Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in asking the Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee to issue a staff stamp in honor of Diwali. H.R. 47 has over 41 bipartisan cosponsors. Diwali marks the beginning of the Hindu new year, one of the oldest and most storied holidays in the world. It symbolizes the triumph of good over evil and of light over darkness. Diwali is celebrated by over a billion Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, and Jains alike. It has been celebrated and honored in the White House by both parties. But Diwali has yet to join the legion of holidays that we honor with a stamp. Yesterday, Congressman Bera, along with the Indian American leaders, including Ranju and Ravi Batra, delivered over 1,300 personally signed letters in support of the stamp to the Deputy Postmaster General. They also delivered over 400,000 signatures on a petition in support of the stamp. The time has come to issue a Diwali stamp. Please join me in asking the Citizen's Advisory Committee to do so.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act Update of 2013. The Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act was enacted in 1969 to protect consumers from being sold property where the property's description in the contract and related materials was not what was to be delivered to the buyer. It was intended to protect out-of-state buyers who were sold land that was not what was advertised and provides a right of action to rescind the contract and walk away from the deal. However, Courts have ruled over the years that ISLA applies to condominiums, and developers are required to file redundant paperwork that is unnecessary and out of keeping with modem condominium development. During the economic downturn, some buyers have used the recording requirements of ILSA to rescind otherwise valid contracts for economic reasons, an unintended consequence of the act and its intent. The law now needs a technical fix to distinguish condominium sales from other types of land sales and to recognize the unique conditions under which these units are sold in today's market. I fully support the consumer protections that were enacted through ILSA, and this proposed legislation does nothing to affect those protections. But I also believe that we need to make distinctions for condominiums in order to allow the condominium development industry to rebound from the recession. The bill would only exempt condominiums from ILSA's registration requirements but will maintain the consumer protections to ensure consumers still have the right to rescind contracts in cases of fraud. Developers would, of course, still be required to comply with state laws that require specific disclosures. As we recover in this still fragile economy, we want to encourage, not discourage, buyers and sellers to enter into real estate deals responsibly. That is why this bill is important to ensure development and the return of an important industry in our country, residential condominium sales. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, across all sectors and industries, flexible work arrangements are a key to meeting the 21st century's diverse workforce needs. Such voluntary arrangements have been shown to boost employee satisfaction and their physical and mental health as well as improve businesses bottom line by helping to retain key talent, reduce absenteeism, and enhance employee productivity. Flexible workplace policies are a win-win for business and workers. To help promote these policies, I am introducing the Flexibility for Working Families Act. This legislation guarantees employees the right to request flexible work arrangements and provides employers with flexibility by encouraging them to review these requests, propose changes, and even deny them if they are not in the best interest of the business. Such voluntary arrangements between employees and employers include changing the time, amount, and/or place that work is conducted. Over the last 50 years the American workforce and demographics have shifted tremendously. Last month, Pew Research found that ``breadwinner moms'' are the sole or primary provider in more than four in ten households with children under age 18. Furthermore, more households are caring for older relatives as medical advances mean people are living longer, with studies showing that almost 60 percent of those who provide unpaid care to an adult or to a child with special needs are employed. It's important that this workforce have options such as flexibility to help them handle even the most basic demands of work and family. I urge my colleagues to support the Flexibility for Working Families Act, and I thank Senator Bob Casey for introducing Senate companion legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I agree with President Obama when he said this week that America is uniquely suited to take on the challenge of climate change. Those of us in the Northeast know firsthand what the President meant when he said that Hurricane Sandy's destruction left our mightiest city underwater and dark. Sandy destroyed homes, businesses, and, in some cases, entire neighborhoods. It halted our markets and damaged the infrastructure that the country depends on. These costs are real and they are personal. Now is the time to improve the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. Now is the time to protect our beautiful natural resources. Now is the time to mitigate future natural disasters, and now is the time to take on the battle against climate change. We know where to start. We need to reduce carbon pollution, utilize more renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, and oppose the Big Oil subsidies on the floor this week.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, across the U.S., there are more than 1.2 million units of housing cooperatives. In New York City, there are close to 6,000 housing cooperatives throughout the five boroughs, housing more than half a million families. Unfortunately, these alternative forms of housing, which are becoming more and more prevalent in urban areas like New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago, and Los Angeles, are not available to our country's veterans. In 2006, the Congress passed legislation I authored to allow veterans to use the Veterans Affairs' Home Loan Guaranty Program to purchase cooperative housing using their low interest loan benefits. This program allows veterans to buy homes with no down payment and limited closing costs. However, the loan benefit for co-op housing sunset at the end of 2011. That is why today I am introducing legislation, the Fair Access to Co-Ops for Veterans Act, which would permanently permit veterans to use their loan benefits to purchase a co-op. In addition, to ensure that veterans are aware they can utilize the loans for co-op housing units, the bill includes a provision so that the Secretary of the Veterans Administration can advertise the program to eligible veterans, participating lenders, and interested realtors. By permanently allowing these home loan benefits to include cooperatives, we can honor and thank all who bravely served in our Armed Forces by giving them the tools and resources they need to pursue their dreams of homeownership wherever they live. I thank Senator Schumer for introducing companion legislation and thank my colleague Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for cosponsoring today's bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, in just 4 days, millions of American students will quite suddenly finally find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Unless Congress acts, the interest rates on subsidized student loans will double on July 1. This increase comes on top of sharp rises in public college tuition, and together means students hoping to improve their economic chances in life have to borrow more money at higher cost to get an increasingly more expensive college education. A new report by the Joint Economic Committee, on which I serve as the ranking Democrat on the House side, shows that two-thirds of our recent graduates now have student loan debt with an average balance of $27,000. For someone just starting out in life, that is a mountain of debt and averages about 60 percent of their annual earnings. That means that two-thirds of our college graduates today are starting out in a pretty deep, big hole. The question for Congress is: Are we going to just sit back and let them get into a deeper and bigger hole of debt? Let's fix the student loan problem and get America moving again.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my fellow New Yorker and good friend for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in this body on so many, many issues, particularly in the area of health. My colleagues, once again, we need to ask ourselves where were the women when the Judiciary Committee produced this outrageous assault on women's health and women's reproductive rights? The answer is very clear. On this panel, there is not one female face participating in this crucial issue in their health care, absolutely nowhere. This is a photo of the members of the Judiciary Subcommittee that held a hearing on this legislation before us, and not one Republican on that panel is a woman. The bill that was produced is evidence that women did not participate in this decision-making. For example, it was not until the chair of that subcommittee made a comment not worthy of this House that the majority added an insulting and narrow exception for pregnancies resulting from rape. Last November, women came out in droves to say, Keep your laws off our bodies, out of our personal lives, and out from between women and their doctor. This bill that a man sponsored and that an all-male panel has approved jeopardizes the health and well-being of women, and only women; it is indifferent to the rights of women, and only women; and it is callous to the concerns of women, and only women. I can promise you that women will long remember this. They will remember it today, they will remember it tomorrow, and they will remember it at the polls when they select their Representatives.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, together with my bipartisan colleagues Reps. Charlie Rangel, Eliot Engel, Brian Higgins, Nita Lowey, Jerrold Nadler, and Michael Grimm, I am introducing a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rabbi Arthur Schneier, in recognition of his pioneering role in promoting religious freedom and human rights throughout the world for over half a century. Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1930, Rabbi Schneier lived under Nazi occupation in Budapest during World War II and came to the United States in 1947. He has been the Spiritual Leader of the Park East Synagogue in New York City since 1962. A Holocaust survivor, and the Founder and President of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, Rabbi Schneier has devoted his life to overcoming the forces of hatred and intolerance. He has been a pioneer in bringing together religious leaders to address ethnic or religious conflicts. For example, in Bosnia in 1997, he convened government and religious leaders to promote healing and conciliation between Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish communities. In the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia he worked with the Orthodox Patriarch and the Turkish Government to hold the Peace and Tolerance Conference in 1994 and address religious and ethnic tensions in that area. In the former Yugoslavia, he mobilized religious leaders to halt the bloodshed of the early 90's, holding the Religious Summit on the Former Yugoslavia and the Conflict Resolution Conference to build support and consensus among religious leaders of different faiths. Since the early 1980s, he has led delegations of religious leaders to China to open a dialogue on religious freedom. I hope my colleagues will join us in honoring this distinguished pioneer of religious freedom with a Congressional Gold Medal.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue along with Congressmen McIntyre, Grimm, Hensarling, and many, many others. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act. This bill will make it easier for companies to manage their risks and plan for their future by clarifying that Dodd-Frank does not require end users of derivatives to post collateral on these trades. Congress never intended for these companies to be required to post collateral on their derivatives, because that would needlessly raise their costs and could even discourage companies from prudently managing their risks. But because of a drafting error in Dodd-Frank, end users of derivatives currently face uncertainty about whether the regulators will require them to post collateral. Both Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler have stated that they support this bill because it would provide them with much-needed clarity on whether their rules on posting collateral should apply to end users. This bipartisan effort to correct a problem with Dodd-Frank is not an attempt by opponents to weaken the safeguards of the bill but, rather, an attempt to make good legislation even better. Congress needs to step in and ensure that companies that use derivatives to manage their day- to-day commercial risk are not subject to unnecessary collateral requirements. It was reported out in a very strong bipartisan vote from Financial Services Committee, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 634.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding. This is a very strong bipartisan effort, and I rise today in support of H.R. 742, the Swap Data Repository and Clearing House Indemnification Correction Act. In enacting the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress passed the most sweeping reforms to the financial industry in decades in response to the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. The facts are clear: the financial system is global and, as a result, systemic risk is global as well. We saw it in 2008 with the exposure that European banks had to counterparties like Lehman and Merrill, and we see it today with U.S. banks' exposure to the European debt crisis. The great equalizer here is data. This is the reason Dodd-Frank created swap data repositories. It was so that the regulators, domestic and foreign alike, could recognize prospective cracks in the financial armor before they become gaping holes. This is critically important, and we must get it right. Data collection has been one of the issues that I've worked hard on in the past, and I want to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support collaboration and to encourage an open exchange of data with our foreign counterparties. Virtually everyone agrees that the indemnification provisions in Dodd-Frank will have the unintended consequence of limiting the extent to which our U.S. regulators share information with well over 50 foreign regulators. That is the complete opposite of the direction we want to go. This bipartisan effort to correct a problem in Dodd-Frank is not an attempt in any way to weaken the bill. It is an attempt to make good legislation even better. This bill will go a long way toward furthering a major goal of the Dodd-Frank legislation in reforms, which is sharing data and collaborating with foreign entities to reduce global systemic risk. This not only has strong bipartisan support, but it is likewise supported by the SEC. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important correction.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. I commend the work of Mr. Turner and others for strengthening protections for women in the military, but it's not enough. The amendments from Jackie Speier and other women leaders were not included. We need an open rule where all of these ideas can come to the floor to protect our men and women in the military. The status quo in the military is not a way to solve the problem of sexual abuse. Too often, it is the problem. Every year that I have been in Congress, the military brass has come to us and said that they will stop this abuse. Yet each year, it seems to be getting worse. Women are even afraid to report it. They're then afraid that they'll be punished in some way. Despite the widespread public and congressional outrage, some top military officers still seem to resist important, fundamental changes to a culture that has clearly failed in one of its single, most important missions: keeping its own people safe. And the casualties are mounting every day. For example, a U.S. military officer overseeing sexual assault prevention at Fort Hood in Texas is under investigation for his sexual assault of soldiers. The officer in charge of the Air Force's sexual abuse prevention program was recently arrested for groping women. We need to end the culture of tolerating the abuser and punishing the victims. We created a database for them to report in, but they won't report because they are afraid of retaliation. Too often they've seen if you're a woman who's been raped and abused, then you're told to be quiet. If you report it, you'll be punished, but if you're the abuser, you might end up in charge of the sexual abuse prevention program and get a promotion. The strongest military in the world has got to learn how to protect its own soldiers. It's got to keep them from being wounded by rape and sexual assault. We need to stop this, allow an open rule, and allow amendments on this important protection of our soldiers.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. I oppose this bill, as does the Obama administration, because it would fundamentally undermine Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms and would create a loophole big enough to drive an AIG-sized truck through. Many of the derivatives that brought down AIG in 2008 were executed through one of its foreign branches, and many of the counterparties on those derivatives were European banks. These derivatives were a big factor in the AIG bailout that cost our taxpayers $182 billion and in the financial crisis that cost our economy well over $12 trillion. H.R. 1256 would require the CFTC and the SEC to issue a joint rule detailing how U.S. derivatives rules would apply to transactions between U.S. and foreign companies or individuals. However, the bill then requires the agencies to exempt foreign companies from U.S. rules unless both agencies determine that the derivatives rules in the foreign country are broadly equivalent to U.S. rules, a vague standard that would weaken both the CFTC and the SEC's proposed rules governing crossborder transactions. In the modern financial system, risk knows no borders. Problems in a U.S. bank's foreign office flow right back to the parent company here in the U.S., and it is the U.S. parent company that ultimately bears the loss. This is especially true in derivatives, which are traded in a global and highly interconnected market. For these regulations to be truly effective, however, they must cover derivatives executed in the foreign branches and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. banks. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. I oppose this bill and the Obama Administration opposes because it would fundamentally undermine Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms, and would create a loophole big enough to drive an AIG-sized truck through. Many of the derivatives that brought down AIG in 2008 were executed through one of its foreign branches, and many of the counterparties on those derivatives were European banks. These derivatives were a big factor in the AIG bailout that cost taxpayers $182 billion, and in the financial crisis that cost our economy over $12 trillion. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake? H.R. 1256 would require the CFTC and the SEC to issue a joint rule detailing how U.S. derivatives rules would apply to transactions between U.S. and foreign companies or individuals. However, the bill then requires the agencies to exempt foreign companies from U.S. rules unless both agencies determine that the derivatives rules in the foreign country are ``broadly equivalent'' to U.S. rules--a vague standard that would weaken both the CFTC and the SEC's proposed rules governing cross-border transactions. In the modern financial system, risk knows no borders. Problems in a U.S. bank's foreign office flow right back to the parent company here in the U.S., and it is the U.S. parent company that ultimately bears the loss. This is especially true for derivatives, which are traded in a global and highly interconnected market. For these regulations to be truly effective, however, they must cover derivatives executed in the overseas branches and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. banks. This is what the CFTC has proposed, and what the supporters of this bill are seeking to prevent. We cannot afford to outsource derivatives regulation to foreign jurisdictions when it is U.S. taxpayers, and not the taxpayers of the foreign jurisdiction, who are ultimately bearing the risks. We learned the hard way with AIG that risk in the derivatives market flows across borders. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake? In response to the financial crisis, Congress enacted Dodd-Frank, which imposes common-sense rules on the derivatives market, such as capital and margin requirements for U.S. derivatives dealers. These rules will make the financial system safer by ensuring that U.S. banks that deal derivatives are sufficiently capitalized, and have the ability to pay off all of their derivatives without government help. H.R. 1256 would undermine these basic reforms. This is why I oppose the bill, why the Obama administration opposes the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office,'' to honor this historic letter carrier leader and all the work he did as the president of National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC). Mr. Sombrotto was one of the most significant labor leaders of his generation. As president of NALC from 1978 to 2002, Mr. Sombrotto worked to increase letter carrier wages, moving them from poverty level to middle class. To this day letter carriers benefit from Mr. Sombrotto's commitment to the wage increases. In 1992, he began the NALC food drive which has developed into the country's biggest one-day food drive. Held on the second Saturday every May, it has to date, provided more than 1.2 billion pounds of food for banks in communities throughout the United States, with letter carriers collecting non-perishable food individuals and families leave in their mailboxes. As a firm believer in civic responsibility, Mr. Sombrotto and the NALC worked with the United States Postal Service and emergency services organizations to establish Carrier Alert. This nationwide program allows carriers to perform heroic and humanitarian deeds on their routes including saving lives, finding missing children, looking over the elderly, and stopping crimes. Mr. Sombrotto deserves our respect for the work he has done to help the lives of letter carriers, and their families, across the country. That is why I would like to rename the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office.''

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this and in so many other areas. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3. It is a very bad deal. It's bad for our environment, our energy policy, American workers, and a bad deal for America in general. In the way this bill is written, a foreign company pumping a very dirty form of oil all the way across this country would not have to pay a dime into our oil spill liability trust fund the way that American companies have to do. Under this bill, the highly polluting tar sands that the pipeline carries would produce over 40 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil and would increase America's dependence on one of the single dirtiest petroleum products there is just as the predictions of climate change catastrophes grow more dire each and every day, and that is just not right for America's future. H.R. 3 leaves Americans with all of the risk of spills, environmental damage, and air and water pollution, but none of the lasting rewards. It's a bad idea and it's bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the lady for yielding and for her leadership. I strongly oppose this bill because I believe it would in effect cripple the SEC just as it undertakes the immense task of implementing the essential Dodd-Frank reforms. May I remind my colleagues that this country lost $12 trillion, according to some estimates, and it happened in part because regulators, like the SEC, were ill-equipped, underfunded, and did too little, too slowly. The Republican bill comes in the guise of requiring the SEC to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of regulations. But it is really a prescription for paralysis of the SEC's ability to protect our investors and our markets. There is already a multilayered and highly effective cost-benefit analysis built into the SEC rulemaking process. Just look at the recent D.C. Circuit case where the court overturned an SEC proxy access rule and sent a message back to the SEC reminding them of all the cost- benefit analysis that they are required to do now by law. They stated they will vacate any rule if this is not done. Already there is analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. And just for the SEC alone, in 1996, we passed the National Securities Market Improvement Act requiring a cost-benefit analysis. It is already there, it is on the books, and it is enforced by our courts. So what is before us today? A hurdle. Let's do more. Let's require them to go back to 1933, review every rule, so they cannot do their important work of protecting the American taxpayer and our economy of derivatives fraud, other fraud, and other abuses to investors.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I'm just warming up. I think my colleagues have a lot to say. It is a prescription for paralysis. I urge a ``no'' vote for investor protection.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. First, I would like to say that I am happy to work with Mr. Garrett on a variety of issues. I respect his leadership. But I must respectfully and strongly disagree with him on this issue before us today. It seems clear that the intended effect of the Republican bill is to cripple the SEC just as they undertake the very tough and important job of implementing the badly needed reforms we passed in Dodd-Frank. May I remind my colleagues that we passed Dodd-Frank in response to the worst financial crisis in our lifetime, one in which we were at one point losing 700,000 jobs a month, and by some estimates the loss was well over $12 trillion. My amendment strikes the underlying bill and puts a sense of Congress in its place. My amendment contains findings that very clearly lay out the cost- benefit analysis process that the SEC already has to go through in proposing or adopting a rule. What this bill would do now, the Republican bill, is handcuff the SEC commissioners with unnecessary redtape so that the Commission will be unable to protect investors effectively. Despite what the other side of the aisle is saying, there is already a multi-layered and effective cost-benefit analysis built into the SEC rulemaking process. The SEC is already required by law to do cost-benefit analysis under the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Congressional Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and for the SEC specifically under the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. In fact, just last year, the GAO issued a report praising the SEC's guidance on cost-benefit analysis saying: The basic elements of good regulatory economic analysis. And in evaluating a recent proposal on swaps regulation, the cochairman of the Financial Services Department at Cadawalder wrote: The SEC release contains the most detailed attempt at an economic analysis of the effect of the rules that I have seen from any agency. But under this Republican bill, the SEC would have to divert its limited budget resources away from enforcement or examining the impact of worldwide derivatives markets only to duplicate things it is already doing. This bill also says that every 5 years the SEC is required to do a cost-benefit analysis of every regulation it has ever issued on any subject going back some 80 years, back to day one in 1933. And it would have to magically do all of this without one additional red cent of additional funding to cover the cost of it. If we want to highlight anything, we should be highlighting the extensive process that exists and the judicial scrutiny that it includes, which is what my amendment does. The stated mission of the SEC is to protect investors; not give them more redtape; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Let's help them do that--not just make them jump through unnecessary, costly, and duplicative hoops. The underlying bill, the Republican bill, is a prescription for paralysis of the SEC's ability to protect investors. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I would like to point out to my colleague that the circuit court decision underlines the point that I'm making in my amendment. It says clearly that there are cost-benefit analyses that are required by the SEC, and it made clear that there is a judicial review, that not only is analysis required, but you can always appeal to the court. I yield my remaining time to the distinguished ranking member from the great State of California, Maxine Waters.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing important legislation that will protect the rights of women seeking information on family planning services. This week is National Women's Health Week, a weeklong effort to empower women to live happier, healthier lives. We want to encourage women to prioritize their health, but not deceive them about what medical options are available. Unfortunately, there are some centers that deliberately misinform or mislead women seeking information on family planning services. Called Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), they pose as sources of unbiased pregnancy counseling, using deceptive propaganda to dissuade women from considering comprehensive birth- control options or legal abortion. Fake reproductive health clinics entice women with unintended pregnancies through their doors under the pretense of providing the full range of reproductive options and services. The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring it an unfair or deceptive act for an entity, such as a crisis pregnancy center, to advertise as a provider of abortion services if the entity does not provide abortion services. Deception has no place when a woman is seeking information about her pregnancy. Working together we can help stop the fraud and confusion these Crisis Pregnancy Centers are perpetrating on the women of America.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and for her extraordinary leadership. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act and in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the American people would like Congress to focus their attention on increasing and growing the economy and job growth, we are instead, for the 37th time, involved in partisan politics. It is especially troubling that our Republican colleagues have chosen to celebrate National Women's Health Week by attempting to undo the important gains that were made for women's health in the Affordable Care Act. A study issued by the Joint Economic Committee while I was chair found that across this country, under the old status quo, an estimated 64 million women lacked adequate health insurance, and 39 percent of all low-income women had no health insurance coverage at all. A repeal now of the Affordable Care Act could mean that millions of American women could find it nearly impossible to gain insurance if they had a preexisting condition, such as pregnancy. A repeal now would take away benefits women are already receiving such as free mammograms. A repeal now would mean the end of lower-cost prescription drugs for our seniors. A repeal now would yank young people between the age of 23 and 26 off their parents' policies. A repeal now would send us back to the bad old days, to the days of preexisting conditions, gender ratings, and lifetime caps. It would mean that in this next year alone, over 1.9 million people would not have access to quality, dependable health insurance coverage. Vote ``no'' on this repeal.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act with my colleagues Ms. Moore, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Lee, Mr. Conyers. The health benefits of breastfeeding, to both mother and child, are significant. Scientific studies show babies who are breastfed the first six months of life have a greatly reduced risk for acute and chronic disease, yet only ten percent of all infants in the U.S. are breastfed. A 2001 USDA study found that if just half of the babies in the U.S. were exclusively breastfed for six months (as recommended by the United States Surgeon General), our nation would realize a savings of $3.6 billion in health care costs for the three leading childhood illnesses alone. According to the United States Breastfeeding Committee, if we replicate that study based on current breastfeeding statistics, the savings could reach nearly $11 billion in health care costs for all childhood illnesses in a single year. I was so proud to partner with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to pass into law a provision of our bill, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009 (H.R. 2819, S. 1744), in comprehensive health care reform legislation signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The provision requires that employers provide breastfeeding employees, who are hourly workers, with ``reasonable break time'' and a private, non-bathroom place to express breast milk during the workday, up until the child's first birthday. This was a great success but more work needs to be done. Our bill will further encourage and promote breastfeeding by removing common obstacles to breastfeeding and expressing milk in the workplace that many women face. This bill expands the requirement under current law for employers to provide break time to express breast milk, as well as make reasonable efforts to provide a private place for them to do so, to salaried workers in traditional work or office environments. Public opinion and awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding continue to grow, and the momentum we've recently gained presents the perfect opportunity to build on that progress in achieving our goals. We urge all of our colleagues to support this important legislation. The health and economic benefits of breastfeeding are overwhelming and public opinion and awareness of these benefits continue to grow. We must ensure that working moms who choose to breastfeed have the support they need to do so. We urge all of our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we look for ways to ensure government dollars are used efficiently, Congress should reform the procurement process to limit bid shopping on federal construction contracts. Restoring equitable safeguards in the low bid system will assure that agency practice will conform to the highest standards adhered to by industry professionals and contractor associations, and will reflect best practices followed by a great many other public procurement systems nationally and internationally. That is why I am introducing the Construction Quality Assurance Act, legislation that would require prime bidders on low-bid projects valued at $1 million or more to list each subcontractor on work categories of $100,000 or more with their bid submissions. Substitutions of listed subcontractors after contracts are awarded would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and only with the consent of the contracting officer. The bill would impose financial penalties for improper substitution of listed subcontractors. It would also apply to subcontractors. Both prime contractors and subcontractors would be subject to debarment or ineligibility determinations in cases where there are two infractions of the prohibitions over any three-year period. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and ensure integrity in the federal procurement system.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's bill. It should be called the Fake Flexibility Act and should more aptly be named More Work For Less Pay For Working Mothers. Happy Mother's Day.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Majority's so-called Working Families Flexibility Act. The American people should not be deceived by this fake advertising. True workplace flexibility should be a two-way street for both employees and employers. I am a longtime sponsor of work-life balance legislation, including the original bill titled the ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' that provides both employers and employees with protections in discussing flexible work arrangements. Over the last 50 years there have been tremendous changes to our workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 70 percent of children are raised in families that are headed by either a working single parent or two working parents. In addition, studies show that 60 percent of those who provide care to an adult or to a child with special needs are employed. The numbers show the real case for flexibility in the workplace. And yet, Americans must not be deceived about the recycled bill on the floor this week. The more aptly named ``More Work, Less Pay Act'' undermines the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I urge my colleague to bring to the floor true workplace advancement legislation and oppose the H.R. 1406.