Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as I stand under the ``E Pluribus Unum,'' I pray that this body will do as the Senate has done and come together as one to protect all women from violence.

As I think about the LGBT victims that are not here, the native women that are not here, the immigrants who are not included in this bill, I would say, as Sojourner Truth would say, Ain't they women? They deserve protections. And we talk about the constitutional rights. Don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? Ain't they women?

Once again we stand at an important moment in history, when the House stands poised to choose between the Republican ``alternative'' to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the bipartisan, comprehensive Senate bill.

We can choose the real VAWA--which is the Senate bill--that will take positive steps towards ensuring the safety of all women. Or we can choose the House GOP VAWA bill. Now this bill may look good on the surface, bearing the same bill number as the Senate bill. But it is really a wolf in sheep's clothing and would exclude victims and weaken the strong, bipartisan Senate bill.

The choice is ours to make, and the choice is clear.

It pains me to say that House Republicans took the Senate bill, which received such a strong bipartisan vote--winning the support of all Democrats, all female Senators, and a majority of Republicans--and transformed it into something nearly unrecognizable.

I have been a proud sponsor of the House version of the Senate bill-- H.R. 11--and it has truly been rewarding to work to advance this legislation in the House. This bill reflects years upon years of analysis and best practices, and input from law enforcement, victims, service providers, and many more.

But beyond the updates that have been recommended by the experts--the Senate bill is meaningful to me because of the people it will allow us to reach. I know how it feels to survive a traumatic experience and not have access to services. It is simply heart-breaking to think that every day we delay, there are women, and men, across this country who have nowhere to turn.

The Senate version of the VAWA bill, which we will thankfully have the opportunity to consider on the House floor today, would be the one that actually offers hope--to: LGBT victims, tribal victims, women on college campuses, immigrants, rape survivors waiting for justice, and human trafficking victims.

The Republican alternative, on the other hand, is a shadow of the bill these victims need.

I have a number of concerns about the House alternative. Several of the advocacy groups have determined that this legislation rolls back existing protections for victims, much like the bill we considered last year here in the House.

But I'm also concerned about the reality that this House bill further marginalizes the most vulnerable populations of victims. It amazes me, that my Republican colleagues would rather be exclusive than inclusive.

The House bill removes protections for LGBT victims, who face domestic and sexual violence at rates equal to or greater than the rest of us, but who often face barriers to receiving services. Are LGBT women not worthy of protection?

The House bill fails to offer meaningful protections for tribal victims, though domestic violence in tribal communities is an epidemic. Are tribal women not worthy of protection?

The House bill does not include protections for our students on college campuses, though we know that college campuses--which are supposed to be the site of learning and transformation and personal growth--are all too often the site of horrifying assaults against vulnerable young women. Are our young college women students not worthy of protection?

The House bill removes the human trafficking legislation that passed with the support of a whopping 93 Senators. Are we unwilling to protect our women who are being sold throughout this country and abroad like chattel? Are they not worthy of protection?

The House bill is weaker in almost every way, for every group of victims. They even pared down the pieces that have not gained much attention, perhaps assuming we wouldn't notice--like the housing protections that allow victims of violence to quickly get out of dangerous homes and into homes that will keep them safe from further abuse and harm.

Implementing the House GOP VAWA bill would set the plight of women and our country as a whole back indefinitely. But we have a choice and the right choice would be to support the strong, bipartisan Senate version of VAWA--S. 47.

S. 47, the Senate bill. The Senate bill:

Renews successful programs such as STOP Grants and Transitional Housing Assistance Grants, legal assistance for victims, and many others that have helped law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim service providers assist women in need and hold perpetrators accountable.

Includes a new focus on sexual assault--due to the ongoing reality of inadequate reporting, enforcement, and services for victims--including a requirement that STOP grant recipients set aside 20 percent of their funds for sexual assault-related programs.

Includes new tools and best practices for reducing homicide by training law enforcement, victims service providers, and court personnel to intervene more effectively and quickly when they connect with higher-risk victims.

And, of course, the bill improves protections for immigrant survivors, Native American women, and LGBT victims.

As we have debated this bill over the past year or so, I have felt like I was in the Twilight Zone. Some alternate reality, where the passage of a bill; a bill that is supposed to protect all women; a bill that not too long ago would just seem like common sense; a bill that has previously enjoyed broad bipartisan support would be held up and watered down for purely partisan reasons. I found myself asking, ``when will it end?''

The answer to that question is that it ends today. Right now. It is time to put up or shut up. On behalf of all victims and survivors of sexual or domestic assault, I challenge all of my colleagues to make the right choice. We all know that the Senate bill is the real comprehensive Violence Against Women Legislation that will protect all women. And we must vote against the House GOP VAWA and pass the Senate version of VAWA now. Women won't wait any longer. Now is the time to show the people of this country that we value the lives of all women.

Why Section 904 of S. 47 Is Constitutional Under the Supreme Court's

Precedent in United States v. Lara

Based upon Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. Hrg. 112-489, at 129-34(2011) (responses to questions for the record of

Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General)

Section 904 of S. 47, the Senate-passed version of the

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, is

constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). In Lara, the

Supreme Court addressed a Federal statute providing that

Indian tribes' governmental powers include ``the inherent

power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to

exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians,'' including

Indians who are not members of the prosecuting tribe (i.e.,

``nonmember Indians''). Id. at 210 (appendix, quoting the

statute). The Court held generally that Congress has the

constitutional power to relax restrictions on the exercise of

tribes' inherent legal authority, id. at 196, and more

specifically that ``the Constitution authorizes Congress to

permit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal

authority, to prosecute nonmember Indians,'' id. at 210.

The Senate VAWA reauthorization bill, S. 47, uses language

that is nearly identical to the statutory language at issue

in Lara: Specifically, Section 904 of the Senate bill

provides that a tribe's governmental powers

``include the inherent power of that tribe, which is hereby

recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic

violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons,'' including

non-Indians. As Lara strongly suggests, Congress has the

constitutional authority to enact this statute.

The central question raised in Lara was whether Congress

has the constitutional power to recognize Indian tribes'

``inherent'' authority to prosecute nonmembers. The Court's

conclusion that Congress did indeed have this power under the

Federal Constitution rested on six considerations, all of

which apply to Section 904 of the Senate bill as well:

(1) ``the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers

to legislate in respect to Indian tribes,'' id. at 200;

(2) ``Congress, with this Court's approval, has interpreted

the Constitution's `plenary' grants of power as authorizing

it to enact legislation that both restricts and, in turn,

relaxes those restrictions on tribal sovereign authority,''

id. at 202;

(3) ``Congress' statutory goal--to modify the degree of

autonomy enjoyed by a dependent sovereign that is not a

State--is not an unusual legislative objective,'' id. at 203;

(4) there is ``no explicit language in the Constitution

suggesting a limitation on Congress' institutional authority

to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty previously

imposed by the political branches,'' id. at 204;

(5) ``the change at issue here is a limited one, . . .

[largely concerning] a tribe's authority to control events

that occur upon the tribe's own land,'' id.; and

(6) the Court's ``conclusion that Congress has the power to

relax the restrictions imposed by the political branches on

the tribes' inherent prosecutorial authority is consistent

with [the Supreme Court's] earlier cases,'' id. at 205.

Each of these six considerations also applies to Section

904 of the Senate bill. That is self-evident for the first

four of those six considerations.

As to the fifth consideration, like the statute at issue in

Lara, Section 904 of the Senate bill would effectuate only a

limited change. Section 904 would touch only those criminal

acts that occur in the Indian country of the prosecuting

tribe and therefore would not cover off-reservation crimes.

Section 904 would affect only those crimes that have Indian

victims. Tribal courts could not try cases involving only

non-Indians. Unlike the statute at issue in Lara, which

covered all types of crimes, Section 904 is narrowly focused

on a particular subset of crimes: those involving domestic

violence, crimes of dating violence, and criminal violations

of protection orders. The term ``domestic violence'' is

expressly defined in Section 904 to deal with violence

committed by the victim's current or former spouse, by a

person with whom the victim shares a child in common, or by a

person who is cohabiting or has cohabited with the victim as

a spouse. Similarly, Section 904 expressly defines the term

``dating violence'' to mean violence committed by a person

who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or

intimate nature with the victim, as determined by the length

of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the

frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the

relationship. Likewise, protection orders typically involve

spouses or intimate partners.

In combination, these three features of Section 904--being

limited to narrow categories of crimes such as domestic

violence and dating violence, the requirement that the crime

occurred in the prosecuting tribe's Indian country, and the

requirement that the victim be an Indian--will confine

prosecutions to conduct that seriously threatens Indians'

health and welfare and is committed by persons who, though

non-Indian, have entered into consensual relationships with

the tribe or its members. The paradigmatic example of a crime

covered by Section 904 would be an assault by a non-Indian

husband against his Indian wife in their home on the

reservation. Section 904 would not cover crimes involving two

non-Indians, two strangers, or two persons who lack ties to

the Indian tribe.

Section 904 is also limited in its impact on non-tribal

jurisdictions. Under Section 904, tribes would exercise

criminal jurisdiction concurrently, not exclusively. The Act

would not create or eliminate any Federal or State criminal

jurisdiction over Indian country. Nor would it affect the

authority of the United States or any State to investigate

and prosecute crimes in Indian country.

In most respects, then, Section 904 of the Senate bill is

far narrower than the statute upheld by the Supreme Court in

Lara.

As to the sixth consideration analyzed by the Lara Court,

concerning the Supreme Court's precedents, it is noteworthy

that in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191

(1978), the key precedent here, the Court suggested that

Congress has the constitutional authority to recognize and

thus restore Indian tribes' inherent power to exercise

criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Id. at 195 & n.6,

210-12. Indeed, the Oliphant Court expressly stated that the

increasing sophistication of tribal court systems, the Indian

Civil Rights Act's protection of defendants' procedural

rights, and the prevalence of non-Indian crime in Indian

country are all ``considerations for Congress to weigh in

deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized

to try non-Indians.'' Id. at 212.

As the Lara Court explained, the Oliphant decision ``did

not set forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congress

from changing the relevant legal circumstances, i.e., from

taking actions that modify or adjust the tribes' status.''

Lara, 541 U.S. at 205 (citing Oliphant, 435 U.S. at 209-10).

Oliphant ``make[s] clear that the Constitution does not

dictate the metes and bounds of tribal autonomy,'' and the

Federal courts should not ``second-guess the political

branches' own determinations'' about those metes and bounds.

Id. In short, under both Oliphant and Lara, it is

constitutional for ``Congress to change 'judicially made'

federal Indian law through [the] kind of legislation'' that

the Senate is currently considering. Id. at 207.

After analyzing the six considerations listed above and

concluding that Congress can recognize tribes' inherent

authority to prosecute nonmembers, the Court responded to

three ancillary arguments that Mr. Lara had raised. Each of

those arguments is also well addressed by Section 904 of the

Senate bill.

First, Mr. Lara argued that the Indian Civil Rights Act

does not protect an indigent defendant's constitutional right

to appointed counsel in cases imposing a term of

imprisonment. Id. at 207. But under the Senate bill, in any

case in which a term of imprisonment of any length may be

imposed, the tribe must provide to an indigent defendant--at

the tribe's expense--the effective assistance of a licensed

defense attorney at least equal to that guaranteed by the

United States Constitution.

Second, Mr. Lara argued that the statute at issue there

made ``all Indians'' subject to tribal prosecution while

excluding all non-Indians, which he claimed violated the

Equal Protection Clause. The Court did not address the

argument because it would not have altered the outcome of Mr.

Lara's case. But in any event, no such argument could be made

against Section 904 of the Senate bill, because Section 904

recognizes tribes' ``inherent power . . . to exercise special

domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons''

(emphasis added). So the plain text of this legislation,

unlike the statute at issue in Lara, does not distinguish

nonmember Indians from non-Indians.

Third, Mr. Lara argued that United States citizens cannot

be tried and convicted by a political body that does not

include them unless the citizens are provided all Federal

constitutional safeguards. This, too, is addressed in the

Senate bill. Under Section 904, a non-Indian citizen of the

United States would effectively have at least the same rights

in tribal court that he would have in state court. For

example, in any case involving imprisonment, the following

rights would all be protected:

The right not to be deprived of liberty or property without

due process of law.

The right to the equal protection of the tribe's laws.

The right against unreasonable search and seizures.

The right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same

tribal offense.

The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in

a criminal case.

The right to a speedy and public trial.

The right to a trial by a jury of not fewer than six

persons.

The right to a trial by an impartial jury that is drawn

from sources that reflect a fair cross-section of the

community and do not systematically exclude any distinctive

group in the community, including non-Indians.

The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation in a criminal case.

The right to be confronted with adverse witnesses.

The right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in

one's favor.

The right to have the assistance of defense counsel.

The right to effective assistance of counsel at least equal

to that guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The right of an indigent defendant to the assistance of a

licensed defense attorney at the tribe's expense.

The right to be tried before a judge with sufficient legal

training and who is licensed to practice law.

The rights against excessive bail, excessive fines, and

cruel and unusual punishments.

The right to access the tribe's criminal laws, rules of

evidence, and rules of criminal procedure.

The right to an audio or other recording of the trial

proceeding and a record of other criminal proceedings.

The right to petition a Federal court for a writ of habeas

corpus, to challenge the legality of one's detention by the

tribe.

The right to petition a Federal court to be released

pending resolution of the habeas corpus petition.

Finally, one last constitutional concern was aired in Lara,

although it was not discussed in the Court's majority

opinion. Writing only for himself, Justice Kennedy suggested

that the Constitution's structure, based as it is on ``a

theory of original, and continuing, consent of the

governed,'' forbids a tribe from prosecuting any U.S. citizen

who never consented to be subjected to the tribe's

jurisdiction. Lara, 541 U.S. at 212 (Kennedy, J., concurring

in the judgment). Of course, the majority of the Court in

Lara--including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the

Court's opinion in Oliphant--implicitly rejected Justice

Kennedy's view, since Mr. Lara himself was a U.S. citizen who

had never consented to be subjected to the jurisdiction of

the tribe that prosecuted him. Id.

Moreover, the majority correctly rejected Justice Kennedy's

originalist argument because most treaties that the United

States

entered into with Indian tribes between 1785 and 1795--that

is, both immediately before and immediately after the

drafting and ratification of the Constitution--expressly

provided for tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians

residing in Indian country. For example, the very first

Indian treaty ratified by the United States Senate under the

Federal Constitution--the 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot,

Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Sac Nations--

provided that, ``[i]f any person or persons, citizens or

subjects of the United States, or any other person not being

an Indian, shall presume to settle upon the lands confirmed

to the said [Indian tribal] nations, he and they shall be out

of the protection of the United States; and the said nations

may punish him or them in such manner as they see fit''

(emphasis added). Similar language appeared in the last

Indian treaty ratified before the Constitutional Convention--

the 1786 Treaty with the Shawnee Nation. It is difficult,

then, to say that allowing non-Indian citizens of the United

States to be tried and punished by Indian tribes for crimes

committed in Indian country is somehow contrary to the

Framers' understanding of the Constitution's design. Thus,

the Lara Court's holding that Indian tribes' status as

domestic dependent nations does not prevent Congress from

recognizing their inherent authority to prosecute nonmembers

is solidly grounded in our constitutional history. And with

Congress's express authorization, an Indian tribe can

prosecute a non-Indian U.S. citizen, regardless of whether he

has consented to the tribe's jurisdiction.

It is important to note that while the elements of Section

904 discussed above are more than sufficient to address the

considerations raised by the Lara Court, we do not mean to

suggest that each of these elements is required in order to

address these considerations.

Thank you, distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I've listened very carefully and very patiently to all of my colleagues in the House, and it seems that everyone in the Chamber is against violence against women. It's just which women we want to protect that remains the question.

For the last 18 months, it appears that I have lived in some sort of twilight zone, like that program on TV, ``Sliders,'' where there are alternate realities. This debate recalls that alternate reality when we hear support of the House amendment over the Senate amendment, and we hear that all women are protected.

For example, the Senate bill supports LGBT victims but the House bill strikes LGBT women as underserved communities. It also strikes the language that would have them as a protected group to not be discriminated against.

The distinguished floor leader has asked us to find areas in the legislation that are wanting, and I would submit that that is one area that is wanting.

The distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways that the substitute is wanting and the Senate bill is superior.

We give lip service to wanting to support tribal women. But when you stop and think about it, in 1978, the Supreme Court in the Oliphant case decided that Federal laws and policies divested tribes of criminal authority over non-Indians, and the substitute seeks to affirm that, even though that was modified and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lara, which said that, in fact, if this body voted, we could, in fact, confer upon Native Americans the authority to give--we have plenary power to enact legislation to relax restrictions on tribal sovereign authority, that we have the power to allow them to enforce domestic violence laws and rape laws on their land.

We so need it, Madam Speaker, because if you are a member of a tribe--say, for example, the Bad River Chippewa band of Chippewa in my State--and you are raped on native land, tribes don't have any authority over that perpetrator if he is a non-Indian, even if he's your husband. The local police in that area don't have any authority. The county sheriff doesn't have any authority. The State trooper can't come in and arrest him. The only person that has any authority over that non-Indiana is some Federal agent in Madison, Wisconsin, 500 miles away, which is why there has been a 67 percent declination of prosecutions of sexual assault.

Susanville Indian Rancheria,

Susanville, CA, February 4, 2013.

Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Susanville

Indian Rancheria to voice our strong support for S. 47, the

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013.

This bill will provide local tribal governments with the

long-needed control to combat acts of domestic violence

against Native women and children on Indian lands regardless

of the status of the offender.

The current justice system in place on Indian lands

handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who

abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court

decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of

consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their

families.

Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5

times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women

will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will

suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to

stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native

women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors

have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of

domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become

emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate,

often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National

Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates

found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered

at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47

will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all

offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.

While the problem of violence against Native women is

longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions

proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited

in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of

domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement

of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that work

or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a serious

relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S.

47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections

to abuse suspects who would be subject to the authority of

tribal courts.

In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous

consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July

27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure

under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47

are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to

misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader

range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required

under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling

that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly

tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns.

Such concerns are unfounded.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar

restoration of tribal government authority through an

amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this

authority, and Native women throughout the United States

desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded

similar access to justice that many others take for granted.

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest

Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based

crimes, made the following statement:

``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have

become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many

respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware

of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations

which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try

non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to

weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191,

211 (1978) (emphasis added).

This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction

on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal

communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come

for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored

measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far

in helping to prevent future acts of violence against Native

women nationwide. Thank you for again including these vital

provisions in your VAWA Reauthorization.

Sincerely,

Mr. Stacy Dixon,

Tribal Chairman.

Madam Speaker, in a letter written by our friend and colleague Tom Cole, a Member of Congress, he says that he does not support the House substitute to VAWA because it does not adequately recognize sovereignty or give them the tools that they need to combat violence against women.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Why I'm Voting Against the House Substitute Amendment to S.

47

Dear Republican Colleague: I want to let you know why I

will vote against the House substitute to S. 47, the Violence

Against Women Act (``VAWA''). While the House substitute to

VAWA has improved tremendously over what this body passed

last Congress, it falls short of giving tribes what they need

to keep their women safe.

Unlike the Senate version, the House substitute fails to

recognize existing tribal sovereignty that is enshrined in

the Constitution by requiring tribes to seek DOJ

certification before exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian

offenders, and waives tribes' sovereign immunity. It doesn't

make sense to force tribes to abdicate part of their

sovereignty to exercise another part of their sovereignty.

Like most Republicans, I believe in moving control away

from the federal government towards local governments. Tribal

governments are local governments, and tribes do a good job

of taking care of tribal citizens when they have the

resources to do so. Tribes do not support the House

substitute to VAWA because it does not adequately recognize

sovereignty or give them the tools they need to combat

violence against Indian women. I trust the tribes to

understand their needs best, and that is why I will vote

against the House substitute and in favor of the Senate VAWA

bill, S. 47.

Sincerely,

Tom Cole,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Easton C. Wright, a Milwaukee native and veteran having served 10 years in the U.S. Navy as a Seabees in the Navy's Construction Battalion. Mr. Easton will be installed as Postmaster of Milwaukee on March 8, 2013. Mr. Wright is the only African American and the 38th person to earn this distinction since the Milwaukee Post Office was established in 1835.

Postmaster Wright began his career with the United States Postal Service 18 years ago as a letter carrier in Milwaukee. He is now a senior executive with the United States Postal Service having served in many postal positions, including Manager of Operations of Program Support in the Greater Indiana District and as Officer in Charge in Detroit. As Milwaukee Postmaster, he oversees more than 1,500 employees and 760 city delivery routes. Postmaster Wright is responsible for mail delivery, retail sales and other customer service operations at the Milwaukee, West Allis, Wauwatosa, Bay View, Glendale, Shorewood, West Milwaukee and Brown Deer post offices.

Throughout his career with the Postal Service, Postmaster Wright has reached out to veterans and members of the African American community. For over 14 years, Mr. Wright has worked with other veterans to establish a non-profit organization called Veteran's Community Outreach, Inc., which provides mentoring, tutoring, clothing and scholarships to at-risk youth. He served for many years as a member of the Milwaukee Diversity Team to provide an inclusive Postal Service environment. For his efforts he received both local and national recognition, including the prestigious National Postal Diversity Award and the Milwaukee Times 2011 Black Excellence Award as a Community Leader.

Postmaster Wright also served as a mentor to students and other postal employees. Early in his postal career he participated in a community partnership program working at the Lafollette Elementary School in Milwaukee, mentoring students and working with their parents. He developed and implemented a program to encourage parents to take the postal employment exam and offered prospective candidates on-going classes on how to improve exam scores as well as interviewing skills. The classes proved successful and were expanded throughout the community which led to meaningful employment for hundreds of people. Mr. Wright continued to serve as a mentor to many of these new employees.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Postmaster Wright. He continues to be a mentor to veterans and postal employees. The citizens of the Fourth Congressional District, the state of Wisconsin and the nation have benefited tremendously from his dedicated service. For these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Postmaster Wright.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I write to express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Felmers Chaney, a respected and influential community leader. A loving husband for 70 years, brother, relative, and friend to many in Milwaukee, he will surely be missed by all. He was loyal and committed to his family, the Milwaukee community, and the civil rights struggle. Felmers' death leaves a void, but his memory as a true ``servant leader'' provides a remarkable legacy and an example of a life well lived.

Felmers lived a life full of accomplishment and distinction during his time with us. He didn't shy away from controversy and exhibited extraordinary courage in the face of outright racial discrimination during his life. He was a pioneer on many fronts, starting his career in 1947 as only the fourth black officer with the Milwaukee Police Department. Due to his tenacity and failure to acquiesce to racial injustice, he was promoted and became the first black sergeant on the police force serving the department and Milwaukee for 36 years. He supervised roughly 20 officers in the department's 5th District--two or three of whom were black. These same leadership skills and his concerns for those living in Milwaukee's inner city, catapulted him into a leadership position as President of Milwaukee's NAACP in 1987. As its president for 12 years, Felmers was a formidable advocate on behalf of the black community. He spoke out on issues involving the lack of equal access to housing, jobs, education, and he was party to the ``redlining'' lawsuit that successfully challenged the practice of denying mortgages to blacks.

Felmers was not only known for his fight in the civil rights arena, but also for his role in creating economic development opportunities in the inner city. Because of his interest in building up the black community and developing job opportunities, he became the President of the Central City Development Corp., which built the Central City Plaza, a motel and shopping center on 6th and Walnut Street. This further led to his becoming the founder and president of North Milwaukee State Bank, Wisconsin's first black-owned bank. In addition to his years as NAACP president, Felmers also served as president of the Milwaukee Urban League, and in 2000, Gov. Tommy Thompson dedicated Milwaukee's new men's correctional center on N. 30th Street as the Felmers 0. Chaney Correctional Center.

Mr. Speaker, the Milwaukee community stands in awe of all that Felmers did to give back to this community. He has left an indelible mark on me and on those who have chosen to enter public service as a career. Felmers has left a beautiful legacy through his family. Our community and the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin is a much better place to live and work because of him. I thank him for the many families and individual lives he touched over the years.

May God be with all who mourn in the days and months ahead. Along with my staff, I send my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Felmers Chaney, a civil rights leader and the first African American Sergeant in the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). Mr. Chaney passed away on December 5, 2012 at the age of 94.

Mr. Chaney was the son of a dairy farmer and born and raised in Spooner, in northern Wisconsin. He came to Milwaukee to work as a machinist in 1941 but was unable to find work in that field. He was drafted into the Army in 1942. He was sent to officers' candidate school, graduated as a 2nd Lieutenant and commanded troops in England and France.

After the war, he returned to Milwaukee and, at the urging of a friend, he joined the Milwaukee Police Department in 1947. Mr. Chaney became an MPD trailblazer; he was only the 4th black person to serve on the police force serving 36 years as a police officer. Mr. Chaney became the first African American to rise to the rank of Sergeant but this was not without controversy. Felmers Chaney passed the Sergeant's exam in 1954 but was asked if he would consider being a detective with the same pay and no supervision of staff. He declined the detective post; in the mid-60's he supervised 20 officers of which only two or three were African American. He had a reputation of fairness.

Felmers Chaney was elected president of the NAACP--Milwaukee Branch where he served for 12 years. He was a true advocate for the community speaking out on a range of issues including: education, housing and minority hiring and representation. He once described discrimination against blacks in Milwaukee as a ``broken record; it's been going on for the past 40-50 years''

Mr. Chaney championed Milwaukee's inner city development. He was president of the Central City Development Corporation which built the Central City Plaza and he was a founder and president of North Milwaukee State Bank, Wisconsin's first black-owned bank. Felmers Chaney also served as president of the Milwaukee Urban League.

In 2009, Mr. Chaney and his wife, Jessie attended the inauguration of President Obama. Although they both were infirm, they were determined to attend this historic event. He treasured that moment of being able to participate in an event he never dreamed could occur in his lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Mr. Felmers Chaney a civil rights champion, public servant and trailblazer lived, worked, and served in the 4th Congressional District of Wisconsin. Mr. Chaney's legacy will live on through the many people he mentored, his family and the community.

Thank you so much, Mr. Scott.

I would start out by asking you to yield to a question, Mr. Scott, because we heard prior to our discussion here at the Congressional Black Caucus hour, we heard the majority leader and the minority whip discussing spending. I just wanted some clarification.

When we provide tax cuts to anyone, but especially to the top 2 percent, is that spending?

Mr. Scott, just for my understanding and for my constituents to appreciate the scope of this problem, if we were to cut WIC and Head Start and Meals on Wheels for elders and the

low-income heating, we are made to believe that if we were to put all of these kinds of programs on the table that we could maintain the Bush-era tax cuts, that we could maintain most of the unequal treatment of dividends and corporate gains, and that we would be just fine, that we could find $4 trillion in Pell Grants and Head Start moneys.

Am I missing something here?

Except for tax cuts.

Mr. Scott, I thank you for that background because I just wanted to set the record straight.

On the hype that the Grand Old Party is leading us to believe, which is that, number one, extending the Bush-era tax cuts is not spending. It is exactly spending, and that is on the faulty belief that our spending on safety net programs is driving our debt. Social Security does not drive the debt.

I think, Mr. Scott, you have really led us into a clear understanding of Grover Norquist's claim that they really want to do away with government. They want to shrink government down to a size so small that they could drown it in a bathtub. They don't want to recognize the important role of government. They don't want clean air, clean water, food inspection. They want laissez-faire and for-corporate activity.

Now, our debts and deficits have been driven by undeniable, obvious factors. We've had a deep and ongoing recession based on an unregulated Wall Street. We've had expensive and drawn-out wars--the longest war in the history of this country that we're still in the midst of. Then there are the unpaid-for Bush-era tax cuts that have benefited primarily the wealthiest Americans, and of course there is an unpaid- for entitlement program. While we do appreciate the prescription drug program for seniors, Mr. Scott, the greatest beneficiaries of that program are the pharmaceutical companies because they get undue profit from not negotiating on the critical mass that this population provides them, the savings from that program.

So, if they want to talk about entitlement reform, I think a good place to start would be in negotiating for prescription drugs provided through Medicare and also in the recapturing of billions of dollars of overpayments from the insurance premiums under Medicare Advantage. The advantage goes to those insurance companies.

Our debts and our deficits have not been driven by children attending Head Start. Our debts and deficits have not been driven by seniors receiving Meals on Wheels. Our debts and deficits have not been driven by students participating in the TRIO program or receiving Pell Grants, yet we continue to hear the Grand Old Party say that we've got to put these programs on the chopping block so that we can continue tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans.

Now, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, believe it or not, do not agree 100 percent on how to solve the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' situation, but there is 100 percent agreement among Congressional Black Caucus leaders that we do not want an austerity cliff, which will lead to increased poverty and exacerbate the hardship for low and middle class families. The wealthiest individuals and corporations should have to pay their fair share of taxes.

As a member of the Budget Committee and as the Democratic chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I have a lot of thoughts on the fiscal cliff negotiations. First of all, we must include a robust extension of Federal unemployment benefits for workers.

Mr. Scott, has there ever been a time when the unemployment rate--7.2 percent--has ever been this high and, on a bipartisan basis, this Congress has not provided extended unemployment benefits for workers?

Absolutely.

Thank you for that, Mr. Scott. That is a major point, that unemployment compensation extension would provide the greatest stimulative impact, not only for those people who are desperately in need of it, but for our economy as a whole.

We often hear so much about how much people love the little children, and I guess there's only one way to show it during these discussions. The Congressional Black Caucus agrees that we need to maintain some of the provisions that are expiring under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the so-called stimulus, and that's the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

The austerity, Mr. Scott, that we're trying to avoid is that children bear the burden of this recession. They are often hidden faces. They don't vote. They don't contribute to campaigns. But we thought, the Congressional Black Caucus thought, it was really important to put on the table the need to protect children.

Again, we don't think Social Security should be on the table in these fiscal cliff discussions. It's not the driver of the deficits. And further down the line, we think it's important to not mess with the age or switch, change CPI, or any other cuts that would affect beneficiaries.

Let me ask you something about preserving the tax cuts. The President campaigned for a couple of years, but particularly in the last year, on cutting tax cuts for income over $250,000. So am I to understand, Mr. Scott, that that means that millionaires and billionaires will still be getting a tax cut were they to agree to this framework?

So we have heard some people panicking, saying, boy, between me and my husband, our household, we make $252,000 a year. What do we say to someone, a family earning $252,000 a year, that you're going to pay the higher tax rate on $2,000 of your income?

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

I have many, many more questions for you about what the options are, about what we can do. And I know that the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't agree on everything, but it seems to me that the Congressional Black Caucus is very concerned about the math adding up.

That's exactly where I want to go. People are very nervous about this discussion, and the Republicans continue to say that we need to put Medicare on the table. And I know that during the campaign they talked about creating a voucher, premium support under Medicare, which would have cost seniors an average of $6,000 more.

And how does that differ from possibilities that are available under the Affordable Care Act?

Under the Affordable Care Act, which it's really ironic, because if you want to derive some savings under Medicare, and I have no reason to believe that Republicans don't want to do that, why would they continue to be talking about, Governors all over the country talking about, not putting the exchanges together in their States, still some sort of agenda to repeal Medicare?

What savings can be derived out of Medicare from full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, so-called ObamaCare?

So, Mr. Scott, let me see if I've got this straight. Under the Affordable Care Act, we are asking that, instead of having seniors pay more, you know, find themselves in the doughnut hole, that we ask pharmaceutical companies to ask to negotiate drug prices. Over 10 years, that might be $156 billion, $157 billion.

That would be a great reform under entitlement. Another entitlement reform I would just like for you to address that's in the Affordable Care Act would be this so-called Medicare Advantage program. Medicare Advantage, I mean, who doesn't want an advantage?

But the actual delivery of the service, where, to whom does the advantage inure?

So I see, Mr. Scott, that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has joined us, and so I just want to close out by asking this last question, just to wrap this up. So when the President talks about putting $480 billion of cuts on the table for Medicare, without knowing all of those details, a lot of that depends on not reducing benefits to the elderly, but to make sure that pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies and hospitals deliver services in a more efficient way, that people--that the delivery--that we change the way health care is delivered in a way that is efficient, more humane, cost effective and deliver the same level of quality and benefits to the elderly. Is that right?

Leave my Medicare alone.

Well, I thank you so much, my good friend from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. You have always, even before your tenure as a Member of Congress, been an advocate for good, healthy, nutritious food. It really occurs to me that kids can't wait. It's not as if we malnourish them now, that somehow when the economy picks up, we can supply them with calcium and vitamin A and vitamin C, protein and iron that they need retrospectively and say: well, let's just pick up where we left off. Here's this pregnant woman who, if she can just manage to get that child into the world, by the time they are three or four, we'll back up and provide them with that nourishment.

I can tell you that, Jan, you have for a long time been a shero in this. And so has my good friend, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, who will be joining us very soon as well.

We've got to take a balanced approach to this deficit reduction. There is just no question that these programs, which serve women, infants, children, will lose if sequestration takes place as scheduled. We know that every year, millions of women and children depend on health, nutrition, and other services that are provided through their State and local public health departments because of Federal funding.

These services not only include nutrition but well-child and well- mother checkups, basic immunizations, education on healthy eating and nutrition, and referrals, when appropriate, to programs like WIC, which help ensure a healthy start for women and children. Let's not fool ourselves, sequestration will cripple these efforts that help women and children.

According to one estimate, sequestration will eliminate nearly $1 billion in Federal funding for research and programs designed to promote and protect the health of women and children. Many of these programs have already been subject to two straight years of funding cuts and left flat or near-flat funding prior to that. Sequester will cut even deeper and for much longer.

So when we start saying we have to have a balanced approach in terms of raising revenue and cuts, we have already cut $1.7 trillion from these programs. You can cut to the bone and into the bone when you start talking about cutting these programs any more.

Some make the argument that our Nation can no longer afford to invest in programs that support the health and well-being of women and children. I would argue that we cannot afford not to make these investments. We sure hear a lot about ``family values'' that, quite frankly, isn't reflected in the support of funding for programs that aim to provide the most basic of necessities for women and children in need.

I want to talk about one of these programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC serves over 9 million mothers and young children every month, including a majority of infants throughout our Nation, and about one in four pregnant women. The program focuses on low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children under age 5 who are at nutritional risk. We're talking about women and youngsters who are low-income and at risk for some very troubling health and developmental outcomes and very expensive outcomes for our Nation down the road as their health deteriorates because we did not do basic preventive things like giving them a decent meal.

Research has consistently shown that participation in WIC improves nutrition, resulting in overall healthier pregnancies, healthier birth outcomes, and better growth and development of young children. Yet, this hard-fought progress and the lives of at-risk women and children are at risk due to pending budget cuts.

Administrative costs for these programs is just a steal, only about 7.5 percent, meaning that the vast majority of these funds go to getting healthy food, education, and referrals to women, infants, and children in need. So when we talk about the cuts that are called for under sequestration, we aren't talking about trimming overhead or waste. We're talking about taking away food--food, people--and vital services from vulnerable populations. We're talking about denying an infant access to good, healthy breast milk and the food package that they need to help develop normally.

WIC is a short-term intervention that makes a lifelong difference. On average, a woman participates for 13 months, but science tells us that those 13 months make a heck of a difference to mothers and children over a lifetime.

If we can't agree as a nation that ensuring pregnant women, infants, and children are adequately nourished is a must, then what can we agree on? We will not balance the budget by cutting WIC and other Federal programs like the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy Start, and HIV/AIDS programs.

WIC represents less than two-tenths percent of the Federal budget. Funding immunizations for children did not put our Nation in this fiscal mess, but it is these proven, cost-effective innovations that help us all which are poised to bear the brunt of these cuts. In allowing sequestration to occur, we put lives in jeopardy in spite of the considerable evidence that these programs are making a difference and saving costs to the taxpayers down the line.

Thank you so much for this time, Jan. Thank you for doing this Special Order. When we start talking about food, we're talking about a very basic need. And if we're talking about cutting food from infants, we're talking about not making a hard choice, we're talking about making a cruel choice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a mentor, former professional basketball player, community leader, educator, author, and one of the most influential leaders in the food security and urban farming movement nationally and internationally. On November 17, 2012, Will Allen will be honored for his many years of service and contributions to the Greater Milwaukee Community by the Community Brainstorming Conference.

Mr. Allen was born in South Carolina to sharecropper parents. He grew up in Rockville, Maryland where his parents relocated and owned and operated a vegetable farm. He relocated to Milwaukee, his wife's hometown, after completing both a professional basketball and business career. In 1993, he began Growing Power, a national nonprofit organization and land trust. Growing Power is the last working farm inside the Milwaukee city limits, with six historic greenhouses, year- round hoop-houses and farm animal pens, all organized within three acres.

The recipient of numerous awards and honors including: the MacArthur Foundation ``Genius Grant'' in 2008 for his work on urban farming and sustainable food production; in 2010, Allen was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People and worked with Michelle Obama to launch, ``Let's Move!'' a program to fight childhood obesity. In 2012, Allen was presented the Security Benefits Corporation Award for Outstanding Service to Public Education by the National Education Association Foundation; an honorary Doctor of Agriculture degree from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; and also opened Growing Power's Deli and Food Market in Milwaukee's inner city. Will Allen is co-author of the book The Good Food Revolution: Growing Healthy Food, People and Communities.

Will Allen teaches inner-city youth the entire farming process from planting seeds to selling produce at farmers' markets. Partnerships with Milwaukee Public School (MPS) and Growing Power have supplied 40,000 MPS school children in 75 elementary schools with the food it grows. Over the past 20 years, Allen and his team have been traveling the globe setting up ``hoop houses'' that produce nutritious food and create inner city jobs. The hoop houses are home to peppers, cabbage, mushrooms and sprouts as well as Tilapia, Yellow Perch, Lake Perch and Coy. The headquarters and main hoop house in Milwaukee feeds 10,000 people and uses renewable energy. Every January through June, people from all around the world attend informational and hands-on training sessions to learn the techniques and skills involved with creating and maintaining a green house. Growing Power currently has growing operations all across the United States and has made its presence felt outside the states as well, establishing farms in Kenya, Ukraine, central London and the Netherlands.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Will Allen and Growing Power, whose contributions have greatly benefitted the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral. I was so pleased to join members, friends and the community on October 7, 2012, to celebrate 100 years of St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral as a congregation.

It was also a time to give thanks for the spiritual leadership, generosity, dedication, and the sacrifices made by generations of your faithful members. Your congregation has contributed much to the religious, social, cultural and civic life of this city.

Your hard work and decades of effort culminated in this beautiful Cathedral, St. Sava. It demonstrates to your community and to people of faith throughout our area the dedication by people of faith, to honor their beliefs and holy traditions. I am particularly moved by the timeline of over 40 years to establish the first place of worship until the Cathedral's final completion--from 1912 to 1958. I wondered about this significant period of time and then realized that your grandfathers, fathers, sons, brothers and husbands, all who could serve, indeed did serve our country in two World Wars. It is a sacrifice that must always be honored and remembered; a sacrifice that many American immigrants have made in our history. We are so very proud and grateful to acknowledge this commitment.

You have accomplished much my friends. You have worked in our factories, our breweries, legislatures, schools and medical facilities to advance our city, state and country. We have all found a home at Serb Hall that was established by the St. Sava community as a welcoming place for all; it has served as a meeting place for Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen and elected leaders from all levels of government. You have shared in and contributed to the economic and political life of our community.

October 7, 2012, was a day for St. Sava members to celebrate a work well done and to consider the challenges ahead. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to St. Sava Orthodox Cathedral's 100th Anniversary. I extend my heartfelt thanks and deep appreciation for all they have done to enhance the quality of life throughout the Fourth Congressional District. I look forward to the Serbian community's continued involvement and leadership for many years to come.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 592, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 593, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully raise a point of order against H. Res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this point of order, not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some in the underlying bills under consideration here today, H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Rather, I am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice my adamant opposition to the TANF-related resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 118, given the strict closed terms of our debate today.

My goal here today, Mr. Speaker, is to be a voice of reason, and certainly a voice of truth in this debate, because we are all undoubtedly about to hear an astonishing array of half truths and, Mr. Speaker, even lies about the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program or TANF--the lie, for example, that the TANF program was this raving success that took people out of poverty, gave them dignity and put them in good jobs. Well, what it really did was to really kick poor people off the rolls.

You know, under President Clinton, 1996, when we passed the original TANF bill, it was a time of prosperity; and those people, primarily women, who would normally get off the rolls within 2 years, found jobs which were readily available. But even more, primarily women, just simply languished in poverty as a permanent underclass.

Despite the creation of the so-called ``safety net'' under TANF, many, many women have languished in poverty and are still in poverty today. We're not just talking about the poor. We're talking about deep poverty.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that between 1996 and 2011 the numbers of U.S. households living on less than $2 per person per day--the measure of extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank for developing nations--has more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46--nearly 1.5-- million people and that the number of children in extremely poor households has also doubled from 1.4 million up to 2.8 million children living in poverty--children, by the way, who cannot work? We are talking about the poorest of the poor. These numbers are startling given that we are talking about the United States of America, not some Third World country.

Now let's get to the big lie that these resolutions relate to. The Republicans claim that the work requirements have been gutted under the Health and Human Services' guidance. These lies have already been debunked by the

media, by Fact Check checkers, even by the original architects of TANF--for example, by Ron Haskins.

Apparently, our colleagues find it convenient to ignore the facts; but, of course, we have heard throughout this election cycle that the GOP is not going to be dictated by facts. Sadly, I'm not at all surprised that we are forced to engage in this TANF battle on the House floor. I knew that the GOP would challenge the administration's proposal at the earliest opportunity; but, frankly, House Republicans' timing on this could not be worse.

Do you think that the American people are demanding more attacks on the poor from your party this week or that doubling down on a strategy of vilifying the poor is a wise choice--trotting out the mythical, lazy welfare queen who doesn't want to take responsibility for her own life, who is part of the 47 percent who would rather have a so-called ``government handout'' than a job?

I think that the insistence on considering this bill at this moment in history when we should be considering critical issues like the farm bill for our drought-ridden States or the Violence Against Women Act-- or how about this one, Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Act?--rather than political message bills is remarkably tone deaf. TANF was written at a time when our labor market and our economy were radically different than they are today.

I didn't support TANF in 1996, but I certainly don't support it now that I have seen what it has done. It has become a hollow shell of a safety net program. It is not going to be allowed to evolve with the times, and it is now nothing short of completely broken. TANF recipients have been poorly served by the program, which too often locks people into a cycle of poverty through rigid guidelines and red tape while allowing them no access to real opportunity. In its current form, the program makes it extremely hard to move from welfare to work, which is supposedly the goal of the program, an honorable goal of the program.

Mr. Speaker, check this out: States can meet their work requirements even if none--zero--of their recipients find a job. States are only measured by whether or not recipients participate in certain activities for a set number of hours, like if they just job search and never find a job.

Not only are we not moving people from welfare to work in this program, but we are not allowing people any opportunity to get the education and training they might need to compete in the labor market or to learn valuable skills. We are trapping them in so-called ``job- search activities'' that are poorly designed and add up to nothing. TANF just does not provide real opportunities that could translate into better lives for beneficiaries. There are others who are unable to get help at all because the program is not designed to allow them in the door.

Shockingly, States are rewarded for simply lowering their caseloads rather than for moving people into jobs. There is, indeed, an incentive for States to create barriers that prevent the individuals and families with the highest need from even participating. We've heard the horror stories of people who have been kicked off TANF or who couldn't get in in the first place and of the desperate things they've had to do to feed and shelter and clothe their children.

By now, those of us who have been paying even the bare minimum of attention realize that the Republicans have been playing politics with the Obama administration's waiver program and have been playing fast and loose with reality. I would venture to guess that every Member in this Chamber knows the truth, that Republicans and Democratic Governors have been requesting increased flexibility in implementing the welfare reform for many years.

In fact, in 2005, no fewer than 29 Republican Governors asked for increased waiver authority, and given my limited time, I will only name a few of them. We have such socialist Governors like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Texas Governor Rick Perry. How about Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and none other than--drum roll, please-- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney?

Like these Governors, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing States the flexibility to craft welfare systems that meet the specific needs of their job markets and their participants. I know--and I know that many of you know, though you refuse to acknowledge it--that the waiver proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services would meaningfully strengthen our ability to move people from welfare to work.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time I have remaining.

I was once one of those 47 percent--a welfare recipient. I have seen firsthand the successes and failures of this safety net in my community and across the Nation. I support the administration's strategic efforts to guarantee that TANF is a more effective program. I encourage all of my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 118, this resolution of disapproval, and to, instead, work together to build a strong workforce and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield whilst he has too much time?

Will the gentleman yield to a question?

I am asking you if you would yield to a question, not for me to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think Mr. Dold has dealt very well with very many of the specifics of H.R. 2827 relating to the regulations of municipal advisers. So, before I lose people, I want to briefly talk about the process that brought the bill to this point, and I want to thank a lot of people for their contributions to the final legislation.

As you've heard, the bill that passed the Financial Services Committee by 60-0 reflects the legislative process at its absolute best. It was a collaborative effort between Republicans and Democrats, issuers and market participants, and very, very diligent staffers on both sides of the aisle. If there is a single element that is most responsible for the bill's getting to this point, it is the integrity of the people involved. It speaks to their professionalism in that they stayed at the table and negotiated with the singular purpose of getting to the best result for the municipal market. There were times when the issues were tough and the disagreements real. There were times when it would have been very easy for people to just give up and walk away.

But to the credit of all involved, everyone kept talking and kept searching for solutions.

Mr. Dold deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his leadership of this bill. He was consistently willing to engage tough issues in an open and thoughtful manner. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues on the committee, Republican and Democrat alike, for their invaluable input as we negotiated the bill. Finally, I think it is important that I mention the important contributions of Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters. At many critical points, both were instrumental in providing guidance.

H.R. 2827, which passed the House Financial Services Committee 60-0, almost didn't pass at all as there was so much confusion generated from the SEC promulgating a rule that initially was very confusing. It's only the second legislative effort related to Dodd-Frank to pass the committee unanimously.

Prior to the passage of Dodd-Frank, non-dealer advisers to municipal governments were unregulated. These unregulated parties were involved in a number of municipal market scandals that ultimately defrauded taxpayers. Section 975 brings municipal financial advisers, swap advisers, placement agents, and GIC brokers under Federal securities law. It is a goal that is not partisan.

Unfortunately, in 2010, the SEC released a proposed rulemaking related to section 975 that created massive confusion in the municipal market regarding how section 975 would be applied in the real world. H.R. 2827 seeks to clarify section 975 to provide certainty to the market so that the rules can be implemented and taxpayers can benefit from the protection it brings. This bill takes a fundamentally different approach from the SEC and the definition of municipal advisers. It makes ``municipal adviser'' an exclusionary definition, rather than trying to outline and define certain transactions which end up being very vague and overly broad.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

It doesn't unnecessarily sweep in the universe of other professionals or impinge on the relationships of issuers and other market participants engaged in legitimate and necessary market activities like underwriting, providing accounting services, engineering advice, or offering traditional deposits and cash- management services to municipalities. It is a straightforward approach that effectuates the goals of 975 while meeting the real world needs of market participants.

I want to urge all my colleagues to support this important regulatory legislation. Again, I cannot thank the participants enough who participated in this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

I just want to say again that I think we need to credit Mr. Dold, who is a fairly new Member. We actually listened to Members who were senior Members and didn't base it on our partisan differences as so often occurs. We really respected people's experience, and listened to their advice very earnestly.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Whereas, Jacqueline C. Allen, the reigning matriarch of our family was born seventy-five years ago on June 26, 1937, in St. Louis, Missouri; and

Whereas, in the early 50's ``Jackie'' and her family made the decision to move from Missouri to Wisconsin. ``Jackie'' and her family resided in what I call the ``center of the universe'' Racine, Wisconsin for approximately three years before moving to what is now the 4th Congressional District of Wisconsin, which includes the City of Milwaukee; and

Whereas, Jackie continued her education in Milwaukee receiving certification in Early Childhood Development from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; and

Whereas, not only did Jackie work creatively and lovingly with children from infancy to K-5, but Jackie also distinguished herself in the following careers: as a Housing Counselor for the City of Milwaukee where she assisted hundreds of residents in peril of foreclosure; Jackie was also a compassionate and competent Special Liaison with the Milwaukee District Attorney's office in outreach and support of battered women; and

Whereas, Jackie was honored by being selected as ``Queen of Protocol'' for the opening ceremonies of Milwaukee's historic African World Festival; and

Whereas, in the early 70's Jackie was one of the original organizers of the Welfare Warriors, a group that empowers predominantly women of every race, creed and color and continues to impact our country and community to this present day; and

Whereas, a portrait of Jackie has been on display in the Milwaukee Public Library system for several decades as a tribute to Jacqueline C. Allen as one of Milwaukee, Wisconsin's most ``positive people''; and

Whereas, as a family we are well aware that not only is Jackie positive but she is also persistent and powerful. Jackie has positively impacted her family decade after decade and generation after generation.

Therefore, it is with the utmost pride that I will stand on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington, DC and convey to my colleagues and residents across the country the love and joy that I shared on July 22, 2012 on the occasion of the 75th Platinum Birthday Jubilee of my loyal constituent and my loving sister, Ms. Jacqueline C. Allen.

To God be the Glory!

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for one vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon (September 13).

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 575-- H.R. 1775--Stolen Valor Act of 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by expressing my deepest appreciation to the manager of this bill, Representative Biggert, and also a cosponsor of this legislation, in addition to Representative Bachus and Representative Waters, a bipartisan initiative.

As Mrs. Biggert has indicated, this study was originally included in the flood insurance bill that passed the House but was later dropped for reasons of expediency. It was not controversial in negotiations with the Senate. I believe that a community-based flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving option for communities within the framework of the overall National Flood Insurance Program.

The potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. H.R. 6186 would require FEMA to study voluntary community- based flood insurance options and examine how such options could be incorporated into the National Flood Insurance Program.

The idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a National Flood Insurance Program-participating community or a FEMA-designated flood plain so that everyone in the community would pay the same rate. Now, this approach has merit because it means not only potentially lower rates due to increased participation, but there is also the option of providing lower-income households with access to vouchers to purchase flood insurance as part of the group.

The group rating, of course, would spread the risk to an affordable extent for each individual homeowner. An analogy for this concept is group or employee health insurance coverage versus individual coverage. We all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to the economies of scale of streamlined underwriting. The difference is, in this case, a community, not an individual, would be the policy holder.

Now, this brings me to a very important potential benefit of this approach: increased incentives for communities to take affirmative actions to mitigate the threat from floods in the community. Now, while an individual flood insurance holder has absolutely no incentive or means to, say, build stronger levees or dikes, a community policyholder would have the means and incentives to take those kinds of precautions. In theory, under this model, the homeowner would pay insurance like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Finally, I want to point out that there is precedent for this idea. Under current regulations, FEMA could issue group flood insurance policies. The program was limited, but it was successful. This bill only adds that FEMA examine the cost and benefits of using this approach on an ongoing basis as an option for communities.

I urge all my House colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 4264 will further strengthen and protect the MMI fund, and I would urge all Members to adopt this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.