Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentlewoman who may not have been here when I made my previous remarks, because I point out that this is not about making it hard to remove poor performers. The Federal Government can and does remove poor performers where appropriate. And there is a process for that. According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Government removed 10,687 employees in Fiscal Year 2021. It is in the public's best interest to ensure that the President cannot take action that would politicize the civil service and threaten the integrity of the work that we depend on civil servants to perform every day. One expert on Federal human resources, Jeff Neal, has explained that the tension that can exist between career employees and political appointees usually reflects the ``need to ensure that proposals are legal'' and that ``statutory and regulatory requirements, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, are met.'' In other words, this tension is actually a sign that the system is working, and procedures are being properly followed. That is certainly not poor performance or cause for removal. Schedule F would have improperly targeted those who ensure legality, equity, and appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform and a champion for workers.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman's statement. Schedule F was never about removing employees who were performing poorly. That was not the purpose. There is already a procedure in place for that. It aimed to strip workplace protections away from Federal employees so that anyone who didn't adhere to an ideology aligned with the President, the former President, could be easily replaced with someone who did. That is a violation of the impartiality with which the civil service is meant to operate. It is supposed to be an independent, merit-based system not tied to ideology. If changes that consequential are to be made to the civil service, they shouldn't happen without the approval of Congress. That is what this bill does. This bill preserves Congress' authority in civil service policy. People can't come in willy-nilly and change the system and make it a partisan system overnight. If implemented, schedule F would have placed Federal employees' careers in the hands of political appointees who could fire them for presenting data, evidence, or views that contradict the political whims of an administration. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I refer to my prior statements and reiterate that schedule F was never about removing employees who are performing poorly. There is a whole process to do that. This is about protecting the integrity of a merit-based system, so people are not retaliated against and fired because they are not doing what somebody is dictating them to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the distinguished Representative and chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will respond to my very good friend, who I have tremendous respect for. I do not represent the Washington workforce. I represent New York City. I represent the private sector, the private-sector capital of the world, New York City, Manhattan. That is who I represent. I also represent taxpayers, a lot of them, and they want their money to be spent for good government. They want the people working in the government to be impartial and dedicated to doing the best job possible without political influence. That is exactly what this bill we are talking about today is about. Schedule F, as I repeat, was never about removing employees who were performing poorly. We have a whole system to do that. We removed over 10,000 last year. This is about protecting employees who are doing a good job from political influence. I reiterate the crucial role of the people who make up the professional and nonpolitical civil service in delivering government services to our constituents, protecting our democracy, and carrying out agency missions across the Federal Government. Injecting undue political influence into that system, as schedule F would have done, would be disastrous for the merit system we have in place. When we pass this bill today, we are making sure that no President of either party, Democrat or Republican, can ever unilaterally take such destructive action in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a merit system, to support the civil service system that has served us so well, to vote to keep politics out of the civil service system, and to support the important underlying bill. I congratulate my colleague and very good friend, Mr. Connolly, on his excellent work on this bill. It is bipartisan. We have three Republicans. But I hope that we will pick up more, because this is about voting for freedom, democracy, independence, good government, you name it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, Representative Hice.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 302 preserves congressional authority to make sure that no President can establish a destructive policy like schedule F in the future without the approval of Congress. The amendment would do the exact opposite. It opens the door for an administration to implement the revoked schedule F executive order and dangerously politicize the Federal workforce. For all the reasons this was bad policy in 2020, it remains bad policy today. Schedule F evaded congressional oversight in an attempt to make the civil service an instrument of partisan politics rather than the nonpartisan professional, independent workforce that Congress intended it to be. Schedule F would replace a professional system with a patronage system, discouraging civil service employees from providing impartial advice based on the facts or reporting waste, fraud, and abuse. Reviving this attack on Federal employees also makes it harder to retain and hire qualified employees, which further erodes the ability of the agencies to carry out their mission. I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, and the sponsor and author of this bill, H.R. 302.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8326.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8326, the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act. The decennial Census is a critical part of our democratic system. In fact, it is required by the Constitution. The results of the Census determine the distribution of over $1.5 trillion in Federal funds, apportionment of the House of Representatives and State legislative districts, and public and private sector investments. It is critical that the Census count is complete, fair, and accurate. The Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act will help make sure that it is. This bill is informed by the Oversight Committee's multi-year investigation into political interference by the previous administration during the 2020 Census, including the effort to add a citizenship question despite strong opposition from expert statisticians and demographers at the Census Bureau. In fact, the Census Bureau's top data scientist warned that the citizenship question ``harms the quality of the Census count.'' The Supreme Court ruled in favor with the Democrats and ultimately stepped in to block the citizenship question, ruling that the rationale for adding it to the Census ``seems to have been contrived.'' The previous administration took other steps that risked undermining the independent, nonpartisan nature of the Census. They appointed an unprecedented eight political appointees where there were previously only three, and they tried to rush the processing of the Census data, despite repeated warnings from career staff that this would compromise the integrity of the Census count. Partisan manipulation of the Census is simply wrong. My bill would protect the Census and ensure this cannot happen again, regardless of which party is in power. We are considering this legislation at a critical time. While the 2030 Census is years away, the design and planning began at the Bureau even before the 2020 numbers were released. As our Nation's largest peacetime mobilization, the Census requires detailed and thorough planning. However, even the best plans face challenges in the field, and the 2020 Census faced unprecedented obstacles. In the runup to the 2020 Census, the Bureau was consistently denied the appropriations--the funding that it needed--to execute its operational plans. Among other impacts, this uncertainty forced cutbacks in outreach to communities that are considered hard to reach. The coronavirus pandemic forced the Census Bureau to suspend field operations at the most critical time; and most damaging, the previous administration demanded a last-minute, untested question on citizenship, and installed a record number of political appointees with unclear duties to get that done. This legislation would vest key decision-making authority over the Census in the appropriate Senate-confirmed official, the Census Director. It would limit the number of political appointees within the Bureau to no more than four, which is consistent with historical precedent. This bill would also require that new Census questions be thoroughly researched and analyzed, certified by the Secretary of Commerce, evaluated by the GAO, and shared with Congress before being added to the Census questionnaire. This bill will also increase transparency and support long-term planning by requiring the Bureau to submit its projected 5-year budget estimates to both the President and Congress. Finally, the bill codifies existing advisory committees charged with engaging with hard-to-count communities and advancing best practices in the field of data science. It also establishes an advisory committee aimed directly at ensuring the 2030 Census is successful. I am proud that my bill has the support of four former directors of the Census Bureau, who served under administrations led by both Democrats and Republicans. These former directors have 15 years of experience serving as Census Directors supporting five decennial Censuses. In a statement, they commended the bill's objective and said that it ``protects the independence and integrity of the scientific mission of the Census Bureau.'' These former directors concluded, ``trust in our Nation's official data is essential to the democracy and the economy, and this legislation will undergird'' and build that trust. Mr. Chair, I include their statements in the Record as well as an editorial from ``The Washington Post'' titled: ``The Trump Administration's Assault on the Census Must Not Happen Again,'' along with two additional editorials, and a letter from Population Association of America and Association of Population Centers. Mr. Chair, this editorial concluded, ``The Trump administration's assault on the integrity of the Census should be an urgent warning. Too much rests on the decennial count to allow it to be exploited for partisan gain.'' Statement by Form U.S. Census Bureau Directors--July 12, 2022 In Support of House Legislation ``Ensuring a Fair and & Accurate Census Act'' We applaud the legislation introduced this week by the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) that we believe will help preserve and protect the independence and integrity of the scientific mission at the U.S. Census Bureau. Having helped to plan, execute or lead five decennial censuses serving nine Presidents of both parties, and having closely observed the 2020 Decennial process, we strongly feel the reforms in the ``Ensuring a Fair and & Accurate Census Act'' would help build greater trust and confidence in the essential data the Census Bureau supplies to the nation. Collectively, the provisions of this bill strengthen the professional roles of career scientists, provide greater transparency into methods and processes across the 130 Census surveys and censuses, and enhance Congressional oversight over Bureau functions. Trust in the nation's official data is essential to the democracy and the economy, and this legislation will undergird that trust. Vincent Barabba, (1973-76 & 1979-81). Robert Groves, (2009-2012). Kenneth Prewitt, (1998-2001). John Thompson, (2013-2017).

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2988, the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act of 2021. In May 2021, I introduced the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, along with Representative Nancy Mace, ranking member of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee. Federal whistleblowers serve a critical role by shedding a light on government corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse and wrongdoing, often through reporting such actions to Congress. Their disclosures protect taxpayers' dollars, improve Federal programs, and even save lives. Unfortunately, the Oversight Committee has seen too many examples of employers retaliating against whistleblowers. In one instance, the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, that provides security at airports, moved an airport employee hundreds of miles away to a new duty station when they revealed security flaws at the TSA at the airports. In another troubling example, a White House supervisor moved files beyond the reach of a disabled employee after the employee disclosed violations of security clearance procedures. A GAO report earlier this year also revealed that employees at four scientific research agencies did not report instances of political interference in scientific decisionmaking out of fear of retaliation and uncertainty of how to best voice their concerns. As these examples make clear, whistleblowers often make disclosures at great personal risk. That is why protections for whistleblowers have long received bipartisan support in this Congress. I thank my colleagues, including Representative Mace, for continuing that tradition today. The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act would enact long-overdue reforms to protect whistleblowers from retaliation to the greatest extent possible, and to provide meaningful remedies if whistleblowers still encounter retaliation. The bill would prohibit agencies from launching retaliatory investigations against employees who blow the whistle and would limit the public disclosure of a whistleblower's identity. The bill would also provide Federal whistleblowers with faster legal recourse for retaliation claims and would allow them to have their claims tried before a jury in a Federal District Court. Access to jury trials has long been a priority of whistleblower advocates. The last major reform to whistleblower protection was in 2012. I am proud to continue this important bipartisan effort to protect whistleblowers today. The bill we are considering also clarifies that whistleblowers who prevail are entitled to recover attorney's fees and to receive the necessary relief to make them whole. Finally, the bill would make clear that no Federal employee, including the President or the Vice President of the U.S., may interfere or retaliate against a whistleblower for disclosing information to Congress. The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act has received public support from more than 100 stakeholder organizations, including the Government Accountability Project, the National Taxpayers Union, the Project on Government Oversight, the Taxpayer Protection Alliance, and Whistleblowers of America. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter of support from 100 different organizations. July 14. 2022. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: During the last month, our nation has been fixated on evidence about threats to our democracy exposed in the January 6 Select Committee hearings. The undersigned organizations commend your leadership creating the January 6 Committee for exposing the truth. The undersigned organizations now seek your leadership protecting those who provide the evidence. The Committee on Oversight and Reform has marked up HR 6762. the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act (WPIA). The legislation deserves floor time for a House vote so that we can highlight its passage on July 30. 2022, National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. The House has voted for this reform in the Protect Our Democracy Act. but Senate action requires standalone legislation. The WPIA would be the fifth generation of pioneering whistleblower rights first passed in 1978. These rights have been excellent global pacesetters that Congress unanimously has reaffirmed three time since 1978, the last in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. The two Achilles heels, however, have been loopholes and lack of credible due process enforcement. Those problems only have become worse since 2012. For example, the administrative Merit Systems Protection Board has a monopoly on enforcement. but its vulnerability to political pressure blocked confirmations and led to an empty Board with a 3,500 case back log. Lacking judicial independence, its Administrative Judges who conduct hearings rule against whistleblowers in over 95% of initial merits decisions. The WPIA addresses both the loopholes and due process gaps by providing parity for federal civil service employee whistleblower rights with those enacted by Congress 16 times in each or 17 private sector whistleblower law enacted since 2002. To illustrate it would-- Permit jury trials if there is no timely administrative decision. This would take the politics out of whistleblowerjustice for federal employees the nation's only major labor group denied a day in court to challenge violation of their free speech rights despite making the disclosures most significant for voters. Permit lawsuits when retaliatory investigations are opened. Investigations are a kneejerk first reaction to find any dirt on whistleblowers that will distract from government fraud, waste and abuse. As long as a probe is open, it has a broad chilling effect even if later dropped. This key provision would establish parity with all other whistleblower laws, even the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Establish realistic legal burdens to obtain temporary relief. Temporary relief is almost never available under current law and is essential when cases commonly drag out over five years. By that time, even winning may be too late for those who have lost their homes, gone bankrupt frequently lost their families and had their professional deputations irrevocably ruined. Close loopholes that erase the law's benefits. Currently, Public Health Service (PHS) whistleblowers are excluded from the Whistleblower Protection Act and limited to military remedies, as are employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). However, these are the professionals from whom we need the truth about public health threats like the pandemic and environmental threats like climate change. Loopholes in remedies mean that whistleblowers still can ``lose by winning.'' The WPIA fills these and similar gaps. This legislation is a political opportunity supported by 86% of likely voters in a Marist Poll survey just before the last election, and more than 265 organizations across the issue and political spectrum have already expressed support for its passage. It extends the same rights to federal employees defending the public that Congress repeatedly has provided to corporate employees defending the shareholders. We need your leadership, so that those who defend the public can defend themselves. Sincerely, 20/20 Vision DC, Academics Stang Against Poverty, Accountability Lab, Affiliation of Christian Engineers, African Centre for Media & Information Literacy, Alliance to Counter Crime Online, American Association for Justice, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Animals Are Sentient Beings Inc, Arab American Institute, Bekker Compliance Consulting Partners, LLC, Blueprint for Free Speech, Broward for Progress, Center for Auto Safety, Center for Progressive Reform, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Clean Elections Texas, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Columbia Legal Services, Community Science Institute, Inc., Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Consumer Action, Cook Inletkeeper, Corruption kills, Council for a Livable World, Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Dr. Yolanda Whyte Pediatrics, Equal Justice Society, Federally Employed Women, Fight for the Future, Food & Water Watch, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Government Accountability Project, Government Information Watch, Harrington Investments, Inc., Human Environmental and Leadership Prevalent Center (HELP Center), Indivisible Santa Fe. Information Trust, International Association of Whistleblowers (IAW), International Fund for Animal Welfare, Iowa Institute for Public Accountability, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), League of Conservation Voters, Liberty Shared, Mainers for Accountable Leadership, Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Michiganders for Fair & Transparent Elections, Muslim American Law Enforcement Association, National Air Disaster Foundation, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Employment Law Project, National Organization for Women, National Whistleblower Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, No Violence.org, Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative). Open The Government, Oregonizers, Pax Christi USA, People's Parity Project, Project Censored and Media Freedom Foundation, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Protect All Children's Environment, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Public Justice Center, Restore The Fourth, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Rock the Vote, RootsAction.org, Rural Coalition, Secure Elections Network, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategies For Justice, BWMP LLC. Taxpayers Protection Alliance, The Center for International Policy, The Coalition For Change Inc. (C4C), The Digital Democracy Project, The Ecotopian Society, The Freedom BLOC, The James Madison Project, The Revolving Door Project, The Rutherford Institute, The Signals Network, The Vindman Group, The Workers Circle, Transparency International--U.S. Office, Truckers Justice Center, Tully Center for Free Speech, Syracuse University. Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington Coalition for Open Government, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Whistleblower Network News, Whistleblowers of America, WhistleblowersUK, Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom US, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Workplace Fairness, X-Lab.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill before us today.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and to support the heroes and heroines who disclose wrongdoing and corruption in our government, leading to reforms to make our government stronger and better able to serve the American people. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, there are no more speakers, and I am prepared to close if my colleagues on the Republican side are ready to close, as well. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, this bill does not prohibit agencies from investigating actual misconduct. It merely prohibits launching an investigation as retaliation for blowing the whistle. When an agency becomes aware of a disclosure of waste, fraud, and abuse, the concern of the agency should be addressing those issues rather than retaliating against the employee who discloses the problems. This change fills a critical role created by the 2020 appeals court decision that held that current whistleblower laws only prohibit a retaliatory investigation if the investigation ultimately resulted in a significant change in the employee's working conditions. This decision ignored the effect that a retaliatory investigation has on a whistleblower when an investigation is going on. So, I disagree with the gentleman's statement, and I am now prepared to close. Mr. Chair, I want to stress the urgency and importance of this legislation and talk about how important it is to protect our whistleblowers. They play a critical role in exposing wrongdoing within the government, sometimes at great personal risk. They need to be able to alert agency leaders and Congress without fear of retaliation. Passing H.R. 2988 would help give whistleblowers the protection they deserve. The key reforms in the bill would prohibit agencies from launching retaliatory investigations and extend whistleblowers the right to a jury trial, which they have long sought, and permit whistleblowers to receive attorney fees if they win their lawsuits. This bill establishes new protections for whistleblowers who have a crucial role in shedding light on government corruption and wrongdoing. This bill is also strongly supported by well over 100 stakeholder organizations. Just today, the National Taxpayers Union announced its inclusion of this bill as one of its ``No Brainers'' list for bills that Congress should pass. Only a few bills receive this kind of recognition. This is landmark legislation, both for freedom of speech and for government accountability. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this important legislation and spoken in support of it. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1339, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendments en bloc. The amendment offered by Congresswoman Katie Porter would require inspectors general to report in their semiannual reports the number of times their office was not able to resolve a whistleblower retaliation complaint within 8 months of receiving that complaint. This requirement ensures that inspectors general are promptly investigating whistleblower retaliation complaints. The next amendment, offered by Congressman Jake Auchincloss, would require the Government Accountability Office to examine and report on whistleblower protection actions, including the timeliness with which the Merit Systems Protection Board issues rulings on whistleblower complaints, how often individuals choose a jury trial, and recommendations to improve the claim review process. This requirement evaluates whether the whistleblower review process is effective and identifies areas for improvement. The amendment offered by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would require inspectors general to maintain a mechanism to receive anonymous whistleblower reports. In certain instances, this offers the protection and comfort a whistleblower needs to report government abuses and corruption. The next amendment, offered by Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, would enable whistleblowers, outside the intelligence community, to appeal adverse security clearance actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense package of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss), the vice chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. The underlying bill is both landmark legislation for freedom of speech and for government accountability. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this landmark legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I move that the committee now rise.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I withdraw my motion.