Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 2209. In sum, this bill levels the playing field for cities and States, saves cities and States hundreds of millions of dollars, and does it in a way that maintains the safety and soundness of our banking system. I would first like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my friend, for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him. When we introduced this bill, we worked hard to have balanced, bipartisan support and to have broad support on both sides of the aisle. We introduced it with a coalition of five Republicans and five Democrats. On the Democratic side, we were joined by Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Moore, and Ms. Sewell of Alabama. From the Republican side, we had Mr. King of New York, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Hultgren. This was truly a very strong, bipartisan bill. I would like to thank all of our colleagues who joined with us. It passed out of the Committee on Financial Services by a strong vote of 56-1, which shows that we had overwhelming bipartisan support. The purpose of this bill is to level the playing field for cities and States by requiring the banking regulators to treat certain municipal bonds as liquid assets, just like corporate bonds, stocks, and other assets. As a former member of the City Council of New York, I know firsthand the importance of municipal bonds. They allow our States and cities to finance infrastructure, build schools, and pave roads. We have multimillions in municipal bonds in New York that is building the Second Avenue subway, revamping our water system, and helping in so many ways. Unfortunately, in the banking regulators' liquidity rule, which requires banks to hold a minimum amount of liquid assets, they chose to allow corporate bonds to qualify as liquid assets but completely excluded municipal bonds, even municipal bonds that are just as liquid as corporate bonds. Even worse, they treat foreign securities differently than U.S. securities, municipal bonds. This absolutely makes no sense. It effectively discriminates against municipal bonds. A municipal bond that is just as liquid as the most liquid corporate bond would not be counted as a liquid asset under the rule just because it was issued by a city or State rather than a corporate entity. This is not fair. The Fed has already recognized this error. It is already amending its rule to allow certain municipal bonds to count as liquid assets. They should be praised for taking a second look at the data and recognizing that some municipal bonds are, in fact, highly liquid. But the OCC, which regulates national banks, is still refusing to amend its rule and insists on favoring corporations over cities and States. Mr. Messer and I introduced this bill because this kind of arbitrary discrimination against cities and States cannot be allowed to continue. A recent analysis by the investment bank Piper Jaffray estimated that our bill would lower borrowing costs for cities and States by 15 basis points, which would save cities and States hundreds of millions of dollars per year. That real-world impact is why this bill is so very, very important. Now, it is important to note that this bill does not undermine safety and soundness. It does not require regulators to treat bonds that are illiquid as liquid. It simply says that municipal bonds should be afforded the same opportunity as corporate bonds.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It will help the economy. It will help our cities and States. It levels the playing field for cities and States. It saves our cities and States, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars, and it maintains the safety and soundness of our banking system. That is why it had such a strong, overwhelming bipartisan vote in committee. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the monthly jobs report for December. It was another in a long, uninterrupted string of good reports. The report showed that the economy gained 292,000 private sector jobs last month and that the unemployment rate fell to 5 percent. During 2015, the economy added nearly 2.7 million jobs. Nevertheless, many of my colleagues across the aisle continue to talk as if the recovery under President Obama has been lackluster. They seem to forget the economic meltdown that occurred under the leadership of the prior administration. But the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, they haven't forgotten. Let's look at how far we have come in the period after President Bush left office. The truth is, the record is pretty impressive. First, a reminder of where we started. Back in January of 2009, when President Bush left office and President Obama was sworn in, the economy shed nearly 820,000 private sector jobs in January in 1 month alone. As former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke described it, we were facing the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression. Between the end of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, real GDP fell by 4.2 percent. Around $17 trillion in household wealth evaporated during the Great Recession. To put that number in some perspective, $17 trillion is about equal to our entire gross domestic product, the sum total of all the goods and services produced by the entire economy of the United States for all of 2014. That is a great deal of money to lose. In fact, it would be almost enough to pay off our entire national debt. In July of 2009, there were about seven unemployed workers for every single job opening in the country, meaning that no matter how hard most unemployed people tried to get a job, six out of every seven of them were going to be just out of luck. You may recall that back then our colleagues across the aisle were adamantly opposed to extending jobless benefits. By October of 2009, the unemployment rate had reached 10 percent. Housing prices were falling. Lending was frozen. The stock market had cratered. Businesses were failing. People all over the country were losing their jobs, their homes, their savings, and their hopes. It was a pretty terrible time for millions of Americans. Now, much has changed. 2014 and 2015 were the strongest 2 years of job creation since 1998 to 2000, when Bill Clinton was President. The private sector is powering the economy forward. Our businesses have added 14 million jobs over a record 70 consecutive months of job growth. Wages have finally begun to rise. Nominal average hourly earnings for all private employees have now risen 2.5 percent over the past year. The ratio of unemployment seekers to job openings has fallen from 7 to 1 to 1.5 to 1. That is about the lowest this ratio has been since early 2007. Since the start of the Obama administration, our real GDP has increased by 14 percent. The U.S. auto industry, which was on death's door when President Obama took office, is now healthy, thriving, and enjoyed record sales in 2015. Our auto industry is now exporting and creating even more jobs. Oil and gas prices are low. Mortgage rates remain low. Inflation is simply not a factor. The dollar is strong, and housing prices are back up to where they were in 2007. All of this recovery was not an accident, not a stroke of good luck. Things certainly would have been quite different if we had only listened to the counsel of our colleagues across the aisle. They vehemently opposed efforts taken by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy, and they opposed actions by the Federal Reserve that turned out to be very critically important. What would have happened without these actions by the Federal Reserve and the Democrats in Congress? The recession would have lasted twice as long, according to a recent study by highly respected economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. The Blinder-Zandi study found that without these actions, the unemployment rate would have reached nearly 16 percent, and we would have lost twice as many jobs, more than 17 million. It is a bit scary to even think about. So the facts show that we have had a very strong recovery. Are we done? Absolutely not. There is much more work to do to ensure the recovery reaches everyone. Big challenges remain. Many families are struggling to make ends meet, to make the mortgage payment, to save for their children's education. We need faster wage growth, accessible child care, and higher education that is affordable to all families. It is time to pass comprehensive immigration reform and to protect Americans from gun violence. I am excited about the opportunity to make real progress on these issues this year, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to continue to focus on the challenges facing middle class families.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the jobs numbers released this morning are excellent. This is a very strong way to end 2015. The numbers are a reminder of just how far we have come since the long, dark days of the Bush-era recession. The economy added 292,000 private sector jobs last month. Businesses now have added jobs for a record 70 straight months. The unemployment rate stands at 5 percent, half of what it was at the peak of the recession, and the gains are becoming more broadly shared. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell 1.1 percentage points last month. It now stands at the lowest level since 2007. Of course, there is much more that needs to be done. We must make sure that every American family benefits from this recovery. Some of my colleagues across the aisle will continue their efforts to cast doubt on the Obama recovery. I urge them to look at the numbers.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Rather than a good-faith effort to improve our regulatory process, this bill would add unworkable new requirements on federal agencies that could impede critical efforts to safeguard public health, the environment, and other national priorities. I was pleased, however, that this bill includes provisions from the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act (H.R. 690), which I introduced with my colleague Rep. Luetkemeyer. This bipartisan proposal would ensure that new federal rules include a brief, plain-language summary so that the public can better understand the proposed action. While I cannot support H.R. 712, I hope that we can continue to work across the aisle on this commonsense initiative that will enhance public understanding of important federal efforts in public health, consumer rights, environmental protection, and other areas.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Senate amended Budget Reconciliation Act, a bill with several extreme provisions, including the repeal of the core of the Affordable Care Act for the 62nd time and the revoking of Federal funding for Planned Parenthood for the 11th time in this Congress. It is a new year, but instead of bringing legislation to the floor that helps and makes Americans healthier, safer, and more secure, we are repeating the same old partisan fights. Last year, many of my colleagues took advantage of a political stunt by an antichoice group that released falsified videos to damage the credibility of Planned Parenthood. There were congressional hearings, State-level investigations, and even a select committee formed to investigate the organization. The inquiries have resulted in no evidence of wrongdoing and have been a waste of taxpayers' money. There are 2.7 million women in America who rely on Planned Parenthood for their basic healthcare services that they otherwise cannot afford and cannot access. There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood in many parts of the country, so taking away its Federal funds needlessly risks the health of millions of American women. The CBO estimates that dismantling the Affordable Care Act will cause 22 million Americans to lose their health care. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3762. Thank you, Peggy Sampson, for your dedicated service.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Microbead-Free Waters Act. Microbeads, the small plastic particles contained in many face washes and other cleansing products, too often end up in America's lakes, rivers, and other water sources. In fact, a report last year from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman found that up to 19 tons of microbeads could find their way into my home state's wastewater stream each year. These particles accumulate pollutants, increasing toxicity of our waters, and pose a threat to fish and other wildlife that ingest plastic. I commend the many leading companies that voluntarily responded to these concerns by phasing out the use of plastic microbeads in their product lines, including L'Oreal, Unilever, and Avon. I am pleased Congress acted this week to act on this important issue, with bipartisan legislation that will ban microbeads in personal care products beginning in 2017. This legislation builds on the momentum from ten states that have passed legislation to ban microbeads--including nine just in 2015. Unlike some proposals that would put in place an unrealistic timeline for implementation, or phase in the restriction years later than H.R. 1321, this federal legislation will grant all parties sufficient time to eliminate microbeads, while ensuring quick action on this growing concern. The Microbead-Free Waters Act will ensure consumers know that the products they use each day will not pollute our precious lakes and rivers. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this legislation, and congratulate Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone for their hard work on this important bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my profound appreciation to the Speaker for his recent acknowledgement that he expects the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act to be part of the omnibus bill. I thank Leader Pelosi for her steadfast commitment and leadership in support of this important lifesaving legislation. I am grateful to every single Democratic Member of this Congress, all of whom are cosponsors of this important legislation, and the many Republicans who are sponsors of this bill. All of them have helped us to live up to our commitment that: ``We will never forget.'' Heroic first responders and survivors of 9/11--men and women from all 50 States and nearly every Congressional District--will now be able to breathe a little easier, and will certainly have a much happier holiday season when this bill is finally across the finish line. This is how Congress can, and should, work in a bipartisan way, doing the right thing more often. Happy holidays and Happy New Year. Now, when do we vote on this important lifesaving legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, you have told us over and over again that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act will be passed in this year. Well, the clock is running out. The time is here to live up to our pledge that ``we will never forget.'' We lost 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, but thousands more lost their health care and are sick and dying. They are coming to this Congress praying for their health care. It is a national disgrace that we have not responded to our responders. Yet everyone agrees. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have pledged to do this before the end of the year. Yet, even when we all agree, we still seem to do nothing. As Jon Stewart so succinctly put it: Congress has become the last responders. It is time for the last responders to respond to the first responders and give them the health care and support they so justly deserve.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing comprehensive legislation that both prevents new obstetric fistulas and helps to treat existing ones, helping millions of women around the world regain control of their health and dignity. The Fistula Prevention, Treatment, Hope and Dignity Restoration Act will support a cooperative effort to eradicate a heartbreaking, preventable condition that has been largely eliminated in the developed world. Childbirth should not leave a woman disabled or ostracized by her family and community. Congress must commit to expanding access to treatment for the more than two million women worldwide who suffer from obstetric fistula and preventing new cases. Obstetric fistula is a devastating condition that results from prolonged, obstructed labor without proper medical attention. During delivery, the infant's head presses against the woman's pelvis for so long that it creates a hole between the woman's vagina and rectum, leaving her without control of her bladder and/or bowels for the rest of her life if untreated. It also often results in a stillbirth. Mothers with fistulas are abandoned by their husbands and shunned by their families. According to the World Health Organization, there are between 50,000 and 100,000 new cases each year. Fortunately, obstetric fistula is both treatable and preventable. Ninety percent of cases can be treated with a surgery costing an average of $400. This legislation allows for a comprehensive, three pronged approach of prevention, treatment and reintegration which involves: increasing access to prenatal care, emergency obstetric care, postnatal care, and voluntary family planning; building local capacity and improving national health systems; addressing underlying social and economic inequities, reducing the incidence of child marriage, and increasing access to education; and supporting reintegration and training programs to help women who have undergone treatment return to full and productive lives. These essential investments create a multiplier effect of benefits for women and their communities. It is also imperative that Congress supports ongoing efforts in the fight to end fistula. Organizations such as UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) and USAID are working with partners in a global campaign to prevent and treat fistula with the goal of making the condition rare in areas of the developing world, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The legislation also supports coordination through the International Obstetric Fistula Working Group. Support for monitoring, evaluation, and research to measure the impacts of such programs throughout their planning and implementation phases will ensure the most efficient and effective allocation of U.S. foreign assistance dollars. We are already well aware that promoting women's health is fundamental to ensuring the health of their children and families. With this bill, we can give women around the world hope for a healthy future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Obstetric Fistula Prevention, Treatment, Hope, and Dignity Restoration Act.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, let's not play politics with the health and compensation bill for the 9/11 heroes and heroines. There are over 70,000 9/11 first responders and survivors, the veterans of our war on terror. They come from every single State in the Union, and they are waiting to see if Congress will act for their health care. There is broad bipartisan, bicameral support for a permanent reauthorization. There are 259 House cosponsors, including 67 Republicans. Both Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Upton, along with Ranking Member Conyers and Ranking Member Pallone, support this bill and want to pass it. There are just 7 legislative days left. This is something we all agree on, something that is clearly the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to get this done this year. Let's keep our promise to the 9/11 heroes and heroines, to the first responders, to the victims, and to the survivors. Let's pass this bill this year.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3189. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article from The Wall Street Journal written by Alan Blinder, a former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, a professor at Princeton, and the author of a book on the financial crisis, the response, and the work ahead. This is his strong article in opposition to this bill which he feels is extremely disruptive, problematic, and just plain wrong. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2014] An Unnecessary Fix for the Fed (By Alan S. Blinder) The House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on Federal Reserve reform on July 10. The hearing didn't get much press attention. But it was remarkable. While the House can't manage to engage on important issues like tax reform, immigration reform and the minimum wage, it's more than willing to propose radical ``reform'' of one of the few national policies that is working well. The bill under consideration is called the Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act. (That's right: FRAT.) To be fair to an otherwise dreadful bill, accountability and transparency are worthy objectives, and FRAT does include some reasonable ideas, such as trimming the news blackouts before and after meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee. But it also includes some corkers, such as requiring public disclosures--in advance-- before entering into international negotiations, disclosures that could make such negotiations next to impossible. How would you like to play your poker hand open? But the meat-and-potatoes of the House bill has little to do with either transparency or accountability. Instead, it seeks to intrude on the Fed's ability to conduct an independent monetary policy, free of political interference. As the title of Section 2 puts it, FRAT would impose ``Requirements for Policy Rules of the Federal Open Market Committee.'' A ``rule'' in this context means a precise set of instructions--often a mathematical formula--that tells the Fed how to set monetary policy. Strictly speaking, with such a rule in place, you don't need a committee to make decisions--or even a human being. A handheld calculator will do. In the debate over such rules, two have attracted the most attention. More than 50 years ago, Milton Friedman famously urged the Fed to keep the money supply growing at a constant rate--say, 4% or 5% per year--rather than varying money growth to influence inflation or unemployment. About two decades ago, Stanford economist John Taylor began plumping for a different sort of rule, one which forces monetary policy to respond to changes in the economy--but mechanically, in ways that can be programmed into a computer. While hundreds of ``Taylor rules'' have been considered over the years, FRAT would inscribe Mr. Taylor's original 1993 version into law as the ``Reference Policy Rule.'' The law would require the Fed to pick a rule, and if their choice differed substantially from the Reference Policy Rule, it would have to explain why. All this would be subject to audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), with prompt reporting to Congress. In a town like Washington, the message to the Fed would be clear: Depart from the original Taylor rule at your peril. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen understands this and, as she made clear in her semiannual testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, opposes the bill. So what is this rule that FRAT would turn into holy writ? It's a simple equation, which starts by establishing a baseline federal-funds rate that is two percentage points higher than inflation; that's about 3.5% now. It then adds to that baseline one-half of the amount by which inflation exceeds its 2% target (that ``excess'' is now roughly minus 0.5%). Next, it adds one-half the percentage amount by which gross domestic product exceeds an estimate of potential GDP (that gap is controversial but is perhaps minus 4% today). Thus Taylor's mechanical rule wants the current fed-funds rate to be about 3.5 - 0.25 - 2.0 = 1.25%--which is vastly higher than the actual near-zero rate. Fed staff could no doubt concoct an alternative rule that instructed the FOMC to set the fed-funds rate close to zero today, and the committee could pretend it was using that rule. That's transparency? But there is a deeper problem. The Fed has not used the fed-funds rate as its principal monetary policy instrument since it hit (almost) zero in December 2008. Instead, its two main policy instruments have been ``quantitative easing,'' which is now ending, and ``forward guidance,'' which means guiding markets by using words to describe future policy intentions. If words are the Fed's main policy instrument, how is the FOMC supposed to set them according to a rule? And how can the GAO determine whether that rule resembles the ``Reference Policy Rule''? The Taylor rule probably would give the Fed sensible instructions in normal times. But what about when the world is far from normal? The Fed claimed to be using Friedman's money growth rule during the tumultuous disinflation of 1979- 82--with miserable results. Luckily for all of us, the Taylor rule wasn't tried during the 2008-09 financial crisis. That could have been disastrous, effectively tying the Fed's hands just when extraordinary monetary stimulus was most needed. Should we now bet the ranch that the world will remain placid forever? Conservatives distrust concentrated government power--an idea embraced by our Constitution. They worry that human beings, who are fallible and maybe not even trustworthy, will make poor policy choices. Yes, to err is human. But humans can often recognize extraordinary events and try to adapt. Mechanical rules can't. There is another conservative principle in which I've always believed: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Monetary policy is one of the few things in today's Washington that ``ain't broke.'' The mischievous FRAT wouldn't fix it.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, this bill would significantly undermine the Federal Reserve's independence by requiring the Fed to adopt a rules-based approach to monetary policy. While it is true that this bill doesn't force, by law, the Fed to follow a particular formula for interest rates, it does attempt to bully the Fed into following the Republicans' preferred monetary policy by hauling the Fed Chair up to testify in front of Congress every time the Fed deviates from the monetary policy rule dictated by this statute. This would have a significant chilling and killing effect on the Fed's deliberations over interest rates and inappropriately interferes with the Federal Reserve's independence. Let's also remember that the Taylor rule, which this bill would codify, would have performed disastrously in the financial crisis that we are still suffering from. Federal Reserve Chair Yellen testified that, during the crisis, the Taylor rule ``would have performed just miserably'' and would have led to a ``dreadful'' economic recovery. But this is not the only troubling provision in this bill. Section 4 of the bill also needlessly overhauls the membership of the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC. The current makeup of the FOMC, which is responsible for setting monetary policy, has served this country well for the past 100 years. So if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it, and in this case, don't make it worse. The New York Fed is responsible for implementing monetary policy; and this special role gives the New York Fed a unique understanding of monetary policy, of how markets will react to changes, and what actions are both feasible and effective. I think that it is important to remember why the regional Fed president, with responsibility for implementing monetary policy, serves as the Vice Chairman of the FOMC. Mr. Chairman, monetary policy does not end when the FOMC announces a target interest rate. Short-term interest rates do not magically move to the FOMC's desired level. It is not that easy. Someone has to implement monetary policy by pushing short-term interest rates toward the official target rate, and that someone is the New York Fed. As Richmond Fed President Jeff Lacker said just last week, raising interest rates is ``pretty clear. You just write the statement and you must send it to'' the New York Fed in New York. The New York Fed does this primarily by buying and selling Treasury securities in the markets, which influences the supply of money in the system. Because the interest rate is a function of the supply and demand for money, the New York Fed controls short-term interest rates by influencing the supply of money in the system. This is an incredibly important job.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The Fed's ability to control short-term interest rates is what allows the Fed to set monetary policy. If the markets didn't believe that the Fed had the ability to control short-term interest rates, then the FOMC's statement about raising or lowering interest rates would be viewed as merely wishful thinking rather than an actual monetary policy. Mr. Chairman, this is why the New York Fed president serves as the Vice Chair of the FOMC, and I see no reason why this should change. So it is unclear what this problem is trying to fix, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the women who are receiving the 2015 Susan B. Anthony award from the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW-NYC) for their efforts in promoting equal rights for women. Each year, NOW-NYC recognizes grassroots activists who have worked to improve the lives of women and girls in New York City. This year's honorees are Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, Krystal C., and Tamar Kraft- Stolar. Committed to giving women a voice, NOW-NYC strives to promote reproductive rights, empower women economically, and end the violence and discrimination that women face. The organization provides a myriad of resources for issues relating to housing, police misconduct, and child-custody. NOW-NYC is a leading advocate of women's rights and a force for justice. Among other things, their volunteers escort women to reproductive health clinics, advocate for legislation such as anti- trafficking provisions and lead open discussions on the status of women in politics today. As the largest NOW chapter in the country, NOW-NYC plays a fundamental role in shaping the local and national debate on women's issues. Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, author of four groundbreaking reports on African American women and the unique struggles they face in America, has received national acclaim for the attention she draws to the challenges women of color face. Professor Crenshaw, a law professor at UCLA and Columbia, is a leading theorist on Black feminism and civil rights. An advocate for a gender-inclusive approach to racial justice, she is also the co-founder and Executive Director of the African American Policy Forum, a gender and racial justice think tank. Professor Crenshaw is co-author of the groundbreaking reports, Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced and Underprotected, and Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women. Former New York Jets cheerleader turned women's rights activist, Krystal C., is taking a stand against unfair wage practices by professional football teams. As a Jets cheerleader, she was paid just $150 per game and $100 per special event, and was not compensated for practice time, training camp and other appearances. Based on hours actually worked, she was receiving only $3.77 an hour, significantly below the state's minimum wage. She was also required to incur out-of- pocket expenses for motivational gifts, uniform maintenance and hair straightening. Krystal filed a class action lawsuit against the Jets. Tamar Kraft-Stolar, Co-Director of the Women and Justice Project (WJP), is committed to advocating on behalf of women who are imprisoned. WJP is dedicated to ending the mass incarceration of women. Before joining WJP, she managed the Correctional Association of New York's Women in Prison Project for over a decade. As a leader on incarceration reform, Ms. Kraft-Stolar spearheaded the very successful campaign to pass legislation ending the shackling of incarcerated women during childbirth. Additionally Miyhosi Benton, Bridgette Gibbs, Ursulina Miranda, Tina Tinen, and Maria Ventura are being recognized for their efforts to end the inhumane practice of shackling incarcerated pregnant women in New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring NOW-NYC and the 2015 Susan B. Anthony Award recipients for their perseverance and advocacy in the fight to end injustice and ensure equality for women.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to underscore my appreciation to you and the ranking member for your willingness to work on correcting this. I believe a correction could literally save taxpayer dollars and be more efficient. The willingness to work together for better government for our country is, I think, a good step forward. I thank the leaders on the other side of the aisle for approaching this in a bipartisan, cooperative spirit, as you are showing on the floor today. It is better for our country and certainly better for the budget in all respects. Thank you very, very much. I am extremely appreciative.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the ranking member on the Rules Committee for yielding to me and for her extraordinary leadership for the State of New York and for so many issues before this body. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this 2-year budget bill and the exemplary bipartisan cooperation that made it possible. Although this bill is by no means perfect, it is a good bill. It is good for the economy and good for the country. It will ensure our Nation maintains the full faith and credit of global financial markets. It protects millions of Americans from an enormous Medicare premium increase. It frees us from the uncertainty that roils markets and worries businesses, both big and small. While I support the compromise, I would like to raise some concerns about its impact on hospitals in the district that I represent. The bill puts restrictions on which hospital-affiliated facilities can be considered outpatient departments and reimbursed at hospital rates. Under the bill going forward, acquired facilities that are a certain distance from the main campus of hospitals will be reimbursed, but at a lower rate. They will be reimbursed for services as a regular doctor's visit. Existing sites will be grandfathered, but those that are under construction will be exempted and charged the lower rate. This will be a challenge in areas, like the district that I represent, where increasing demand collides with the lack of physical space to cause scattered hospital-affiliated facilities. I hope to work with my colleagues to improve the changes made to these outpatient services Medicare payments. I commend all who have worked with such goodwill on this budget. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record over 95 investor protection and consumer protection groups who adamantly support the position of the Department of Labor rule that protects investors and consumers. Save Our Retirement, October 26, 2015. Oppose H.R. 1090, the Misnamed ``Retail Investor Protection Act'' Dear Representative We are writing as organizations that strongly support the Department of Labor's (DOL) efforts to strengthen protections for working families and retirees by requiring the financial professionals they turn to for retirement investment advice to act in their best interests. As such, we oppose H.R. 1090, the misnamed ``Retail Investor Protection Act,'' and urge you to vote NO when the bill is considered on the House floor. H.R. 1090 is a clear attempt to thwart DOL action by making the Department wait for years and possibly indefinitely until after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalizes a rule under securities laws--a process that the SEC has not yet initiated. And, to further delay action, the bill imposes on the SEC new requirements to engage in further economic analysis, beyond the extensive analysis it has already conducted, and make formal findings before promulgating a rule. By impeding DOL's efforts, this bill would in no way protect retail investors; instead, it would protect those financial professionals who take advantage of loopholes in the law to profit at their clients' expense. This approach would effectively cripple DOL's ability to fulfill its unique and critical regulatory role under ERISA. When Congress enacted ERISA, it intentionally set a higher standard for protecting retirement assets than applies to other investments. There are good reasons to do so. Retirement assets are special, as evidenced by the fact that they are heavily subsidized by the government through the tax code. These tax subsidies should flow to individuals, not financial firms, and should not be depleted by conflicts of interest. Retirement savers who are struggling to fund an independent and secure retirement need financial advice they can trust is in their best interest. Today, neither our securities regulations nor the rules under ERISA provide that assurance. Instead, both sets of regulations expose retirement savers to recommendations from conflicted advisers who are free to recommend products based on their own financial interests rather than those of their customers. The DOL proposal--which combines a best interest standard with meaningful restrictions on the practices that undermine that standard-- offers significant progress toward addressing this problem. There is no reason to force the DOL to wait for the SEC, since only the DOL has the authority and expertise to close the loopholes in the ERISA rules. DOL has succeeded in crafting a balanced rule that provides much needed new protections for retirement savers while providing the flexibility necessary to enable firms operating under a variety of business models to comply. While adjustments can and doubtless will be made to clarify and streamline certain of the rule's operational requirements, the rule's overall framework is sound. Contrary to the misinformation that has swirled around the DOL proposal, it actually will help, not hurt, small savers. They need the protections of the best interest standard more than any other workers and retirees, since they can least afford high fees and poor returns on their savings. And if some advisers really do pull back, there are plenty of advisers happy to provide affordable, best interest advice to clients at all income levels. We can only hope that the SEC eventually will follow DOL's lead and craft a similarly strong and effective rule for non- retirement accounts. But in a nation that faces a retirement crisis, and with DOL ready to act, we cannot afford to wait. We therefore urge you to reject H.R. 1090--or any legislation that would stall, derail or interfere with the DOL rulemaking, which is proceeding under an appropriate deliberative process--and instead support DOL's efforts to finalize a rule based on the sound regulatory approach it has proposed. Sincerely, AARP, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Alliance for a Just Society, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association for Justice, American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial Reform, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Better Markets, Center for Community Change Action, Center for Global Policy Solutions, Center for Responsible Lending. The Committee for the Fiduciary Standard, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Fund Democracy, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Lynn Turner, former chief accountant, SEC, Main Street Alliance. Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National Council of LaRaza, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Organization for Women, Pension Rights Center, Public Citizen, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), U.S. PIRG, Wider Opportunities for Women.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor's fiduciary duty rule advances a very simple principle: If you are giving advice to retirement savers and you are being compensated for your advice, then you have to put your customers' interests first. It is worth noting that most investors already think that this is the law, even though it isn't. So the Department of Labor's rule is a much-needed update of the rules governing investment advice to retirement savers. I would say we have a particular responsibility as legislators to protect retirement savers, which is what the DOL rule does. While the proposed rule is not perfect, no rule ever is. The Department has been incredibly responsive, very responsive to legitimate concerns that have been raised. They have been more than willing to engage with Congress and with industry and with investors to come up with better solutions. But this bill before us would effectively stop the Department of Labor's rule in its tracks, which is the completely wrong thing to do if you want to protect investors. This bill is also redundant, unnecessary, and really reflects a misunderstanding of the law. One of the core principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, was that investments made for the purpose of retirement security should enjoy special protections under the law. That is what this DOL rule does. This, by definition, means that the protections under ERISA are supposed to be different than the protections under ordinary securities laws. They should be more protective of the retirement investor. As a result, the SEC and the Department of Labor have different responsibilities. When two agencies have different responsibilities, it is completely appropriate for them to move separately and even to write different rules. This bill would also require the SEC to conduct yet another study--or I would call it a delay--on a uniform fiduciary standard for broker- dealers. We already required the SEC to conduct a study on this issue in Dodd-Frank, and the SEC staff's recommendation in that study was that the SEC should, in fact, adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers. Requiring the SEC to conduct largely the same study that they already conducted in 2011--I believe they can move ahead with their own fiduciary rule--is pointless and shows that the true intent of the bill, the underlying bill, is to delay both the Department of Labor's rule and any future SEC rule which ultimately is there to protect the retirement saver and investor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I urge them to vote for investor protections and to protect consumers. I urge a very strong ``no'' vote.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this summer, when a small group of Republicans successfully blocked the renewal of the Export-Import Bank, they were very dismissive of the negative effects their efforts would have on job creation here in our country. Now it is autumn, and without the Ex-Im Bank, we are losing American jobs. Last month, General Electric announced it will move production of large, gas-powered engines to Canada, along with 350 jobs, because the company cannot access financing from the Export-Import Bank. Boeing was recently told by a Singapore-based satellite company not even to bother bidding on a satellite contract because they lacked the financing from Ex-Im. These are just a few real-life examples of the real-world consequences of letting Ex-Im expire. There is never a good time to commit economic suicide. I urge my colleagues to join together in renewing the Export-Import Bank and saving and growing American jobs.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. I rise in strong support of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. There is never really a good time to commit economic suicide, and now would be especially a bad time. The Export-Import Bank creates jobs by supporting exports, and it costs taxpayers nothing--zero. In fact, since 1992, the Ex-Im has returned nearly $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Killing the Ex-Im Bank would be especially bad right now. Export demand is falling because of our strong dollar and economic headwinds in China and Greece and Europe. We have to remember that there are 85 different export-import banks around the world from China to Canada, all of which are supporting exports more than we are. We are in a competitive world. They say when you lose a job, it goes somewhere else. But what the opposition isn't saying is that it is going overseas. I support the Export-Import Bank, and we should vote for reauthorization.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Irving J. Selikoff (1915-1992), whose ground breaking work created the field of environmental and occupational medicine. Dr. Selikoff established the first hospital division of occupational and environmental medicine in the nation at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, developing clinical programs that have cared for thousands of workers impacted by occupational diseases. This month, Mount Sinai cut the ribbon on the Selikoff Centers for Occupational Health, named in his honor. Revered as the father of occupational health, Dr. Selikoff's research and tireless advocacy has saved millions of lives. In 1952, working with Dr. Edward H. Robitzek, he demonstrated that isonazaid was an effective treatment for tuberculosis. He subsequently opened a clinic for lung patients in Paterson, N.J., where he saw 17 workers from an asbestos plant with similar symptoms. Within a few years, 15 were dead, 14 of them from lung cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma. This led him to begin investigating the cause of their illnesses. His research expanded and he began studying the health of other insulation workers, often collaborating with labor unions. Despite heavy resistance from the industry, he ultimately recruited 17,800 workers for a survey that documented widespread illness among those who had worked with asbestos. Even people who had been exposed for less than a week had lung scarring 30 years later. Dr. Selikoff's research on asbestos disease and his expert testimony shaped public policy and improved working conditions for America's working men and women. Thanks to his careful research, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration imposed safeguards for workers starting in the 1970s. His work also prompted the Environmental Protection Administration to implement regulations regarding asbestos products; however, the United States remains one of the few developed nations that do not ban asbestos. Dr. Selikoff's tireless advocacy led to a fundamental understanding in this country that workers have the right to safe working conditions. Over the span of his 50-year career until his death in 1992, he taught two generations of physicians, published over 380 scientific works, and publicized the health risks associated with toxins found in everyday work environments. He wrote more than 350 scientific articles and two books, edited 11 books and founded two journals. In 1982 Dr. Selikoff, Cesare Maltoni and other eminent scientists founded the Collegium Ramazzini. Comprised of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health, the Collegium Ramazzini helps social and political leaders understand how scientific discoveries impact public health. Researchers at Mount Sinai and around the world continue his work and are leaders in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of workplace injuries and illnesses. After 9/11, when people who had worked at Ground Zero began to experience disproportionate levels of illness, Mount Sinai began to do research on the cause. Their work helped document the need for a program to provide care for people who had been made sick by the toxins released on 9/11. Mount Sinai was naturally selected as one of the Centers of Excellence to treat their illnesses under the direction of Dr. Philip J. Landrigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the extraordinary work and legacy of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff. His focus on the health impacts of workplace conditions has benefitted millions of American workers.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week we experienced the 45th school shooting in 2015. Nearly 10,000 people have been killed by guns this year alone; yet, too many leaders respond with absolute indifference. They tell us that ``stuff happens,'' that we should just move on. Are the 20 kids killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School just stuff happening? Are the 32 murdered at Virginia Tech just stuff happening? Are the 12 people gunned down in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater just stuff happening? What about the 9 people killed at Umpqua Community College on Friday? This stuff has real costs to families, to friends, to our whole community, to our country. It does not have to happen. Let's make gun trafficking in illegal weapons a Federal felony and have universal background checks. Let's end the moments of silence on the floor and have, instead, votes on the floor to end gun violence.