Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I would like to respond to my colleague from the other side of the aisle who objected to my calling the Republican plan, which is called the Road to Prosperity--when I said that it actually should be called the Road to Austerity. On the negative side of the Republican plan, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Republican austerity plan will destroy 4.1 million jobs through 2014. But at the same time, the Republican budget makes tax cuts for the most fortunate few permanent, while those making over $1 million per year will get an average tax cut of at least $150,000, and tax breaks for Big Oil will be preserved. That's their plan. The alternative, of course, is the Democratic budget plan, which takes a totally different approach, a balanced approach that meets the Nation's need to invest in the future while preserving Medicare and our social safety nets and supporting the firm belief that the American Dream is alive and well by investing in the future of our children and our Nation. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an attack on my integrity and my reputation. Last week, Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I have served for many years, gave an interview to a newspaper in San Diego. The story was published on March 21, and it quoted the gentleman as accusing me of lying, knowingly and intentionally, during a hearing that was held before the Oversight Committee on February 16. That hearing received a significant amount of public attention because it addressed the issue of insurance for reproductive health care, yet included no witness testifying on behalf of the tens of millions of women across this country who seek access to coverage for reproductive health and contraception. I certainly understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have different viewpoints on this issue, and I'm not here to discuss the underlying policy differences we may have. Today I ask from Mr. Issa the same commitment I ask of myself, to always strive to hear from all sides of a debate without resorting to name-calling or attacks on the personal integrity of others. Even when we disagree with what others might say, we have an obligation to listen to them and respect their viewpoints. I am sure there are some who will accuse me of using these remarks to merely revisit the contraception issue. To the contrary, I am responding to statements published just last week by the gentleman from California, his arguments regarding my actions. In his recent interview on the hearing, Mr. Issa said this, to be absolutely clear, and I quote: Carolyn Maloney then made the famous statement, Where are the women? That was an outright lie, and she knew it when she said it. First of all, I would like to point out that what I actually offered was an outright question. I asked it as I sat there looking directly at an all-male panel, the panel that you see in this now-famous picture. It is a picture that I believe is worth a thousand words. And as I look at this picture again, my question is as pertinent and legitimate today as it was back then. Look at this picture and tell me, Where are the women? If you can point to one woman on this first panel, then I will happily withdraw and offer my apologies to Mr. Issa. Just to make sure we have my question in context, let me repeat remarks that I made that morning that Mr. Issa and some found so objectionable. I said, and I quote: What I want to know is, Where are the women? I look at this panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across this country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning and contraception. Where are the women? I still maintain, without fear of any contradiction, there is no one on this panel who is a woman, or who represents the tens of millions of women who want and need insurance basic coverage for family planning. Now, if Mr. Issa believes or tries to argue that that statement is somehow false because there were two women witnesses who appeared later that day on a second and separate panel, I would draw his attention to the fact that those witnesses were not there to represent the woman's point of view that is upheld primarily by the Democratic Party on this particular issue. Those Republican-appointed witnesses were there only to represent the interests of institutions. So even in surveying both panels, I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across this country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning. In conclusion, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, rising for a point of personal privilege is sometimes accompanied by a call for a personal apology. Earlier today, Mr. Issa apologized to me, and he sent me this letter just an hour or two ago. I am encouraged by his actions, and I accept his apology. In the fallout of that unfortunate hearing, women were called far worse than liars. I know what I said that day, and I know it to be true. But I do think the Democratic witness, Sandra Fluke, and the women of America are owed an apology, an apology for denying them a voice, an apology for denying them a seat at the table. It was wrong then, and it is wrong each time that it happens. And it is especially wrong when women's health, women's lives, and women's rights are being discussed. And to cavalierly dismiss or deny that fact does greater damage to the fabric of democracy than words can ever redress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4014 to clarify that privileged information that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receives remains privileged throughout the supervision process. I would like to commend my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga for bringing this bill forward. This issue has come up now in several congressional hearings, in the Oversight Committee, in the Senate Banking Committee and also in the Financial Institutions Subcommittee on which I sit. Many institutions have expressed concern that there is no statutory protection of the attorney-client privilege for sensitive material that they turn over to the CFPB during the supervision process. Director Cordray has testified that he would support a statutory extension of the attorney-client privilege to documents that the CFPB receives. This is standard for all of the banking regulators and it should be true for the CFPB as well. It is critical that the process be an open exchange between the bureau and the entities it regulates. And that can only happen if the entities can trust that they aren't inadvertently waiving the privilege simply by turning documents over. I would note that the CFPB office of the General Counsel has indicated in a recent memo that it would ensure that the privilege was not waived, but I know that the entities involved in the CFPB's regulator process would prefer that to be codified, and I would agree. As it is currently drafted, the bill is identical to a bill introduced on a bipartisan basis in the other body. Both bills ensure that privilege is not waived when the CFPB receives sensitive information and when it shares that information with other agencies. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 2012, I missed rollcall votes Number 109 and 110. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 5, on the Motion to Recommit to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 110, to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime advocate for women both in the United States and around the world, I am pleased to recognize the many achievements of women on International Women's Day which we celebrate today, March 8, 2012. We honor the countless contributions made by women in all areas and observe the tireless work of female leaders throughout the world who have struggled to attain social, economic and political equality for women. While there is much to be proud of, there is also much work to be done. Throughout the world, women continue to face the same collective barriers and embrace the same hopes--to live in a world free from violence, to be educated, vital members of society and to possess the independence to make decisions that govern their bodies and well-being. This is why I continue to fight for women and have authored legislation to achieve theses outcomes: H.R. 418, the International Women's Freedom Act to establish a Commission on International Women's Rights to report yearly on the status of women's rights around the world; H.R. 949, the Obstetric Fistula Prevention, Treatment, Hope and Dignity Restoration Act to aid in the prevention and treatment of obstetric fistula; and, H.R. 2759, the Business Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act, which works toward ending human trafficking by increasing transparency in the business supply chains of multi-million dollar global companies. We know that when women are empowered, nations are fairer and stronger, governments flourish, and society as a whole benefits. Today, I salute the immeasurable successes of women and pledge to work to create a world filled with greater opportunities for women here and abroad, where women are safe, empowered and are heard and respected.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and compliment him on his very thoughtful amendment, and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle. This amendment is aimed at supporting the growth of small and medium- sized businesses and easing the sometimes daunting task of figuring out just what new legislation will mean to them. This amendment requires the SEC to provide online information and, perhaps more importantly, outreach to small and medium-sized businesses, businesses owned by women, minorities, and veterans. It is widely recognized that such businesses face a unique set of challenges. We should be doing everything we can to encourage their growth and supporting their success. Again, I compliment the hard work and really meaningful amendment that my friend from the great State of Iowa has put forth, and I urge unanimous support of it and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 10 year anniversary of the Recruiting Excellence in Academics for Catholic High Schools, or the REACH program, an innovative program devised and operated by Regis High School in my district for low income middle school students to prepare them for acceptance into the elite private, Catholic and public high schools in New York City. Regis High School was founded in 1914 as a 100 percent scholarship school and continues this fine tradition today. In that spirit Regis began the REACH program ten years ago to help low income middle school students to excel in their studies to allow them to not only attend the best high schools, but eventually the best colleges and universities in the country. Students from the REACH program have gone on to attend MIT, Boston College, Cornell, Williams and the University of Scranton. The REACH program is a study in what can be achieved if students are given the proper tools to excel. Students attend a six week summer program, Saturday sessions in both the spring and fall and engage in an independent research program in the winter. During each of these phases students are not only tutored to excel academically but are also provided with leadership training, a student mentor from Regis and eventually placement services into the best high schools in New York City. Ninety-six percent of students who participate in the REACH program have gone on to a four year institution of higher learning, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. The REACH program can be used as an example for all of us that by giving students the appropriate tools they will excel. I want to congratulate Regis on their wonderful success and wish them even greater success in the next ten years.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his leadership on the Rules Committee. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. It's a package of bills designed to encourage the growth of smaller companies and start-ups, and it contains six separate bills, four of which have already passed this body by overwhelming majorities. I share the concerns of the ranking member, Mr. Frank, that these 17 amendments that were put in place, adequate time has not been given to fully debate them. I do want to take issue with my good friend from North Carolina in his criticism of the CARD Act, saying that it has made it harder for Americans to receive cards. This bill that passed this body overwhelmingly, with Democratic leadership, I was proud to be the lead sponsor on it, working with all of my colleagues on the Democratic side. And what it did is it stopped unfair deceptive practices. Money magazine called this bill the best friend a credit card holder ever had, and The Pugh Foundation came out with a report earlier this year saying that this Democratic bill alone saved consumers in our country $10 billion in 1 year. I would say that's an advantage for consumers, an excellent goal that was championed by our President and by the Democratic leadership. I would like to take issue with this comprehensive jobs agenda. I do support it, but I think that we should be working on major job-creating opportunities, such as the transportation bill and the President's Jobs Act, and these two bills would create half a million jobs. Here we are repackaging a group of old bills that we've passed before, and it does not constitute a comprehensive jobs bill. As I said, four of the six bills have already passed the House with major support on both sides of the aisle. And I'm disturbed that one bill was taken from my Democratic colleague, Jim Himes. I would like to quote The Washington Post. The Washington Post said: The JOBS Act is not new legislation but is instead a grab bag of items that have already passed at the committee level or on the House floor by wide bipartisan votes. These previously-passed bills make some useful yet modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or passage of the full American Jobs Act. These bills make modest changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks. I would say the prime goal of the Democratic leadership is to reignite the American Dream by building the pillars of success for small businesses, our entrepreneurs, and by making our economy stronger. These bills before us do help in many ways, although they are not a comprehensive jobs package. It rightly gives smaller companies and start-ups greater flexibility to grow and flourish. I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bills. I do want to mention the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which creates a new exemption from registration for crowdfunding securities. It permits a company to raise up to $2 million a year, with investors permitted to invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of their income annually in such companies. I was pleased to work with my colleague, Mr. McHenry, on this bill. It has a number of others that would reduce the cost of going public, and would aid in the capital formation for job creation in our country. I do want to note that the President of the United States, his administration, is supporting these bills, and I urge passage of them.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman. I rise to support H.R. 3606, which would help start-ups and small businesses succeed and create jobs during this economic recovery. I want to really congratulate and thank the ranking member for his leadership, along with the administration, during the worst recession after the Great Depression. Christina Romer testified before this Congress that the economic shocks to our economy were three times greater than the Great Depression. We were shedding over 700,000 jobs a month when the President assumed office. In a report by Chairman Bernanke, he showed a chart where we are digging our way out under his leadership. We have gained 3.7 million private sector jobs. This is an important step forward. The financial reform bill that Ranking Member Barney Frank--we're going to miss you, Barney. You did a great job, and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your leadership during this time. But what we need now is a real jobs bill, not just a tweaking around the corners with a few words and a few changes in the securities law. What we should be debating today, which would have a huge impact on jobs, is the transportation bill or the President's American Jobs Act, which would create more than a half million jobs and move us forward. This particular bill, the package is important, but it is not a comprehensive jobs bill or agenda which we need. There are some modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or a passage of a full American Jobs Act. These bills make only very modest changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks. I support it, but it does not really do a great deal to create more jobs, which we need. I must say that I have cosponsored parts of it, and all four of them have already passed this body overwhelmingly with over 300 votes. And I'd like to note that the administration supports the passage of this act, as Congress clearly has already done. I do want to join the chairman in speaking in support of my colleagues, Mr. Himes and Mr. Schweikert, on the committee. They championed the provision of the bill that raises the shareholder threshold for having to register with the SEC, and this title passed this body on its own already by a 420 2 margin. That's quite an achievement for them. But by putting another person's name on it, we have a clear example of the majority more interested in scoring points than in working in a bipartisan way for job development. I will place in the Record further comments on these bills and their importance and my work with Mr. McHenry on crowdfunding. Summary of HR 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act Title I ``Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011'' (HR 3606, Carney-Fincher) HR 3606 creates an expanded on-ramp for newly public companies by exempting a new category ``emerging growth companies'' (companies with less than $1 billion in revenues or $700 million in public float) for up to five years from a variety of securities law requirements, including: say-on-pay votes; certain executive compensation reporting; requirements to provide 3-years of audited financials (would only need 2 years worth), SOx section 404(b) auditing of internal controls over financial reporting; and any future auditor rotation or other auditor requirements. HR 3606 also eases restrictions on communications and research related to an IPO. HR 3606 passed the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 54 1 on 2/16/12, has not previously come to the floor action. Title II, ``Access to Capital for Job Creators Act'' (HR 2940, McCarthy of CA) HR 2940 amends section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 to permit use of public solicitation in connection with private securities offerings, provided that the issuer or underwriter verifies that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. In addition, the SEC would have to share offering materials and documentation with the states. HR 2940 passed the House 413 11 on 11/3/11. Title III ``Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act'' (HR 2930 McHenry) HR 2930 creates a new exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 for ``crowdfunding'' securities. HR 2930 permits a company to raise up to $2 million a year, with investors permitted to invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10% of his or her income annually in such companies. HR 2930 pre- empts the state regulators' registration authority for the exempt securities, but websites and issuers must register with and provide notice to the SEC, which would be shared with the states. HR 2930 passed House 407 17 on 11/3/11. Title IV, the ``Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011'' (HR 1070, Schweikert) HR 1070 requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create a new and larger exemption, effectively raising the limit from $5 million to $50 million for its Regulation A (``Reg A'') security offerings and permitting a more streamlined approach for smaller issuers. The current limit is $5 million, but the mechanism is little used due to the small size of issuances permitted. The bill would permit SEC to impose conditions on issuance under the rule, and would require periodic review of the limit. HR 1070 passed House 421 1 on 11/2/11. Title V, ``Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act'' (HR 2167, Schweikert) HR 2167 allows companies to remain private longer, with no SEC filings, by raising the minimum shareholder threshold triggering public reporting for all companies from 500 to 1000 shareholders, and by excluding employees from the definition of a shareholder. HR 2167 passed the Financial Services Committee on voice vote 10/26/11, but has not previously come to the floor. Title VI, ``Capital Expansion'' (HR 4088, Quayle) HR 4088 is identical to House-passed HR 1965 (Himes) except that HR 4088 removes a cost-benefit analysis study on raising the shareholder threshold for all companies (see Title V). HR 4088 allows banks and bank holding companies to remain private longer by raising the threshold triggering public reporting from 500 shareholders to 2000 shareholders. The bill also eases restrictions for discontinuing public reporting by increasing the minimum threshold from 300 shareholders to 1200 shareholders. The employee exclusion discussed in Title V also applies to banks and bank holding companies. HR 4088 has not been considered in the Financial Services Committee. However, HR 1965 passed the House 420 2 on 11/2/11.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise, with so many others today, to note the upcoming anniversary of the infamous ``Bloody Sunday'' on March 7, 1965--the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, where over 500 demonstrators were met with violence--billyclubs, tear gas, and horses--by the local sheriff deputies and state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Speaking from this distance, 47 years later, it's hard to imagine the day-to-day reality of Selma, the seat of Dallas County, Alabama, where the 1960 census showed that the population was 57% black, over 80% of them living in poverty. With 15,000 voting-age blacks in the County, only 130 were registered to vote. Against that backdrop, civil rights organizers--including our own beloved colleague John Lewis--had been attempting to register more blacks to vote. On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act of 1964 declaring segregation illegal. On July 6, 1964, John Lewis led 50 black residents to the Dallas County Courthouse--on one of the two days per month that registration was allowed. The county sheriff arrested those fifty people rather than allow them to register. And on July 9, 1964, a local judge issued an injunction which forbid any gathering of three or more people under the sponsorship of civil rights organizations, and made it illegal to even talk to more than two people at a time about civil rights or voter registration in Selma. On January 2, 1965, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King defied that injunction, speaking to a mass meeting in the Brown Chapel, launching the Selma Voting Rights Movement. Mr. Speaker, the Selma Marches--``Bloody Sunday'' was the first of three--shifted American public opinion on the Civil Rights Movement. President Johnson presented what would become the Voting Rights Act in this chamber in March, 1965, speaking to a Joint Session of Congress. And after the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed into law that August, more than 7,000 blacks were added to the voter rolls in Selma--and millions more across the United States in the decades since. So it is only right that we mark this anniversary today. I will be in Selma this weekend to help commemorate the brave men and women who took a stand against bigotry then, and am especially proud to serve in this body today.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as a result of demographic shifts over the last 50 years, the modern workforce has a different, more diverse set of needs. 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. The number of married households with children where both parents were in the labor force rose to 66 percent in 2010, while the number of single parent families has almost tripled over the last fifty years, from 5 percent in 1960, to 14 percent in 2010. 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. Flexible work arrangements are the key to meeting these diverse workforce needs. Such voluntary arrangements between employees and employers include changing the time, amount, and/or place that work is conducted in order to allow workers to more easily meet the needs of both work and family life. To give employees the right to request flexible work options in terms of hours, schedules, and work location, today I am introducing the Working Families Flexibility Act. This legislation also 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. Having flexible workplace policies has been shown to boost employee satisfaction and morale as well as improve business bottom line. These policies help businesses retain key talent, reduce absenteeism, and enhance employee productivity. President Obama's Council on Economic Advisors found that as more firms adopt flexibility practices the benefits to society, in the form of reduced traffic, improved employment outcomes, and more efficient allocation of workers to employers, may be greater than the gains to individual firms and workers. In addition, a 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that a flexible work environment can increase and enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Flexibility is clearly a win-win for employees and employers. I offer special thanks to Senator Bob Casey for introducing Senate companion legislation, and to my colleagues Representatives John Lewis, George Miller, and Jose Serrano for their cosponsorship.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the following statement along with my colleague from California, Rep. Darrell Issa: The introduction of H.R. 3699 has spurred a robust, expansive debate on the topics of scientific and scholarly publishing, intellectual property protection, and public access to federally funded research. Since its introduction, we have heard from numerous stakeholders and interested parties on both sides of this important issue. As the costs of publishing continue to be driven down by new technology, we will continue to see a growth in open access publishers. This new and innovative model appears to be the wave of the future. The transition must be collaborative, and must respect copyright law and the principles of open access. The American people deserve to have access to research for which they have paid. This conversation needs to continue and we have come to the conclusion that the Research Works Act has exhausted the useful role it can play in the debate. As such, we want Americans concerned about access to research and other participants in this debate to know we will not be taking legislative action on H.R. 3699, the Research Works Act. We do intend to remain involved in efforts to examine and study the protection of intellectual property rights and open access to publicly funded research.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, like a broken, outdated record player, with this legislation the Republican Majority in the House shows itself to be out of touch with America's energy needs and energy future. The Congress should be encouraging innovation in our energy sector and natural resource preservation. Instead, H.R. 3408 shirks environmental stewardship and ignores all lessons from past drilling and spill related disasters. Almost two years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster there are still no new safety measures or reforms in place to prevent and mitigate a future catastrophe. Rather than meaningful efforts to prevent loss of life and loss of habitat, the Republican Majority chooses to open up nearly every coastline of the U.S. for development of oil and gas drilling. This bill threatens our nation's most pristine wilderness, the beautiful Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening this area to oil and gas drilling is not projected to lower gas prices in the near future or by any significant amount--less than two cents per gallon 20 years from now. But this is not the only area that would be opened up for offshore drilling under this bill. The Majority wants to mandate that broad swaths of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts be made available for drilling leases. I thank my colleague in the New York Delegation, Mr. Bishop, for his amendment that would prevent oil and gas leases in the Northeast region. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Amendment 12 offered by Mr. Deutch. The grievances continue. The Majority repeats itself by again attempting to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Throughout the 112th Congress they have refused to allow for a thorough review and study by the State Department. Seeking to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the pipeline within 30 days without conditions is wholly irresponsible and does nothing to ensure the safety and security of workers, residents, and communities impacted by the pipeline. The Republican Majority has tried to say opening up these lands to drillings will pay for a transportation package but that is false. This legislation would cover less than one percent of the overall cost of their transportation proposal. For reasons listed above, I oppose this misguided and dangerous legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for reaching an agreement on a longer term extension of the payroll tax cut. While this bill is not perfect, it does provide the average American middle-class family with an additional $1,000 over the year through the payroll tax cut extension, it continues Unemployment Insurance through the end of the year, and prevents cuts in Medicare physician payment rates. More than 160 million Americans will benefit from the payroll tax extension and millions of seniors using Medicare will be able to continue to see the doctor of their choice. Despite the assistance this legislation will provide to millions across the country, I have reservations about a number of problematic provisions. The Republican Majority continues to put the burden of the recession on Federal public servants. By requiring an increase in retirement payments by new employees, this legislation further undermines the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain the best talent. The vital services provided by the more than 2 million civilian employees cannot be compromised. It is time this Congress recognized the service that Federal employees provide to our senior citizens and the disabled, to our military service members and veterans, and to our overall safety and health. In addition, the reduction in weeks of unemployment insurance benefits starting in May will put a hard burden on some of America's hardest hit families. Lastly, the cuts to reimbursements for hospitals who serve large numbers of un-and-under-insured patients will put the load of the cost directly on the hospitals providing care. Despite these concerns, I support this bill today because the extensions help this country continue on a path of job creation and economic growth. We are well in to the second session of the 112th Congress and still my colleagues on the other side have failed to bring meaningful jobs legislation before the House for a vote. It is time the Republican Majority responded to calls from the American people to strengthen our workforce for middle class families.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it was with tremendous sadness that I learned today of the passing of Dr. Stephen Levin. Dr. Levin was one of our Nation's foremost experts in occupational and environmental medicine and in his career cared for thousands of Americans with work- related injuries and illnesses. But New Yorkers may know Dr. Levin best at the Director of the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program, where he helped identify the emergence of 9/11- related illnesses and led the medical community's response to this unprecedented health crisis. The Medical Screening Program was a precursor to the current World Trade Center Health Program, whch was enshrined in law by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, a bill I authored with Congressmen Nadler and King and on which I worked with Dr. Levin to pass. Without Dr. Levin's pioneering research, service, and dedication to 9/11 responders, volunteers, and survivors, we may never have passed the Zadroga Act. This is no doubt a terribly sad time for Dr. Levin's loved ones, but I hope they will be comforted by the fact that his life was so well- lived, and by the thoughts and prayers of thousands of Americans whose lives are immeasurably better because of his work.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard work on this issue and many others. Mr. Speaker, I am really very pleased that we are finally working to address the insider trading issue in this body and that it will finally be on the floor tomorrow. We should not have had to wait so long for a bill that has 270 cosponsors; and I am proud to be one of them, and I have been in past Congresses. I want to thank my colleague from New York, Louise Slaughter, who has worked on this legislation for 6 long years, and my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Walz, for their excellent leadership, perseverance on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I have said it before: Elected officials must be like Caesar's wife in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The need to expressly prohibit this activity in statute cannot be overstated. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street and it should be illegal on Capitol Hill. The STOCK Act is bipartisan, commonsense legislation to prohibit federally elected officials from profiting on nonpublic information they receive through their legislative duties. This is long-overdue reform of how Washington does business, and the American people deserve and expect us to pass it swiftly. Regretfully, the bill introduced by the Republican majority does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community. In fact, when they wrote their version of the STOCK Act--and they did not go through regular order; it should have gone through the Financial Services Committee, on which I serve, and others--the Republican leadership did not consult with the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill for years. They did not mention anything to Mr. Walz or Ms. Slaughter and, as a result, they introduced a flawed bill. This bill is weaker, not stronger, and it has been denounced by Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy. Like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operatives use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. Unlike lobbyists, these operatives are nameless. Under current law, they are not required to identify themselves as they go about their work. And we know all too well what happens when Congress and K Street work in the dark. I join my colleagues, Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Walz, in calling for a conference committee where Senators Leahy and Grassley, and also a bipartisan coalition here in the House, can work together to make sure that the political intelligence community is covered by this bill. I thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I will join them in working to make this stronger, to really return it to the strong form that my colleagues drafted.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I rise in support of the President's action and Secretary Sebelius' action in the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the birth control benefit for working women across this country. This birth control benefit increases access to preventative health care while respecting religious freedom. This is accepted practice in 28 States--28 States that require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA-approved contraception drugs. Taking this benefit away would be devastating for millions of workers. Women's access to care is absolutely on the line, and they have turned it into a religious versus reproductive freedom debate. Birth control is medication prescribed for women's health, plain and simple. It is not radical. As I said, 28 States already supply it, and roughly 99 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives; but the only way they can use it is if they can get it, so the right to choose is absolutely meaningless without the means and access to choice. The President's thoughtful decision allows insurance companies to cover contraceptives. It does not in any way interfere with one's religious beliefs or the beliefs of the church. It does not force anyone to use them, and it certainly does not require anyone--churches or anyone else--to cover them. Yet, if it is a university, if it is a major employer that is employing many people and not people of one faith but of many different faiths, then it is required to follow the law of this country. So let's end this assault on women's health, and let's listen to the millions of Americans who rely on birth control each and every day. It's important for their health, and I applaud the President and Secretary Sebelius. I yield to the great Congresswoman from the great State of California.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3835 because of the negative cost it puts on the backs of our federal public servants. At a time when Congress must make tough budget choices, I fully support a freeze on the salary of Members of Congress. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3858, a clean bill that would freeze Congressional pay. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing politics with the federal workforce. It is shameful that some of my colleagues want to blame the federal workforce for our country's problems and to make them pay the cost for climbing out of the recession. These hard working men and women provide vital operational support to our military members; ensure our senior citizens receive their Social Security checks; protect our borders; ensure the safety of our environment, food, and water; treat our wounded veterans; and research cures for cancer and other deadly diseases. The Federal Government is our country's largest employer, providing jobs to about 2 million civilian employees. Roughly 85 percent of the federal workforce is located outside the metro Washington, DC area. These federal families are facing the same economic challenges as families across America. Federal workers already are subject to a two year pay freeze that will save more than $60 billion over the next decade. An additional third year of pay freezes on federal employee salaries as proposed in today's legislation further undermines the federal government's ability to attract and retain the highest talent. It also threatens to close the pipeline of new talent moving up the federal civil service. A report from the Partnership for Public Service highlighted that employees with high-demand skills are those most likely to have alternative employment options. Until we have the opportunity for a clean vote, I must urge a no vote on H.R. 3835, legislation that places too much cost on the federal workforce.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on January 23, I missed rollcall votes Number 5 and 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 5, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3115), the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 6, providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1141), the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opening the second session of the 112th Congress by once again driving us to the brink of default. By voting to disapprove of the debt limit increase, the Majority is ignoring essential actions like extending the Payroll Tax Cut and unemployment benefits. The American people have called on Congress to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and grow the economy. Today's resolution does none of these and hurts the American economy by politicizing the debt limit increase. Now is the time for the House Majority to bring to the floor critical pieces of the President's American Jobs Act that would spur small business growth, rebuild our school and transportation infrastructure, and prevent layoffs in crucial jobs like teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two important paintings in the Capitol Visitors Center that were recently placed for public viewing by the Architect of the Capitol. I refer to the famous 19th century painter Albert Bierstadt's works ``The Discovery of the Hudson River'' and ``Entrance into Monterey,'' which can be viewed near the starting point for visitor tours through the Capitol. These paintings represent a uniquely American point of view as part of the Hudson River School of Painting. Within my district in New York City, there are many connections to this first indigenous American school of painting and its artists. One artist, Asher Durand, stands out in particular. Durand helped found what is known today as the National Academy Museum and School, which I am proud to have in my district. Durand was a very accomplished artist of the 19th century and he served as president of the Academy for many years. His style was highly detailed, a hallmark of the School, and one of his most famous pieces, ``Kindred Spirits,'' is often cited as one of the works most emblematic of the School's ideals. This painting, which resided in the iconic New York Public Library in my district for over 100 years, cemented Durand's place at the forefront of the movement created by the Hudson River School. As the School's prominence grew, many of the painters traveled abroad to study and were introduced to the culture of the capitals of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. These travels inspired many of the artists to join with other leaders to found the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in 1870. Located in my district on Fifth Avenue, around 5 million visitors walk up the steps of this landmark institution each year. Some of the School's painters later served as trustees and members of the Executive Commiftee for the Met. Today, many works from the Hudson River School, including several by Durand, hang there. Some painters also traveled to the American West, which at the time, was an exciting, undiscovered region that captivated Americans in the East. The members of Congress were so inspired by the works produced on these trips that they dedicated national parks, such as Yellowstone and Yosemite, to protect the awe-inspiring landscapes many had only ever witnessed on canvas. This spirit of environmental conservation became more and more popular, and these paintings were later used to support the creation of the National Parks Service in 1916. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the importance of painters like Asher Durand and his contemporaries of the Hudson River School, whose contributions to our country's art, culture, and society are innumerable and still important to every American today.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding. The Senate has gone home for Christmas. And just 5 minutes before I came to this floor, the President made an announcement from the White House that he supported the bipartisan Senate compromise bill that passed the Senate 89-10. And we need to pass it and wrap up this Christmas present for the middle class. Instead of the pattern of obstruction that is constantly coming from the other side of the aisle, we should introduce the Senate bill here in the House and pass it for the American people. The House leadership should allow an up-or-down vote and extend the payroll tax cut, the unemployment benefits, and the doc fix for the middle class. Without this 2-month extension, 160 million Americans will face a tax hike starting January 1. The idea that it is somehow acceptable to let this happen is to be blind to the economic struggles that American middle class families are now facing and to be totally, totally deaf to the cries for help from the many people--the 2.2 million Americans--who will see their unemployment benefits expire if we do not pass the Senate bill. This is an exercise in rigid partisan ideology that will also result in an additional 48 million seniors being denied access to their doctors. No bill will make everybody happy. But to stop this Senate bill now, one that is so important to so many Americans, just to please the rigid ideology of the very few, it is the tail wagging the elephant, and it is obstructionist to the American people. And it is just in time for Christmas, and it is indefensible.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012. The conference report provisions regarding the treatment of terrorism detainees in U.S. custody contained in the bill simply do not go far enough to ensure that counterterrorism officials have the ability to effectively deal with the threats our country faces, while upholding our constitutional values. These detainee provisions put into law the authority of the military to indefinitely detain without trial individuals determined to be members or substantial supporters of terrorist organizations. But the bill does not define in clear terms those who are subject to this provision and leaves open the possibility that even American citizens arrested on U.S. soil could be detained indefinitely. I fully support many provisions in this bill, including those that provide our service members with the pay and equipment they need and deserve. I also strongly support provisions that make much-needed improvements to the sexual assault and harassment policies of the Defense Department, and ensure that victims have access to a military lawyer and maintain their option of confidential reporting even if they seek legal counsel. But, the language regarding detainees contained in this bill threatens the rights and liberties of American citizens. We must state unequivocally that no American may be arrested on U.S. soil and detained indefinitely without trial. This bill fails that test and compromises our most basic constitutional values. That is why I vigorously oppose H.R. 1540 and urge my colleagues to join me in a strong ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise our troops--and our President--as we end our involvement in Iraq. America's armed forces were called to duty, did everything asked of them and served with distinction. Their valor and dedication in serving our country half a world away has been an inspiration to me and to our nation. And now, as they leave the nation of Iraq, we here at home honor their sacrifice, the sacrifice of their families, and welcome them with open arms and open hearts. As we welcome those who are coming home, we must not forget the nearly 4,500 servicemembers who lost their lives and the more than 30,000 troops who were wounded in this conflict who, along with their families, have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. President Obama deserves much credit for keeping his promise to the American people to withdraw from the Iraq conflict and have our troops home by the holidays. Those of us in the House and the Senate must continue to honor our commitment to our veterans and their families, helping to ensure a future in which they can fulfill their hopes and dreams for themselves and their children.