Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am really underscoring that my colleagues should vote against this bill because it rolls back investor protections. Why in the world do we want to roll back investor protections? We have heard some of my Republican colleagues suggest that, because the bill does not alter the securities laws regarding fraud, it has no bearing on fraud and will only help small businesses. This is wrong for a number of reasons. Let me try to explain this with a real life example. Robbie Dale Walker was a former police officer who was living with his mother in Dripping Springs, Texas. Mr. Walker approached his mother's best friend, Dolores ``Pokey'' Conn, and offered to sell her an investment in an oil and gas drilling program. Mrs. Conn was a 96- year-old widow at the time of the solicitation. After gaining her trust, Mr. Walker sold Mrs. Conn an investment of $100,000 in an oil and gas drilling program. Later, he convinced her to invest another $100,000. Mr. Walker convinced two other individuals to invest an additional $55,000. In this case and in similar instances, State securities regulators often get calls asking whether an issuer or a dealer is selling legitimate securities. If the securities are not registered and have not filed a Form D with the SEC, the State securities regulators can warn investors about a potential red flag. In addition, the regulators' enforcement divisions can open investigations into the matters. If title II of H.R. 2357 is enacted, the Texas regulator in this case would not be able to quickly provide a red flag to a concerned investor like Mrs. Conn because Mr. Walker would not have to provide any disclosures to investors or regulators. Although I don't doubt that the Texas regulator eventually would have caught Mr. Walker, the most likely outcome would have been that he and fraudsters like him would have been able to have run their schemes for several more years, further defrauding other seniors like Mrs. Conn. Today, Mr. Walker is serving a 25-year prison sentence for this fraud, and Congress should not be making it easier for the next Mr. Walker to defraud another grandmother. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee in that the point of these investor protections is to enable regulators to stop the abusive practices and fraud, as was being perpetrated on the friend of Mr. Walker's mother. Because they had disclosure requirements and he had not disclosed or filed with the SEC, they knew it was a fraud securities and were able to intercede and stop the fraud and arrest Mr. Walker. I feel that these rollbacks are really very dangerous to investors, and I cannot understand why anyone would want to make it easier for a ``Mr. Walker'' to defraud grandmothers in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to underscore that this bill is bad for investors, bad for the financial industry, and bad for our country. It moves us in the wrong direction. It treats investors terribly. They were treated awfully in the financial crisis where millions lost their jobs, millions lost their homes, and well over $15 trillion of private money evaporated from the economy of this great country. Now, investor protections are there to protect investors. I cannot understand any valid reason why anyone would want to roll back protections, some of which have been on the books since the Great Depression. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on it. I would like to inform the chairman of the Financial Services Committee that I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association, where they come out strongly against this bill. They say that it shifts ``policies in the wrong direction, weakening the oversight of our capital markets and placing retail investors needlessly at risk.'' North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. Washington, DC, September 8, 2016. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Re H.R. 2357--Accelerating Access to Capital Act of 2016 Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), I write to express strong concern regarding H.R. 2357, the Accelerating Access to Capital Act, which may be considered by the House of Representatives this week. State securities regulators have taken steps to help expand opportunities for small businesses to access investment capital including implementation of intrastate crowdfunding regimes and support of the SEC's recent proposal to modernize Rule 147 and increase the offering limits of Rule 504. We are, however, very concerned that the provisions of the H.R. 2357 that are discussed below would shift policies in the wrong direction, weakening oversight of our capital markets and placing retail investors needlessly at risk. Section 2: (The Micro-Offering Safe Harbor Act of 2016) Section 2 of the Accelerating Access to Capital Act would amend Section 4 of the Securities Act to create a new transactional exemption from registration for certain securities offerings, including offers to retail investors. As presently constituted, the bill would permit the offering of private or unregistered securities to an unlimited number of unaccredited investors that may lack financial sophistication or wherewithal. For reasons that NASAA has already discussed extensively in comments to the Financial Services Committee regarding this legislation, state securities regulators continue to question the practical necessity of this proposed exemption and the nature of the issuers it is intended to serve, We note that there are already several provisions at the state and federal level that small, microcap issuers can rely upon for limited offerings to unaccredited investors, including intrastate crowdfunding and other limited offering exemptions. Further, Section 2 would preempt state authority to review securities offerings that are by their nature local, state- based offerings. Preemption for this type of localized offering is inconsistent with investor protections afforded by state review, and would handcuff the regulators best positioned to regulate the marketplace for these offerings. Section 3: (The Private Placement Improvement Act of 2016) Section 3 of H.R. 2357 would prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') from adopting proposed rules to implement common-sense reforms for Regulation D, Rule 506 offerings. Title II of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (``JOBS'') Act repealed the long-established prohibition on general solicitation and advertising of securities under Rule 506. When the SEC adopted rules to implement Title II, on July 10, 2013, it also voted to propose rules that could mitigate the risk to ordinary investors from 506 offerings, including by requiring a pre-filing of ``Form D'' when issuers intend to advertise Rule 506 securities to the general public, and by imposing meaningful penalties on issuers who fail to file a Form D. Section 3 of H.R. 2357 would effectively prohibit the SEC from adopting these rules. State securities regulators, pursuant to their antifraud authority, are the primary regulators of offerings under Regulation D, Rule 506, and fraudulent offerings involving Rule 506 offerings are routinely among the most frequent violations reported by state securities regulators. The SEC's proposal to require the timely filing of Form D and establish consequences for issuers who fail to file a Form D when conducting a Regulation D, Rule 506 offering, is a common- sense step that is long overdue. Form D is a short form that captures basic information about the issuer including the issuer's business address, officers, directors, business type, and minimal information about the securities being offered. The information contained in a Form D is crucial to state securities regulators, who regularly encourage investors to ``investigate before you invest.'' When investors contact their state regulators, particularly after learning about an offering through an advertisement or solicitation, Form D is often the only information available about an issuer when an investor calls. In addition to furnishing information that may allow regulators to look for ``red flags'' indicative of a fraudulent offering, Form D provides regulators with the only direct source of information about the ``private placement'' market generally. The modest burden that Form D may impose on issuers is vastly outweighed by the essential role that it plays in state and federal efforts to understand and police the Rule 506 marketplace. State securities regulators oppose Section 3 of H.R. 2357 or any action by Congress that would further diminish the ability of regulators to effectively regulate the private placement marketplace, effectively address investor protection concerns associated with these offerings, or gather important data that provides minimal transparency of this otherwise opaque market. Thank you for your consideration of NASAA's views. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Michael Canning, NASAA's Director of Policy, if we may be of any additional assistance. Sincerely, Judith M. Shaw, NASAA President and Marine Securities Administrator.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this. I feel it is a very dangerous bill, but I would also like to point out to my good friends on the other side of the aisle that keep talking about the economy, and I would like to point out that when President Obama took office, this country was shedding 700,000 jobs a month, and because of his leadership and Democratic policies, we have climbed out of that deep red valley of job loss and we are gaining jobs. Since March of 2010, this country has gained 14.6 million private sector jobs. That is a lot better than losing 700,000 jobs a month. When President Obama walked into office, we were at 10 percent unemployment. We are now at 4.9 percent unemployment. I can assure you, no Democrat will be satisfied until every American who wants a job has a good American job, but this is a shift in the right direction of an improved economy. We have had well over 74 months of private sector job growth and, again, we are climbing--we would like to be doing better, but, again, it is a lot better than shedding 700,000 jobs a month. One of the ways that we grow an economy is by having safety and soundness in our financial institutions, trust in our financial institutions, trust that investors will be protected, and that is why I feel so strongly that this bill is going in the wrong direction. We should be protecting investors, not putting them more at risk. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend on the other side of the aisle. Democrats certainly support expanding and growing capital markets and liquidity in the markets. I was one of the lead sponsors on portions of the JOBS Act, and I supported the JOBS Act, but I do not support rolling back protections for investors. The protections that are in the law now, that they are attempting to roll back--which they will not be able to because the President has said he will veto it--these protections are not Dodd-Frank. These have nothing to do with Dodd-Frank, although I understand there will be a markup totally repealing it next week, so I have been told. But these are protections that have been on the books for decades. Title III, in particular, concerns a $2.1 trillion market. Now, that is not a small deal. $2.1 trillion is a lot of money. We just are recovering from massive rollbacks of regulations which economists say led to the worst economic downturn in the history of this country. Christina Romer testified before this Congress that the economic shocks at the time she was the head of the President's Council of Economic Advisers were three times deeper and stronger than the Great Depression. So I am mystified why anyone would want to roll back protections for investors that have worked well for people in this country. We have the strongest markets in the world. More people invest here, come here because they trust our markets. Why in the world do we want to undermine that trust? I would say that the best way to stimulate investment is to treat investors well, and that means strong investor protections. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. As the ranking member knows, there is a bill before the Committee on Financial Services which would completely roll back Dodd-Frank. I was clarifying that these rollbacks have nothing to do with Dodd-Frank. These are protections that have been on the books since we recovered from the Great Depression. But, apparently, that is on the agenda, or so I have been told. I am not in charge. The gentleman across is the chairman. He knows the schedule, but I have been told that that will be before the committee next week. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote in opposition to S. 764, on labeling requirements for genetically- engineered foods. While I recognize this legislation, with a mandatory labeling requirement, is a step forward from the DARK Act that passed the House last year, it falls far short of the comprehensive labeling standard consumers need.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this bill and in so many other areas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Conscience Protection Act. It is, in fact, a bill that offends the conscience and threatens the health and security of women. This vindictive bill is yet another tactic to throw roadblocks between women and their constitutional right to choose their own form of reproductive health care. Neither an employer nor an insurance company has the right to dictate a woman's healthcare choices. That is right. This bill permits insurance companies to deny certain coverage based on religious or moral grounds. This is merely another deliberate attempt to cut women off from safe, legal, comprehensive healthcare services. It could even restrict medical communication between a patient and her doctor or prevent women from getting critical emergency care. There are already sufficient laws in place so that religious institutions and providers cannot be compelled to perform abortions if they are morally opposed. So who are we protecting? This bill is not about conscience. It is an attack. It is an attack on women. It is an attack on their health care. It is a vehicle of discrimination against women, and women only. I urge my colleagues to vote against this unnecessary and destructive bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, 1 month ago, 49 innocent individuals were mowed down and killed and 53 more were injured. Yet today, the Chamber's business is still not focused on making our open spaces safer and passing safe gun measures to help protect our people. It has been 1 month after the worst killing in United States history since 9/11, and we still have not taken up commonsense gun safety measures to protect our citizens. Instead, it is business as usual: another bill to impede a woman's right to choose, another appropriations bill that will undermine the Clean Water Act. As Members of Congress, we have to respond and answer to the American people that we represent--and they are asking for action. Enough is enough. The human rights and civil rights issue of our time is to protect our churches, our movie theaters, and our open spaces from mass murders by guns. Let's have a vote, Mr. Speaker. Let's take back our streets and make the Nation safer.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong with the priorities in Congress. Time and time again, this body is choosing to put political posturing above the interests, safety, and well-being of the American people. Earlier today, I attended an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing that was termed an emergency because the committee Republicans did not approve of a decision by career officials at the FBI and Justice Department to end the email case involving Secretary Clinton. In this hyper-partisan era, that counts as an emergency. But the continuing plague of gun violence, one that takes over 32,000 innocent lives a year, has been, once again, put on the back burner. There is no sense of urgency. No bill, no vote. Mr. Speaker, this is no way to take care of the American people's interests.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago, in my district, we gathered with survivors of gun violence and supporters of gun reform to hold our own sit-in, in Carl Schurz Park, protesting the fact that this Congress has not acted on sensible gun violence reform. No more moments of silence. We want action on the floor to protect our people. We heard from many victims like Kim Russell. Her life was spared, but her friend was murdered when robbers broke into their home. She lives in fear that the attacker will get his hands on another gun and kill other people. We need to answer to Kim and to the families of the 49 gunned down in Orlando and to the thousands of other victims of gun violence and the hundreds of other victims that are outside today on the steps of the Capitol urging us to vote, urging us to act. Have a vote. If you want to vote against it, fine, but let's have a vote on two sensible bills: no fly, no buy, and comprehensive background checks. Let's protect our people. Let's act on sensible gun protection.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent a diverse district in New York, a State whose ban on assault weapons was just upheld by the Supreme Court, and a State which just closed, on the State level, the senseless loopholes in our Federal gun purchasing regulations that allow known criminals and domestic abusers to obtain guns. But one group of people New York's gun safety laws cannot reach are terrorist suspects. That is because the Federal Government controls the terrorism watch list. So it is up to Congress to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of known terrorists. And the vast majority of Americans agree, so we must act. Mr. Speaker, this body has no more important mandate than to ensure the safety of our citizens. We must pass no fly, no buy, and we must pass comprehensive background checks to close the loopholes for those that are trying to purchase guns, and we need to act now. Enough is enough.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Andrea P. Thau, a physician whose practice is located in the district I represent. Dr. Thau has been elected the 94th President of the American Optometric Association, AOA, and will begin her term during the AOA 119th annual meeting on July 2, 2016, in Boston. Dr. Thau is a graduate of the SUNY College of Optometry and is the owner of a private practice in Manhattan. She was first elected to the American Optometric Association Board of Trustees in 2007, and elected President-Elect at the 118th Annual AOA Congress & 45th Annual AOSA Conference: Optometry's Meeting in June 2015. In addition to her leadership in this national organization, Dr. Thau has made great contributions in service to her state and local community. Dr. Thau was the first woman president of the New York State Optometric Association, the New York Academy of Optometry, and the Optometric Society of the City of New York. Along with her many leadership roles, Dr. Thau is also an advocate and educator in the field. A champion for children's vision, Dr. Thau has advocated on their behalf both statewide and nationally. She is also a founding member and former vice president of the New York Children's Vision Coalition. As a spokesperson for the American Optometric Association, she has been featured on television, radio and in print to educate the public about eye and vision care. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Andrea Thau as she begins her term as President of the American Optometric Association. I am proud to join her friends and colleagues in congratulating her on this outstanding professional achievement.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this picture of these murdered children was from 3 years ago, but the mass murders continue, and the American people are saying, ``Enough,'' and they are demanding that this Congress put an end to our epidemic on gun silence; but, for nearly two decades, there has been a gag order in place that has prevented scientific research into the causes and cures of gun violence. The 1997 omnibus budget bill contained language that was made for the gun lobby. It targeted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the intended effect of prohibiting any federally funded research on the serious public health issue of gun violence. Sadly, the pro-gun lobby was successful in its efforts to censor science--this despite the fact that guns have taken more lives in this country since 1968 than were lost in all of the wars this Nation has ever fought. So I urge my colleagues to support my bill, H.R. 2612, to restore funding--to lift the gag rule--for research on gun violence and prevention, because, on this issue, the science is literally killing us.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I went down to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in New York City, where the modern gay rights movement really began. I went there to leave some flowers in honor of those members of the LGBT community who lost their lives in the massacre--the worst mass shooting in American history--at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida. While I stood there in solidarity with a somber crowd of allies and members of the LGBT community, it occurred to me that, just as the events at Stonewall were a turning point in the gay rights movement, this horrific attack in Orlando may serve as a turning point of its own because it is time for all of us to stand up together and say: Enough. We will not be silent. This madness must end. And make no mistake, it is utter madness that a man with a history of domestic violence, a man who had been investigated by the FBI for his possible ties to terror, could buy an assault weapon as easily as he could buy an aspirin. In the Pulse massacre, this man armed with an AR-15 military-type assault rifle, a weapon that he bought legally, killed 49 people and injured 50 more. Earlier, at an elementary school in Connecticut, another madman with an AR-15-style assault weapon killed 26 children and their teachers. And in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, one man with one AR-15 assault weapon killed 12 and wounded 70. In each of these mass casualty events, it took one gun and one man to brutally take so many innocent lives. In each case, the gun was an assault weapon. Assault weapons are designed to do one thing very well, and that is to kill people very rapidly. They aren't used for hunting. They aren't used for self-defense. They are used as weapons of war. So why is it so easy for people to purchase them and hurt others? That is why, in 1994, three United States Presidents--President Ford, President Carter, and President Reagan--all signed a letter to the House of Representatives calling for a Federal ban on military-style assault weapons. I will place their meaningful letter into the Record. May 3, 1994. To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semiautomatic assault guns, such as the AK-47. The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. That same year, I voted for a Federal Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton that also banned massacre-sized magazines. Unfortunately, this ban expired in 2004, and Congress, under pressure from the NRA, has since refused to reauthorize it, even when facts show that reauthorizing it would save lives. It should come as no surprise that, of the 10 mass shooting incidents in the United States, 7 of them involved the use of an assault-style rifle. That is why I fully and wholeheartedly support the commonsense proposal to reinstate a Federal ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons and massacre-sized magazines, and that is why so many Members of Congress have introduced--on both sides of the aisle-- commonsense gun reform bills. And let's be clear. These measures are not some kind of assault on Second Amendment freedoms for hunters or those who wish to have a gun for self-protection. The assault ban is a limited, commonsense measure to help keep people safe. It is time for us to stand up together and to pass these commonsense bills because this time #WeAreAllOrlando.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, also known as the public's right to know or Transparency in Government Act. It is fitting that we pass this bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act just a few weeks before the 50th anniversary of this important law. The National Archives and Records Administration currently has on display the original Freedom of Information Act in celebration of the anniversary on July 4. It is inspiring to think that 50 years have passed and that document is still the most important tool that the public has to access information about their government. When FOIA was passed in 1966, it was only the third freedom of information law in the entire world, and it was by far the most powerful. Now countries all over the world have transparency laws that are modeled on our Nation's FOIA law. We are here today in the ongoing quest to improve FOIA and to keep it current with changes in technology. I want to thank Congressmen Issa and Cummings for introducing the House version of the bill and Senators Leahy and Cornyn for taking the lead in the Senate. This bill is the result of many voices providing feedback and helpful critiques. That is the way a good law is made. Advocacy groups such as OpenTheGovernment.org and the Sunshine in Government Initiative have been critical to the success of this legislation. The FOIA Improvement Act is a bicameral, bipartisan bill. With its passage today, it will now go on to the President for his signature. The bill would codify the presumption of openness standard that President Obama put in place on his first day in office. Under this standard, agencies will be required to err on the side of transparency when responding to requests. The bill would also put a 25-year sunset on exemption 5 of FOIA, the deliberative process exemption. It would modernize FOIA by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to create a central FOIA Web site for requesters to submit their request, making it more efficient and accessible to the public. This bill would strengthen the independence and the role of the Office of Government Information Services. OGIS has served a critical role since it was formed in response to the last FOIA reform Congress adopted in 2007. I would like to take a moment to thank the hardworking Federal employees who serve as FOIA officers. They are dedicated professionals who care about making FOIA work. It is critical that Congress provide the funds necessary for agencies to have strong FOIA programs with experienced and trained FOIA professionals. It is not reasonable for us to ask agencies to do more if we do not give them the resources to do it. The FOIA Improvement Act would require each agency to designate a chief FOIA officer. The chief FOIA officer would have responsibility for ensuring that FOIA is implemented efficiently and appropriately in the agency. I hope this addition to FOIA will help elevate the importance of FOIA in agencies that have not always given it the attention it deserves. Thank you to the many FOIA professionals who have provided feedback on the bill over the past 3 years. Thank you also to the FOIA requesters who provided feedback, requesters such as Nate Jones from the National Security Archive and David McCraw from The New York Times. They all provided useful suggestions for reform. I understand that some proposals did not make it into the final bill, but they did shape the debate and will help us as we look forward to future reforms. A Los Angeles Times editorial said: ``worthy of not only Obama's signature, but also his vocal support.'' A New York Times editorial said: ``This is a rare chance to log a significant bipartisan accomplishment in the public interest.'' Enactment of this legislation will be an important step forward for transparency. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who has led many of the discussions in this body on criminal justice reform and reform in so many ways, including this bill that he helped author with former Chairman Issa.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I join my voice with Ranking Member Cummings' in being associated with the words from my friend and colleague from the great State of North Carolina in support of this important legislation and to also compliment not only Elijah Cummings for his leadership, but former Chairman Issa for making this a priority and for helping to move it to the floor and make it happen. This is a good, bipartisan bill. It was worked on diligently by both sides in both the House and the Senate. It is an important step forward for transparency. It is a strengthened bill. It deserves the support of everyone on both sides of the aisle, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on Roll Call No. 279, on Representative Polis' amendment to H.R. 4775 that would adopt the text of H.R. 1548, the BREATHE Act, which would amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the prohibitions against aggregating emissions from oil and gas sources. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1548 and a strong supporter of policies to protect the public and our environment from the dangers of Hydraulic Fracturing, or fracking, I duly intended to vote ``yea'' on this amendment and appreciate this opportunity to note my support.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5278. This bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a true bipartisan compromise, and it is the only option on the table to address the crisis in Puerto Rico, which is the home to 3.5 million American citizens. The solution that this bill adopts is simple: It will allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debt in an orderly, court-supervised process and, in exchange, a temporary, temporary Federal oversight board will help Puerto Rico make the structural reforms necessary to get its finances in order and set it on the path of economic growth. I would like to truly thank all parties for their hard work on this bill, especially Mr. Pierluisi; my good friends from New York, my colleagues Representatives Velazquez and Serrano; Ranking Member Grijalva; Chairman Bishop; Leader Pelosi; and Antonio Weiss, at the Treasury Department. New York City, which I represent, has some experience with control boards. When we faced a fiscal crisis back in the 1970s, the State established two control boards. And while that was a tough pill to swallow, in the long run, it made our city better and stronger. I would like to emphasize that the solution to New York City's fiscal crisis involved a control board, a debt restructuring, and a $2.3 billion loan from the Federal Government. Puerto Rico isn't getting any Federal money at all, so a debt restructuring law is really the least we can do to help them. Finally, while some opponents of this bill claim on this floor that debt restructuring is unnecessary because Congress solved D.C.'s fiscal crisis in the nineties with just a control board, this is fundamentally untrue. The only reason the D.C. Control Board was able to balance D.C.'s budget so quickly was because Treasury assumed the District's $4 billion in pension obligations the year after the Control Board was created. So a control board by itself is not enough. We need to do more. But I urge my colleagues to support this bill.