 percent tax relief for capital gains taxes for businesses that locate in the community for up to 5 years. We are providing, his special sessions bill provided at least $200 million worth of tax breaks at the same time we are reducing school aid by a billion dollars. I see that the gentlewoman from Washington D.C., also a very esteemed attorney, has come to join us here. We are talking about the loss of the collective bargaining agreements in Wisconsin, something that has no fiscal impact, but that the governor insists must be a part of his budget. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. MOORE. It is very interesting that you should raise that, because in fact the governor of our State, in his previous capacity as the Milwaukee county executive, hired private security guards for the county jail. And a court just this past January ordered Milwaukee County to restore those public servants to their jobs. And in fact, they are required to do that. And it was all presented as a budgetary crisis. The Court found that the county exec, now our governor, had overstated the savings that would be realized by privatizing those county prison guards. And it's been the same tactic. Indeed, the police and firefighters and State troopers were excluded from the collective bargaining prohibitions and the prison guards were not. And as a State legislator, and I served with our current governor, he did introduce a bill to privatize our prison system. So that's a very important insight.

Ms. MOORE. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. MOORE. Well, thank you so much for yielding, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, during this hour. I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus members and the women of the Congressional Black Caucus for joining me here today. The Congressional Black Caucus has always been known as the conscience of the Congress because we understand budgets, and these initiatives to break the collective bargaining agreements are being presented to us in the context of a budget. And we all know that budgets are not about numbers, and this is proof of that. It's about values. And where you place your money is where you place your heart. And so I'd like to talk about the situation in Wisconsin. You know, there are a few things that have been misinformation, just let me say that, around this budget. And I appreciate the fact that we have a physician here with us this evening who is an expert on the Medicaid program. We have an attorney here with the gentlelady from Ohio. And we have the gentlelady from Maryland who is an expert on all kinds of programs that deal with family issues. So I need you to help me sort out some of the things that have been misinformation and disinformation in this campaign. Let me say that I once served on the Joint Committee on Finance and put the budget together as a State senator in the Wisconsin Legislature. So I know that the opening balance to the budget was a $121 million surplus. Now, that's not a lot of money when you consider that $65 million is required for a statutory minimum balance in the account. But it left a cushion of $54 million in those accounts. Nothing like the $3.6 billion deficit that the Governor likes to present as his raison- d'etre for these draconian cuts in collective bargaining. Now, what is a structural deficit? A structural deficit simply is the difference between what the agencies of the government request and what the Governor provides. And so when is the last time the agencies have gotten every dime that they've asked for? Never. So it's a phony structural deficit. But given the fact that our Governor, just like any Governor, has budget challenges, I respect the fact that, you know, sometimes you have to make unpleasant cuts. So what the Governor proposed to do was to realize savings by requiring that State employees, except for the police and fire and State troopers, pay 5.8 percent of their pension funds and a little over 12 percent of their health care funds, and to make those contributions, generating $725 million in savings. Miraculously, the unions agreed to do that. But the Governor said, No. No, I do not want to negotiate with you. I want to strip you of your rights to collective bargain. And the exact words of the bill were that they were prohibited from bargaining about anything related to their conditions of employment. So I was wondering if I could yield to the gentlelady from Ohio and talk about that kind of legal jargon, that they are unable to negotiate on any conditions of employment except for the 1 percent wage within the consumer price index.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. I would plead with my colleagues to reject the Pence amendment and not to defund Planned Parenthood. And I mean that as a double entendre; to not defund the ability of women to plan parenthood. I know of what the previous speaker, the gentleman, referred. To all those well-meaning people who want to speak about the value of life and not funding contraception and not wanting to make an abortion, which is the law of the land, available if people would choose that. I am really touched by the passion of the opposite to want to save black babies. I can tell you, I know a lot about having black babies. I've had three of them. And I had my first one when I was 18 years old, at the ripe old age of 18. An unplanned pregnancy. And let me tell you, I went into labor, unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, had not even one dime. Phone calls cost a dime at that time. I didn't have a phone in my home and didn't have a dime to go to the phone booth to call an ambulance, an ambulance which is a waste of money using Medicaid dollars, but I didn't have a car and didn't have cab fare. I just want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to not have Planned Parenthood. You have to add water to the formula to make it stretch. You have to give your kids Ramen noodles at the end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they won't cry. You have to give them mayonnaise sandwiches. They get very few fresh fruits and vegetables because they are expensive. It subjects children to low educational attainment because of the ravages of poverty. You know, one of the biggest problems that school districts have in educating some of these poor black children who are unplanned is that they are mobile; they are constantly moving because they can't pay the rent. And, yes, I heard many of you talk about sexual predators. It subjects them to sexual predators, as when you try to go out and do a little work you have to leave your kids with just anybody because you don't have $800 to $1,200 a month for child care. And let me tell you, you know, the public policy has treated poor children and women who have not had the benefit of Planned Parenthood with utter contempt. These same children, it has been very difficult to get them health insurance through CHIP. When you go to the grocery store to buy them a little birthday cake with your food stamps, everyone stares at you in contempt. And, yes, on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans ended the entitlement to Aid for Families With Dependent Children; so that when we have a recession like we have now, women, who are alone typically, poor, of color, with these poor black children, have no money, go months and months and months with little or nothing to sustain themselves. And you know, I recall that the first item on the YouCut Web site was to cut temporary assistance to needy families. And let me tell you what it does to women who cannot plan their parenthood. It derails their ability to complete education and training so they can get a job. The TANF law is very harsh. It won't even let women complete high school diplomas. It sends them into work fair programs and very low wage service industries, often jobs with no unemployment benefits. And of course, they are treated with contempt and disdain when they apply for any aid. They are humiliated. And so I would beg my colleagues, I would beg them to not defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it's healthy for children, and it's healthy for our society. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman restate his point of order?

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

Ms. MOORE. I am, Mr. Chair, making the point that this amendment is in order because it deals with the continuing resolution which would slash the Pell Grant funding by $845 and that the purpose of this continuing resolution is to slash funding that is unnecessary in our budget. I would argue that this amendment should be made in order because the Pell Grant is the cornerstone of our Federal financial aid programs.

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment for the continuing appropriations act, H.R. 1, because we're deeply concerned about the cuts to the Pell Grant funding contained in the continuing resolution which would slash funding by $845, a 15 percent cut, and, of course, this amendment would preserve the Pell Grant program and maintain the full award level. I am, you know, again, just a little bit perturbed, Mr. Chairman. This cut, like so many cuts in the resolution, would disproportionately harm traditionally underserved communities. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Pell recipients are more likely to be female, first-generation college students, and less likely to be white than those who don't receive the grants. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they kind of look like me. Minority students also face disproportionate unmet need, meaning the amount that they still need to pay for college even after family contributions, parties, raising money from their churches, grants, nonprivate loans still will not meet their needs to go to college. Women sometimes come into college with more precarious financial situations. They're already parents and mothers. Now, you know, if this country is prepared to just slide into irrelevancy in the global economic community because we don't educate our workforce, this would be the loss leading legislation to do that. Cutting the program is so counterintuitive to our remaining a first- rate power. And what is our secret weapon in this country for staying on top? It's our diversity, our diversity to be competitive. We're women. We're blacks. We're Asians. We're Hispanics. We're Indians. We're Hmong. We bring different talents and abilities to the table, and our ability to educate these young people comes with our ability to provide a Pell Grant which levels the playing field for all students. There's not a politician in this country that doesn't make part of their platform that this country has got to have a highly educated 21st century workforce. There's not a politician, Democrat, Republican, Independent, or any other stripe, that doesn't say and pronounce that education is the key, and yet we're not willing to provide the lubricant so that key can fit into the lock, and that is the resources to make sure our students can go to school. This Pell Grant is that opportunity. Don't deny it to students. Don't deny it. Don't deny it, Mr. Chair.

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Lowey amendment, which would restore nearly $318 million in title X, and I rise to vehemently oppose the continuing resolution which completely eliminates title X funding. Title X funding provides low-income women with access to contraceptive services; but it also provides coverage for primary care services, prevention services, including screenings for breast and cervical cancer, STD and HIV testing, screenings for high blood pressure, diabetes, anemia, pregnancy testing, health education and referral for other services. It has nothing to do with abortion. Title X, of course, prohibits recipients from expending these monies for abortions. Madam Chair, I find this CR particularly troubling because I know that the overwhelming majority of title X patients are very, very poor. In fact, 70 percent of the these patients have incomes at or below the Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $10,830 a year; 92 percent have incomes at or below 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $27,075 a year. Now, you know what? We begrudge these patients Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, so that if they would become pregnant and have an unintended pregnancy, we would call them welfare queens and begrudge them welfare benefits. And these patients, who are disproportionately poor, women of color, would not be able to receive the economic support they need and, with this cruel continuing resolution, would not be able to receive the primary care that they deserve and that they need. We talk about the need to have jobs in this tough economic time. How can women who have no family planning dollars sustain a job or get a job when there are unplanned pregnancies? As a co-chair of the Women's Congressional Caucus, I want to take a final moment to note that access to family planning services has been nothing short of revolutionary for women in the United States. Women's ability to control their own reproductive destiny has changed the landscape at home, at work, and in the community. It's fundamentally altered women's role in society, and researchers tell us that it's helped to decrease infant mortality, child mortality, and maternal deaths. These are all incredibly worthy goals for women, men and families. We've heard the cry of those who want our country back. We've heard the cries of those who want limited government. We've heard the cries of those who want to cut spending. Well, I say, we want our bodies back. We want to govern our destinies, and we want to cut suspending our choices. And so, therefore, I urge all of you to join me in supporting Congresswoman Nita Lowey's amendment to restore title X funding. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think that the point of order should not be considered in order because this continuing resolution looks at striking waste, fraud, and fat out of our budget. And I would argue that amendment No. 490 is in fact the bone, the nerve, the blood, and the sinew of our economy.

Ms. MOORE

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

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission created an uninhibited voice for special interest spending in our elections and unlimited corporate speech in our public policy debate. Special interests were heard loud and clear this past election cycle to the tune of $281.6 million, almost five times greater than the previous midterm election of 2006. By eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund where everyday Americans can have their voices heard, special interest groups will be able to shout from the top of the mountain and dominate Presidential elections even more. Currently, between 7 and 8 percent of Americans choose to direct $3 of their tax liability to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. My amendment is simple. Instead of directing that amount, that $3 of their tax liability by checking that box, citizens would be able to check that box and voluntarily make a donation in the same amount to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. What's important here is not whether a President uses the fund or doesn't use the fund. What's important is to preserve the opportunity for the average American to have that speech and the opportunity to say loud and clear that they support clean, good, and fair elections. My amendment, instead of eliminating the entire program, lets Americans make a donation out of their own pockets. Good government groups are against the underlying bill, such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen. Rather than eliminating the public financing system, we should be working together in a bipartisan manner to reform it and improve it. Now, I understand that a point of order is being reserved against my amendment because CBO has scored my amendment as saving only $400 million over 10 years, while the underlying bill saves $600 million. So I think given that my amendment does contribute to deficit reduction, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Understanding, Mr. Chairman, that a point of order has been reserved, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard, released a new study on January 7, finding that repealing the health care law would destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually, and many of these jobs will be women's jobs--CNAs, LPNs, x ray techs, RNs, and the cleaning woman who cleans up the emergency room. This law is a game changer and a lifesaver for women's health and employment opportunities for women.

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise as the incoming co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that repealing this health care law will have on women. As you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent upon their spouses for health care, and they are less likely than men to have employer-sponsored insurance. For single female heads of household, this has a devastating impact on the entire family when there is no health insurance. Of course, all of us have heard stories from our districts about the devastating impact the repeal of this law will have on women, and I heard such a story just yesterday: Meet Nicole Lipski. She is 25 years old, is working part time, and is going to school part time; but, because of the health care law, was able to remain on her dad's insurance. Lucky for her, because just last week she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder removed in emergency surgery, which cost $13,000 that, fortunately, was covered by her parents' insurance. You know, this law outlaws gender rating as insurance companies, of course, charge women higher premiums than men for coverage. It also has a disparate impact on women with respect to preexisting conditions-- when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is considered to be a preexisting condition. Now, you don't have to be a Harvard economist to know that this law is not a job killer, but we do have a Harvard economist to back us up.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the one year anniversary of the horrific earthquake that struck our neighbor Haiti last year, killing over 200,000 men, women, and children including U.S. citizens. I join my colleagues in commemorating this somber event and in reaffirming the commitment of our nation to continue to work with the Haitian people and government to not only rebuild Haiti, but make a better Haiti. There has been progress in the recovery from the devastating earthquake and I applaud the individuals within the State Department, USAID, the U.S. embassy in Haiti, and the many people from communities throughout our country, including my district in Wisconsin, who have volunteered, donated money, and gone to Haiti in the past year to try and make life a little better for those who have suffered so much. I also want to highlight and applaud the brave men and women in our military who were our nation's first responders during the deadly and dark first days of this catastrophe and in the months following the earthquake. For many Haitians, these men and women were the first face of hope in a hopeless situation. Nonetheless, we are all aware of the various challenges that Haiti continues to face and will face for the foreseeable future. We all see the tent cities. Over a million people are still waiting for both ``temporary'' and permanent housing solutions. Dozens of issues, from resolving disputes over land ownership to rubble removal still need to be addressed. For far too many, permanent housing solutions are no closer today than they were on January 13, 2010. Other challenges remain. A cholera outbreak has killed over 3,500 people and affects over 150,000 more. Millions of cubic meters of rubble still remain in Port Au Prince. Add to this mix the controversy and ``irregularities'' surrounding the recently held Presidential and Parliamentary elections and there are plenty of obstacles to rebuilding Haiti. These come on top of the challenges existing pre-earthquake. Additionally, I am distressed and disgusted by the recent reports about the continuing sexual violence and assault being committed in these camps against women and girls. When displacement occurs, whether because of conflict or natural disaster, women almost always suffer the most severe deprivations and consequences. According to UNICEF, a lack of security and the ``hard living conditions'' in the camps have been major factors increasing the risk of violence against women and girls. Our Haiti efforts must prioritize--less with words and with more deeds and actions--the rights of vulnerable Haitian women and girls. And first and foremost, must be their immediate protection against these despicable assaults which violate basic human rights. We must strengthen the UN peacekeeping mission and the Haitian police so they can make stopping these attacks a priority. According to Amnesty International, the risk of rape and other forms of gender-based violence in Haiti's camps has increased ``dramatically'' in the past year and ``Women and girls, already struggling to come to terms with the grief and trauma of losing their loved ones, homes and livelihoods in the earthquake, are living in camps in tents that cannot be made secure, with the constant threat of sexual violence. Without access to medical care and with little prospect of receiving any support or seeing their attackers brought to justice, survivors see no end to their plight.'' The U.S. and international community then must drastically increase their attention and focus on preventing this violence against women and girls immediately. It is also critical for the U.S. to push the Haitian government and other international donors to include women and girls in the rebuilding and recovery decisionmaking process and plans. Their have also been reports of significant delays in moving the aid that Congress approved for Haiti relief, recovery, and rebuilding out of the federal agencies and into the hands of partners on the ground in Haiti. What we need to see in 2011 is not a trickle of assistance but a downpour and I hope that these unnecessary delays have been resolved and the Administration will move to ensure that this relief gets to the Haitian people. We also need to continue to make efforts to strengthen the ability of the Haitian government to take the lead in responding to the long-term rebuilding and recovery needs of the Haitian people. U.S. aid to Haiti, to the maximum extent possible, must be directed through or with the input of the duly-elected Haitian government. While the well-documented problems with recent elections make this goal even more difficult in the short term, I think we all understand that the future for Haiti depends on it having an effective, accountable, and transparent government that responds to the needs of its people. Ramping up housing efforts is also critical at this moment. More than 1 million people--approximately 380,000 of whom are children--still live in crowded camps. USAID has reported that it has spent over $100 million for emergency and transition shelters, including temporary shelters designed to last up to three years. By the end of 2010, its temporary solutions were able to house almost 60,000 Haitians. It is an understatement to say more needs to be done. Additionally, in the mix of all this, sometime this year, the President must also decide whether to continue Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians in the U.S. After the earthquake, at the urging of a number of Members of Congress including myself, President Obama extended TPS for Haitians in the U.S. preventing them from being deported to the devastated country citing among other reasons, that these individuals ``personal safety would be endangered by returning to Haiti.'' That original order will lapse in a few months. It is clear however that Haiti is still in the midst of the earthquake caused crisis that led to TPS being granted. Lastly, even with the best intentions and the most diligent of efforts, problems and challenges will continue to affect the rebuilding efforts in Haiti. A cholera epidemic, Hurricane Tomas, highly controversial recent elections, you name it, it appears it will happen to Haiti. Therefore patience is crucial. We must rededicate ourselves to a long-term commitment to our neighbors in Haiti. Mr. Speaker, we all have an important role to play in Haiti's recovery as it continues on this long road from tragedy to triumph. We know that many hard months remain ahead and much hard work needs to be done. I want to make clear to the Haitian people that the U.S. government commitment to helping them rebuild is no less clear or strong today than it was on that terrible January day one year ago. This is a key moment for Haiti and for testing our commitment that was so evident in the days following January 12, 2010. Normal will not come soon enough for the Haitian people. As we commemorate the tragic events that took place one year ago, let us redouble our commitment, support, and efforts to rebuild Haiti.

Ms. MOORE

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm about the hypocrisy and reckless budget policies the Republicans have rolled out this week. The Republican leadership has declared that a new day is dawning--a day of so-called ``fiscal discipline.'' But even a child could see that their new ``cut-go'' budget loopholes just compound irresponsibility with more irresponsibility. Republicans want free rein to cut taxes but not pay for them and to ignore the fact that health care reform saves us $143 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. These GOP accounting gimmicks will not get our fiscal house in order, but instead will move us closer to the precipice. Before we know it, safety net programs for our most vulnerable populations--like Social Security, and Medicare--will be first on the chopping block. We saw their opening gambit last month when Republicans held the unemployed hostage to win bloated tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, adding billions to the budget deficit. Now they are saying that when they give more tax cuts to the super rich, they don't have to pay for them. The gimmick should be called ``cut-go, tax cut go-go-go.'' I voted against the tax cut package because it was irresponsible, and it was inequitable. These new budget loopholes will only accelerate the erosion of our social safety net. I thought that the Republicans wanted to balance the Federal budget. But this trick takes us in the opposite direction. I urge you to vote against these rule changes.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tonight, by extending the Bush-era tax cuts, the greedy will prevail, and the needy will fail to receive desperately needed social services going forward. Even the so-called middle class Bush-era tax cuts will deliver six times the benefit to the wealthy than to ordinary hardworking families. How many times do we have to hear Republicans boldly declare, We will starve the beast and deny the least social welfare? Frankly, this $1 trillion tax cutting and Social Security gutting feeds right into the 75-year Republican sentiment to eliminate entitlements: $1 trillion debt and goodbye Social Security net. Lure them with short-term gain and usher in long-term pain. Colleagues, beware. Tonight begins the undermining of Social Security and Medicare.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am as disappointed as anyone that the Middle East Peace talks have stalled despite considerable efforts by the Administration and the international community to help both sides make the tough decisions needed to help advance those talks. I understand that some of my colleagues are frustrated with repeated roadblocks that appear only intent on derailing the peace process. I share that frustration. I believe that all who have a clear stake in the peace process are also frustrated. I have long advocated and reaffirmed my strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. Both parties bear responsibility for the success or failure of the Middle East Peace efforts. No one pretends that the issues involved here are easy. I think everyone also recognizes the devastating consequences for the region, for our ally Israel, and for U.S. security interests if the right solution is not found. There are a myriad of issues that have arisen that have complicated talks. Palestinian unilateral declaration of a state is only one, but if you read this resolution you would reach the conclusion that it is the only unilateral action or proposed action that would imperil this process. The House should urge the Administration to take a strong stand with both parties on all unilateral actions that are hindering the peace talks, especially those that were agreed to only a few years ago by the parties in the Roadmap. Middle East peace requires the active engagement of both parties. The Administration, as well as the House of Representatives, should make the expectations for both parties clear: each party must engage seriously on even the hardest issues--making proposals and counter- proposals--and achieve concrete results. As I stated in a letter to President Obama earlier this year in support of strong U.S. engagement as an honest broker 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 this needless cycle of conflict and violence. This does not serve the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, or the Palestinians. This resolution reaches half that goal since it targets only one action by one party. It correctly notes the Administration's opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the potential harm that would do to a comprehensive Middle East Peace Agreement. The same resolution also conveniently skips around other unilateral actions by the parties that may also harm the atmosphere for peace in the region. The resolution notes one quote from Secretary Clinton's speech a few days ago on December 10. Let's look a little deeper into some of the Secretary's other comments in that lengthy speech. Secretary Clinton made clear that the U.S. remains committed to reaching a comprehensive peace deal between the parties with the U.S. playing a key role. She also stated that a peace agreement between the two parties is the ``only path to achieve the Palestinians' dreams of independence.'' She specifically also noted that ``in the days ahead, our discussion with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months . . . The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their position on the core issues without delay and with real specificity . . . We enter this phase with clear expectations of both parties.'' In her speech Secretary Clinton noted that ``the position of the U.S. on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and a two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself.'' The resolution before us today notes support for a negotiated solution but is silent on this issue as if it does not impact achieving that negotiated solution. Secretary Clinton went on to say that both parties, ``to demonstrate their commitment to peace . . . should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.'' Unfortunately, the resolution before us today gets half of the message and only a small fraction of the demands on both parties to help move this process forward, laid out by the Secretary of State last Friday. As noted by Secretary Clinton, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed. I believe the House resolution before us today would have been wise to also heed that advice. The intent of this resolution is to express concern with an action that will put more obstacles in the way of achieving Middle East Peace. I could not agree with that goal more. But let's make sure that we recognize that both parties have an equal responsibility to refrain from such actions.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. We have said that FVPSA keeps the lights on for these programs, and it has always done a great job. The beautiful thing about this program is that the reauthorization authorizes more activities to help us better treat children, in particular, who are traumatized by this violence.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sablan for yielding. I am just so overjoyed to be rising today to celebrate the imminent passage of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, or FVPSA, as well as the passage of CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. By taking swift action to pass these bills before the end of the year, we are taking a stand to protect victims of domestic violence as well as children who are victims of abuse. We are also taking landmark steps to help break the cycle of abuse for generations to come. I want to pause here to personally thank Chairman George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee and Senator Chris Dodd. I have worked so hard to bring attention to these bills, and I have been fortunate enough to have strong allies in these two chairmen, both of whom are extremely committed to these causes. I have had the honor of being the lead sponsor and champion for FVPSA in the House, but I certainly wouldn't be celebrating here today without the good work of Chairman Miller and Senator Dodd. I also need to acknowledge and thank the many advocates and victim service providers who helped shape this legislation and who rallied support at key moments, particularly the advocates for the National Network to End Domestic Violence and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Now, in spite of the fact that we have made great progress towards acknowledging that domestic violence is a crime, a crisis and a threat to public health, we have got such a long way to go. One in four women in this country experiences domestic violence in her life. Every day in this country, an average of three women are killed by a current or former intimate partner. In my State alone, deaths from domestic violence are the highest in a decade, and approximately 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year. In fact, one-half to two-thirds of domestic violence shelter residents are children. The women and men who are victimized live in each and every one of your congressional districts. They come from all walks of life regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion or partisan affiliation. They are members of our families; they are friends; they are neighbors; they are coworkers. As well, some in this room have been victims and survivors of this violence. Since the economic downturn started, we have been hearing more and more horror stories from the shelters and service providers. The economy has been making bad situations worse for an increasing number of victims, many of whom have few resources on which to rely in order to flee their abusers.