Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is not a game. Congressional Republicans who own the House, the Senate, and the White House refuse to work out a bipartisan compromise to keep the Federal Government open. This not only disrupts the lives of millions of Americans, but it may have real harmful economic consequences. The Trump shutdown sends exactly the wrong message. It projects chaos. It can hurt business confidence, tapping the brakes of economic growth. In 2013, the last time the congressional leaders shut down the government, the economy took a real hit. The nonpartisan Bureau of Economic Analysis found that the shutdown lowered GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points on an annualized basis. Economic analysts at Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Goldman Sachs estimated it may have cost our economy $24 billion, about $1.5 billion per day. Our economy depends on faith in our government institutions. Let's not do anything to jeopardize it. Let's stop this dangerous game. Open the government. Fund the government.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his extraordinary leadership and for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712. In the past year, the usual Republican stream of anti-woman, anti- choice policies has turned into a flood. Today's vile bill is based on myths and lies and is designed to intimidate doctors from providing abortions. I would like to remind my colleagues that for 45 years, the Supreme Court has upheld a woman's constitutional right to access a legal abortion, and that current law already protects infants, as well it should. But Republicans would rather play politics with women's lives than rely on science and the law. This bill seeks to criminalize legal medical services and put extreme, anti-choice ideology between a woman and her doctor.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, in what other circumstance would we ever tolerate denying, delaying, or interfering with legitimate and legal medical care? This must stop. Protect women from this political charade. Allow doctors to take care of their patients. Please vote ``no'' on this unfair, vile bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the achievements of the Korean American Association of Greater New York (KAAGNY) as it celebrates the 115th Korean American Day. Korean American Day marks the arrival of the first Korean immigrants to the United States in 1903. Since then, the Korean American community of New York City has grown to over 100,000 people, with 500,000 living in the greater metropolitan area. It is the second largest Korean community in the country. Today, President Minsun Kim and Board Chair Charles Yoon lead an exemplary team of dedicated volunteers who have worked hard to grow the organization within New York's ever-expanding Korean American community. President Kim is the 35th president in the organization's history and I am confident she and Chairman Yoon will continue to strengthen KAAGNY. The organization has roots dating back to 1921 when the Korean Students Association of New York was founded. In 1960, KAAGNY became a full service organization working to help Korean Americans of the New York Metropolitan Area. Since then, it has grown into an umbrella organization for more than 200 regional, professional, religious, educational, and trade organizations. KAAGNY has played a crucial role in advocating for the advancement of Korean Americans since its founding. It plans community activities from helping campaign for Korean American participation in the decennial census survey to registering people to vote. KAAGNY has a proven track record of empowering and engaging Korean Americans through education, community engagement, and social services. Last year, I personally attended two KAAGNY events. After traveling to South Korea on a Congressional Delegation in August, I met with KAAGNY members to discuss the importance of the U.S.-Korea relationship. In the fall, I witnessed the unveiling of the Comfort Women Statue of Peace. The statue honors the Korean women who were abused as sex slaves during World War II. I was honored to be able to contribute an inscription to this powerful reminder of the pain and suffering endured by so many women and girls. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding work of KAAGNY, which continues to advance the issues important for Korean Americans.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Ending Secrecy About Workplace Sexual Harassment Act. We are experiencing a national moment of reckoning. Millions of people who have been victims of sexual misconduct in the workplace are telling their stories and initiating a movement to create real change. We have an obligation to listen to all those who have come forward and recognize that many are still suffering in silence. And we also have an obligation to take action to make things better going forward. The Ending Secrecy About Workplace Sexual Harassment Act will help lift the shroud of secrecy surrounding these cases that have concealed them for years or even decades by requiring companies to annually report all out-of-court settlements involving claims of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When employers don't have to disclose these internal settlements and there is no public record about abuse, it can cause great harm to victims, other employees, and even the public at large. More complete data and a transparency requirement will help identify institutional problems that should elicit further investigation by EEOC. This bill also has the potential to spark a change in the workplace, inspiring corporate leaders to focus on prevention if they know that complete secrecy is no longer an option regardless of how a claim is addressed and resolved. With total secrecy, companies have absolutely no incentive to focus on preventing sexual misconduct if they know they will never be held accountable. In 2015, there were nearly 30,000 reports filed with the EEOC involving sexual harassment. That is one-third of the total harassment reports filed that year alone. If companies had to report all of their private settlements, that number would likely increase. The EEOC can also use these reports to take action, if appropriate, and go after violators. I believe this is an important first step toward increasing accountability in the private sector to ensure a safer, fairer workplace for everyone. I thank my colleagues, Representatives Khanna, Norton, Cummings, David Scott, Shea-Porter, Raskin, Connolly, Suozzi, Kuster, Moore, Dingell, and Pallone for joining me as original cosponsors on this legislation, and hope that more members will support as well.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week the FCC abdicated its responsibility to serve the public interest and put at risk the free and open internet that we have all come to depend on when its three Republican commissioners voted to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality protection. Net neutrality keeps access to the internet equal for everyone. It protects free speech. It protects equal access to the marketplace of ideas. It has been the fundamental principle underpinning the massive innovation and opportunity that the internet has unleashed. But that is all at risk now. Fortunately, Congress has a say. I am proud to support Congressman Mike Doyle's resolution to overturn the FCC's decision and restore our net neutrality protections. I also believe the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee should investigate the reports and allegations of fraudulent public comments. Repealing net neutrality will inhibit innovation, stifle competition, and threaten free speech. It is time for Congress to overturn this decision.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of investor protection and in opposition to H.R. 4015. Proxy advisers provide recommendations to institutional investors on how to vote on board of director elections and shareholder resolutions. Big institutional investors are shareholders at thousands of public companies, and they simply don't have time to carefully review every single hundred-page proxy statement in detail, especially because most public companies hold their shareholders meetings at about the same 3- month period. So institutional investors rely on proxy advisers for vote recommendations, which are often tailored to the investor's particular corporate governance preferences. They also rely on proxy firms for their data management on shareholder votes and corporate governance. This is healthy. Proxy advisers do actually have the time to carefully read all of the statements and proposals because they are professionals that are hired to do just that. I agree that the current regulatory system for proxy advisers is not perfect. Two proxy advisory firms account for 97 percent of the market--ISS and Glass Lewis--but, for some reason, they are regulated differently. ISS is a registered investment adviser, while Glass Lewis is not. Surely, this is not an ideal setup, so I am open to the idea of a better and more consistent regulatory regime for proxy advisers. But there are several things in this bill that concern me deeply. I don't see why companies should have a statutory right to receive and comment on a proxy adviser's draft recommendations before they are sent to investors. Proxy advisers aren't Federal agencies with a notice-and- comment for private companies. They are working for private companies that are providing a valuable service. This is not appropriate at all. Asset managers that use proxy advisers also tell me that they would find proxy advisers a lot less useful if the proxy firm had to give the company an opportunity to comment on their vote recommendations before sending them to the asset manager. And a new addition to the bill is very troubling. This would raise the possibility of proxy advisers being forced to send the clients the companies' own complaints about the proxy adviser's recommendations, even if the complaint is completely untrue. This is totally inappropriate and, I would say, plain wrong. So while I am sympathetic to the idea that a better and more consistent regulatory regime could be developed, I cannot support this bill, and I have good company here. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Comptroller of the State of New York, Comptroller DiNapoli; a statement from the AFL- CIO of the United States of America; a statement from the Council of Institutional Investors; a statement from the Consumer Federation of America, and a statement by Glass Lewis. This is a troubling bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it. It is bad for safety and soundness and for good governance in this country. State of New York, Office of the State Comptroller, Albany, NY, December 14, 2017. Re Opposition to H.R. 4015, Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017. Dear Members of the NYS Congressional Delegation: I write to express my strong opposition to H.R. 4015, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017, which I understand will soon be voted on by the United States House of Representatives. I believe that H.R. 4015, if passed and enacted, would require unnecessary and expensive regulation. Further, this legislation was not promoted by those it purports to protect: shareholders. It would weaken corporate accountability and shareholder oversight, undercut proxy advisory firms' invaluable independence, increase costs to consumers of research and redirect proxy advisors to answer to companies rather than the clients it serves. As Comptroller of the State of New York, I am the Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (Fund) and the administrative head of the New York State and Local Retirement System (the System). As a fiduciary responsible for the benefits of over one million state and local government employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, I am especially troubled by H.R. 4015's provisions that would weaken corporate accountability and shareholder oversight. The system of corporate governance that has evolved in the United States relies on the accountability of boards of directors to shareholders, and proxy voting is a critical means by which shareholders hold boards to account. Currently, proxy advisors provide shareholders of corporations with independent advice. The proposed bill threatens that very independence, which is integral to the responsible exercise of a shareholder's voting rights. In public comments defending H.R. 4015, members of the Financial Services Committee have voiced the erroneous assertions that proxy advisory firms dictate proxy voting results and that institutional investors utilizing proxy advisors do not make their own voting decisions. I personally review and approve the Fund's customized Proxy Voting and Corporate Governance Guidelines (Guidelines). In 2017, the Fund voted on nearly 30,000 agenda items on its portfolio companies' proxy statements, and every single one of those items was voted pursuant to the guidelines which state: ``proxy voting decisions are based on internal reviews of available information relating to items on the ballot at each company's annual meeting. . . . The Fund analyzes a variety of materials from publicly available sources, which include but are not limited to, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, analyst reports, relevant studies and materials from proponents and opponents of shareholder proposals, third-party independent perspectives and studies, and analyses from several corporate governance advisory firms.'' All of our proxy voting decisions are made independently and in the best interest of our System's participants. Proxy advisory firms provide cost-efficient, informed, and independent research, analysis, and advice for institutional shareholders, which often hold thousands of companies in their investment portfolios. The independence of that advice is absolutely essential, and if proxy advisors are required to obtain corporate review and rebuttals before releasing their research to investors, that independence would be compromised, depriving public pension funds and other institutional investors of a vital resource. Such a requirement would also delay investors' access to research in the already constricted time frame available to consider ballot issues and develop independent voting decisions in an informed fashion. As you consider your vote on this bill, please take into account the concerns I have expressed on behalf of the more than one million members, retirees and beneficiaries of the System for whom the Fund invests. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, Thomas P. DiNapoli, State Comptroller.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a terrorist tried to attack the lifeblood of New York City: our subway system. It is another somber reminder that New York City, a beacon of hope and freedom, remains a target for terrorists. We had the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, another one on 9/11 in 2001, the Chelsea bombing last year, the truck attack earlier this year, and another bombing yesterday. In addition, the New York Police Department openly talks about 27 other attempts to harm New Yorkers, which were thwarted. By now, it should be clear that we cannot play politics with Federal funding for local law enforcement and homeland security. The funding for States and cities, especially high-threat areas, must not be delayed, diminished, or cut off. While we are still learning more about this latest attack, one thing is clear: the terrorist wanted to strike fear into the hearts of every New Yorker, but he failed. New Yorkers will always persevere in the face of diversity. Our trains are running. Our people are back to work. I wish the three people injured yesterday a swift and speedy recovery. I want to express my gratitude to the law enforcement of New York City and the heroic response of our first responders. We are all very grateful to them for what they do for us every day.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding and for his incredible leadership as the ranking member on this important committee. I also thank Chairman Royce for his work on this issue, bringing the bill to the floor, and truly being a visionary legislator in shining a spotlight on the systematic persecution of Christians around the world. It is frightening, it is wrong, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. Freedom of religion is a core American principle and a key component for peace and stability around the world. There are too many examples of Christian persecution. Congress must clearly condemn those atrocities. As cofounder and co-chair of the Hellenic Caucus, I have long advocated for reforms in Turkey to respect the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and reopen the Halki seminary.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Boko Haram has wreaked havoc in Nigeria, killing innocent Christians and Muslims alike. Coptic Christians in Egypt and elsewhere face the constant threat of violence, and we have seen some tragedies for this community just in the past year. The number of Coptic Christians that have been killed is truly astounding. They have laws now that, if a wall falls or any church needs repair, you cannot even repair the church. These are just a few examples of spots around the world where Christian persecution is rampant. Persecution against Christians and other religious minorities around the world is a security crisis, and the United States Government must remain vigilant in monitoring and response. It should be a unanimous vote in support of this important resolution. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing this to the attention of Congress and, hopefully, the world.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Norm and Elaine Brodsky in recognition of their long-term commitment to local community and charitable causes. For almost 30 years, this North Brooklyn power couple has helped shape the Williamsburg neighborhood into the vibrant community it is today. Elaine and Norm Brodsky have generously supported the local community and its charitable causes since opening CitiStorage, an archival storage and records management company, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn in 1990. They became full-time residents of the neighborhood in 2001, when Norm fulfilled his promise to build an apartment on the fourth floor of their office building/warehouse. Their family had been residents of Atlantic Beach for 32 years before moving to Brooklyn. The couple sold the company in 2007 but still live in Williamsburg, where they continue to be pillars of the community. Norm, who was born in Brooklyn, attended Rider University and received his Doctorate of Law from Brooklyn Law School. He is currently involved in three entrepreneurial ventures--a chain of fast, casual Japanese restaurants in NYC, hotels in North Dakota, and an entrepreneurial, education company called Birthing of Giants. For more than 20 years Norm has written ``Street Smarts,'' a monthly column in Inc. magazine. He is the author of a well-respected business book, The Knack. He provides pro bono business consulting advice to a significant number of entrepreneurs who come to visit him in his office in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Norm is also a strong advocate for the community's transit needs and has hosted meetings for local residents and businesses to weigh in on the impacts of the ongoing L train repairs. Elaine, an Elmira College graduate and former teacher, also worked as a mental health professional and conducted family workshops for Inc. Magazine conferences for many years. The Brodskys have won several business awards for their company culture which has been featured in various business books and magazine articles. Elaine is a Board member of the League Education and Treatment Center and the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. She has been the Chair of the North Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce since its inception, over four years ago. The couple is actively involved with the North Brooklyn Angels mobile food truck which delivers meals and offers counseling services to the local neighborhood. Elaine and Norm have been married for 48 years and are the proud parents of their two daughters, Beth and Rachel, and grandparents to Sophie, Eitan, and Ava. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the magnanimous contributions of Norm and Elaine Brodsky, whose dedication to community is truly an inspiration.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. It is glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention that our Federal gun safety laws are pathetically weak and in major need of improvement. So what is this House doing about it? Working to pass a bill that completely undermines gun safety laws and puts more guns on the street and more lives at risk. Believe me, if more guns made this country safer, we would be the safest country on Earth. We are far from it. Under this bill, someone who couldn't get a concealed carry permit in New York would now be able to carry concealed guns into New York State or any State, as long as they have a permit from another State. This completely eviscerates State-level gun safety laws and puts us all at the mercy of the weakest gun safety laws in the country. This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations across this country. I urge this body to listen to their advice and vote against this reckless assault on State and local gun safety laws.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Sheila Jackson Lee, for her extraordinary leadership on this issue and so many others, and I thank her for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3317, the Stopping Abusive Female Exploitation, or SAFE, Act. It is a bipartisan, noncontroversial issue; and I hope this body unanimously supports it, as it will save the health and protection and stop the abuse of girls in our country. I am the Democratic lead on this bill and, first, want to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Trott) for his devotion, extraordinary leadership, and commitment to bringing this bill to the floor. Female genital mutilation is an issue that affects women and girls in the United States and around the world. I want to express my regret that he has decided to retire from this body. We will miss his leadership in Congress. His district, I am sure, and State will miss it, and, I must say, I believe our country will miss it. It is one thing when a woman champions a woman's issue, but to have a like-minded man join you and lead you is a very, very special expression of leadership, and I am deeply grateful for the gentleman's leadership on behalf of the girls and women that this bill will help. Female genital mutilation is a terrible, abusive practice that causes immense physical and emotional pain and damage to young girls that can last a lifetime. It is a Federal crime. Twenty-two States have laws against it, yet it is still being practiced in our great country. It is illegal in the United States, and while we condemn this practice around the world, we really need to do more to stop it right here at home.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The CDC estimates that in 2012, 500,000 females in the United States have been subjected to or are at risk of female genital mutilation, and that number is rising. It is up to us to bring that number to zero. This bill creates a harsher and more appropriate penalty, increasing the current sentence of 5 years to 15 years imprisonment. Stricter penalties for performing the procedure are critical to eradicating this horrific abuse. I not only thank my colleague, but also Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler and our sponsors in the Senate, Senators Feinstein and Grassley. This is an important bill. I hope this entire body supports it. It will literally save the lives of many young girls in our country.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week we lost one of the finest people ever to serve the people of New York State and the country when Congressman Maurice Hinchey passed away. I would like to express my deepest condolences to his wife, Ilene; his sons, Reese and Josef; his daughter, Michelle; and the entire Hinchey family. Maurice leaves behind a legacy of service that is second to none. During his 18 years in the New York State Assembly, he became what former Governor Mario Cuomo called ``the environmental conscience of New York State'' for his groundbreaking investigations into polluters and landmark environmental laws. When he came to Congress in 1993, he continued that work, creating the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, preserving wild public lands, and doing everything possible to clean and protect his beloved Hudson River. Maurice and I came to Congress in the same class and we became fast friends. I already miss him dearly, but I know that his work and his legacy will be remembered for generations to come. To know him was to love him. Rest in peace, my dear friend.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, as Americans across this country were enjoying Thanksgiving with their families, over 438 Americans were victims of gun violence. So what is the response of the House Republican leadership? Advancing the misguided Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that would eviscerate State laws meant to keep people safe from gun violence. This bill being marked up today in the Judiciary Committee would put lives at risk by forcing all States to recognize weapon permits from other States, regardless of how lax State permitting laws may be. House Republicans have no right to curtail the safety reforms that New York and other States have put in place to protect their citizens. That is why law enforcement organizations from across the country strongly oppose this legislation. It should never come to the floor. Americans deserve a better deal and more protection from gun violence, not less.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Brady for his leadership; Chairman Harper for moving so swiftly on this issue; and my colleague, Jackie Speier, who has selflessly worked on this issue for many years, along with Barbara Comstock. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Too often, harassment is treated just like it is part of the job; and if anyone complained, they were fired, punished, or paid off to be silent. This is an important cultural change where harassment, which is illegal, is treated seriously as a crime that needs to stop; and to train staff, Members, and officers on how to know what is right and what is wrong so that there is no misunderstanding. This is a first step. I strongly support Congresswoman Speier's bill that has a comprehensive approach, which bans the use of taxpayer money to silence victims and to settle this.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2874. There are some good things in this bill, including the Zeldin-Maloney bill, that would allow policyholders to receive mitigation credit for elevating boilers and other mechanical systems to higher floors instead of in easily flooded basements, which is a huge deal for the city of New York and other big cities. But there are too many provisions that would make flood insurance in my district either unavailable or unaffordable. For this reason, the city of New York opposes this bill. The bill would raise premiums on homeowners by increasing the floor on premium increases that Congress just set 3 years ago. Currently, FEMA has to increase premiums by a minimum of 5 percent per year. Under this bill, FEMA would have to increase premiums by a minimum of 6.5 percent per year. When you add up the mandatory increases in premiums required to fund FEMA's reserve fund and all of the other surcharges in the bill, the effect would be to significantly increase flood insurance premiums for homeowners. Finally, I am concerned about eliminating the noncompete clause for so-called write-your-own private insurers. This would allow the private insurers that administer the National Flood Insurance Program to exploit their access to FEMA's database in order to cherry-pick the safest properties. This would leave FEMA with only the riskiest properties, and would undermine the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. So, while there are many thoughtful good provisions in this bill, there are too many provisions that would dramatically increase premiums for my constituents. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this and so many issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2148, which clarifies and simplifies the capital rules for commercial real estate loans. This bill addresses an important issue, which is that the capital requirements for commercial real estate loans are overly complex for banks and unnecessarily punish certain types of commercial real estate loans and, thereby, the overall economy. I have had many community bankers and real estate developers complain to me about this, and I think that they have a point. Even the regulators agree that these rules are overly complicated and need to be simplified, so there is broad consensus that this is a longtime, legitimate problem that needs to be fixed. I thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for all their hard work on this issue. I also want to thank Mr. Pittenger and Mr. Scott for working with me during this markup on an amendment to strengthen the bill. The current capital rules punish commercial real estate loans that are considered high volatility, by requiring banks to hold additional capital against them. They have to hold capital worth 150 percent for these high volatility loans, as opposed to the normal 100 percent for other commercial real estate loans. These high volatility commercial real estate loans, or HVCRE loans, are usually made so that a borrower can purchase vacant or undeveloped land, which they then will build on or hold for a later time. But the capital rules for these HVCRE loans were extremely complex and led to a great deal of confusion about which loans were considered high volatility and which were not. The regulators finally did propose a rule to simplify the treatment of high volatility commercial real estate loans just a few weeks ago. This bill addresses the same issue as the regulators' proposed rule by simplifying the capital rules for commercial real estate loans. I offered an amendment in committee that further aligned the bill with the best parts of the regulators' proposed rule, which I think ultimately strengthened and improved the bill. The bill would simplify the capital rules by removing the so-called contributed capital requirement, which requires very complicated calculations and forces banks to project the value of the property years into the future, which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do. Even the regulators have concluded that this entire contributed capital requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and does not add protection at all. Removing it will streamline the capital rules for banks and make it easier to finance job-creating projects. The regulators have proposed to remove this entire requirement, and I agree. Under current law, banks have to hold more capital when the property is vacant and not producing any income. So the bill clarifies that when a property does start to produce sufficient income to cover the debt service payments to the bank, then the loan is much safer, and thus is eligible for capital relief, removing the 150 percent surcharge and going back down to 100 percent. I think this bill is a very good, commonsense bill that fixes a legitimate problem, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I believe it will make access to capital more fair and will get it out into the community, creating jobs. I congratulate all of my colleagues who were part of this process, and I support the bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend and previous staff member, Dominic Fucile, as he receives the Volunteer of the Year award at the Hellenic-American Neighborhood Action Committee's (HANAC) Forty-Fifth Annual Gala. Dominic has truly made his community a better place to live.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3972, and I am very thankful to gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member, for their support and assistance on this legislation. This bill is very simple. It makes what I consider to be a technical fix to the rules for family offices. Family offices are entities that are established by wealthy families to manage their own money and to provide financial services to their family members. The original family office was created by John D. Rockefeller 135 years ago and still exists in the district that I represent. So family offices have a long and storied history in this country and have become important sources of liquidity for our markets. It is also important to note that family offices do not pose a systemic risk and did not cause any problems in the financial crisis, so they don't pose any safety and soundness risk to the financial system. Family offices aren't regulated by the SEC as investment advisers because they don't have traditiona clients or outside investors. They invest money in their funds like most investment advisers. A family office is just that: a family office managing its own family money. Their clients are primarily family members, and disputes between family members are better handled either internally by the family or through State courts, which have laws to govern disputes between family members. Prior to Dodd-Frank, the SEC had been exempting family officers and offices from the Advisers Act for decades on a case-by-case basis. In Dodd-Frank, we codified the exemption for family offices and required the SEC to write a rule formally defining ``family offices.'' The SEC finalized that rule in 2011, so family offices, to meet the SEC's definition, do not have to register with the SEC or as investment advisers. However, a problem has now come up that we did not anticipate. We assumed that every family client or a member of the family would qualify as a sophisticated accredited investor under the SEC rules. But it turns out that there are very limited circumstances in which a family client of a family office may not actually qualify as an individual accredited investor. For example, a 19- or 20-year-old member of a wealthy family may be in his or her first job after school and may not be making enough money to qualify as an accredited investor, which is over $200,000, annually. The real problem is, under the rules we have now, if just one of these family clients--a young person, in most cases--in a family office is not an accredited investor, then the entire family office is not considered an accredited investor and, thus, cannot buy any securities that are limited to accredited investors, like privately issued stocks or bonds. My bill would fix this by just clarifying that all family offices and family clients are, in fact, accredited investors. The bill does not allow that any 19- or 20-year-old can go out on their own and buy securities. It is limited to accredited investors that can only be done through the family office. The bill also includes some important limitations: The family office has to have at least $5 million in assets, which is the same limitation that applies to trusts in the current accredited investor rule. The family office also has to have its investments directed by a sophisticated investment professional, which provides yet another layer of protection. So, really, this bill is very narrowly tailored and provides what I consider to be a technical fix that will allow family offices to better serve their own family members. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3898. In August, I was part of a congressional delegation led by Senator Markey that visited South Korea, Japan, and the border between China and North Korea. It is just a short drive from Seoul, a city of about 10 million people, to the DMZ, which is the border line with North Korea. Standing there, you understand and see firsthand that even though the United States would prevail unquestionably in any armed conflict, the casualties suffered by South Korea would be horrendous. Later, I hosted a meeting with Congresswoman Wagner with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang here in the Congress. From these two meetings, I came back more convinced than ever that we have to leave no stone unturned to solve the most dangerous problem of our times peacefully through negotiations. I firmly believe that the only way to drive North Korea to the negotiation table is to increase the financial pressure on this reckless rogue regime, which is what this bill does. It is one of the toughest sanction bills financially we have ever considered, and may be the toughest. The fact that the dollar is the world's Reserve currency gives our country a very important bit of leverage. Companies doing business all over the world want to be paid, need to be paid, in dollars, not in any other currency. So if we restrict international and U.S. financial institutions from doing business with North Korea, then no matter how determined they might be to continue their destabilizing reckless course, they simply will not be able to get the dollars to buy the tools of terror that they need on the international market. This is not the kind of action we should ever take lightly. This is not a tool to use, an action to take indiscriminately. But in this rare case, in the case of North Korea, such action is not only justified, it is necessary for the defense of our Nation and the defense of other nations. If North Korea cannot buy the materials necessary to build long- range, nuclear-tipped missiles because they just don't have the dollars, then every country, every person on this globe can breathe a little easier and be a little safer.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is really an urgently needed bill that not only directly addresses our own security needs, but also does a great service to the community of nations. I would like to thank my friend, Mr. Barr, for all of his creative and hard work on this bill. I thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for their leadership and support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget. Ultimately, a national budget is like a deal between the American taxpayers and Congress about how this country will spend their money. Anyone who looks at the fine print in this budget plan can tell, with a glance, that the American people want, need, and deserve a better deal. In the Republican tax plan that goes with this budget, 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent gets an average of $200,000 in tax cuts. A better deal would drop plans to slash Medicare and Medicaid to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest few--a deal that instead would be a bipartisan effort to bring middle class tax relief, badly needed investments, and greater opportunity. But what we have instead is a budget that cuts $5.4 trillion in spending over 10 years, including $4.4 trillion in cuts to the mandatory programs that help average Americans get and stay ahead. These aren't just paper cuts. These are huge cuts--cuts that would cause enormous damage in the lives of children, students, veterans, and other Americans. About half of these cuts in nondefense spending are in programs that help people who need the help the most--cuts in programs that provide food to those in need, programs that help students from low-income families afford a college education. They even have cuts in the badly needed disaster relief that is helping so many in our country. In fact, by 2027, more than one-third of the resources for low- and middle-income people would be gone. Struggling Americans deserve a better deal than that. And who pays under the Republican tax plan? Seniors, single parents, and middle class families, it goes up. Nondefense discretionary is already at its lowest level since the category has been tracked. Republicans want to cut even more, and so they target senior citizens and healthcare. This budget cuts half a trillion dollars from Medicare, replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher-like system and increasing its eligibility age to 67. The CBO estimates that these cuts would cause part B premiums to increase 25 percent by 2020. And this budget claims that it ``saves'' $1.5 trillion by repealing the Affordable Care Act, even though they have already tried to repeal it about 60 times on this floor, without success, thank God, and the American people have made it clear that they don't want it repealed. They still have no replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act. So that means that they would just be leaving millions without health insurance and threatening the coverage of all those with preexisting conditions and chronic illnesses, and would leave millions facing huge premium increases. Their plan also cuts $114 billion from Medicaid, ripping away coverage from low-income families and the disabled. This is just plain wrong. Our seniors deserve a much better deal than that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent, and the top 1 percent gets an average of $200,000 in tax cuts. And what we see in this budget is a slashing of investments in the future strength of our country. Instead of slashing infrastructure spending, as this budget does, we should be increasing our spending to fill the giant infrastructure pothole that Republican policies have left us with. We have airports that feel Third World. We have bridges that are crumbling, tunnels that need replacing, roads that need fixing. Failing to do so costs all of us in time, money, and economic development. This budget totally fails to recognize the value of infrastructure investment. It cuts $254 billion from transportation over 10 years. Funding would drop from $92 billion next year to just $65 billion in 2022. It eliminates the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant program used for infrastructure development and repair projects for interstate highways, bridge improvements, and ports. This is incredibly shortsighted. According to a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers, failing to close the infrastructure investment gap brings serious economic consequences: $3.9 trillion in losses to the U.S. GDP by 2025; $7 trillion in lost business sales in 2025; and 2.5 million lost American jobs in 2025. I have seen with my own eyes what infrastructure development can mean to business development and the quality of life in the city that I serve. The Second Avenue Subway, built with the help of Federal funds, opened in January and has already had a huge economic impact. Stores say their business is up 20 to 30 percent along that line and it has cut overcrowding and reduced traveling times. New York's old Kosciuszko Bridge, which was first opened in 1939, was originally designed for 10,000 vehicles a day. It was carrying 18 times that and had become an accident choke point. Thanks to Federal funding, it has been replaced, and the biggest city in the country will have a brand-new, 21st century bridge soon because these kinds of investments boost productivity and bolster our economy, with each $1 in infrastructure investment generating up to $1.80 in additional economic activity. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our national infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus and our transit system a D- minus. It is just plain irresponsible to slash spending on our crumbling highways and bridges now, because if we don't make needed investments today, we will jeopardize our competitiveness tomorrow. Let's be clear: we are already significantly underinvesting in infrastructure. As you can see from this chart, public investments in infrastructure and other public fixed assets have fallen over the last few years, dropping to a low of $274 billion in 2014, from more than $357 billion in 2009. We have created a giant infrastructure spending pothole that you see right here. All told, it costs our Nation more than half a trillion dollars in lost investment over 5 years. The people of this country deserve modern infrastructure. They deserve a better deal. This budget also cuts $154 billion from nutrition, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, ignoring the more than 40 million low-income families, including children, the working poor, the elderly, and the disabled, to say nothing of the 8 million people, including 4 million children it lifts out of poverty. The hungry children of America deserve a better deal than that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.