Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, this week the House considers the National Defense Authorization Act, and I rise to recognize the Armed Services Committee for its actions to expand paid parental leave for thousands of service members. On the heels of Secretary Carter's expansion of paid maternity leave to 12 weeks, this bill will increase parental leave to 14 days and also grant paid leave for adoptive parents. This is real progress, but we cannot leave out the more than 2.5 million non-military federal employees who still lack any paid parental leave. As the Pentagon recognizes, the lack of paid leave for new parents threatens the government's ability to recruit and retain a talented, productive workforce. I am encouraged by the DOD's updated family leave policy, and hope that we can work in Congress to guarantee this essential workplace right for all federal employees.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, for hosting this Special Order to talk about opioids and drug policies. Our country is currently facing a great crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 78 Americans die each day from an opioid overdose. We are in the midst of an addiction epidemic, an epidemic robbing mothers and fathers of their children, and children of their future. I cannot imagine the torture and hardship that not only those with these addictions suffer, but their families and friends as well, seeing their loved ones in pain, unable to help them. But that does not have to be the case. Congress can make a difference. Our actions here can help save lives, save people from suffering and having to bury a loved one. But we cannot stop this epidemic with just congressional authorization of new grant programs, studies, reports. We must fund these needed tools so that communities have the resources they so desperately need. Today the House passed, and I was proud to support the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, a bipartisan bill creating the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program. And while I wholeheartedly support this new program, we have to make sure we provide the funding that is necessary to get the program up and running. This new program and any others we enact will be no help without funding to support it. Since 2000, there has been a 200 percent increase in the rate of deaths attributed to opioids. This problem is only getting worse, and has been for some time. Our actions are already too late for the 28,000 lives lost just in 2014. The leading cause of accidental death in New York State is now an overdose. An estimated 886 lives were lost citywide in 2015. That is 886 preventable deaths a year just in New York City, 886 individuals that could still be here today had we acted sooner. Last month, Mayor de Blasio announced a new $5.5 million plan to combat deaths caused by overdose, building on the ThriveNYC initiative, a program to support those suffering with mental health problems. Actually, today, the first lady, Chirlane, was here in Washington meeting with the delegation on the Thrive initiative on ways that we were working in the city to combat the opioid epidemic. Earlier this week, Governor Cuomo of New York launched a statewide task force to face the heroin and opioid crisis in the State head-on. But our States can't do it alone, and they shouldn't need to. This isn't a problem confined to one district, one State, or one section of the country. It is a nationwide epidemic that cannot be allowed to continue unabated any longer. We owe it to all those suffering, those addicted and their families, to show we recognize this problem and that we are working for them, not only through our efforts, our votes authorizing these new programs today, studies, and reports, but through actually putting the necessary support behind these efforts and funding them. We can and we must work to save lives. But all those votes are for naught if we don't actually get these programs off the ground. Communities across the country need our help, and the time to act is now. We have already lost too many to this epidemic. I am proud of the votes on the floor today in support of moving forward to do something about it. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for yielding.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I truly want to thank Bonnie Watson Coleman for hosting this Special Order to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. I can't think of anything that is more important than protecting the rights of half the population of America. We in Congress and in our country have helped other countries win their independence and craft their constitutions. One of the things we worked to place in that constitution is equality of treatment for all people. We have seen that countries that treat women well have less terrorism, less turmoil, and more economic stability, and that adds to the peace of the world. Yet we don't have women in the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it is long past due, and it doesn't cost any money. It just is an equality statement in a Constitution giving protection to half the population. I have come to this Congress and reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment. We know that it passed in the 1970s. It fell three States short of ratification. You need 38 States, and 35 ratified it. It has already passed in this country before, and there is huge support. Currently, we have over 187 bipartisan cosponsors that have joined Bonnie and me in this effort. There is an old Chinese saying that women hold up half the sky. But what most women are concerned about is how they are treated while they are on the Earth. We want to be treated fairly on the Earth. The exclusion of women--half the population--from the Constitution has dire consequences. Last month we commemorated Equal Pay Day, or more appropriately, ``Unequal Pay Day,'' when the average woman's salary catches up with an average man's earning from the previous year. To put it simply, women have to work 3\1/2\ months more than a male colleague doing the same job with the same pay to reach his equal pay. Now, I can say we have made progress. When I first entered the workforce, we were at 59 cents to the dollar. We have made progress. We are now at 79 cents to the dollar. But economists say that, if we continue at the same rate, it will be the year 2025 before anything near equality is reached in equality of pay. Given that fact, the economic state of women in the United States is unequal, unfair, and unacceptable if we want to ensure financial stability of American families and protect economic growth. It is very interesting. One study was done by Heidi Hartmann, who is a MacArthur Award-winning economist. She stated that, if you just paid women equally, you would eliminate half the poverty in the United States. So everybody talks about job programs and everything else. Just pay women fairly and you would eliminate half the poverty in our country. That is an easy way to address opportunity and fair treatment. This unfairness of 79 cents to the dollar is also much, much more unfair when it goes to women of color. The pay gap is even larger. The pay gap has narrowed slightly over the years, but its impact is perhaps more detrimental today than ever before because women are participating in the workforce in record numbers. Increasingly, women are sometimes absolutely necessary for the income of the family, and some are single parents, as I am. I am a widow. When you treat a woman fairly, you are treating her husband fairly and her children fairly. With more women in the workforce because they have to work, bringing home a full, fair paycheck becomes more and more important. I recently asked the Joint Economic Committee democratic staff to study the effects of the gender gap, not just the 79 cents to the dollar, but what does it mean over a lifetime. This report, which was probably the most comprehensive, in-depth report on the subject to date, looked at the pay gap by age, race, State, and congressional districts. What it showed is that, over the span of a lifetime, it compounded. Women are 75 percent more likely to live in poverty in their old age than their male counterparts. The unequal pay in the paycheck translates into lower pensions, lower Social Security, lower savings, and just less cash in the pocketbook. They say that, in 1 year over the lifetime of a woman, the average is that you lose over $500,000 in pay. That is just the pay. Then you have to compound it into all of the savings aspects that all of us rely on in our older age. We found that the gender gap varies widely by race, age, and State. Working mothers--this is so interesting. For a country that says we honor the family, we honor the mothers and the fathers, if you become a mother--and many economists have written the same thing--you pay a penalty in the form of depressed wages when compared to working fathers and women without children. Women that become mothers, the study showed that they are paid less-- they call it the ``mommy penalty''--yet, men that become fathers are paid more. Men that become fathers are paid not only more than women, but they are paid more than men without children. So it is interesting. And the statistics are that men with children make 15 percent more than men without children and significantly more than women. Over a career, this disparity widens for women, making them more likely to live in poverty. Older women are the largest segment of poverty in our country. Women cannot support their families or fully participate in the economy when they are consistently paid less than men doing comparable work. This is bad for everyone. As you go through it, you wonder why does the gender gap persist and what can we do about it. In the past 30 years, the gender gap has been stuck at 79 cents to the dollar. After controlling for the complex factors that contribute to the gender gap, which could be leaving work to take care of children, taking care of an elderly parent, or other reasons, there is a 40 percent gap which many economists attribute to discrimination. Without the ERA, there is little to do. There is no recourse to fight gender discrimination when it does exist. The late Justice Antonin Scalia agreed and famously said, ``Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' I believe that Justice Scalia, who Ruth Bader Ginsburg called her closest friend on the Court, was doing the women's movement and like- minded men who care about women a favor by making this crystal clear. He was a strict constitutionalist. He went by the Constitution. His statement made it very clear: Women are not in the Constitution; therefore, I, as a Justice, and others would not protect them. We need to correct this. It is something that we could join hands and make happen. If we don't explicitly protect women in the Constitution, there can be no expectation for equality in the workforce, government, sports, or academia. There is no remedy for discrimination against women in the court. There have been some celebrated Supreme Court decisions that the dissent has said that this will be reversed in later years, and I believe it will. But they decided against women on the point that women aren't in the Constitution. Well, let's change that. That is something we can do in this House: pass a bill that puts women in the Constitution of our great country. Leaving women out of the Constitution and legally defenseless harms all of us in other areas of our lives. The progress women have made can too easily be rolled back, laws can be repealed, and judicial attitudes can shift. Something as fundamental as equality of opportunity and rights should not be at the whim of who is on the Court, who is in the legislature, or any other law that could be put in place to roll rights back. I would say that equality for women is a fundamental right that the vast majority of this country supports. I polled it once, and 99 percent of the people in America said, yes, people should have equal rights, and, yes, they should have equality of opportunity. Yet, this fundamental aspect for half of the population of America-- and it is an important half of the population. Every man had a mother. Women are there working in the home, in the society, and in the communities. As we help and support and empower women, we empower our country and empower our economy. We can't compete and win in this world economy without using the strength of all of our people. That means not just talented men, but talented women, also. Ninety percent of the country actually thinks the Constitution already fully protects women because it seems so much like a no- brainer. If you asked anyone in this body, they would say ``Of course women should be treated equally,'' ``Of course I want my daughters and my sons to have equal opportunity.'' Properly valuing women is the right thing to do for our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers. It is also the closest thing to a silver bullet to stimulate the economy. If you just paid women equally, you would move so much more money into the economy that would have to be consumed and spent in the economy. I want to really thank the like-minded men and women who support the opportunity and the goal for women to be treated fairly. I believe this is an issue that we could all agree on. It is a fundamental right. I think that people believe in opportunity. This is one way to make sure that all of our citizens have the same opportunity. I want to thank Bonnie for bringing this issue to the floor. She brings it to the floor once a month. That shows a persistence and a commitment that I want to follow and want to support. I can't think of anything more important that we could spend our time on as a Nation or as individuals than helping people have the equal treatment and the equal opportunity that they so justly deserve in this great country. I just want to close by saying I wake up every morning and I say a prayer and I kiss the ground and thank God that I was born an American. There is no question in my mind that we are the greatest country on Earth. We treat our people the best. It is amazing. We just did a report that came out of the President's Office of Economic Advisers that shows that our economy is leading the world. The only thing that is hurting our economy is the suffering other economies that are pulling us down. We are a great country. But one of the reasons that we are so great is that we always strive to be better. I can't think of doing anything more important or better than treating all of our citizens equally and allowing them to have the same equal opportunity under our great flag and under our great Constitution. It is long past due to put women in the Constitution. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to make this dream of equality a reality in the great country of the United States of America.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Investing in America's Small Businesses Act of 2016. This important legislation allows Community Development Financial Institutions, known as CDFIs, to extend affordable credit to more small businesses in underserved communities through microloans. These small loans, under $50,000, give businesses working capital, help them invest in new equipment or supplies, and have no pre-payment penalties.

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, today I rise in recognition of Sexual Assault Awareness Month and in strong support of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, bipartisan legislation that I authored with Congressman Meehan. Sexual assault is truly a crisis on our college campuses, where a survey last year indicated that 23 percent of female students are victims. In 2013, we passed the Campus SaVE Act, which I authored. It ensures campuses adopt clear, comprehensive procedures to investigate and report accurate statistics on sexual assault. But this is not enough. One person becomes a victim of assault every 107 seconds in America. That is over 300,000 a year. Our bill would require a national survey of students to identify key risk factors for sexual assault and evaluate best practices to reduce sexual violence. The bill would also provide resources for victims of sexual assault, including confidential advisers. These are commonsense reforms that will make a world of difference by keeping our students safer on our college campuses.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this resolution. The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is President Obama's top remaining domestic priority, and I think we owe the American consumer, the American people, and our seniors our support. This rule advances a very simple principle: if you are giving investment advice to someone and if you are being paid for this advice, then you must put the interest of the consumer first. You must think about the consumer before you think about yourself or about making a fee or making your firm a fee or about helping someone else besides the consumer. It merely says to think about the consumer and protect his interests. This is not just common sense--it is the fair, honest thing. We shouldn't have to legislate this. We are legislating this because there are abuses in this area. We are trying to stop these abuses and give good investment advice to good American citizens. Let's not forget that most investors think it is already the law. They think that their advisers are giving them their best advice. This merely says that you have to think about the seniors and the American people. This should be like having a glass of water. On this, there should not be a vote. The fact that we are coming to the floor to try to roll back a rule that helps Americans have fair and just savings is absolutely outrageous. If you have a problem, go to the Department of Labor. I have been there six times and I have raised concerns. They have incorporated every single change in the rule. They have given advanced time. They have bent over backwards to everyone who has raised an issue in this Congress and to every member of industry. That is why it is so long. This protects the interests, the finances, of the American people. It puts money--saves money--in their pockets instead of forcing them to spend it on fees that are unnecessary and on products they don't need. A vote for this is a vote against the American family. Please vote against it. I believe that anyone who votes against this does not have the interests of America in his heart.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Lenox Hill Democratic Club (LHDC) on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary Annual Fundraiser and Dinner with special guest General David H. Petraeus, ret. LHDC has been committed to increasing citizen participation in the political process in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan's East Side. LHDC was founded in 1956 as part of the Democratic Reform Movement that sought to challenge the power of Tammany Hall's Democratic Machine in New York City. Since that time, LHDC has remained committed to empowering citizens to become better informed about the policy issues which affect them. LHDC has also often organized candidate forums so that citizens have a chance to hear from the candidates and raise their concerns and policy priorities. Lenox Hill also regularly invites current elected officials to speak with their members. Currently, LHDC represents Part A of the 76th Assembly District which includes Manhattan's Yorkville neighborhood as well as parts of Sutton Place and Roosevelt Island. LHDC is made up of a vibrant and diverse group of New Yorkers who share a common commitment to civic engagement and progressive ideals. LHDC has truly been a force in effecting progressive change in Manhattan. LHDC and its members are actively engaged in ever aspect of the political process. From providing volunteers for campaign phone banks and street campaigning to collecting the petition signatures required under State law for a candidate's name to appear on the ballot, LHDC serves an essential role in the democratic process in New York City. For 60 years, LHDC has been an important part of the political landscape on Manhattan's East Side. LHDC's proud tradition is thriving under the stewardship of current President Bob Menna, District Leaders Hon. John Halebian and Hon. Jill Eisner, and State Committeewoman Hon. Ruth Halberg. These dedicated civic leaders work tirelessly to ensure that LHDC continues to play a significant role in Manhattan politics. LHDC's special guest, Four Star General David H. Petraeus, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Gen. Petraeus served in the United States Army for 37 years during which time he oversaw the United States Central Command and the International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan among numerous other command postings. Following his active military service, Gen. Petraeus was nominated by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In 2013, he joined the investment firm KKR where he is the Chairman of the KKR Global Institute. Gen. Petraeus teaches at the City University of New York Macaulay Honors College, University of Southern California, and at Harvard University's Belfer Center. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the history and accomplishments of the Lenox Hill Democratic Club. For sixty years, its members have worked hard to effect the change they would like to see in their neighborhood, City, and Nation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week I released a new report by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee about the effects of the gender pay gap on women and families in America. This report on gender pay inequality is the most comprehensive, up-to-date report on the gender pay gap. A typical woman working full time and year-round is paid only 79 cents to the male dollar. This adds up to a loss of roughly $10,800 per year, and it compounds over a lifetime to roughly a half a million dollars in less pay than a man because of the pay gap. Over a lifetime, this jeopardizes a woman's retirement because the lower pay results in a lower pension, lower Social Security, lower savings, and contributes to the fact that women over 75 years of age are twice as likely as their male counterparts to live in poverty. Millions of women, children, families, and husbands are hurt by unequal pay for equal work. Let's finally make equal pay a reality by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act and finally putting women into the Constitution for equality.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is April 15, the deadline for passing a budget. It is clear that the Republicans are going to miss it. From the start, this process has been a travesty. Before President Obama even released his budget, Republicans announced that they would refuse to hold a hearing on it. They rejected the President's budget out of hand even before it was printed, a move unprecedented in this modern era. Then they passed out of committee a budget that would end the Medicare guarantee, take healthcare coverage away from 20 million Americans who received it under the Affordable Care Act, and make deep cuts that harm children, students, seniors, and hardworking Americans. Then the Tea Party wing of the GOP insisted on walking away from the bipartisan budget agreement inked just last fall. So that brings us to today. My Republican colleagues don't seem to have a budget or a plan to move forward. The process has collapsed. I urge my colleagues to start over and to work with Democrats to craft a budget that invests in our future and meets the challenges facing our Nation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank very much the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3791. I would like to note the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, which reads that the bill ``amounts to an unnecessary and risky change.'' I am disappointed that we are even considering this bill, because I thought that we had reached a thoughtful compromise--a good faith compromise--on this issue last year. Last Congress, we came together in a bipartisan way to increase the threshold for small banks that want to make acquisitions of other banks or financial companies and that want to finance these acquisitions based--and dependent to some extent--on debt. The Fed used to prohibit banks with more than $500 million from using debt to finance these purchases, but in recognizing that this threshold was out of date, we worked together to raise the threshold to $1 billion last Congress. I was proud of that deal, and I thought it reflected a good faith compromise in the Financial Services Committee. Now, less than a year later, our colleagues in the majority, apparently, want to change the deal. They want to raise the threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion--a 500 percent increase over the deal that we just struck a year ago. A $5 billion bank is, needless to say, significantly larger than a $1 billion bank, and a $5 billion bank likely engages in a much broader range of activities than does a simple $1 billion community bank. Raising the threshold to this level would actually facilitate more consolidation among community banks. Banks at the high end of the $5 billion level would take on more debt, buy smaller banks, which would, thereby, lead to the deterioration of community bank branches in the neighborhoods that we represent, and it would also lead to fewer jobs as they then seek to slim down operations. The current policy statement already covers 89 percent of the banks in the country. Eighty-nine percent of the banks are covered by the deal we struck last year, so raising this level further is not warranted. It is risky. It is unnecessary. The Statement of Administration Policy says that it will be recommending a veto from the President of the United States. It is unnecessary; it is unwarranted; and it reverses a spirited compromise and good policy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in a generation. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage. As this chart shows, the percentage of the population without health insurance is now under 10 percent. That is the first time this has happened in our Nation's history. Just look at it. The uninsurance rate was steady for many, many years. Then, after the Affordable Care Act was passed, it dropped like a stone. Thanks to the ACA, young people are now able to stay on their parents' plans. Thanks to the ACA, families who could not get health insurance through their employers can now get it. Thanks to the ACA, people who couldn't afford health insurance can get subsidies to help them afford it. Thanks to the ACA, people who have what the insurance industry calls preexisting conditions are no longer left high and dry. The ACA has been a lifesaver for people who were previously uninsured. It is a good thing for our economy and a promise kept to our constituents. I would like to wish the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, a very happy anniversary. Look at the chart.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, Republicans often claim that they can manage the economy better than Democrats, but the facts show something very different entirely. Research by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson finds that, by virtually every measure of economic growth and economic health, including GDP growth and job creation, the economy has performed better under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents. Alan Blinder and Professor Watson put it simply: ``The U.S. economy performs much better when a Democrat is President than when a Republican is.'' The Democratic staff on the Joint Economic Committee updated and expanded on their analysis and found that, on average, since World War II: real GDP has grown about 1.6 times faster under Democrats than Republicans, and private sector job growth has grown nearly 2.5 times faster under Democrats. This chart tells a story. The Democratic line is blue, and the red is Republican. It shows clearly that job growth was higher and better under Democratic Presidents.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act--important legislation to address the troubling underrepresentation of these groups in growing career fields. Companies that harness America's advantages in science and technology continue to grow and create high-paying jobs, yet the pipelines for these careers often leave out women and under-represented minorities. Indeed, according to the American Community Survey, women make up half of the workforce but hold only 26 percent of STEM-related jobs. The STEM Booster Act tackles this disparity head-on through efforts to include women and minorities in the STEM workforce. The bill authorizes a competitive grant program so that professional organizations, universities, nonprofits, and others can develop innovative programs to foster interest and participation in these subjects among young women and minorities. Studies have shown that women and minorities have just as much interest in science and math as other students, but are much less likely to declare a STEM major or complete a degree in one of these subjects. Mentoring programs, internships, and outreach efforts can help to ensure that these students can translate an interest in STEM into a degree and a career. I want to thank Sen. Hirono for her partnership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Gender Diversity in Corporate Leadership Act, common- sense legislation to address the striking gender disparity in America's corporate boardrooms. A recent GAO report found that women hold only about 16 percent of board seats at S&P 1500 companies, up from 8 percent in 1997. While this is progress, even if women comprise half of new board members from this point forward, the report estimated it would take over 40 years to reach gender parity. My legislation would take a few simple steps to collect data to better define this disparity and encourage businesses to take steps to diversify their boards. By requiring publicly-traded companies to report the gender composition of their boards, we will make it easy for investors and other organizations to evaluate board diversity. The evidence is clear, companies with diverse leadership are better- positioned to succeed. Indeed, a recent report published by MSCI found that companies with ``strong female leadership'' (either above-average board representation or a female CEO and at least one female board member) generated a higher return on equity and valuation than companies lacking female leadership. That finding follows a 2014 Credit Suisse report that found companies with at least one woman on their board outperformed other companies by 5 percent from the start of 2012- June 2014. I am proud that the Gender Diversity in Corporate Leadership Act is supported by a strong coalition of business leaders like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as leading voices to promote workplace diversity like Catalyst and the National Women's Law Center. I want to commend these groups for their work on these issues, as well as my original co-sponsors Reps. Don Beyer and Debbie Dingell for their partnership on this important legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this morning I joined hundreds of women on the steps of the Supreme Court to protest the Texas law that is under consideration by the Court today. The Texas law has already shut down over half of the abortion clinics in the State of Texas, and if the law is upheld today, it will effectively end the constitutional right of women in Texas to obtain a legal abortion. If that happens, the extreme Texas law will likely be used as a blueprint by anti-choice extremists across this country. Now, they claim that this law's restrictive provisions are necessary to protect a woman's health. But doctors across this Nation will tell you that that is a lie. The harsh restrictions were designed with the single purpose of closing and blocking access to choice. I proudly joined over 162 of my colleagues on an amicus brief urging the Court to strike down this law. The right to choose is meaningless without the access to choice.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for dedicating this time to talk about passing the Equal Rights Amendment--a cause I have fought for my entire time in Congress. March is Women's History Month, and we have many accomplishments to celebrate and to be proud of, but we must remain focused on the continued struggle for full equality for women. Without the ERA, this goal will not be fully realized, and half of Americans will not realize their full potential. All of us, men and women, stand to benefit from true gender equality. Consider, for instance, some laws that are being proposed across the Nation that have disparate negative impacts on women: In Illinois, a bill sponsored by men is pending that would deny a birth certificate to a newborn of a single mother unless a father is listed on the birth certificate. This would make it impossible for a single mother to enroll her child in a public school, for her child to obtain a driver's license, or for her to collect child support and other benefits for the child. The law is silent on single fathers. In Kentucky, the State senate has passed a bill sponsored by a man that would force all women who are seeking to terminate pregnancies to undergo ultrasounds, whether they want to or not, and to have doctors describe the images to them. While we cannot know for sure how an ERA would affect the outcome of future Supreme Court cases, we have seen that its absence leaves women vulnerable to discrimination without their having legal recourse. These legislative efforts to roll back hard-won progress and to curtail rights are directed squarely at women. You will not find equivalent examples of bills that roll back or constrain the rights of men--and men only. Unfortunately, that noble and empowering declaration in our founding document that ``all men are created equal'' left some of us out. In fact, it leaves about half the population of America out. Many people are actually surprised when they realize that the United States Constitution does not mention women. That omission has, unfortunately, become a glaring problem when it comes to achieving full equality--and not just a problem for women but for families as well-- for everyone. For instance, when women make less than men just because they are women, it is an issue that affects their entire families. We saw that in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. The Supreme Court found that she had been paid less for doing the very same job as her male counterparts. This not only meant that, for years, she made less money than her male colleagues in order to support her family and to provide for her children throughout her working life, but it meant that she would also spend her entire retirement being less financially secure. Such unfair and unequal treatment should certainly be prohibited under our Constitution. Yet the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia famously told an interviewer for the California Lawyer Magazine that he believed that the Constitution does not outlaw this kind of discrimination because, in his view, the 14th Amendment does not apply to women. The 14th Amendment reads that no State shall ``deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.'' To most people, that would seem to be pretty simple and straightforward; but Justice Scalia argued that the word ``person'' should not apply to women. In his view, when it was written, it was only meant to apply to the recently emancipated slaves. The problem here is that there is ambiguity about whether or not gender discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The only solution to this challenge is to plainly include women in the Constitution. So between the State and congressional legislators who believe it is permissible to roll back hard-won rights and to pass legislation that unfairly and unequally burdens women--and the idiosyncratic views of Supreme Court Justices who declare women are not people--it is essential to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in a brief amendment that simply reads: ``Women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' Let's put women in the Constitution at long last. Research shows that 75 to 90 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that the ERA has already passed and that men and women are equal under the law. In 2012, a poll asked: Do you think the Constitution should guarantee equal rights for men and women? And 91 percent said yes, including 86 percent of Republicans. The way things stand now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution provides strict guidelines against discrimination based on race and national origin, but it is silent on issues of gender discrimination. When it comes to gender discrimination, the Court has applied a lesser standard that makes it easier to get away with discriminating against women. Plain old common sense and your basic sense of fairness should tell you that the same strict scrutiny, protection against discrimination based on race and national origin, should also apply to discrimination based on sex. So the ERA would establish unequivocally, once and for all, that women are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Equal treatment means equal treatment. Equal means equal for all, women included. The ERA would, once and for all, provide clear, constitutional guidance on gender equity issues. The ERA would lend the force of the Constitution to existing prohibitions against sex discrimination in the workplace or schools. The ERA would stop bias in wages, benefits, hiring practices, and other conditions of employment. If America wants to be a world leader in the promotion of human rights, it needs to lead by example on women's rights. Sadly, in this area, America is exceptional only in a bad way. The U.S. stands out as one of the few nations that does not even address gender equality in its Constitution. As the world's leading democracy, we are falling behind on women's equality. At a time when we seek to champion democracy around the world, we must guarantee equality here at home. It is time for the United States to secure equal rights for women across our Nation by ratifying the ERA. Progress can all too easily be rolled back. Laws can be repealed, and judicial attitudes can shift, turning women into second class citizens. It seems like I spend a majority of my time here in Congress just fighting to hold on to what we already have, trying to keep it from being rolled back. An ERA would protect the progress made on women's rights from any shifting political trends. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and this has contributed to older women being the largest segment of poverty in our great Nation. Because when you are paid less, your pension is less, your 401(k) is less, your Social Security is less, and that happens to have profound effects on women. Just this past week there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that talked about the largest group of people that are growing in the workforce are older women, and this is because they cannot afford to retire. They have to continue working because of the discrimination in pay and because of having taken times when they weren't in the workforce to take care of a sick parent or to nurse and raise a child. Sex and pregnancy discrimination persists in the workforce. Governmental programs, such as Social Security, still unequally provide benefits to men and women. An ERA would be a woman's best defense against harmful practices that punish her simply because she is a woman. We cannot keep fighting discrimination against women one battle at a time, constantly playing defense. Passing the ERA will put women on equal footing in the legal system of all 50 States, particularly in areas where women have historically been treated as second class citizens. We have 186 bipartisan cosponsors of H.J. Res. 52 in the House, which I proudly introduced with Representative Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming-- just 32 shy of a majority. It reflects the strength of the belief that women should be included in the Constitution and guaranteed equal treatment under the law. It is time to stop making excuses. Women and like-minded men have to demand that Congress and State governments get this done. Equal means equal. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart for really organizing this important Special Order.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Wendy Mackenzie, who has dedicated much of her professional life to supporting women's right to choose and electing more pro-choice women to office. Tonight she is being honored for her work by Eleanor's Legacy, an extraordinary organization that is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women in New York State. Her commitment, enthusiasm, and generous use of personal resources have helped countless women candidates succeed. She has helped women break barriers, persevere and make a difference. Ms. Mackenzie is a public affairs and public relations consultant. In this role, she has worked with clients as diverse as Chemical Bank, community development groups, arts organizations, and Planned Parenthood. Ms. Mackenzie serves as Executive Director of New York ChoicePac, a bi-partisan pro-choice committee for New York State, which has distributed over a quarter of a million dollars to over 70 candidates in less than 10 years. For almost ten years, Ms. Mackenzie headed the New York office for the non-partisan Women's Campaign Fund (WCF), which works to elect women who are dedicated to working together and forging solutions. WCF supports candidates running at every level, from the school board to Congress. For two years she served as National Co-Chair for WCF. Currently, she is Co-Chair of WCF's Women's Campaign Research Fund. Ms. Mackenzie currently serves as a Vice-Chair of the Board of Planned Parenthood of New York City (PPNYC), and Chair of PPNYC's Public Affairs Committee. She joined the board in 1991 and served as Board Chair from 1998-2000. Ms. Mackenzie is also a member of the Advisory Committee of the New York Women's Foundation. She also serves on the Board of Advocates for the Citizens' Committee for Children of New York and on the board of Family Planning Advocates in Albany. Ms. Mackenzie has also worked with Family Planning Advocates NARAL Pro-Choice America and the NARAL Pro- Choice America Foundation. Ms. Mackenzie is a Director at the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, which supports a wide variety of organizations devoted to arts and culture; children, youth and families; economic opportunity; education; and the environment. Born in London, Ms. Mackenzie graduated from Radcliffe College in 1955, attended Carnegie Tech (now Carnegie Mellon) Drama School, and studied anthropology at Columbia University. While bringing up her two children, she worked in the theatre as an actress, executive assistant and casting director. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the extraordinary work of Wendy Mackenzie, a New York woman who makes a difference.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Maria T. Vullo, who is being honored by Eleanor's Legacy as part of its New York Women Making a Difference ceremony. Maria Vullo is an accomplished litigator who is passionate about women's rights. She oversaw research which has been instrumental in documenting the many reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment is still necessary. On January 21, 2016, in recognition of her extraordinary breadth of experience in financial litigation, Governor Cuomo nominated Ms. Vullo to be Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, a position she will assume on February 23rd. Ms. Vullo is an experienced senior litigator and manager, who has more than 25 years of trial and appellate experience in a broad range of business litigation and investigations in state and federal courts across the country. Ms. Vullo's private practice has included matters involving fraud, real estate, health care, insurance, tax, consumer protection, bankruptcy, antitrust, constitutional and environmental law. Since 2010 she has been of counsel at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where she had been a partner for 20 years before a brief stint in the Attorney General's office. In 2010, Ms. Vullo oversaw the Economic Justice Division in the Office of the New York State Attorney General, with a staff of approximately 200. She was responsible for numerous investor protection, antitrust and consumer fraud matters, including Martin Act investigations and settlements, investigations and litigations regarding insurance company practices, allegations of price fixing, bid rigging and other antitrust violations, deceptive consumer marketing practices, and violations relating to cooperative and condominium offerings. Ms. Vullo has always spent a considerable amount of her time on pro bono matters. She is a recognized leader in protecting women's rights. She represented women raped by soldiers during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War--a case in which she secured a $745 million jury verdict for the plaintiffs. She also represented abortion providers whose lives had been threatened via an online ``hit list,'' securing a $100 million jury verdict for the plaintiffs. I came to know Ms. Vullo when she became involved in providing research to explain why we continue to need an Equal Rights Amendment. Her brilliance, dedication and determination were evident as she provided invaluable information on the broad range of ways in which women continue to face discrimination, including pregnancy-related discrimination, violence against women, pay inequity and other areas. I am hopeful that Ms. Vullo's research will lead to the passage of an amendment that will finally ensure that women's equality is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Vullo is a member of the Boards of Directors of the National Organization of Italian-American Women, the Women's Equality Coalition and the ERA Coalition, Inc.; and is a member of the New York Women's Bar Association and the Women Trial Lawyers Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Maria T. Vullo, a New York woman who makes an extraordinary difference.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes title IV of H.R. 1675. Title IV of this bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission exempt public companies with less than $250 million in annual revenue from reporting their financial information as searchable data. This exemption would cut off access to searchable, easily accessible data for about 60 percent of all public companies. Instead of using searchable, structured data, we would return to a paper-based system. Exempting 60 percent of public companies from filing their financials in a structured, understandable way makes it harder for the people who review corporate financial disclosure documents to understand what is going on in a company. Eliminating the requirement for searchable data harms researchers and academics, regulators, investors, and the general public. All of them will have a harder time understanding the financial performance of corporations. If title IV is passed, documents that are nonsearchable must be manually reviewed to extract useful information, and manual review is much more prone to error. No other financial regulator in the developed world does not require searchable PDFs. That is why the Securities and Exchange Commission began requiring reporting in eXtensible Business Reporting Language, XBRL. It is the global standard for structural financial reporting. We would be behind the world if we do this. By removing the requirement for 60 percent of firms, H.R. 1965 is a backward step for corporate transparency and for investor knowledge and investors. I support this amendment, and I believe that we need to move our financial analysis into the modern world. We spend a great deal of time on the Financial Services Committee talking about ways to improve small companies' access to capital. Well, that is exactly what XBRL can do. So I am puzzled that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to move backward on XBRL instead of moving forward. XBRL makes it possible for investors and analysts to very quickly download standardized financial information for an entire industry and make immediate cross-company comparisons in order to identify the best performers. It makes it easier for them to invest in startups. This allows investors to spend more time analyzing data and less time gathering data. This will also enable investors to more easily identify the companies that are diamonds in the rough, so to speak. Very often, these are small companies that are innovative. These are building models that we need to support. Right now, these small companies have trouble attracting the attention of analysts and institutional investors--this is a fundamental fact, and we spend a lot of time on the Financial Services Committee trying to figure out why this is. Well, one reason is it's simply too time-consuming for analysts and investors to pick through every small company's hundred-page financial filings. Economists call these costs ``search costs''--and unfortunately, they still dramatically outweigh the benefits. A small company's filings may tell a fantastic story about why that company is poised to be the next Apple, but if the ``search costs'' are high enough that analysts and investors never see them, that company will never get the capital infusion it needs to grow. And our economy will never realize the benefits that the company has to offer. This is where XBRL comes in. It dramatically reduces the ``search costs'' by making it fast and cheap for investors to gather standardized financial statements for entire industries--including the small companies that the investor wouldn't have bothered with before. If those small companies offer greater value than the bigger, more established companies in the industry, then it will likely be obvious to the investor when she looks at the data. This will result in capital flowing more efficiently--not just to the biggest, most well-known companies, but to the companies that can use that capital in the most efficient way. But it's important to remember that if those small companies don't file their financial information in XBRL format, then their financial statements won't be part of the investor's data set--and thus will never get a much-needed capital infusion from that investor. This is how XBRL can help improve small companies' access to capital. So if you're concerned about access to capital, then you should vote for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), my distinguished colleague, who is now here.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the prime author of the amendment, of which I am a lead cosponsor, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's well thought out and meaningful amendment. All financial regulators in the developed world require searchable PDFs, as his bill would allow, and that is why the Securities and Exchange Commission began requiring the extensible business reporting language. XBRL is the global standard for structured financial reporting. Why should we be any different? By removing the requirement for 60 percent of the firms, as H.R. 1965 does, is a step backward for corporate transparency and the ability for investors to invest in new startups. It is a well-thought-out amendment. I congratulate you on it. I support it.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday ``60 Minutes'' highlighted an explosive undercover investigation by Global Witness, which showed just how easy it is for criminals and corrupt officials to use anonymous shell companies to bring dirty money into the United States. The reason it is so easy is because States don't require the disclosure of the true beneficial ownership of shell companies. This is unacceptable, and it has to stop. As Global Witness stated, ``anonymous shell companies are like getaway cars for crooks.'' That is why I am reintroducing a law, along with my good friend and colleague, Representative Peter King, which would require that the person creating the corporation say who the beneficial owner is and, also, to explain who really owns the company. If States do not require and get this information, then, as a backstop, the United States Treasury will have this information before an account can be opened. This is a commonsense, bipartisan attack on what is a major national security and law enforcement issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this committee and on this legislation. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1675. It would curtail the existing regulatory structure protecting investors. While this package includes bills that I have supported, including the ETF research bill, which simply allows more research on a fast- growing market, ultimately, I have to oppose this package because it would roll back the progress that we have made in many areas, including on XBRL. I rise in opposition to the prior speaker from the great State of Virginia, really, one of my favorite Republicans to work with on the committee, but I oppose very much his bill that would roll back XBRL and would allow roughly 60 percent of all public companies to opt out of the requirement to use XBRL. I believe that this would hurt the overall economy, the liquidity of the markets, and the information that investors are able to gain and gather. I am a big supporter of XBRL, which allows companies to file their financial statements in a computer-readable format. XBRL makes it possible for investors and analysts to quickly download standardized financial statements for an entire industry directly to a spreadsheet and immediately start making cross-company comparisons in order to identify the best performers. I would argue that this would increase the amount of investment in start-ups and small businesses. This would enable investors to more easily identify the companies that are diamonds in the rough, so to speak; and very often, these are small companies that have innovative business models but have trouble attracting the attention of analysts and institutional investors. One reason is it is simply too time-consuming for analysts and investors to pick through every small company's 100-page financial filings. A small company's filings may tell an incredible story about why that company is poised to be the next Apple or Google. But if the so-called search costs are high enough that analysts and investors never see them, then that company will never get the capital infusion it needs to grow and our economy will never realize the benefits that the company has to offer. This is where XBRL comes in. It dramatically reduces the search costs by making it fast and cheap for investors to gather standardized financial statements for entire industries, including the small businesses that the investors wouldn't have bothered with before. So if you want to improve small companies' access to capital, rolling back XBRL is the last thing you would want to do. I believe that we should be moving forward, not backward, on XBRL. We are already far behind the rest of the developed world in using structured data. I rise in opposition to this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I think we should think very hard about an issue before we take away a tool that literally benefits both investors and small companies. Unfortunately, that is what this bill would do. Instead of moving forward on XBRL and making it even more useful for analysts and investors, the bill would allow roughly 60 percent of all public companies to opt out of their requirements to use XBRL. This would effectively take our capital markets back to the 20th century. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill which doesn't benefit investors and I would say the overall economy. I urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues.