Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment concerns title VI of the bill and the enhanced cost- benefit analysis that it requires. The amendment very simply requires that title VI of the underlying bill needs to basically get in line behind all the critical and previously assigned responsibilities Congress has given to the SEC to keep consumers, investors, and our financial system safe. My amendment would require the Chair of the SEC to certify that the Commission can perform its core mission of protecting investors and do the job it was created to do--safely maintain efficient markets and promote access to capital--before it diverts any of its resources to carry out the new requirements of title VI in this bill. The financial reforms we enacted 2 years ago gave the SEC critical new tools to oversee a multitrillion-dollar market and to help ensure that we do not get ourselves into another financial crisis. And the reforms we previously enacted require the SEC to conduct extensive rulemakings and to complete a number of critical reports. Unfortunately, this Congress has chosen to underfund the SEC and hamper its ability to provide the required oversight of the financial industry. The SEC is now facing a $195 million shortfall this year alone. They are also operating on a budget that is a 12 percent cut from what the President requested. The SEC needs every dollar it now gets just to carry out its core mission: to protect investors, to implement Dodd-Frank, and to provide enforcement. I do not believe that it would be responsible on the part of this Congress to require that already strained resources be diverted from the SEC's core mission in order to comply with the new burdens of this title. The Congressional Budget Office has made it quite clear that additional resources would have to be used to carry out the provisions of this title. Imposing these new and severe burdens on the SEC's cost- benefit analysis process would ensure that the SEC would be hard- pressed to carry out its fundamental regulatory functions. The SEC would have difficulty protecting investors even when it has identified harmful practices. The SEC is already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and recent court cases prove that, if the process has been insufficient, the SEC must start over. Last year, for example, the SEC proposed a rule on proxy access to give shareholders more of a say into the activities of companies. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia very directly stated that their cost-benefit analysis had been inadequate. That represents a very real and a very effective existing check on the SEC's authority. But title VI of this bill will effectively shut down the SEC's rulemaking process altogether by requiring significant resources be directed to burdensome new requirements. So I believe that before we hobble an agency that keeps consumers, investors, and our financial sector safe, it would be wise to require that the Chair of the SEC must certify that it will still be able to carry out its core mission before this provision can go into effect-- also, because we already have a cost-benefit analysis. In the wake of all the cost, the pain, and the dislocation of the Great Recession, we should not now cripple the SEC's ability to do its real job, that of protecting investors and our financial markets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. May I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. MALONEY. In response to my friend on the other side of the aisle, regulations did not cause the Great Recession; it did not cause the loss of jobs. What caused the loss of jobs was the lack of regulation and the lack of enforcement, and certainly large swaths of the economy that were not regulated at all that brought on the Great Recession. It was the regulations that Dodd-Frank has put in place, and restoring the strength to the SEC to protect investors and to protect our economy, and putting hurdles and additional expenses in front of the SEC when they don't even have the money to enforce the new laws and things they have to do. They're very overburdened. So this is a reasonable amendment, and I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is one of two amendments that Mrs. Lummis has submitted. She has indicated that she will not be offering her other amendment, and we are very pleased as we had some serious concerns about that amendment. This amendment I am supporting, though, would require Federal agencies to gather valuable data, and it would require the Administrative Conference of the United States to issue a report based on that data. This report would help taxpayers and Congress determine where taxpayer funds flow under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This amendment has merit. We should have mechanisms in place to track where taxpayer money goes, and the reports this amendment requires will help Congress conduct more thorough oversight over Federal agencies. There are still some concerns that some have raised about the extent to which the data will be made public. This data could include names of Social Security claimants and veterans who bring claims under EAJA, and this may have a chilling effect on those claimants. We are willing to work with Mrs. Lummis to address these concerns. Mrs. Lummis, herself, has raised more specific concerns with how EAJA has been used and urges Congress to amend the act. The committee held a hearing and marked up her bill. The reported bill contained several needed improvements to address many of our concerns on this side of the aisle. We thank her for working with us on these changes. The bill still needs some more work, and we will continue to work with her to address all of our concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. This is an absolute terrible idea. Although I am in total agreement with Mr. Paul that transparency is a virtue, I also believe that the Federal Reserve must be free of any political influence, and I'm afraid this bill opens the door for precisely that to happen. I don't believe there is anyone in this Chamber that thinks that what the process needs is more politics. Make no mistake, I agree that maximum transparency is necessary and desirable, and that's precisely why we included numerous transparency requirements in the financial reform bill, as well as numerous audit requirements. We authorized the GAO to audit the Fed's emergency lending facility. We authorized the GAO to audit any special facility created within the Fed. And we required the Fed to issue an assessment 2 years after institutions were granted access to the Fed's discount window. We crafted those measures and more in a way that ensures transparency but still preserves the independence of the Federal Reserve in its decision-making process in the critical area of monetary policy. But this bill, as it now stands, would provide information without a proper context. That could have unintended consequences and have totally unwarranted effects on consumer confidence in our financial institutions. If the individual members of the Open Markets Committee know that each one of their decisions are subject to potential political pressure, it would significantly alter that decision-making process. An open door to the Federal Open Markets Committee would invite political pressures. And having decisions that are driven by politics and polling data is not the path to sound monetary policy. Decisions about monetary policy should never be based on the raw political needs of the moment but instead should always be based strictly on objective economic considerations and guided by the twin mandates of low inflation and full employment. The unintended consequences of this bill would be to open the Federal Reserve to political influence, and that would have a negative impact on the Fed's independence and its ability to produce sound economic policy. I urge a strong bipartisan ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank Congressman Sablan for yielding and for his hard work in so many areas and his leadership. I rise to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act, H.R. 2362. This bill is unnecessary and seeks to give special consideration to one country--Turkey. As a country that has shown both negative and aggressive actions toward a number of our allies, Turkey should not be given investment preferences in Indian tribal lands through this bill. And they should not be given preference over 154 allies, members of the World Trade Organization. Nor should they be given preference over American businesses that wish to invest in Indian tribal lands. This bill would reward a country with a record of human rights and religious freedom violations. It has been on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's watch list for 3 consecutive years. Just this last Friday, many of us marked the 38th anniversary of Turkey's illegal occupation of the northern third of the island Republic of Cyprus. Throughout this occupation, Turkey actively seeks to alter the heritage and demographics of Cyprus. It has systematically destroyed the island's Christian heritage and colonized the area with more than 200,000 settlers and 40,000 troops. Furthermore, Turkey maintains an economic blockade against Armenia, sealing its borders to all trade, and continues to deny the Armenian genocide, during which over 1.5 million Armenians perished. I have with me the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National Committee of America's letters in opposition to this legislation. Also, Turkey has challenged Israel by arguing against Israel's right to develop energy sources. Turkey has also threatened American businesses by saying it would use force to stop a Texas-based company, Noble Energy, from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus. Turkey has said it will blacklist any business that assists Cyprus and Israel in their efforts to jointly develop their country's natural resources. The preferential treatment given to Turkey in H.R. 2362 is unnecessary given the previous passage of the HEARTH Act, which passed this body 400-0, passed the Senate, and is now awaiting the President's signature. That bill allows domestic and foreign companies to engage in leases for housing construction, clean energy, and business development. Unlike the HEARTH Act, the bill before us today does nothing to support these domestic businesses. Last November, the director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Michael Black, testified before the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, stating that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the same goals identified in this bill but on a broader, larger scale.'' Through the HEARTH Act, domestic and foreign entities have already been granted an expedited route to invest in Native American lands and help their economic development. Given the redundancies in the bill and the favored treatment it gives to one country that has shown threatening and discriminatory action toward a number of American allies, I urge my colleagues to join Ranking Member Berman and Ranking Member Markey and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2362. From: Andreas Akaras Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012, 1:13 a.m. To: Elizabeth Darnall Subject: H.R. 2362 Tribal Trade Bill (AHEPA email blast) On behalf of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA), the largest and oldest membership-based organization of American citizens of Greek heritage and Philhellenes, we are outreaching to share AHEPA's position in opposition to H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act. We understand H.R. 2362 is expected to come to the Floor under Suspension of the Rules this week--perhaps on Monday. Position AHEPA is opposed to H.R. 2362 for the following reasons: 1. Turkey's Recent Threats to U.S. Commercial Interests. Why reward it? Turkey's has issued threats to the actions of U.S. firm Noble Energy, which is lawfully conducting oil and gas exploration off the coast of Cyprus, in Cyprus's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the eastern Mediteranean. Noble Energy is based in Houston, Texas. During this same exploration, Turkey's threats have directed at U.S. allies Cyprus and Israel as both countries are working in cooperation via a signed agreement to develop hydrocarbon reserves in their EEZs. In response to these threats, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stated, ``Turkey's decision to escalate tensions by increasing its military presence in the Mediterranean poses a clear threat to U.S. citizens and interests in the region.'' Moreover, Turkey has threatened to blacklist international companies willing to work on this particular exploration project off the coast of Cyprus. This would include any U.S. companies. Why would the United States Congress facilitate the unique opportunity for private entities from Turkey to engage in trade and financial investment with Indian tribal economies when U.S. private entities and citizens are threatened by Turkey? 2. Congress has already acted with the overwhelmingly bipartisan-passed HEARTH Act. H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, passed the House 400-0 and the Senate by UC. It will be signed into law by President Obama. The HEARTH Act promotes trade and investment on Native American lands without requiring the approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike Black, testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources in November 3, 2011, H.R. 205 ``foster[s] the same goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.'' The HEARTH Act benefits all tribes; not a select few that could benefit from H.R. 2362. Simply stated, passage of H.R. 205 renders H.R. 2362 unnecessary. 3. Section 1(b) Findings (1)(2)(3) of H.R. 2362 displays preferential treatment for the Republic of Turkey over other WTO nations. Why? Proponents state that no particular country is granted a commercial advantage under the bill, yet the bill's Findings section clearly single-out and champion Turkey. If proponents were serious about amending H.R. 2362 to provide all WTO countries with a level playing field, it would not state ``Turkey and all other WTO countries.'' 4. Turkish Entities Under Investigation in the United States. Mainstream U.S. media outlets have reported on the growth of Turkish charter schools in America, as many as 120 of them, and how the schools have come under federal investigation for how they are administered. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on March 20, 2011, ``But federal agencies--including the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education--are investigating whether some charter school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service, according to knowledgeable sources.'' In addition the New York Times in a June 6, 2011 article raised the same concerns about how the schools spend taxpayer money, ``And it raises questions about whether, ultimately, the schools are using taxpayer dollars to benefit the Gulen movement--by giving business to Gulen followers, or through financial arrangements with local foundations that promote Gulen teachings and Turkish culture.'' The article also reports on federal investigations about abuse of a visa program to bring in expatriate employees. 5. Turkey's Treatment of Minority Populations. The U.S. House of Representatives must take into consideration Turkey's treatment of minority populations. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission established by the U.S. Congress, has recommended Turkey be designated a ``country of particular concern'' (CPC) in its 2012 annual report. Prior to this designation, Turkey was placed on its ``Watch List'' for three consecutive years (2009-2011). According to the Executive Summary of the 2011 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Turkey, there is ``inadequate protection of vulnerable populations'' within Turkey. In addition to these reasons, AHEPA is dismayed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs was not provided an opportunity to vet H.R. 2362. We note a concern with Turkey's foreign policy direction and history that conflicts with the best interests of the United States, including: the aforementioned belligerent posture toward Israel, its vote against a UN resolution to impose sanctions against Iran with regard to that country's nuclear weapons program, its 38-year illegal invasion and subsequent illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the European Union and current holder of the EU presidency; its continued violations of Greece's sovereignty in the Aegean Sea, a staunch NATO ally; and its blockade of Armenia. Hellenic Caucus Opposition We also thought you would be interested to learn of AHEPA's position because the congressman is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus. The Congressional Hellenic Caucus is opposed to H.R. 2362 and has circulated a DC letter on the issue. Please contacts Chairs U.S. Reps. Gus Bilirakis or Carolyn Maloney to sign the DC letter. Thank you also for consideration of AHEPA's position. We hope the congressman will take all of the points presented into consideration and will oppose H.R. 2362. Andreas N. Akaras, Advisor, Office of Congressman John Sarbanes.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the founder and cochair of the Hellenic Caucus to speak on the 38th anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. We must ensure that the passage of time does not allow us to forget that the Cyprus issue is the result of an illegal invasion and ongoing occupation. It is long overdue for Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus so that the island can move forward as one nation. Turkey continues to forcibly occupy more than one-third of Cyprus with more than 48,000 troops. In addition, to date, Turkey has repeatedly ignored many of the United Nations resolutions pertaining to Cyprus and has continued to occupy the island in complete violation of international law. The destruction of religious and cultural sites and artifacts continues unabated, in a long list of Turkish actions that flagrantly disrespect the rights and religious freedoms of the Cypriot people. In the last Congress, the Hellenic Caucus passed a resolution in the House calling for the protection of these religious sites and artifacts in Turkish-occupied areas. We have also worked on a resolution that has been introduced by Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Engel, H. Res. 676, which calls for the halt of the Republic of Turkey's illegal colonization of the Republic of Cyprus with non-Cypriot populations. They are moving people onto the island. It is reported there are 500,000 Cypriot phones in the Turkish area. So the population--no one knows how many more people they're moving in. Cyprus is endeavoring to control all of its territory to end Turkey's occupation and to exploit its energy resources without illegal interference by Turkey. In 2011, they discovered gas in the Cypriot area. The Noble Energy Company, a private energy company from Texas, discovered that a field off the coast of Cyprus may hold as much as 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the first discovery off the divided island nation. This is tremendously important for energy independence and for an ally to be able to support America and our energy needs. The beginning of drilling by Noble prompted Turkey in September to send a vessel accompanied by warships and fighter jets to the area. Cyprus is divided after Turkey invaded the northern third of the island in 1974. Turkey does not recognize the Greek Cypriot Government. So this is yet another development that the Turkish country has brought to the island of Cyprus. There have been some successes for Cyprus. In May of 2004, Cyprus, with the support of the United States, joined the European Union. And during the second half of this year, Cyprus took over the very important and prestigious position of presidency of the Council of the European Union. This is the first time Cyprus presided over the Council of the EU since it became a member of it in 2004. Yesterday, a group of Hellenic Caucus members met with a group of leaders from the district that I am honored to represent. They included Phil Christopher, Peter Papanicolaou and other national leaders of the Cypriot American community and other Greek American leaders. They came to participate in the hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the confirmation hearing of Mr. Koeing. John Koeing was nominated by President Obama to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus, and we are hopeful that the confirmation will move forward. We are also very concerned about a bill that has been put forward that gives preferential treatment to Turkey over other countries on contracts and activities that take place on American Indian areas. This has caused a great deal of concern with the members of the caucus. I now want to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act. This bill would give preferential treatment to Turkish businesses to engage in investment activities on Indian tribal lands. And I question why they are being singled out for this consideration, given the illegal occupation that continues. I express my strong support for Cyprus and the vital role it is playing in European affairs and the strong ally they have been to the United States.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership. Madam Speaker, today Congress must, once again, spend time in an empty gesture even as this country waits for real solutions to serious problems. Instead of dealing with ways to speed up and expand the creation of jobs, once again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist that we pretend like we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- even though that could drop over 6.6 million young adults under the age of 26 off their parents' health care policies; even though that could throw 17 million children with preexisting conditions to the mercy of the marketplace; even though that would drop 5.3 million seniors down the doughnut hole of Medicare; even though it would just create new uncertainties for small businesses. Even though all of this is true and more, you make Congress, once again, engage in this crude Kabuki, which is totally without meaning because, if by some dark miracle you are able to pass the bill in the House and the Senate, do you believe for one second that the President would sign it? So what are we doing today? We are taking a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 31st time. It was a waste of time the first time, the second time, the third time, and so on and so on, and it's a waste of time today. So I would say let's just hurry up. Vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bill, and let's get back to the business of working to create jobs for the American people.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago today, on July 9, 2002, the National Institutes of Health released groundbreaking research findings from the Women's Health Initiative--the largest preventive women's health study ever conducted in the United States. The researchers found that the hormone therapy regimen women were using at and after menopause increased a woman's risk of heart disease, rather than decreasing it, as many had believed, and that it also increased her risk of getting breast cancer. For decades before this, hormone therapy had been heavily marketed and routinely prescribed to women during menopause, making it one of the most prescribed drug regimens in the country with more than 90 million annual prescriptions written in 1999. But after learning about these research findings, women voted with their feet and hormone therapy prescriptions dropped quickly. This was followed by the first significant drop in breast cancer rates in United States history--there are 160,000 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over the last 10 years because they avoided unnecessary exposure to drugs that would have caused it. Many people deserve credit for this remarkable public health achievement--the researchers at the National Institutes of Health who led the effort, including the late Dr. Bernadine Healy, the first female director of NIH, who spearheaded the launch of the WHI; the women who volunteered to enroll in the WHI as research subjects to advance science for the benefit of all women; women's health advocates like the National Women's Health Network which built public support and demand for research into the pressing health issues of concern to women; and the women in Congress who led the charge in 1991 to increase the nation's investment in women's health research. The Women's Health Initiative involved more than 27,000 post- menopausal women at 45 clinical centers across the nation. It remains unsurpassed as the largest women's health research study of women in this age group. Despite this historic significance, however, unfortunately women are still underrepresented today in health research. For example, women make up just 34 percent of heart disease prevention trials and less than 40 percent of clinical cancer research. I rise today to call on my colleagues to support a more equitable allocation of resources and to address the vital need for more investment in research on women's health.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today is not a victory for one party or another. It is not a victory for an ideology. It is a victory for the American people and for the millions who had, for years, gone without access to quality health care. It is a victory for women who will no longer be discriminated against in their insurance premiums and for preexisting conditions and for women and children and seniors and families. This is a great day for our country, as we finally join the community of economically advanced nations that see to it that all their citizens have access to quality care. Let's get on with the unfinished business of helping create more jobs and putting a Nation of healthy Americans back to work.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the family of Brian Terry deserves our respect, our condolences and our best efforts to finish the mission, to put an end to gun violence on the southern border. But instead of going after gun violence, this investigation has gone after the man that tried to stop the gun violence, the Attorney General. Chairman Issa has acknowledged that Attorney General Holder did not know about the gunwalking operation. He has acknowledged that the President and the White House did not know about the gunwalking operation. Both the White House and the Attorney General have acknowledged that the gunwalking operation was a tragic mistake, that it was badly executed, and that it originated under the Bush administration. It was Attorney General Holder that terminated the program and requested an extensive investigation of the operation and how it was conducted. And the documents that they're now requesting in this ``vast and spurious'' investigation have absolutely nothing to do with gunwalking. If they were really interested in discovering the truth, the committee would have called Kenneth Melson, head of the ATF, as a witness. The chairman refused 10 different requests for a hearing with Mr. Melson--10 requests. Republicans have not granted one single Democratic witness request in 16 months. Not one. This is not about discovering the truth. This is about politics. This has become an obsessive political vendetta, pursuing a political agenda in a season of unusually ugly politics. If they were serious about ending gun violence, they would do what many ATF agents have suggested and put some teeth in the law; and that is why I authored, with my colleagues, a bill to make gun trafficking a Federal offense and strengthen penalties for straw purchases. This unprecedented contempt citation is politics at its worst and why this body is held in such low esteem by the public now.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, with so few days left in this legislative session, this is a time when we could be talking about how to help create jobs, improve education, and lower the deficit. That is surely what the American people really care about. Instead, the greatest deliberative body in the world is quarreling about bringing a contempt charge to the floor of Congress against the Attorney General. It has never happened before. And let's be clear: it's not about finding the truth or creating reforms or finding out how gun walking started. We know how that started--it started under the Bush administration. What this is about is just the Republican leadership pursuing single- mindedly a political vendetta, a political obsession. Like Ahab going after the great white whale, they are hoping to spill political blood. This is the type of gamesmanship and partisanship that understandably makes the American people lose faith in their Congress and in their leaders. Tomorrow, if it comes to the floor, vote ``no'' and let's get back to work on the real problems.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on the 40th Anniversary of Title IX, I can clearly recall my youth when I and my female classmates didn't participate in sports simply because there weren't any sports for girls to play. Many believe that Title IX applies only to athletics. While it's true that Title IX has literally changed the playing field for women in sports, this landmark legislation has also created opportunities for women in math, law, science, and other fields where women and girls have historically faced considerable barriers to access and involvement. Prior to Title IX, sex discrimination was rampant. Many colleges limited the number of women by requiring higher grades and test scores than men, pregnant students were frequently expelled from high schools, and athletic programs for females were virtually nonexistent. Today, women comprise over half of undergraduate students, roughly half of students in medical and law schools, and girl's participation in high school sports has increased tenfold. To commemorate this landmark legislation, I am introducing a Resolution to Commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Title IX along with Reps. Gwen Moore, Marcia Fudge, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara Lee, Frederica Wilson, Betty McCollum, Laura Richardson, Edolphus Towns, Russ Carnahan, Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott and Jim McGovern. The countless girls and women that have benefited from Title IX are a testament to the importance of gender fairness and the obstacles girls and women still face in overcoming the wage gap, sexual harassment and shattering ceilings in lines of work that still favor men. It's my great hope that we will use this momentous occasion to affirm the equal treatment of men and women and boys and girls and endeavor to work towards a time when women and girls can achieve true equality in athletics, education, and employment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2012, I missed rollcall votes numbered 315, 316, 317, and 318. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 315, the McClintock Amendment which would reduce the Nuclear Energy account by $514,391,000, and apply the savings to the spending reduction account; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 316, the Hirono Amendment which would reduce the Fossil Energy Research and Development account by $133,400,000, and increase funds for the Advanced Research Project Agency account by the same amount; ``no'' on rollcall No. 317, the McClintock Amendment which would zero out the Fossil Energy Research and Development account (a cut of $554 million) and apply the savings to the spending reduction account; and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 318, the Matheson Amendment which would increase the Non- Defense environmental cleanup account by $9,600,000, and reduce the National Nuclear Security Weapons account by the same amount.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 30, I attended a family event and missed rollcall votes Nos. 294, 295, and 296. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these votes. Specifically, I believe that rollcall vote 294, the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 is critical to the health and safety of all Americans. It ensures that people have access to crucial medicines and medical devices, improves access to new and innovative medicines and devices, helps prevent and mitigate drug shortages, and reduces drug costs for consumers by speeding the approval of lower-cost generic drugs. Very importantly, the bill includes important provisions to help prevent and mitigate drug shortages which have become too frequent and with dire consequences. These provisions include: Require manufacturers of critical or life-saving drugs to notify the agency within six months, or as soon as possible, of an interruption or permanent stop in manufacturing; Require FDA to expedite the review and approval of manufacturing changes that could help mitigate or prevent a shortage; Require FDA to maintain a public updated list of drugs experiencing shortages.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, according to a report produced by the Urban Land Institute, the United States has been conspicuously underfunding infrastructure spending for the past 30 years. The report estimates that there is at least $2 trillion in funding needed just to rebuild and repair our crumbling infrastructure and our aging networks that are operating well beyond their planned life cycles. These systems include roads and bridges, waterlines and treatment plants, dams and tunnels, and mass transit that serve our Nation's vital economic centers. But we just have not had the political will to face the problem, we have not had the funds available to fix the problem, and we have not even had a bipartisan consensus that there is a problem. While at the same time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News, U.S. companies have stockpiled approximately $1.2 trillion overseas in untaxed profits. As things stand now, that is money that is not likely to be brought back to the United States because large corporations find that it's far more profitable to just leave the money where it is and borrow any cash they need back home. There is just no economic incentive for them to repatriate the money. So we need some fresh ideas about how we can create incentives for corporations to bring home some of that $2 trillion and put it to work, helping to put more Americans back to work. Our Republican colleagues have proposed another tax holiday for repatriating offshore profits, similar to the one they crafted back in 2004. Back in 2004, companies that brought back profits earned abroad were taxed at roughly 5 percent instead of the top 35 percent corporate rate. They were also obligated to use the money they saved on taxes to create new jobs. But there were a number of problems with that 2004 program, the biggest one being that it didn't work to create jobs. In fact, it did the opposite. The program brought corporate profits home all right, but according to a report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations last year, the 15 companies that benefited the most from the 2004 tax break actually cut a net of 2,000 jobs between 2004 and 2007. The companies also decreased the pace of their spending on research and development. But the top 15 repatriating companies did accelerate their spending on some things, such as stock buybacks and executive compensation. Those are not exactly the kinds of results we were looking for in that program. Democrats, on the other hand, have suggested an infrastructure bank with $60 billion in seed money from the Federal Government, but our Republican friends have let us know that that is not going to happen. The good folks over at Citizens for Tax Justice have suggested a totally different approach to dealing with all of that money sitting overseas. They suggest that the best approach is to flat out repeal the tax rule that indefinitely exempts offshore profits from United States corporate income tax. But I can simply look across the aisle at the faces of any of my Republican colleagues when I even say something like that out loud, and I know very well that the chance of that proposal becoming law is probably at zero. So let's try something a little bit different, something with a little bipartisan flavor to it, something that just might actually work. What if we took the incentive idea of a tax holiday for repatriated profits and tied it into helping to fix the infrastructure problem? Let's tell corporations that they will get the tax break they want if they bring that overseas money home. It will be taxed at just 5 percent instead of the full corporate rate of 35 percent, but all of the money that they save on the taxes on those profits will need to be invested in municipal bonds that are tied to approved infrastructure projects in our States, our cities, and rural areas across America. The bonds would typically be issued for terms of 50 years, paying 4 percent interest, and taxable to the corporations. There would also need to be a minimum holding period, perhaps 5 years before they could sell those bonds. For instance, Corporation X can save $10 million in taxes, but then it must put that $10 million to work putting Americans back to work rebuilding our highways and repairing our schools and bridges. Think of the virtuous cycle this creates. The corporate money comes home from overseas. The corporation knows the tax ramifications with total certainty. Their profits are then safely invested in municipal bonds, which are then used to tax and fix our infrastructure, which then creates jobs that can't be sent overseas. Those newly hired people will pay taxes on their wages and increase their spending on products and services, creating more jobs, and on and on and on. It is the road to a bipartisan recovery, thanks to a bipartisan solution. Let's face it, Americans are tired of our squabbling. They are tired of our inaction. They are tired of the politics of division. Let's stop this ``all or nothing,'' this ``my way or the highway'' approach, and let's just fix the infrastructure of our country. Let's bring that money home. Let's put it to work here at home where it belongs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation, with my colleagues Representatives Charles Gonzalez and Michael Honda, which would help eliminate uncertainty for military and overseas voters when they request an absentee ballot this year that they will get ballots for each of the elections for the full year when voting absentee. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 repealed several subsections of Section 104 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which has caused concern among overseas voting groups that this change may result in a situation in which a military or overseas voter might vote in a primary election but not receive ballots for the general election. This legislation would amend UOCAVA to make clarifications to the law and ensure that voters who request an absentee ballot will receive ballots for each election that occurs during the full election cycle. The MOVE Act was a major step forward in the reform and modernization of UOCAVA; however, this particular change may have unintended consequences. As we are in the 2012 election cycle, we need to ensure that this does not inadvertently disenfranchise large swaths of our military and overseas voters. This bill proposes simple fixes that will help ensure the votes of every overseas American are counted.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I urge a ``no'' vote. This bill is but one more assault on what has become, sadly but surely, known as the war against women. A government has no greater responsibility than to keep its citizens safe, but in its current form, this bill says there are some we will not help. We will not protect Native Americans, LGBT people, and immigrant people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not extend the protections of this bill to tribal residents. Why? Do they not suffer when they are assaulted? This bill, in its current form, would not protect people from discrimination in the LGBT community. Why? Do they not bleed when they are struck? And this bill, in its current form, eliminates the path to citizenship for some visa holders who have been victims of sex trafficking, torture, and rape. Why? Do they not bruise and bleed when they are beaten and battered?

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. There is an indifference to the suffering of some--just some--in this bill that is as chilling and callous as anything I have ever seen in this Chamber in modern times. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to federal office, I have been a champion for women's equality and have introduced the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, for the last 15 years. I will continue to advocate for this important legislation until women are included in the Constitution. Despite determined efforts by many dedicated activists, the ERA has never become part of our Constitution. On the 40th anniversary of the Congress passing the Equal Rights Amendment, I was joined by a number of speakers who spoke about the importance of equality for women. I submit their comments below to demonstrate the wide support for this Constitutional amendment. It is my great hope that we will soon realize a time when my bill does not need to be reintroduced and speeches and events to raise awareness of the ERA are not needed; simply put, a time when the ERA has been adopted and true equality has finally been achieved. Senator Birch Bayh Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of Congressional Passage of the Equal Rights Amendmentm Birch Bayh To Bobbie Francis and Members of the NCWO-ERA Task Force: I'm sorry I can't be there to share interesting conversations with all of you. I particularly appreciate the invitation from Bobbie Francis to join her and all of the friends of the NCWO-ERA Task Force in discussing an issue that has been close to my heart for more than 40 years. Recent events have seen an assault on those who provide health care services to women and we have even seen questions raised anew about issues like contraception. It may have been 40 years since we passed the ERA in Congress but the reasons why many of us tried to write women's rights into the Constitution are still with us today. As the Chief Senate Sponsor and floor leader of the Equal Rights Amendment, I remember well the intensity of the battle we fought in the early 1970's. America's history has been a steady expansion of individual rights, beginning with the expansion of the franchise in our early years. From the rights of former slaves after the Civil War to the expansion of the vote for women and then for 18 year olds, we have codified in our Constitution an ongoing commitment to individual rights. It seemed fitting then, and seems fitting now, that our Constitution speak loudly and clearly that the law allow no discrimination on the basis of gender. While the principles involved in this battle remain, the country has evolved quite a bit since 1972. In 1972 there were 2 women in the US Senate and 13 in the House of Representatives. Now there are 17 women Senators and 75 Congresswomen. There were no female Governors in 1972 and had been only 3 in all our history before that, there are 6 now. We have had a female Speaker of the House and have scores of CEOs, business owners and leaders in all walks of life who are female. The number of women elected to state legislatures across the country is larger than ever before. The number of women in the military cannot be compared to the numbers 40 years ago. And in a recent issue of Newsweek, long-time Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg spoke about taking the job at NPR in the 70s because the pay was too low for men to want the job. There has indeed been progress, but the principles remain the same. To open the sports pages in the morning is to see female athletes in a number of sports. To watch the television news in the evening has us watching many female anchor persons, weather ladies, and sports announcers. Even the major sports telecasts regularly involve on-air female broadcasters. But is there equal pay for equal work today? Are there still obstacles on the professional paths to boardrooms for women? Is sexual harassment still a prominent issue in offices around America and in our military? It is still fitting in the 21st century for our nation to include in its basic law the principle that discrimination based on sex has no place in American life. It is fitting for our daughters and granddaughters to be reminded that their parents and grandparents took a stand to protect their futures and to ensure that they have an equal place in modern America. In closing, let me stress that the ERA is still the right thing to do, not only in principle but in every day practice. Thank you for your continued, dedicated efforts. Janet Kopenhaver, FEW Janet Kopenhaver, Washington Representative, Federally Employed Women (FEW), Remarks at 3/22 Press Conference I want to thank Rep. Carolyn Maloney and all the co- sponsors on the ERA bill for their continuing support of women's issues. I am so happy to be here representing Federally Employed Women. The enactment of an Equal Rights Amendment is our number one legislative priority and our members have been busy sending letters to their Representatives urging them to co-sponsor this critical bill. On my way in today on the metro, I was carrying one of those green ERA signs, a woman came up to me and said ``Wow-- that sign is old.'' No kidding! Too old in my opinion. Hopefully we can soon put all these signs in the Sewall Belmont House as historical artifacts no longer needed for lobbying! But really, in a nutshell, no one in this country would say that women are not equal to men. No one! So let's end the hypocrisy and pass the ERA this year. The time has come and the time is now! Sarah Bear Remarks by Sarah Bear, Equal Rights Amendment Press Conference, March 22, 2012 I cannot begin to tell you how many people I've encountered that believe the Equal Rights Amendment has been passed. They are shocked when I break the unfortunate news to them that it has not, in fact, been passed. Shouldn't this, in and of itself, be proof that the ERA should be ratified? It is such a simple statement: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridge by the United States or by any state on account of sex.'' Is it so difficult to ratify this amendment and permanently add it to the Constitution? What makes men, women, or transgendered individuals so different that we don't deserve equal protection under the Constitution? We're all people. We all feel, cry, smile, laugh. We're just as much human as the person next to us, whether or not we share similar reproductive organs. As a distant relative of the inspirational suffragist and author of the ERA, Alice Paul, it is in my blood to fight for this basic right. I promise to her, the Alice Paul Institute, and all the amazing women and men who have fought and continue to fight for equal rights, that I will not relent or give up. Alice said, ``I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complication. But to me, there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.'' How true this statement is. Terry O'Neill, NOW Remarks by Terry O'Neill, Equal Rights Amendment Press Conference, March 22, 2012 Thank you to Congresswoman Maloney for having the courage and the tenacity to reintroduce the ERA every year until we get it done. We will not give up. We will get the ERA one way or another. I have told people over and over again, if we have to get the ERA swinging from the chandeliers, that's the route we'll take to get it. I'm so grateful for all the leaders we have here. Thank you for your leadership. Women are only 17 percent of the United States Congress. That is not okay. Women are only three out of nine Supreme Court justices and given what the Supreme Court has started doing to women these days, that is really not okay. This year-- 2012, needs to be the year of the women. If we had had women in state legislatures in those key legislatures in 1982 when we almost ratified the ERA back then, in Illinois, in Florida and in North Carolina. If we had had women and if we had had people of color, men and women of color, we know that we would have ratified the ERA. We have got to change the complexion of our elected leadership. It starts this year, women will be voting this year, we've had it, we've had enough. Enough with the war on women, we're going to elect more women to support the ERA. Thank you so much. --Terry O'Neill, National Organization for Women, President.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority is proposing legislation that puts Americans directly on the Road to Austerity. Similar to the Ryan Budget, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act is noteworthy for the harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to the few. Instead of closing tax loopholes or asking millionaires to contribute to deficit reduction, this bill focuses only on cutting spending while hurting millions of Americans. This bill puts the burden of deficit reduction squarely on the backs of seniors, the middle class, and the most vulnerable among us: It slashes food stamps by $33.2 billion at a time when families can least afford it; permanently eliminates the Social Services Block Grant program which provides assistance for nearly 23 million Americans including 4.4 million children and 1.7 million older Americans who receive ``Meals on Wheels''; cuts investments to women's health by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund which promotes maternal and child health; and politicizes the funding process for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was created by the Dodd- Frank law to deal with banks that are ``too big to fail.'' Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree that we need deficit reduction, but demand that we do it in a balanced and fair way. The proposal before us shreds the social safety net that protects millions of hardworking families in an effort to protect defense cuts under sequestration and makes billions of dollars in cuts beyond what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act for FY13. This bill is another example of a partisan bill that has no chance of going anywhere but that sends a message to all Americans: You are on your own. From Medicare to child protective services, to respite care for disabled individuals, the Republican majority is cutting your services while handing a neatly wrapped gift to our Nation's millionaires. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Overdraft Protection Act of 2012. With the rise of debit cards and the constant presence of swipe terminals to use those cards to pay for everything from McDonald's to gas to candy bars, it's easier than ever for consumers to overdraw their checking accounts and incur overdraft fees. That's how a fancy $5 cup of coffee can become a $35 cup of coffee faster than you can say `overdrawn'! Some institutions have responded to consumer outrage over these fees by implementing a policy of denying debit card transactions that would overdraw an account and I applaud them. But too many financial institutions don't make consumers aware of the perils of overdrafts, and most reorder the posting of transactions in a way that maximizes their fees. Although the Federal Reserve issued a rule requiring institutions to obtain affirmative consent from consumers to opt into overdraft coverage two years ago, it is quite clear more needs to be done in the area of consumer disclosures and to help consumers avoid multiple overdrafts. A survey released last week by Pew Charitable Trusts highlights the need for the bill I am introducing today. More than one-third of those surveyed--people who had overdrawn their accounts in the past year--didn't know their bank offered overdraft coverage until they incurred a penalty fee, and more than half of people did not believe they had opted in. The Pew study also found that most of the people who overdraft their accounts do so more than once. According to Moebs Services, overdraft fees brought in over $31 billion dollars in revenue to financial institutions in 2011. As a result of the Federal Reserve's opt-in requirement the number of overdrafts has fallen, but some institutions have responded to the drop by increasing the cost of overdraft fees and continuing to intentionally manipulate the transactions' posting order in a way that maximizes the fees they can earn from this service. My bill increases disclosure to consumers, limits the fees' price and frequency, and bans the manipulation of transactions. Specifically, the Overdraft Protection Act will: Require consumer consent before banks can permit overdraft fees to paper checks, automated charges and debit card swipe-terminal transactions. Require that fees be `reasonable and proportional' to the amount of the overdraft. Cap the number of fees that can be charged at one per month and six per year. Prohibit banks from manipulating the sequence in which checks and other debits are posted if it causes more overdrafts and maximizes fees paid to banks. Require that consumers be warned at ATMs if their withdrawals will trigger an overdraft. Require the CFPB to study the practices of pre-paid cards and if necessary extend these provisions to those products. The Overdraft Protection Act will ensure consumers are protected from misleading practices and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.