Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of St. Illuminator Armenian Apostolic Cathedral located in the district I represent in Manhattan, New York. It was the first Armenian church established in New York City. After fleeing to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century following the Hamidian Massacres and Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians of New York City did not have their own church to worship in together. They held religious services in various churches, most of which were located in the neighborhood of the current cathedral. Purchasing a church was initially proposed in 1913. A successful fundraising effort allowed construction to begin for what was then known as the central cathedral of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1915. The Cathedral officially opened its doors in 1916, but parishioners celebrated the Cathedral's centennial throughout 2015 at the same time as the centennial of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915. For over a century, St. Illuminator's Cathedral has played a significant role in advocating for Armenians in the U.S. and around the world. Many Genocide survivors found their refuge in the United States, entering the country through Ellis Island. St. Illuminator came to serve as shelter to many of them once they arrived. Today, there remains a vibrant congregation, inspiring their community through faith and service. I extend my congratulations to the pastor, Rev. Fr. Mesrob Lakissian who has led the church for 10 years, the Board of Trustees, and all members and friends of St. Illuminator, and wish them many more years of success and service to the Armenian American community. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the anniversary of St. Illuminator's Cathedral and its contributions to the Armenian American residents of Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn as well as the larger Armenian American community in the United States.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Gina Argento, who was honored for her achievements as part of Women's History Month. Ms. Argento is President of Broadway Stages, one of New York's largest film, television, and music production facilities which is located in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Ms. Argento and her brother, Tony, opened Broadway Stages in 1983, turning a rundown movie theatre into a sound stage. Over the past 32 years, Broadway Stages has expanded both its physical size and capabilities. Broadway Stages now has over half a million square feet of space with 38 state-of-the-art stages and support facilities. Offering full service film, television, photography and music production facilities, Broadway Stages has served an extensive list of hit movies and television shows including ``The Good Wife,'' ``Blue Bloods,'' ``Mr. Robot,'' ``Madam Secretary,'' ``Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,'' ``Limitless,'' ``Broad City,'' ``Unforgettable,'' and ``Master of None,'' in addition to commercials, print and music videos. Broadway Stages has facilities in Brooklyn and Queens and is currently in the process of building a 69-acre facility in Staten Island. Under Ms. Argento's leadership, Broadway Stages has exhibited an unparalleled commitment towards the local community in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. In addition to creating hundreds of local jobs, Broadway Stages helps neighboring residents, small businesses, and community- based organizations. Broadway Stages has donated food, equipment, and additional resources to local soup kitchens, partnered with the McGolrick Park Neighborhood Alliance to clean up the beloved park located in the center of Greenpoint and hosted family-friendly neighborhood block parties during the summer. Most recently, Broadway Stages joined the television show ``Blue Bloods'' and CBS to give $25,000 to the families of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu who were brutally murdered in Brooklyn. Ms. Argento is also committed to supporting young people. Broadway Stages provided new audio equipment to St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Academy, sponsored a 5 Boro Basketball team for teens, created a ``Green Science Week'' at PS110, and partnered with community organizations to hold a local ``Schoolfest'' fair for students and their families. Broadway Stages also funded the SYSTEM Teen Summer Program, which provides high school students the opportunity to participate in hands-on activities focused on green technology, engineering, gardening, and community service. Broadway Stages is an incredible community partner that is committed to building a strong and environmentally sustainable future. Under Ms. Argento's leadership, Broadway Stages has become a model of the way private industry can champion energy sustainability and environmentally-sound community development. By installing 50,000 square feet of solar photovoltaic systems on the roofs of 7 of its sound stages, Broadway Stages created the world's first solar powered sound stage and the largest private solar power installation in New York State. The solar roofs have offset 30 percent of Broadway Stage's annual electricity consumption. Broadway Stages also created an organic vegetable farm called ``Eagle Street Rooftop,'' located on top of a warehouse in Greenpoint. The 6,000 square foot rooftop farm features a variety of educational and volunteer programs and a farmer's market during the growing season. Broadway Stages is also involved in cleaning up a Brownfield site at 359 Kingsland Avenue. Ms. Argento has worked with YMCA Greenpoint, Boy Scouts of America, Kings County Democratic Club, Greenpoint Chamber of Commerce, Solar One, and EWVIDCO, an advocacy organization for industrial businesses in Greenpoint. Ms. Argento is a loving mother to her three sons, John, Anthony, and Paul. She and her husband, John Ciafone, make an incredible team. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the remarkable work of Gina Argento, a successful businesswoman, environmentalist, and fantastic neighbor.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Ana Rodriguez, Director of Community Relations and Volunteer Services at Mount Sinai Queens, who was honored for her achievements as part of Women's History Month. Ms. Rodriguez is a dedicated, compassionate, and beloved representative for the hospital. She attends countless community meetings and is always cheerful and well informed. In her role at Mount Sinai Queens, Ms. Rodriguez works with community organizations and community leaders to ensure that the hospital best serves its community. In addition, she coordinates educational health programs and events to promote awareness about health issues in the community. Ms. Rodriguez also works with people of all ages and all walks of life who are interested in volunteering, in order to ensure that the hospital's patients are served in the most meaningful way possible. Ms. Rodriguez has also been an important advocate for children. From 1993 through 1999, she worked with Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America. In her role as Associate Director, Ms. Rodriguez served youth in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx through the Urban Emphasis and Scoutreach Program. She collaborated with school principals, religious institutions, and community organizations to establish new scouting programs. For six years, Ms. Rodriguez served adolescents, as well as adults, as a senior clinical social worker at the New York Presbyterian Hospital. Here, she provided mental health services, and worked with young men and women to empower them to reach their full potential. Ms. Rodriguez has been celebrated by the community for her achievements. For example, Centro de Desarrollo de la Mujer (Center for Women Development) has presented her with a Woman of the Year Award for her community service. Her work has also been recognized by the Office of the Borough President of Manhattan, and she has received the Peter Vallone, Jr. Award from the 114th Precinct Civilian Observation Patrol for her dedication to the people of Astoria and Long Island City. Ms. Rodriguez has a Bachelor of Science from Hunter College and a Master's degree in social work from Columbia University. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the wonderful work of Ms. Rodriguez and her tireless service to her community.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize The Parish of Our Lady of Mount Carmel on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. I am pleased to recognize their continued dedication to maintaining one of the oldest parishes in Queens and all of Long Island. Since its founding in 1841, Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been devoted to welcoming all members of the community. The Parish celebrates the rich Queens Borough culture through educational programs and monthly festivities. This has earned it the title ``Mother Church of Queens County.'' Mount Carmel is one of the few parishes in New York City that has its own parish cemetery. Their cemetery reflects the heritage of the early Irish Catholic settlers of Astoria, many of who arrived there to escape Ireland's potato blight of the late 1840s. Our Lady of Mount Carmel was also the first Catholic community in Queens County to have a resident priest, and the first to conduct Mass in its own church building. Along with English language services, the Parish has performed masses in Spanish since 1977 and has added services in Czech and Slovak as well. Additionally, the Parish has made significant efforts to improve the community through religious and educational programs. They accomplished this by establishing religion classes for mentally disabled and physically challenged students, religion classes for junior high school students, adult religious education programs, a teen club, and children's summer programs. The Parish has also established the Young Adult Internship Program, a job-training program for unskilled youth that teaches valuable workplace skills to roughly 35 students per semester, resulting in more employment opportunities within the neighborhood. The Parish has devotedly served its Queens community for 175 years, and it is a pleasure to represent this treasured institution in Congress. I am proud to salute all the friends, supporters, and parishioners of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and I extend my sincerest appreciation for their dedication to the community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the remarkable history and extraordinary work of the Parish of Our Lady of Mount Carmel on its 175th anniversary.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Women's City Club of New York (WCCNY) in recognition of a century of activism. Committed to giving women a voice, WCCNY has been a leading advocate for women's rights and equality. In 1915, women in New York still could not vote, but they took their citizenship very seriously. After realizing that they would soon gain the ballot, 100 suffragettes gathered in New York City to found WCCNY as a place where they could learn about issues and influence public policy. These women wasted no time in tackling the complex problems of their day, such as the abuse of women in sweatshops, intolerable tenement living conditions, and the lack of opportunities for many people in our society. Many celebrated women joined the organization. Eleanor Roosevelt became a member when she was first lady of New York State and served as WCCNY's legislative director. Frances Perkins, a NYC labor leader who later became the first female cabinet member in the history of the United States when she was appointed as Franklin D Roosevelt's Secretary of Labor. As Secretary of Labor, she helped create Social Security, which kept millions of seniors and disabled people out of poverty. Other notable and highly respected members included Alice Duer Miller, WCCNY's first president; Ida Tarbell, legendary muckraking journalist; Virginia Gildersleeve, a WWII WAVES commander and Dean of Barnard College; Dorothy Schiff, president and publisher of the New York Post; celebrated actress Helen Hayes; and nurse-midwife Ruth Watson Lubic, who was the founder of the National Association of Childbearing Centers and winner of a 1993 MacArthur ``Genius Grant.'' Since its inception in 1915, WCCNY has accomplished astounding feats for women in New York City and set a precedent for future generations of women's rights activists. In the early days, suffragettes took on many issues including a campaign to allow physicians to legally dispense birth control information in 1917, opening the nation's first free maternity center in 1918, and ensuring the passage of WCCNY's draft of New York State's first child labor laws in the 1940s. More recently, the organization has created videos that promote HIV/AIDS awareness among youth, worked to improve campaign finance reform laws, advocated for national health care reform, and had a major role in the NYC Charter Revision. Continuing to make a difference in New Yorkers' lives is at the heart of WCCNY's work. To ensure that government fairly and effectively serves all of the city's residents, WCCNY undertakes a rigorous process of identifying and analyzing major issues facing the city and state. Having reached its centennial year, citizen participation remains the organization's primary focus, along with the continuation of its game- changing advocacy on issues that most impact New Yorkers. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Women's City Club of New York for a century of civic achievements and in celebrating its current and past members for their perseverance and advocacy in the fight to end injustice and ensure equality for women.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of The Floating Hospital (TFH), located in Long Island City, New York, in the district I am privileged to represent. TFH was founded in 1866 with the goal: ``To afford relief to the sick children of the poor of the City of New York without regard to creed, color, or nationality.'' Today, TFH serves thousands of victims of domestic violence, homeless families, and public housing residents. Though it is a land-based organization today, TFH derives its name from the series of ships which housed the hospital and regularly sailed through New York Harbor, providing children and their caregivers with recreational opportunities on board, as well as healthcare services, health and nutrition education, and a respite from an overcrowded city. The idea was inaugurated by George F. Williams, a managing editor at The New York Times, when he saw newsboys being forced off the grass in City Hall Park by police and ordered to stay on the walkways where the hot concrete burned their feet. Their plight inspired him to appeal to the Times's readership to donate money for a boat trip for newsboys and bootblacks. These trips soon became more regular and were taken over by St. John's Guild, which purchased the first vessel, organized the trips and expanded them to include underprivileged children and their mothers. Medical personnel were hired to provide treatment, vaccines, nutritional guidance and other care, and opened a clinic for sick patients on Staten Island. IN the early 2000s, TFH sold its boat and created a clinic in Long Island City and has now become New York City's largest provider of primary healthcare services to residents of family shelters and domestic violence safe houses, as well as residents of public housing, with more than 61,000 patient visits every year. TFH opened the first federally-qualified health center in a New York City Housing Authority development and Queensbridge Houses. TFH works proactively with families from the moment they enter the shelter system, including screenings for communicable diseases and health conditions like heart disease and asthma. TFH provides a huge array of primary healthcare services, oral healthcare, health education, benefits counseling, and mental health services, and even offers free transportation for patients to and from over 200 shelters and domestic violence safe houses. In its 150 years, TFH has served over 5 million patients. Today, it continues to honor its historic mission to serve the most vulnerable by working constantly to improve and expand its services and clinics. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the anniversary of TFH and its 150 years of immeasurable contributions to the health and well- being of all New Yorkers.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Israel's 68th Independence Day commemorating the day before the expiration of the British Mandate in 1948, when Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people. I am pleased to celebrate that defining moment, as well as Israel's remarkable growth and success. When the United Nations issued Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, approving the Special Committee on Palestine's partition plan establishing a Jewish and an Arab state, it seemed to be the culmination of decades of hard work and bold dreams. On May 14, 1948 (5 Iyar), as the British Mandate was coming to an end, David Ben-Gurion held a special ceremony at the Tel Aviv Museum and read the Declaration of Independence (Megilat HaAtzma'ut), announcing the establishment of a Jewish nation to be known as Israel. The members of the Provisional State Council joined him in signing the document. America recognized Israel just after midnight on May 15, moments after the new nation was proclaimed. Since that day the relationship between the United States and Israel has strengthened and flourished. Israel remains a beacon of hope and justice in an otherwise tumultuous region. Democracy, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and government by the rule of law are among the ideals shared by our two nations. As a result of our common outlook, the bonds of friendship between our two nations are strong and unbreakable. Like the United States, Israel is a nation of immigrants and draws its strength from the diversity and tenacity of its people. Israel has been a haven for Jews from every part of the globe, particularly those fleeing discrimination and expulsion. Israel has succeeded in integrating diverse populations and making them part of Israeli culture. By investing in its citizens, Israel has proven that a creative and resourceful population can overcome a lack of natural resources. Lacking potable water, Israel is at the forefront of desalination efforts. Lacking arable land, it has developed innovative ways to grow produce in the desert. Lacking energy, it has pioneered advances in solar and wind energy. Lacking security, it has built some of the most effective defensive systems to ensure the safety and welfare of its people. Given its record of innovation, it makes sense that Israel has more high tech start ups than any other country in the world other than the United States and is a global leader in medicine. Israeli inventions have revolutionized communication, agriculture, imaging and other industries. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the 68th Israeli Independence Day. Today we rejoice in Israel's success, embrace its people, and renew our nation's commitment to standing alongside Israel in defense of its right to safety and prosperity.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the East Sixties Neighborhood Association (ESNA). For the last quarter century, ESNA has had an extraordinary impact on the quality of life of residents of the East 60s. ESNA was founded in the summer of 1991 to ensure that residents had a say in decisions that were being made in their neighborhood. The idea for ESNA came about because of a proposal to turn a vacant lot on the corner of 63rd Street and Second Avenue owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to a parking lot. A parking lot would have attracted more traffic to one of New York City's busiest intersections. Instead, the founders, Barry and Judy Schneider and Neil and Judy McLennan, were able to persuade the owner to lease the property to an alternative tenant that was more acceptable to the community. Over the last 25 years, ESNA has grown into an influential organization with a committed group of community volunteers. ESNA's catchment area includes the area from East 60th to East 69th Street from the East Side of Third Avenue to the East River, and is home to more than 35,000 New Yorkers. Today, ESNA's many committees all work together to make the community a better place to live. ESNA volunteers help prune street trees, promote recycling, remove graffiti from city property, and monitor neighborhood conditions on the streets, alerting the city to sanitation conditions, traffic and noise. ESNA also encourages community spirit through a number of social events and caroling during Christmas. One of ESNA's current concerns has been the East Side Access project (ESA), which will bring the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central Terminal. Some of the construction work related to ESA is in ESNA's catchment area. ESNA worked with the MTA to minimize the impact on local businesses and residents. Similarly, one of the stations for the Second Avenue Subway is being built in the ESNA area, and ESNA helped alleviate construction impact while continuing to support the development of a subway that will provide much needed transportation alternatives to the area. New York is a city of neighborhoods. Local groups like ESNA make it possible for residents to come together as a community and have a profound impact on the quality of life in their neighborhood. I applaud ESNA for helping to create a real feeling of community in one of New York's most dense urban neighborhoods and for ensuring that community concerns are considered when decisions are being made. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 25th anniversary of ESNA and its immeasurable contributions to the East 60s and New York City at large.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment in the continuing resolution that was released last night. The $7 million appropriated to reimburse New York City for costs incurred to provide security for President-elect Trump and his family was a mere fraction of the $35 million requested by the city and the police department. The security efforts involved are unprecedented, and it is totally unfair to ask New York City taxpayers alone to pay for these costs. This is the second busiest intersection, not in New York City, not in New York State, but in the entire country. Over 10,000 residents per hour cross at 57th and 5th. It is a security challenge personified. Because of this budget's failure, New Yorkers are now being forced to provide a no-interest loan to the Federal Government and have no guarantee of being paid back. This is a terrible deal. Securing the President-elect is a national security priority, and it must be paid for by the Federal Government.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman. I join the chairman in thanking Congressman Neugebauer for his outstanding service to this institution, to his district, and to this country. He has been an outstanding Member. It has been a pleasure to serve with him. We will miss you. Thank you for your friendship, your consideration, and your really hard work for good, sound policy in this country. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5143. I believe that it would undermine the Fed's ability to negotiate international agreements on insurance regulation, and I think that that will cause a big problem for insurance in our country. Telling the Fed that it can't agree to any international standard on insurance that isn't already the law in the United States absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. The other countries would simply stop negotiating with us, and I believe we would lose our voice and our seat at the table, and that is not good for America. It is also important to remember that nothing the Fed or Treasury agrees to internationally can be binding on State insurance regulators. That is already the law, and we don't need a new law to tell us that. The Fed does regulate 14 insurance companies through its holding companies. This has been a Federal authority, and there is nothing new about that. The Fed should be able to align the insurance regulations that it has authority over with the regulations in other countries. One of the big lessons of the scandal and of the economic downturn of 2008 was that different regulatory regimes in different countries could have different incentives, and some of them were bad incentives--for example, AIG. The only problem that existed with this country was in the different incentives in England. I am very uncomfortable with a bill that hamstrings the Federal Reserve's ability to regulate the safety and soundness of the large insurance holding companies that it has authority over and to ensure that those regulatory standards are consistent internationally, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Prepare All Kids Act--important legislation to strengthen the availability of high-quality prekindergarten for families across the country. In my home city of New York, we have more children enrolled in full- day pre-K than 49 states as part of our effort to guarantee universal pre-K for all families. But across the country too few families have access to good prekindergarten programs that will help their children enter elementary school ready to learn and succeed. That is why I have introduced the Prepare All Kids Act along with Senator Bob Casey. This bill would authorize a Prekindergarten Incentive Fund to award grants to states that establish, expand, or enhance full-day pre-K programs. These grants will help states launch or expand high-quality programs that are proven to help children excel in school and help working families succeed. I am proud of President Obama's commitment to these goals, by expanding Head Start and Early Head Start, and making early childhood education a priority. Congress must build on these efforts by passing legislation to ensure that all children benefit from high-quality prekindergarten.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this chart shows that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings is at the lowest level since 2001. It shows that, in 2007, before the Great Recession, the ratio was 1.4 unemployed workers for every job opening. Then, during the prior administration, it peaked at a staggering 6.6 unemployed workers to every job opening under former President Bush. Then a whole wave of Democratic policy initiatives took effect, and the ratio began to drop and drop and drop and drop. In our most recent data, which is as of July 2016, the ratio was 1.3 unemployed workers to every job opening. I think we can sum up the recovery in 4 words: Thank you, President Obama.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for overriding the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. I understand and give weight to the President's concerns, but I believe that this bill is focused on and applies to only those attacks that are committed on U.S. soil that harm U.S. nationals. The attacks of 9/11 were singular acts of appalling cruelty. They were targeted knowingly and specifically at civilian noncombatants. They were barbaric crimes that violated all norms of civilized conduct and all of the international conventions of armed conflict. Though the hijackers of those planes died that day, it is virtually indisputable that there are people who conspired with them in the planning, preparation, execution, and financing of those horrific acts who walk the streets freely in foreign capitals today. They walk comfortably, securely, smugly, believing that because of a peculiar interpretation of international law, they are safe from the long arm of justice, immune to any consequences. JASTA, as it is called, is needed to correct some shortcomings in previous legislation and lower court decisions. The bill is needed to make it possible for the survivors and for the families of the victims of savage acts of international terrorism to seek a measure of justice through the civil courts. This bill is needed because both Congress and the executive branch have affirmed that civil litigation against terror sponsors, including foreign governments, can have an important deterrent effect. The attacks of 9/11 were roundly condemned by people and governments around the world. So this bill is needed not just by the families of those who died in New York and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania; it is needed to send a message to people all around the world, a message that the long arm of American justice will not be deterred, will never tire, and will never falter. As we have done in the past, we will pursue the perpetrators of such savage acts of inhumanity, as we saw on 9/11, to their very graves. There is no loophole and there will be no escape. Yes, it may be true that there are risks in passing a bill like this that may have some unintended consequences, but compare that to the risks of doing nothing and the risks that are very real that are all too present. I urge my colleagues to not forget and to overturn the President's veto. It is in America's interest, and it is a deterrent to future crimes.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a Concurrent Resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Parthenon Marbles, currently held in the British Museum, should be returned to Greece. Approximately 200 years ago, while Greece was under Ottoman rule, the British nobleman Thomas Bruce, seventh Earl of Elgin removed over 100 pieces of sculptures known as the Parthenon Marbles and transported them to the United Kingdom. The Marbles were part of a frieze that adorned the Temple of Athena. In 1816, the British Parliament voted to purchase the Marbles from Lord Elgin and they now reside in the British Museum. The other half of the Marbles that comprise the frieze are in the New Acropolis Museum in Athens alongside plaster replicas of the Marbles that were taken. Despite years of efforts by the Greek Government to retain the Marbles, it has been unable to negotiate an agreement with its British counterparts to return the Marbles to Greece. I am pleased that Members of the British Parliament have recently introduced legislation to transfer ownership of the Marbles back to Greece and return these cherished artifacts to their rightful home. The Parthenon marbles are some of Greece's greatest examples of artistic expression and beauty, and should be on display in their country of origin. They are vital pieces of Greek history that belong to the Greek people. This resolution calls upon the two countries to come to an agreement to finally return these treasures to their rightful home. I want to thank Rep. Gus Bilirakis, with whom I co-chair the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, and Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. for joining me as co-sponsors on this important resolution. Rep. Payne's father and our former colleague, the late Rep. Donald Payne Sr., was a great champion in this effort to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. I am proud to continue to call for an agreement that will put an end to this centuries-old dispute, and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, most modern businesses today use metrics to help them establish best practices. So I offer this chart based on the published, peer-reviewed research of two respected Princeton economists, Dr. Blinder and Dr. Watson, that reveal some very important metrics and measures. It shows the annual growth of the U.S. economy for each Presidential term going all the way back to World War II. Democratic Presidents are in blue, and Republicans are in red. So whether it is 7\1/2\ years where President Obama outperforms the economy of his predecessor or 70 years, as you can see, there is a huge difference between how the economy performs between a Republican v. a Democratic President. In fact, going back 16 Presidential terms, the economy does significantly better by almost every measure under Democratic administrations. So, as President John Adams famously said: ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our . . . inclinations . . . they cannot alter the . . . facts . . . '' And the fact is, the blue, the Democrats, do better than the Republicans on the economy when a Democrat is President.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, let's bury a myth, the persistent claim that Republicans are better at managing the economy than Democrats. Under President Obama, we have come a long way since the dark days of the Bush-era Great Recession. And whether you look at the past 7\1/2\ years under President Obama or the past 70 years since Truman, the Democratic record on the economy is very strong; the strong Democrat blue vs. red for the Republicans. A recent study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson underscores this point. It shows that, since World War II, the economy has performed better under Democratic Presidents over Republican Presidents. Blinder and Watson say it this way: ``The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance.'' But Republicans still make the questionable claim that they do better at managing the economy. Let's put an end to that myth. Let's move to a more evidence-based discussion and bury the myth that Republicans are better at managing the economy. The facts and the metrics speak for themselves; the strong blue Democratic record under Democratic Presidents managing the economy.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's annual report by the Census Bureau brought some very good news to the American people. Last year, for the first time in nearly two decades, three key economic indicators all moved in the right direction: median household income is up a staggering 5.2 percent, which translates into over $2,800 a year for the typical American family; the poverty rate went down by the largest amount, or largest 1-year drop, in recorded history; and the number of Americans without health insurance has now dropped to a historic low. Add to all of that an unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, and we have witnessed the largest and longest streak of job growth in history. These numbers show, even as we face serious challenges, our progress is real, our recovery is sound, and our reasons to hope are many.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1076, the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation, in honor of the memory of Lisa Ann Fabbri, 38 years old, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the floor of the United States Congress.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday marks the 15th anniversary of 9/11, a day when we suffered from the savagery of mankind at its worst and witnessed the courage of humanity at its best. In our collective sorrow, I have never seen this body so united and determined to protect our people, to protect America. We found strength from one another. I am proud of the way my city, my country, and my colleagues responded. I am grateful for the privilege of working with our first responders, survivors, and families, and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act, so that anyone suffering from the wounds of 9/11 will never have to worry about the health care and assistance they deserve. It is in this way we remember and honor those who carry the wounds of that very dark day and who deserve the thanks of a grateful nation. It is in this way that we show we will never forget.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5424. While my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is going to offer an amendment that would remove two of the most problematic provisions, I, unfortunately, still have serious concerns with the remaining provisions in the bill, which makes changes to core aspects of a regulatory regime that has been very successful for decades. For one thing, this entire bill applies to more than just private equity funds. It applies to private equity funds, hedge funds, and commodity pools. So, as a threshold matter, this is not narrow or targeted relief. I also have a problem with the provision exempting private equity advisers from the Proxy Voting Rule for private securities. The Proxy Voting Rule simply requires advisers to have a policy--just a policy-- in place to deal with conflicts of interest when the adviser is voting on shareholder proposals on their clients' behalf. Proxy voting is not limited to public companies, and conflicts of interest exist whether a company is public or private. So there is really no reason why private securities should get an exemption here. In fact, private equity advisers are even more likely to have a conflict of interest when they are voting on shareholder proposals on a client's behalf because the entire business model of a private equity funds is premised on the funds having a significant amount of influence, if not outright control; and, in some cases, they even manage the company. So a private equity adviser that is voting on a client's behalf would have a conflict of interest virtually every time it is faced with a proposal that is good for management, but bad for shareholders. Requiring a private equity adviser to have policies in place to manage these conflicts of interest is really not too much to ask. We are just asking for policies to be in place. While I think there are some very good things in this bill that are reasonable, I think too many of the provisions go too far, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I support the Foster amendment that has been offered by my good friend and colleague from Illinois, and I thank him for his hard work in responding to concerns that the Democrats raised. I thank Chairman Hensarling for accepting the amendment and Congressman Hurt for accepting the amendment. This amendment removes a provision in the bill that would exempt certain funds from the annual audit requirement of the custody rule. The custody rule is a longstanding investor protection that guards against outright theft of clients' funds, so I think that is a very huge burden of proof if you want to even think about rolling it back. There are so many ways to comply with the custody rule, but this bill without the Foster amendment would allow certain advisers to be exempt from having an annual audit, from having an annual surprise exam, and the requirement to hold a client's securities at an independent qualified custodian. In other words, it would exempt certain advisers from all of the protections of the custody rule. I think that is a bridge too far, and I am so pleased that Mr. Foster's amendment would remove this provision. It makes it a much better bill. I still have concerns about the remaining provisions of the bill, but I think that this amendment is a huge step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support the Foster amendment.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for all of his hard work on this bill and others. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his hard work in helping to bring it to the floor. I thank my colleagues from New York, Congressmen King and Nadler, for their hard work. This is an important, important bill, and I rise today, 2 days before the 15th anniversary of 9/11, to express my strong support for the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The attacks of 9/11 were acts of appalling cruelty. They targeted, knowingly and specifically, innocent Americans who just got up and went to work like every other American and were killed on 9/11. Though the hijackers of those planes died that day, it is virtually indisputable that people who conspired with them in the planning, preparation, execution, and financing of those horrific acts walk the streets freely in foreign capitals today. In fact, they are protected by a peculiar interpretation of international law that shields them from justice in U.S. courts for terrorist acts on U.S. soil. This bill, a version of which passed the Senate unanimously, would correct misinterpretations of previous legislation and lower court decisions, and empower survivors and families of the victims of international terrorism to seek a measure of justice through our civil court system. This bill is needed because both the Congress and the executive have affirmed that civil litigation against terror sponsors, including governments, can have an important deterrent effect. This bill is also mindful of the concerns some have about its possible effect on sovereign immunity. For that reason, it is narrowly focused and applies only to attacks committed on U.S. soil that harm U.S. nationals. The attacks of 9/11 were roundly condemned by people and governments around the world, so this bill is needed not just for the families of those who died in New York and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, but it is needed by people around the world. We know we lost, roughly, 3,000 people on 9/11, but thousands and thousands more have died since the attacks because of the diseases that they now have because of being exposed to the toxins down at Ground Zero. Now they are predicting that, roughly, 15 people a day are concerned because cancer is now in their bodies from the exposure. So our people are still suffering. Fifteen years is a long time to wait. This bill is needed. Justice, we need justice. I think it is a strong deterrent. I am proud of the United States Congress and the legislative body of this country for standing up and passing this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to not forget and to support overwhelmingly this 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. I am going to oppose this bill because I think it rolls back too many investor protections. But I understand and appreciate the chairman's goals here. We all support the goal of increasing capital formation. We just disagree on the best way to accomplish it. My view is that the best way to stimulate investment is to treat investors well and protect them, and that means strong investor protections. I firmly believe that markets run more, and better, on confidence than on capital. Unfortunately, this bill goes in the wrong direction. It strips away protections that investors want in order to feel comfortable investing in startups and small companies. I have particular concerns with title I of this bill, which would allow very small and thinly traded companies to sell securities using the faster shelf registration process. This raises serious market manipulation concerns. Let me explain why. Shelf registration allows companies to register securities in advance and then sell them later on short notice, without getting SEC approval. Traditionally, shelf registration has been limited to larger, well- known companies, like GE or Apple, that are already widely followed by the markets, in other words, companies that investors are already very familiar with. In 2007, the SEC decided to expand the number of companies who are eligible to use shelf registration. In doing so, however, the SEC was very careful to balance this against the need to maintain strong investor protection. The SEC was comfortable allowing certain very small companies to have a limited ability to use shelf registration to offer securities, but only on the condition that the company have at least one class of securities listed on the exchange. This was because the exchanges have their own standards that companies must meet in order to get their securities listed on the exchange. These listing standards provide investors with sufficient assurance that the company is legitimate, has a reasonably wide investor base, and will have enough trading interest to assure a reasonable amount of liquidity in the stock. Without the comfort provided by the exchange's initial screening procedures for these companies, however, I am not sure we should be comfortable allowing these very small companies to use shelf registration. But that is what this bill would do. It would allow very small companies that trade in over-the-counter markets to sell securities using shelf registration. Allowing a small company, whose stock is very thinly traded to quickly sell a large amount of securities under the shelf registration raises real concerns about potential market manipulation. A company could easily bid up the price of its stock and then immediately dump a large amount of new stock to investors at the artificially inflated prices. As Columbia Professor John Coffee noted in his testimony before the Financial Services Committee on this proposal last Congress: ``Letting a small company with a modest $50 million public float use shelf registration to attempt to sell $150 million in securities invites potential disaster and investor confusion.'' Mr. Chair, I include in the Record his entire, very critical testimony of the dangers of this legislation. Statement of Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School, April 9, 2014 Legislative Proposals to Enhance Capital Formation for Small and Emerging Growth Companies Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Waters, and Fellow Members of the Committee: Introduction I thank you for inviting me. I have been asked to comment on seven proposed bills, some of which appear to be a still early stage of drafting. Reasonable people can disagree about several of these provisions, but others are beyond the pale. Still, my overarching comment is that each of these bills represents a piecemeal attempt to ``tweak'' something in our existing system, but collectively they are uncoordinated and lack any consistent vision. If there is any common theme to these bills, it is that better integration and coordination is desirable between our twin disclosure regimes under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. That could well be true. If so, the appropriate starting point might be to mandate a study by the SEC (within, say, a realistic two-year period) of how to better coordinate both (1) these two disclosure systems, and (2) public and private offerings. Absent such an attempt at coordination, we will obtain only piecemeal (and fumbling) reforms that resemble the seven blind men groping at the elephant. In particular, as these proposals suggest, private placements may soon overtake public offerings--without adequate attention being given to the appropriate role of each. More generally, we seem to be moving from JOBS Act I to a JOBS Act II without any serious evaluation of the impact of the first round of changes. On balance, the JOBS Act may have had only modest impact, and the proposals that are being considered today will likely have less. Because my time is limited, I will analyze these proposals in terms of the intensity of my reaction, moving from those that I feel are likely to cause real harm to those that are understandable (but that probably do not require legislation). I will 509 begin with a provision (the definition of ``well-known seasoned issuer'') whose impact has not been adequately or candidly explained. 1. The Definition of ``Well-Known Seasoned Issuer.'' This may be the most radically deregulatory of the seven proposals now before this Subcommittee, but it has not been adequately explained just how far reaching this proposal would be. The proposal derives from the 2011 Report of the SEC Government- Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation, where it was the 19th out of 25 recommendations made by that body. Frankly, it received only lukewarm support. The recommendation there made was to: ``Expand the availability of the special public offering provisions currently applicable only to ``well-known seasoned issuers'' (WKSIs) to all public companies, including smaller reporting companies and foreign private issuers. This would permit such companies to, among other things: a. File a universal shelf registration statement; b. Test the waters; c. Pay as you go; and d. Use forward incorporation by reference for Form S-1 registration statements.'' (Emphasis added) Each of these ``benefits'' can be debated. For example, a WKSI is exempt from the ``gun jumping'' and ``quiet period'' restrictions of Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and there can be reasonable debate about the wisdom of freeing smaller companies from these rules. Still, the key implication of expanding the definition of ``well-known seasoned issuer'' has not been explained: it would permit the majority of public companies to qualify for ``automatic shelf registration.'' This may not have been the intent, but it is the consequence. Under Rule 405, a ``Well-Known Seasoned Issuer'' generally qualifies for ``automatic shelf registration.'' Since 2005, the instant that a ``well-known seasoned issuer'' files a registration statement, the registration statement becomes ``effective'' and the securities can be sold under it-- without any prior SEC review. As a practical matter, allowing a company to qualify for automatic shelf registration both (1) denies the SEC's staff any opportunity to review and correct the registration statement before sales are made, and (2) makes it much more difficult for the issuer, its investment bankers, and its other agents to conduct a pre- offering ``due diligence'' review of the registration statement's contents (because there no longer is a pre- offering period between the filing of the registration statement and its effectiveness). Further, the SEC has a substantial staff in its Division of Corporation Finance that conducts a pre-effectiveness review of the registration statement and engages in a dialogue with the issuer. This provision short-circuits that review and largely renders them irrelevant for such issuers. At present, a ``well-known seasoned issuer'' (or ``WKSI'' in the parlance) basically must either (i) have a ``public float'' of at least $700 million (that is, the worldwide market value of its common equity, voting and nonvoting, held by non-affiliates must equal or exceed $700 million), or (ii) have issued over the last three years $1 billion in non- convertible debt securities. These are high standards. By some estimates, only about a third of the issuers on the NYSE meet this standard. Under the proposed legislation, the $700 million standard would be reduced to $250 million. At that point, probably a majority of the issuers on both the NYSE and Nasdaq could become WKSIs--and in most cases could use ``automatic shelf registration.'' Many of these issuers might be followed by only a single securities analyst, and do not necessarily trade in an efficient market. The SEC's staff that reviews registration statements would be unable to focus on these offerings and would be left to concentrate on IPOs and very smaller issuers. This seems a poor allocation of the SEC's resources. Since 1933, prior review by the SEC's staff of the registration statement has been one of the bedrock protections of our federal securities laws. Thus, I suggest to you that it is a fairly radical step to deny the SEC's staff any opportunity for a pre-offering review of the securities to be issued by most issuers. Yet, that is what this proposed expansion of the definition of WKSI does. This result may or may have been intended, but it both invites misbehavior (if an issuer knows it will not be subject to prior review) and encourages costly litigation (if errors are later discovered). Even if this proposal were cut back so that it only permitted smaller issuers to use ``universal shelf registration,'' I would still have some concerns. When shelf registration was first introduced in 1983, the issuer had to allocate the gross dollar value of its offering to specific types of securities (i.e., debt, equity, warrants, etc.). Then, in 1992, the SEC permitted unallocated shelf registration. In such a ``universal'' shelf registration, the issuer may pre-register debt, equity and other classes of securities in a single shelf registration statement without any allocation of offering amounts among these classes. In 509 1992, the SEC lowered the threshold for Form 5-3 and universal shelf registration to $75 million (well below the $250 level here proposed). Thus, smaller issues can already make use of universal shelf registration. What then is achieved by expanding the definition of WKSIs (other than entitling the issuer to use ``automatic shelf registration'')? A partial answer is that WKSIs can uniquely register securities for sale for the account of selling shareholders without separately identifying ``the selling security holders or the securities to be sold by such persons'' until the time of the actual sale by such persons. See General Instruction ID(d) to Form 5-3. In short, by expanding the definition of WKSI, we facilitate not primary offerings by the issuer, but secondary sales by large shareholders. This does not raise capital for the issuer or create jobs, but essentially encourages a bailout by insiders. Such secondary sales, which do not have to be disclosed in the original registration statement, seem particularly problematic in the case of smaller companies. To sum up, this provision is not what it seems. It does not simplify the issuer's access to capital, but it does both (i) strip the SEC of its pre-offering review authority, and (ii) facilitate secondary bailouts by insiders. 2. HR 2659 (``Accelerated Filer''). This provision would modify the definition of ``accelerated filer'' in SEC Rule 12b-2 (17 C.F.R. 240.12b-2), which today makes an issuer an ``accelerated filer'' if it has a ``public float'' of between $75 million and $700 million (that is, the value of its equity shares not held by affiliates). Under the proposed revision, the new test would be moved up to $250 million (instead of $75 million), and in addition the issuer would need to have ``annual revenues of greater than $100,000,000 during the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available'' (see Section 2 of H.R. 2629). Thus, many issuers today deemed accelerated filers would escape that label under this revised test, including some with very large market capitalizations. What is the consequence of this change? First, it will allow many companies to escape Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its requirement of an annual audit of internal controls. The JOBS Act already did this with respect to ``emerging growth companies'' (at least for a five-year ``on ramp''), but this provision would exempt older companies that did not qualify for that exemption. Also, the exemption could continue forever and not just for five years. Second, under the instructions to Form 10-Q, an ``accelerated filer'' must file its Form 10-Q within 40 days after the end of the fiscal quarter, whereas all other issuers must file within 45 days after the end of the quarter. This is a further small step away from transparency. If the goal is to cut back further on the scope of Section 404(b), this might best be done directly without causing any other collateral consequences. Still, some estimate should be made of just how many companies will escape Section 404(b) by this back door. Finally, the JOBS Act had a stronger rationale for its Section 404(b) exemption, (namely, that it permitted a temporary accommodation for young and emerging companies), whereas this bill's exemption covers old companies and potentially forever. 3. Raising the Disclosure Exemption Under Rule 701(e) from $5 million to $20 million. Currently, Rule 701 exempts from registration sales by non-reporting issuers of their securities to employees, consultants and advisors (and their family members) pursuant to a written compensatory benefit plan or compensatory contract. Effectively, this rule shelters non-reporting companies from the potentially expensive obligation to register stock options and similar equity compensation under the Securities Act of 1933. But under Rule 701(e), some minimal disclosure is required, including financial statements and ``information about the risks associated with investment in the securities.'' This limited obligation to provide such information is not applicable if the issuer sells less than $5 million of its securities under this exemption during any consecutive 12- month period. The proposed bill before this Committee would raise this $5 million level to $20 million. Because the disclosure obligation under Rule 701 is minimal and does not require the preparation of any formal disclosure document, this proposal to raise the exemption by 400% to $20 million seems hard to justify. First, there is no rationale advanced for the $20 million threshold. Second, there is little hardship or burden in giving your financial statements to your own employees. This proposal did not even seem to win substantial support within the small business community (as it has not been regularly cited at the SEC's Government- Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation). Further, once the volume of sales under Rule 701 exceeds $5 million and begins to approach $20 million, the cost of providing minimal disclosure falls as a percentage of the total transaction. It may seem a nuisance to an issuer to provide disclosure when its Rule 701 sales are minimal, but if the sales fall into the $5 to $20 million range, this is a major (and probably recurring) activity for the issuer. 4. Expanding the Availability of Form S-3. Today, eligibility for use of Form S-3 (and thus the ability to use shelf-registration) generally requires that an issuer have a ``public float'' of at least $75 million. See General Instruction IB(1) to Form S-3. In addition, other registrants can use Form S-3 if (i) the aggregate market value of securities sold by the registrant during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding and including the sale does not exceed one-third of its public float (i.e., the aggregate market value of its common equity held by non- affiliates--see General Instruction IB(6)(a) to Form S-3), (ii) the issuer is not a ``shell company,'' and (iii) the registrant has at least one class of common equity registered on a national securities exchange (General Instruction IB(6)(c) to Form S-3). In effect, this alternative test allows listed companies with less than a $75 million public float to use Form S-3, but places a ceiling on the size of the offerings that they may do using Form S-3 that is equal to one-third of their public float, Letting a small company with a modest $50 million public float use shelf registration to attempt to sell $150 million in securities invites potential disaster and investor confusion. Nonetheless, a bill before this Committee, known as the ``Small Company Freedom to Grow Act of 2014'' would permit this by eliminating most of these limitations. Effectively, it would allow any company, which is not a ``shell company'' (as defined in Rule 405) and that has not been a ``shell company for at least 12 calendar months, to use Form S-3. Under this provision, even microcap companies could thus use shelf registration and offer securities from time to time in any amount, at least if they were reporting companies and were current in their 1934 filings (to thereby satisfy General Instruction IA). This would represent a significant change in long-standing SEC policy, and I suggest that Committee consult the SEC to hear its view. Traditionally, shelf registration was limited to seasoned issuers with a sizable market capitalization and an established market following. Under this provision, even companies traded only on the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board might use shelf registration and make a sizable offering with no prior notice. As a practical matter, I doubt that the market will accept such offerings or that reputable underwriters will feel comfortable with them, but the door is at least opened (and in a frothy market, anything can happen and has). 5. Blue Sky Preemption. The above-noted ``Small Company Freedom to Grow Act of 2014'' would also preempt state ``Blue Sky'' laws in the case of ``smaller reporting companies'' and ``emerging growth companies.'' Currently, Section 18 of the Securities Act preempts only ``nationally traded securities'' that are either (i) listed on certain national securities exchanges (under SEC rules that look to their listing standards), or (ii) are issued in certain exempt transactions involving qualified purchasers. This proposal would extend the scope of Section 18's preemption of state blue sky law by an order of magnitude. Potentially, companies traded on the Pink Sheets (or not even traded at all) would be exempted if the issuer was a reporting company. This makes little sense at a time when the SEC is resource- constrained and cannot Challenge every transaction. The cases most likely to sneak under the SEC's radar screen are precisely those involving local or regional companies that are traded over-the-counter, on the OTC Bulletin Board, or on the Pink Sheets. Unfortunately, these are exactly the low visibility companies that this statute would exempt from the scrutiny of state regulators. Perhaps, the sponsors of this bill see state ``Blue Sky'' regulators as difficult, overly suspicious, bureaucratic, or prone to delay. I believe such a characterization is unfair. State regulators are hard-working, have more than enough to do, and typically focus their attention on precisely those smaller companies that the SEC is most likely to overlook. Preempting state law simply because an issuer files reports with the SEC places excessive reliance on the SEC and invites fraud and misconduct. 6. Form S-1 and Forward Integration. For some time, the SEC's Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation has called for changes to permit smaller reporting companies that have filed a Form S-1 to incorporate by reference documents filed with the SEC. Effectively, this would make the Form S-1 ``evergreen'' in the sense that it would not become stale. Of the various proposals before this Committee, I believe this one does have real efficiency justifications and could help smaller issuers. Again, I believe the Committee should seek the views of the SEC on this matter, and I do not suggest that Form S-1 should be expanded to become a vehicle for shelf registration (which should instead require that the issuers qualify for the use of Form S-3). But I do see merit in this proposal.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I share Professor Coffee's concerns about this proposal. I also oppose title II of this bill, which would create another exemption for the securities law for certain microcap offerings of less than $500,000. Unfortunately, history has proven that there is a good deal of petty fraud in microcap offerings. So ensuring that there is proper oversight of microcap offerings--ideally, by State securities regulators--is important if your goal is to protect retail investors from fraud. Finally, title III of the bill would strip away even the most modest investor protections that the SEC has proposed for unregistered, private securities. It is important to note that we are already seeing a trend toward much greater use of unregistered, private securities rather than publicly registered securities. In fact, the private securities market is now larger than the public securities market. In 2014, companies raised $2.1 trillion through the private securities market compared to only $1.35 trillion through the public securities market. What this means is that more securities are being sold with fewer investor protections. Title III of this bill would take away yet another investor protection by allowing companies to sell unregistered, private securities without having to file any information with the SEC first. I think this bill goes in the wrong direction. We should be talking about strengthening investor protections, not weakening them. I would also like to note that President Obama has issued a veto threat on this bill and states that all three titles are dangerous for investors. He states that markets function more efficiently when they are transparent, well regulated, and trusted by investors and insurers alike. These bills would reduce transparency, inhibit effective regulatory oversight of our capital markets by the SEC, and would undermine not only the health and integrity of our markets, but the very capital formation process they claim to promote. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this veto. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2357--Accelerating Access to Capital Act of 2016--Rep. Wagner, R-

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I would just like to close by reminding our colleagues on both sides of the aisle why these investor protections were put in place. We still have not recovered from the 2008 crisis where literally millions of Americans lost their homes, lost their jobs, and, depending on which economist you listen to, $15 to $18 trillion of wealth in this country lost and down the drain. I just came from a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee where testimony included a statement that this was the first financial crisis in the history of our country that could have been prevented by better regulation and oversight of our markets. I do not understand why anyone in this body would want to support rolling back investor protections. This merely keeps in place protections that have worked well for this country and for investors. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.