Floor Statements

Offered By: Ms. Moore

Amendment No. 2: Add at the end of the bill the following:

Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment that is at the desk.

I do thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment would simply ensure the low-income communities and the public health generally of all Americans are considered in the bill's section on studies about the impact of this regulation.

I offer this amendment, Mr. Chair, in hopes that we might have an honest debate, a debate that is inclusive of those most affected by the very policies that my colleagues are attempting to tie up and, in two cases, outright prevent.

Let me be frank with you, Mr. Chair. I was born in 1951, and I grew up gasping for breath most of my life. I grew up in an industrial city, a manufacturing city in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and I had my first asthma attack shoveling coal into a furnace and then gasping for breath because of the smog that was generated from manufacturing. Thank God for the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.

We have seen tremendous health benefits over the years, thanks to the work of the Environmental Protection Agency, and not only the bureaucracy, but the courts that have made sure the deadlines are enforced and not simply thrown to the curb. According to a recent EPA study, we have substantial and hard scientific proof that protecting our Nation's air quality from hazardous pollutants is a very substantial benefit.

In 2010, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, and 1.7 million asthma attacks.

We do know that the Clean Air Act regulations by the EPA especially helped low-income communities who are often impacted by environmental injustices and other vulnerable populations.

A recent 2-year-old study by the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern Carolina analyzed 300 different metropolitan areas and ranked them based on how pollution affects low-income and minority communities.

This study cited that air pollution is unevenly distributed within States as well as between them. A growing body of research has demonstrated that people of color and low-income communities often face the greatest environmental hazards. And the area that I represent in the metro Milwaukee area came in in the top 10 cities in both cases.

I just would like to add my own personal experience to the body of this research.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm sorry. You would be happy to accept it, you say?

Well, I do thank the gentleman for accepting this amendment.

I do repeat that the two parts that this bill had formally included prior to your accepting my amendment would have made it impossible for a State that wanted clear air--they would find themselves hopeless because it would basically eviscerate their ability to prevent pollution from crossing the border. So I do appreciate the gentleman accepting my amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have pledged my strong support for the goals of the National Breast Cancer Coalition's, NBCC, newly launched initiative, Breast Cancer Deadline 2020, and I encourage all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to join me. This initiative represents an historic commitment to dedicating the resources, expertise, and strategic planning we need to end breast cancer, once and for all. Breast cancer has affected too many of my constituents, family members, and friends to count, and caused far too much heartache. We can no longer tolerate stagnant rates of incidence and mortality. We must generate the will, and the investment we need, to eliminate breast cancer within the next decade.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition assures us that this goal is within reach, but it will require strategy and wisdom to attain. That is why NBCC has developed a multi-faceted strategy that has the potential to deliver the results we have been waiting for. The Breast Cancer Deadline 2020 plan includes a strong focus on science and research, with an emphasis on metastasis and primary prevention. The plan also includes a role for government; key players will convene to identify the most effective role for government to play in supporting research and health care. NBCC will release annual progress reports on the state of its work, and set forth guidance for the coming year. Alongside these strategic efforts, NBCC will engage in a large-scale effort to change the conversation surrounding breast cancer and engage the public to build momentum for the campaign.

NBCC's Breast Cancer Deadline 2020 campaign holds the promise of a new and improved approach to ending breast cancer. This is not an easy task, but with this kind of renewed energy and commitment, I have faith that we can get the job done. I know that the National Breast Cancer Coalition will wage a smart, well-organized fight in the next few years. I look forward to doing whatever I can to lend my voice and support for this campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with my colleague from Ohio, Marcia Fudge, to introduce the ``Fair and Equitable Postal Service Act.''

We are all concerned about the fiscal crisis facing the United States Postal Service. This summer, the Postal Service released a list of some 3600 post offices, branches, and stations that are under review for closure or consolidation. According to recent testimony by the Government Accountability Office, as many as 12,000 Postal Service retail facilities may be on the chopping block in the next few years.

While Congress gave the Postal Service authority ``to determine the need for post offices, postal and training facilities and equipment, and to provide such offices, facilities . . . as it determines are needed,'' that same charge also requires that postal services be established ``of such character and in such locations, that postal patrons throughout the Nation will . . . have ready access to essential postal service.''

The legislation we introduce today would give the Postal Service guidance as it works to balance those obligations in a way that ensures that these closures don't fall on the backs of the most vulnerable. It would require the Postal Service, as it considers closures, to specifically examine the needs and impacts of its closures on low- income, elderly, and other populations that have the least means to access alternatives because of limited transportation options and internet access.

For these populations, their local offices provide a range of services that they simply may not have the resources or ability to access elsewhere. The need for this bill was only reinforced yesterday with the release of a Census Bureau report which found that that the poverty rate increased in 2010. There were 46 million people in poverty last year. If you don't have enough money to pay for food and keep the lights on, what are the chances you have the income to pay for broadband to access postal services online?

Further, this legislation would prevent any closures that would have a ``disproportionate, unreasonable, or undue burden on these populations.'' The impetus for this legislation was the proposal by the Postal Service to close 5 out of the 26 retail facilities in the Milwaukee area. Every one of the facilities under review are located in one portion of the city with high rates of poverty. If approved, these closures would effectively cut off postal services for residents in these communities.

Too often decisions like these are driven by only one consideration: cutting costs. This bill sends a message to the Postal Service that it must consider the challenges faced by these populations when access to postal services is reduced.

The Postal Service is a national service. It's trusted by the American public. It offers services that are a vital lifeline for all Americans at all income levels, ages, and stages in life. Congress mandated a nationwide postal service--not a two-tier system where post offices in high income areas are able to keep their lights on while those in inner-city and rural communities slowly fade away. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Antonio M. ``Tony'' Perez, recipient of the 2011 Frank P. Zeidler Public Service Award. Mr. Perez is a long-time social justice advocate, mentor, community leader and consummate professional. He currently serves as secretary-executive director of the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM). The Frank P. Zeidler Public Service Award acknowledges residents whose efforts most embody the social justice and public service values and vision of former Mayor Zeidler, who died in 2006 at the age of 93.

Mr. Perez' body of work has been exemplary. He founded the Milwaukee Community Service Corps (MCSC), a non-profit vocational training organization that continues to provide employment and education to young adults in Milwaukee. It was modelled after the 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Mr. Perez developed a holistic program that integrates education and life skills with on-the-job work experience for low-income 18-23-year-olds. During his tenure at MCSC from 1991 to 2000, more than 900 participants found jobs and received more than $4.5 million in income. MCSC serves an average of 100 young participants per year and has served approximately 2,000 young adults since its inception.

In 1996, Mr. Perez was one of six inspirational youth role models and mentors profiled on PBS', ``The Merrow Report: Searching for Heroes''. Mr. Perez serves on a number of prestigious committees and has received numerous awards including member of the Executive Committee of the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, past president of the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, and has served as a consultant to the Peace Corps. In 2006, HACM received the prestigious World Leadership Award in London, England for developing solutions to housing that are innovative to city leaders around the world. Also, in 2007 Mr. Perez was recognized by the National Child Labor Committee with the Lewis Hine Award.

At HACM, Mr. Perez oversees an internationally-recognized agency that provides affordable housing options for over 12,000 low-income families, elderly and disabled persons in the City of Milwaukee. During his tenure, the agency received or leveraged more than $265 million in development resources. Accomplishments while at HACM include the construction of the $28 million Milwaukee Job Corps Center in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Labor. The facility opened in the fall 2010 and has resulted in the creation of over 125 administrative, teaching, health care and service jobs. Additionally, during his tenure the City of Milwaukee obtained a five-year, $24 million federal Enterprise Zone grant that helped thousands of youth gain training and employment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud Antonio M. ``Tony'' Perez hails from the 4th Congressional District and that I can call him friend. I am honored to give praise to his many accomplishments and life time commitment to youth and the entire Milwaukee Community. I wish him many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, the President has sent us the American Jobs Act, a plan to put the country back to work while it makes investments in our struggling economy.

This bill would modernize and rehabilitate 30,000 public schools; establish a desperately needed infrastructure bank; pump $50 billion into our aging roads, bridges, railroads, and airports. In fact, we have 71,000 ``structurally deficient'' bridges in this country. We're falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to modern railways, roads, and schools. And this bill is of critical importance to my district. Of the Nation's cities, Milwaukee has the second-largest percentage of its workforce in the manufacturing sector. Passing this bill means jobs for my constituents making support beams for bridges, manufacturing tools, building engines, putting together construction equipment, designing and producing computers for airports; trucking, rail, and port transportation. And yes, it even means making bacon and eggs at the local diner to support these workers.

Mr. Speaker, let's put America back to work. Pass the American Jobs Act and pass it now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2218, which would strike a provision that allows Governors to apply and receive direct grants from the Federal Government and preempts State education agencies from their oversight and operational responsibilities. Let me say before I defend this amendment that I think that H.R. 2218 makes very critical changes to the charter school program that are long overdue, and it moves in the right direction in terms of being more inclusive of students, including groups that have typically had limited access to charters such as students with disabilities and English language learners. I believe that my amendment will secure and protect these improvements and expansions of charter school programs.

I really question the wisdom of putting Governors' offices in the business of overseeing charter programs and implementing these extremely complex programs. We do know that Governors' offices do not have the infrastructure, expertise, or staff to do the job--a job which includes close monitoring of schools, holding authorities accountable, and much more. These are intricate programs with multiple moving parts that require time and labor-intensive administration.

I do believe that in my own State of Wisconsin, for example, we have constitutionally elected superintendents of public instruction. And it should remain within their purview to oversee and administer this program. Certainly, we all want Governors to be involved. But I think that my amendment makes it really clear that the ultimate responsibility should stay with those State public instruction agencies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentlemen for responding, even though they are opposed.

Let me say that I am old enough to have gone through several gubernatorial races; and Governors run for office based on crime prevention and crime control, economic development, lowering taxes, environmental protection, and even welfare reform. And so the public in many States have elected to elect separate constitutional officers that deal solely with educational opportunity. And by not adopting this amendment, we are literally cutting off the legs of the statewide constitutional officers to do the only duty for which they are elected, and that is for educational purposes, and transferring those duties to a Governor whose agenda may have nothing to do with education at all.

With respect to the notion that the Governor has to work with the statewide superintendent of public instruction, under current law right now, superintendents do work with the Governor. And so I am sad that this is being opposed by both the majority and the minority on this committee because I do think that, rather than expanding opportunities for these 420,000 charter school students, it is going to really put them all under the purview of some ideology of some Governor, Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever. They are going to be subsumed by ideology instead of under the purview of a publicly elected State public instruction superintendent.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012 Department of Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 2584. An appropriate short title for this legislation would be the ``Let's Leave our Air and Water Dirtier Act of 2011.''

This bill leaves no stone unturned in the majority's relentless attack on our environment. National parks are slashed. Even in the midst of the economic downturn, Americans have continued to visit our national parks and we need to continue to ensure that their experience is a safe and reflective one.

Wildlife refuge funding is cut. The bill also targets the only program (the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program) that helps us help conserve wildlife and their habitat before they become endangered or threatened. This represents a whopping 64 percent cut for this state-based conservation program.

The bill reduces funding for land acquisition funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund--which does not use taxpayer dollars but oil revenues--to $66 million, a 78 percent reduction from FY11, the lowest level of funding in the history of the program.

The bill also targets grants that help keep pollution out of our Nation's waters, including the Great Lakes. Keeping that body of water clean is absolutely critical to my region's economy. Businesses don't set up shop next to polluted bodies of water. Tourists don't go to visit or fish in polluted bodies of water. We know what happens when we ignore the state of our natural resources. Do we really need to have our lakes catch fire for some on the other side to understand the importance of this funding?

According to the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, the region's twelve states account for 33 percent of the Nation's population, 32 percent of its GDP, 30 percent of its merchandise exports, and 28 percent of its patents.

Local governments in the region on both sides of the border contribute an estimated $10 billion in annual investments in wastewater systems to keep pollution out of the Great Lakes. Is it too much to ask the Federal Government to adequately support this effort as well? I think not.

Yet, H.R. 2584 slashes the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) by $50 million compared to current levels and by $100 million compared to the President's request. If this level is approved, the funding levels for this initiative will have been slashed in half in the two appropriations bills that the new House majority has brought to the floor this year.

The GLRI is critical to the Great Lakes which contains some 20 percent of the world's freshwater and 84 percent of the surface water supply in North America. Because this body of water is so vast, there is a perception that these waters are inexhaustible. In reality, this water resource--that millions of Americans and businesses rely on every day--is finite, intensely used, and ecologically fragile. The initiative is guided by sound science and an action plan with performance measures and accountability standards. Over 300 restoration projects are already underway and demand for funding continues to outpace supply. Just approaching halfway in this 5-year initiative, now is not the time to start pulling back.

The Great Lakes Metro Chambers of Commerce Coalition estimates that every $1 in federal investments generates some $6 in other funds for restoration efforts.

This cut endangers efforts to remove contaminated sediments like PCB's from the Great Lakes. I don't know how allowing these poisons to linger in the Great Lakes somehow advances our national interests.

GLRI provides funds that are also a vital and active part of current efforts to keep the Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes. The Asian Carp have the potential to devastate the Great Lakes. Asian Carp could kill a billion dollar industry, cost jobs, and cost taxpayer money at all levels of government to ``manage'' this invasive species if it were to somehow get into the Great Lakes. The Administration's Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework directs $26 million in FY 2011 GLRI funds to fighting the Carp. These ongoing efforts will require continued support.

Restoration of the Great Lakes can be one of the great environmental success stories of our time. We still have a way to go and unwise cuts now will harm the region's environment and economic outlook.

My colleagues from the region--both Republican and Democratic-- recognize the shortsightedness of the funding cuts for the GLRI in this bill and have offered amendments to restore funding levels for the GLRI. I am pleased to support those amendments, including the LaTourette amendment which restored

funding to the FY 2011 levels, which was approved by the House recently. However, I am concerned that this amendment reduced funding for climate change programs to restore GLRI funding even as climate change will have an enormous impact on the Great Lakes, and the citizens and industries that live, work, and recreate in the region. We must continue to work together to keep these waters ``Great.''

I also note the provisions in the bill that would undermine the work done since passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to get and keep pollution out of our air and water, and as a result, out of our bodies.

The bill also included a provision that would cease listings of species for protection under the Endangered Species, a radical proposal that would do much harm. The majority is declaring ``open season'' on endangered species across our country. I was glad to vote to remove that harmful provision.

We have a responsibility to help get our Nation's finances in order. But we also have a responsibility to maintain our Nation's irreplaceable resources. What we don't keep clean today will cost us much more to clean up tomorrow. That's what the brownfields and Superfund sites we still are cleaning up today tell me.

We don't want to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of debt or deficits. Good. But let's also not leave those same children and grandchildren a legacy of closed beach and no swimming signs, of ``code red'' poor air quality days, and of increasing sewage overflows into local bodies of water. I oppose this bill and will vote no on it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So many of my colleagues have said that it was necessary to storm the White House and take the country hostage in the name of their grandchildren, so I wanted to go on record talking about what I want for my grandchildren.

I want Head Start for my grandchildren. I want WIC programs and early childhood education programs for my grandchildren. I want my kids to go to a school where they can participate in the science fair. I want immunizations for them. I want research done for food safety to make sure that the chicken nuggets are safe. I want clean air and clean water for them. I want jobs where they invent things, like new energy sources. And, yes, I want them to be contributing citizens and pay taxes. And I want a safety net for them in case they are disabled, and when they become elderly, and if they get cold in the cold winters of Wisconsin, that they'll have some energy assistance.

I want my grandchildren to have the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 690, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I had breakfast this morning. I had granola and yogurt, a little fruit, an egg and bacon sandwich, and I'm feeling irritable because I didn't have my coffee. I'm looking forward to a delicious lunch that I've planned at about noontime.

But in the meantime, on the Horn of Africa, 11 million people are facing starvation. And not because they're lazy people or unworthy people, but because they're suffering from the biggest drought that they have seen in 60 years, because they're experiencing flooding, because there are people who have stepped away from the loving care that we usually extend to others of our brothers and sisters, others who are human beings on this planet. Tens of thousands of people will die.

There is an official famine that has been called by the United Nations. And for those of you who know what a famine is, it's not when you don't have a particular thing like me--I didn't have my coffee this morning. Famine exists when at least 20 percent of the population has extremely limited access to basic food requirements, global acute malnutrition exceeds 30 percent, and the death rate exceeds 2 out of 10,000 per day for the entire population.

An example that was in the news recently is of a 7-month-old Somali boy who weighed the same amount as any one of our newborns--weighed 7 pounds. A 7-month-old boy weighed 7 pounds. That is an example of what happens in a drought.

And what are we doing here in the United States of America, the world's largest humanitarian donor, when the United Nations has called for, on July 20, has asked for more than $1.6 billion to support the humanitarian response in the next 12 months urgently, desperately needed to address and abet this bourgeoning humanitarian crisis that is unfolding? We are in the midst of cutting funding of our foreign aid and peace food budget.

The fiscal year 2012 Agricultural appropriations budget bill that passed a few weeks ago, over my opposition, cut this program by $200 million. It was heartbreaking to see amendment after amendment after amendment come forward to cut it further, and even amendments to eliminate it completely.

The United States, as the world's largest humanitarian donor, we need to do more. We talk about balanced budgets here; and there are people in this world, our brothers and sisters, who don't even have a balanced meal on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we not become numb to the conditions of peoples around the world. Less than 1 percent of our budget goes toward foreign aid, and that includes operations of the State Department and everything, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking that in these discussions of debt and deficits that we do not turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to those people who are starving.

In closing, I just want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that of course we know who suffers disproportionately among the poor, the usual suspects. Women and children are disproportionately represented among those who are food insecure, those who are starving, and those who die.

I thank my colleague for yielding and for his continued leadership to make sure that we do not forget or overlook this tragedy that is currently occurring in the Horn of Africa. I know that as chairman, and now, ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee, he has been a true leader in working to empower the people and nations of Africa.

The United Nations has declared a famine in parts of Somalia and an emergency humanitarian crisis throughout the Horn of Africa--including Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia.

In Somalia alone, tens of thousands of people have died in the past three months because they cannot get enough food to keep themselves alive.

Tens of thousands will surely die in the coming months if the international community, led by the U.S., does not respond quickly and comprehensively. Famine exists when at least 20 percent of the population has extremely limited access to basic food requirements, global acute malnutrition exceeds 30 percent, and the death rate exceeds 2 out of 10,000 per day for the entire population.

The lives of over 11 million people in East Africa are at risk. That is twice the population of my state of Wisconsin. And as usual, those most vulnerable women and children are suffering disproportionately. One in every three children in southern Somalia is malnourished (some 550,000 total). UNICEF estimates that 2.3 million children are suffering from acute malnutrition in the region.

These numbers don't include those who are dying on literal ``roads of death'' as they attempt to flee famine in Somalia to neighboring countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea) that are struggling with drought themselves.

There was a news report recently about a 7-month old Somali boy who weighed the same as a newborn, some 7 pounds. At this stage in his life, he should weight three times as much. A nurse at the refugee camp his family made it to recently puts the little boy's odds of survival at 50-50, a flip of a coin.

The U.N. has asked for some $1.6 billion to support the humanitarian response in the next 12 months.

Yet, as the humanitarian crisis unfolds, this Congress is in the midst of cutting funding our foreign food aid budget. The FY 2012 Agricultural Appropriations bill that passed a few weeks ago over my opposition, would cut Food for Peace programs by some $200 million. During that debate, some of my colleagues offered amendments to even make deeper cuts and even eliminate funding for that program all together. It's as if we are telling the men, women, and children desperately searching for food, to ``keep warm and well fed.''

I hope that my colleagues on the House Foreign Operations Committee will not make that same mistake and will in fact boost funding for our global humanitarian aid programs which will be needed as this crisis unfolds.

The U.S., as the world's largest humanitarian donor, must do more if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be averted.

Tens of thousands of lives can be saved, but the window of opportunity to do so is extremely limited and is closing even as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Reverend Dr. Rolen Lewis Womack, Jr. and Reverend Dr. Betty Washington Womack, the founding pastor and first lady of Milwaukee's Progressive Baptist Church. After 23 years of dedicated service to their congregation and the greater Milwaukee community, they are retiring to their native Texas.

While fulfilling his role as pastor/teacher/prophet, Dr. Rolen Womack completed his Doctor of Ministry degree at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He is a native of Houston, Texas and is a graduate of Texas Southern University with an earned Masters of Divinity degree from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, Illinois. Dr. Betty Womack is a native of Galveston, Texas, a graduate of Huston- Tillotson College and an earned Masters of Education degree from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. She served as Director of Student Services in the Beaver Dam School District and received her administrative certification at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She received a Doctorate of Education from Milwaukee's Cardinal Stritch University.

Dr. Rolen Womack has a social justice activism and community advocacy ministry that features an Afrocentric frame of reference. He is one of the strongest advocates in the community and is a frequent guest on local radio talk shows and local television on issues related to justice and public education. Dr. Rolen Womack has been featured in Education Weekly and other periodicals and has participated in educational forums in many major cities.

The ministry at Progressive Baptist includes a Youth Ministry, Music and Stage Ministry, Discipleship and Men's Fellowship, Women's Fellowship, W.I.N.G.S. HIV-AIDS ministry and Custodial and Fiscal Ministries. Dr. Betty Womack has a strong commitment to the development of youth and youth programs at Progressive. She has fostered the Christian development of youth by organizing and administering Vacation Bible School and Youth Outings to historic and scientific sites. Together they actively work with new members in Foundation classes to integrate them into the life of Progressive Church. Dr. Betty Womack is the past president of the W.I.N.G.S. HIV-AIDS ministry.

She is the past President of the Wisconsin Pastor's Wives Association and the former Executive Board Member of the American Baptist Education Association of Wisconsin. He is the past president of the Wisconsin Baptist Pastors Conference, a director of the Minority Ministers Alliance, past General Secretary of the

Wisconsin General Baptist State Convention, and serves on the boards of various organizations. They are the proud parents of two daughters: Cheray and Brooke.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that I can call them friends. I commend them for their many years of valued service to citizens of the 4th Congressional District. I wish them the very best in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, when I became a Member of Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And I rise today to affirm that commitment by speaking out against State efforts to undermine the basic right to vote--a right that has been affirmed by no less than three amendments to the Constitution: the Voting Rights Act; over 150 years of litigation, blood, sweat, tears, and lies. No right under the Constitution has been more defended by the American people. Yet Wisconsin just passed a very restrictive voter ID, photo ID card in order to vote.

I can remember when then-Representative Walker and I, the Governor of Wisconsin, debated this issue. And he, like so many other people, said, Well, what's the big deal? What's wrong with having a photo ID? You need a photo ID to go to Blockbuster's and get a video. You need a photo ID to drive. You need a photo ID to get medicine. Well, getting a video from Blockbuster's is not a right. The right to vote is a very, very important badge of democracy in this country. We need a very high bar before we make it more difficult to exercise our rights as U.S. citizens.

And what's the bar that Wisconsin uses to justify its law? The Wisconsin Attorney General's office found in the 2-year Election Fraud Task Force investigation that there were 20 instances of possible voter fraud out of 3 million votes cast. That's seven-thousandths of 1 percent. And a photo ID would not have prevented any of these discrepancies.

People of color are singled out for disenfranchisement when you consider in Wisconsin that 55 percent of African American women, 49 percent of African American men, 59 per of Latinas, 46 percent of Latinos don't have this kind of ID. And when you consider the 18- to 24-year-old group, 78 percent of African American males don't have this ID and 66 percent of African American women don't have the ID. I wonder who they're trying to disenfranchise.

We implore the Department of Justice to intervene and prevent these extremely transparent efforts to burden likely Democratic voters at the polls.

Mr. Speaker, you've heard the so-called ``experts'' predict the economic consequences of default on the debt, but your question is, what does this have to do with me? And Gwen, can you please tell me what this means in plain English? For example, the Federal Reserve analysis that default would cause point increases in Treasury yields. Translation: Every point increase means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs--your job.

The economist William Seyfried said a 1 percent change in GDP growth correlates with .4 percent total employment change. Translation: Every percentage loss of GDP means 640,000 lost jobs--your jobs.

Default permanently raises the interest rates, says J.P. Morgan, and they estimate that interest rates could rise 75 to 100 basis points. Translation: Mortgages rise $1,000; credit card interest rises by $250. And the decline of the value of the dollar. Translation: $182 extra on your utilities, $318 a year on food, $100 a year more on gas. Do you get it?

Mr. Speaker, I emphatically agree that a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only viable path forward for the parties and for those in the international community and region who seek peace and stability in this contentious area of our world.

I want to be clear: unilateral actions by the Palestinians or Israelis, including seeking recognition at the U.N., are not helpful to the peace process. It seems to me that there have not been many successful unilateral acts undertaken in this region that have resulted in more peace and less violence. Why would anyone want to go down that road again?

Limiting this resolution to the sentiment expressed in bullet number one of the resolution that reaffirms Congress' ``strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition'' would have won my enthusiastic and full- hearted support.

It was the presence of this language that kept me from voting no on this resolution. I again reiterate my condemnation of this House continuing to bring resolutions that only seem to relitigate every wrong committed by one party to this conflict. Whatever happened to the grandiose ideal that the United States of America would be an ``honest broker'' in this process?

The fact is that both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have tough choices ahead of them that will affect the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. As I stated in a letter to President Obama last year in support of strong U.S. engagement in renewed Middle East Peace talks, allowing actions by either party that undermine the process to go unchallenged serves to fan animosity and mistrust, which feeds a cycle of conflict and violence. This neither serves the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, nor the Palestinians.

We must avoid ending up in a situation like Canada reportedly faced last year when it cut funding for activities of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees only to have the government of Israel, among others, push for a reversal of that decision. It's an example of an action that looks ``pro-Israel'' on the politics, but failed the more important test of whether it actually advanced or hindered the interests of our allies in the region.

The Palestinian people don't want symbolic statehood, they want an actual state with borders and the ability to enjoy a livelihood in peace and security. The same for the Israeli people. They want real security and real peace. Both peoples would gladly trade resolutions from the U.S. Congress for real progress on the ground.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would ensure that we have the proper data to identify and work with sectors of the U.S. economy that are participating in the patent process at significantly lower rates.

Specifically, my amendment allows the USPTO to develop methods for ways to track the diversity of patent applicants. It also specifically prohibits the office from using any such results for any preferential treatment in the application process.

I certainly do applaud the USPTO for their outreach to the Women's Chamber of Commerce and to the National Minority Enterprise Development Conferences to try to increase diversity with utilizing the patent process. But some recent data have raised concern that minorities and women-owned businesses are just not keeping up with the patent process.

Preliminary data from a 2009 Kauffman Foundation survey of new businesses show that minority-owned technology companies hold fewer patents and copyrights after the fifth year of starting than comparable nonminority businesses. In fact, the Kauffman data show that minority- owned firms with patents hold only two on average, compared with the eight of their counterparts. Another survey uses National Science Foundation data to suggest that women commercialize their patents 7 percent less than their male counterparts.

Now, the best example I can think of this is the late great George Washington Carver, who we all know discovered 300 uses for peanuts and hundreds more for other plants. He went on to help local farmers with many improvements to their farm equipment, ingredients, and chemicals. However, Carver only applied for three patents.

Some historians have written on whether or not Eli Whitney was, indeed, the original inventor of the cotton gin or whether the invention could have originated from the slave community. At the time, slaves were unable to register an invention with the Patent Office, and the owner could not patent on their behalf because of the requirement to be an original inventor.

Now, African Americans and women have a long history of inventing some of the most influential products in our society, but we also simply do not have enough information to further explore and explain these results. And as our government and industry leaders look into these problems and possibly fix these deficiencies, they run into a major hurdle.

Currently, the Patent and Trade Office only knows the name and general location of a patent applicant. In most cases, only the physical street address that the office collects is for the listed patent attorney on the application. Such limited information prevents us from fully understanding the nature and scope of the underrepresentation of minority communities in intellectual property. Until we can truly understand the nature of this problem, we cannot address it or do the appropriate outreach.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I certainly again want to commend efforts from Director Kappos and the Patent and Trade Office that, despite their not having to do it, they do reach out to women and minority communities to try to get them to utilize the Patent Office.

I can say that the ability to innovate and create is just one part of the equation. The key to success for minorities in our community as a whole also depends upon the ability to get protection for their intellectual property.

I urge the body to vote for this amendment.

I would yield back the balance of my time.