Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership. I rise in opposition to the Republican rule. We have all been getting numerous phone calls from our constituents who are rightly worried that the interest rates will be going up on their homes, on their cars, on their student loans, because they see that this Congress is in chaos. Already since last Friday, shareholders in U.S. markets have lost over $400 billion in value just due to the uncertainty and the lack of action. Our constituents' retirement funds have been taking a hit--and will continue to until this issue is decided. We have less than 4 days. We must stop this ``Republican roulette'' and get to work on a plan that is realistic, that can pass both Houses. This is a dangerous game, putting forward a partisan bill that, each time it comes back, is more partisan, appealing to a narrower sliver of America. Madam Speaker, we need to revisit a clean vote on the debt ceiling-- as we have done 78 times since 1960. If we don't, the President should do his constitutional duty and raise the debt ceiling on his own under the authority of the 14th Amendment. The Republican leadership has walked out on President Obama, on Vice President Biden, on McConnell, and even their own leader, Boehner. Then they want us to revisit this in 6 months and put the economy in uncertainty. This is the wrong direction. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Runaway Reporting and Improvement Act of 2011, along with my friend and colleague Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I am also pleased to be joined by Representatives Karen Bass, Gwen Moore, and Pete Stark. The estimated number of youth that runaway or are `thrown away' in the U.S. each year is between 1 and 1.7 million. While the reasons youth run away from home vary, the heightened risk for exploitation and victimization are the same for all of them. One of the risks for runaway girls and young women is an increased risk for sex trafficking. Young girls who runaway or have been `thrown away' from home are usually propositioned for sex within 24 hours of leaving home. Many runaway youth engage in `survival sex' in exchange for food and shelter. Other risks include exposure to drugs and alcohol and violence. One of the few things more terrible than learning a child is missing would be to learn that everything possible isn't being done to find him or her. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database is designed to help make information sharing easier so that missing children can be found and provided with any needed services. According to a New York Times' series, `Running in the Shadows', as many as 16 percent of reported runaways are never entered in to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. The Runaway Reporting Improvement Act of 2011 would help solve this problem and protect missing children by making two small but useful changes to the Crime Control Act of 1990. First, the bill would require law enforcement agencies to certify that they comply with Federal law by entering all missing children into the NCIC database. Second, it would require that law enforcement officers provide the reporter of a missing child with information about the services of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Runaway Switchboard, as well as 24-hour, toll-free contact information for those resources. NCMEC and NRS have a long and successful history of helping parents and law enforcement agencies work together to find and protect missing kids. Parents and guardians with missing children need to be given information so they are not isolated during this time of crisis. Mr. Speaker, we simply must do better by our children. The necessary resources are in place but they are not being used to their full potential. The Runaway Improvement Act of 2011 will help ensure that these existing resources are used to find and protect the families that need them the most.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2056 offered by my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland and Rep. David Scott. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation which requires the FDIC Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive study of issues raised by persistent failures of U.S. banks. These issues include appraisals, capital, loss share agreements and other issues that arise when a bank becomes vulnerable to closure. I have heard from banks in my district that have been working with the FDIC to recapitalize and restructure their institutions so they can avoid being closed. They argue that the FDIC offers them little flexibility or time to raise the capital they need or make the changes they need to satisfy the FDIC. I hope the study this bill authorizes will examine these procedures and bring to light any procedural changes that the FDIC can implement to address these concerns. H.R. 2056 was amended in committee to reflect some additional factors that the FDIC thought were important to include in the study's parameters. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012 Interior Appropriations. At a time when Congress should be preventing a default crisis and working on job creation, the Majority has chosen to endanger our environment and public health by threatening the air we breathe, the water we drink, the national parks we play in, the wildlife we treasure, and the museums we explore. We cannot ignore the jobs that would be lost as a result of the cuts to the agencies this bill funds. This bill would overturn 40 years of bipartisan environmental and public health protections. Gutting rules and regulations such as those in the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act would harm our Nation's health just as cities and towns across the country are struck by a record breaking heat wave. Instead of trying to reduce emissions and improve air quality, the House Majority wants to give a carve out to some of the biggest contaminators contributing to global warming. It is shocking that in the aftermath of several disastrous oil spills, instead of fully funding oversight and enforcement for oil and gas extraction, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have reduced that funding while increasing the budget for the oil and gas extraction programs that benefit big oil. Instead of punishing the flagrant polluters, the Majority chooses to reward them. In addition to reducing oversight capabilities, this legislation cuts important programs that promote clean and efficient energy solutions that would help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil. If enacted, this bill would result in very steep cuts to programs that are important to keeping New York happy and healthy. These include across the board cuts to programs such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to combat invasive species and the Long Island Sound Restoration. The bill includes a provision on ballast water rules that is a direct attack on New York's strong rules to protect state waters from aquatic invasive species. Our guidelines are more stringent than federal and some international guidelines, which under this bill would actually prevent New York from receiving any related EPA funds. Every state in the union depends on the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to help manage wastewater and protect our drinking water. This bill drastically cuts funding to these programs by 55 percent and 14 percent as compared to last year. The Land and Water Conservation Fund that helps states and communities preserve public parks is cut by 78 percent. With more than three dozen anti-environment policy riders attached to the bill including those to remove the Endangered Species Act protections and to prohibit EPA cross-state air pollution standards, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this Appropriations bill to push their own agenda and ideology at the expense of our health and that of our land, water and wildlife. This bill hurts those most vulnerable to contaminants such as our children suffering from asthma, and removes important protections for all creatures great and small. I urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous bill that jeopardizes the health of our country and our future.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Access to Birth Control, ABC, Act in the House with Senator Frank Lautenberg leading the effort in the Senate. Ninety-eight percent of American women use birth control over the course of their lifetime. This bill ensures that any woman who would like birth control and who has a legal prescription or is seeking over- the-counter emergency contraception, will be able to get it in a timely and convenient manner. The ABC Act would make it illegal for a pharmacist to refuse to return a birth control prescription or for a pharmacist to intimidate, threaten or harass customers or intentionally breach or threaten to breach medical confidentiality. By placing the burden of responsibility on the pharmacy, the ABC Act strikes a balance between the rights of individual pharmacists based on their beliefs and the right of women to receive medication. If the request product is not in stock, but the pharmacy stocks other forms of contraception, the bill mandates that the pharmacy help the woman obtain the medication without delay by the method of her preference (order, referral or a transferred prescription). Very simply, this legislation ensures a woman's legal access to birth control. Over the past several years, there have been reports of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. There have been reports in at least twenty-four states across the nation including: Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington and Missouri. These refusals are based on personal or religious beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns related to quality of patient care. In some cases, pharmacist have kept and refused to transfer a prescription, refused to sell over-the-counter emergency contraception, or given the customer false medical information about the requested birth control. Pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to decide whose prescription they will fill and which over-the-counter medication they will provide. This bill is particularly timely as just last week, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, recommended that family-planning services, including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, be recognized as a preventive-health service that must be covered by insurance plans without additional costs. This recommendation from the IOM marks an important first step toward near-universal contraceptive coverage in America, but if women are denied the actual contraceptives when they go to their pharmacist, having no-cost contraceptives is rendered meaningless. We must ensure that American women do not face obstacles when seeking doctor prescribed, legal medications. The Access to Birth Control Act, ABC ACT, is an important step in protecting a woman's right to contraception. Birth control and emergency contraception are part of a women's basic health care and pharmacists should not have the right to interfere.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this week, once again, we commemorate the tragic anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Thirty-seven years later, Turkey continues forcibly to occupy more than one-third of Cyprus with more than 43,000 troops. This amounts to almost one Turkish soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots. It is time for Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus so that the island can move forward as one nation. As co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus, I have worked diligently with my colleagues in the Caucus out of our mutual concern for the continued division and occupation of Cyprus. We have 137 members today, making us one of the largest caucuses in Congress. My Caucus co-chair, Rep. Bilirakis, and I passed a resolution in the House in the last Congress calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish-occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for general respect for religious freedom. And we continue to work, with the Caucus, to raise awareness of the Cyprus problem and the role the U.S. can play to support the negotiations. Cyprus is playing a vital role in European affairs while also strengthening relations with the United States. It has joined with us on issues important to our own security, including the fight against terrorism and other international crimes. Ending the island's tragic division will pave the way to prosperity and peace throughout the entire region. To date, Turkey has repeatedly ignored all U.N. Resolutions pertaining to Cyprus and has continued to occupy the island in complete violation of international law. Turkey has continued to do so despite the fact that it has been a member of the U.N. Security Council since January 2009. Turkey has also refused to abide by the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in numerous cases, thereby continuing to violate the basic human rights of the Cypriot people. This is an outrage. The current negotiations aim at reaching a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as defined in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a single sovereignty, single citizenship and single international personality. The solution must reunite the island, its people, its institutions and its economy and safeguard the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots and the withdrawal of Turkish occupation forces from Cyprus. The United States and the international community must continue to provide support to this process. The people of Cyprus deserve a unified and democratic country, and I remain hopeful that a peaceful settlement will be found so that the division of Cyprus will come to an end. As Secretary Clinton remarked last year: ``The reunification of the island is in the best interests of not only the people of Cyprus, but the region, and it could set an example for the international community as well.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Today is the 1-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank. It is also the date of transferring authority to the CFPB so it can protect consumers in one single place. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a critical part of last year's financial reform bill. It will ensure that there is a cop on the beat protecting consumers from predatory products and misleading information. But instead of supporting the CFPB on its first day, House Republicans are pushing forward with a bill to weaken this important agency, to derail, delay, and de-fang it. I want to point out that many of the people on the other side of the aisle that are supporting the Republican change are the exact same ones who voted against Dodd-Frank in the first place, opposed the consumer protections, and opposed the creation of the CFPB. The bill sets out to change the CFPB so that it is less independent and instead is more bureaucratic. House Republicans want a five-person commission instead of a single director, but the single director structure is exactly like the OCC, the OTS and other financial agencies. A single director promotes more accountability, allows quicker reaction and change to market conditions. A five-person board would be slow, indecisive, and more expensive. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that this new form will cost $71 million. And where do they propose to get this money? From a program that was helping consumers who lost their mortgages, their mortgages were underwater, but if we had had a CFPB in place, we could have prevented the subprime crisis in the first place. One of the problems is that no one in the whole regulatory structure was looking out for consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a third thought, or were not thought about at all, and this agency will be the first time that someone is looking out for the consumer. They also want to make it easier for bank regulators to override the CFPB rules so that they can go back to the status quo that led up to the financial crisis in the first place that has cost the American public trillions and trillions of dollars. The Ellison amendment would delete the section of Dodd-Frank that created the FSOC override. The other body included it as a way to provide a check on a single director, but if they're going to change the entire structure to a five-person commission, then there is no need for that additional check, and the override power of the FSOC would be entirely eliminated. So I ask my colleagues to support the Ellison amendment. Most importantly, Americans favor a strong CFPB. In a poll this last week, it showed that 73 percent favor a strong and independent CFPB protecting consumers. As the chart behind me shows, they overwhelmingly support the critical functions of the bureau, including better disclosure for credit cards, making it harder for lenders to offer loans which are confusing and with confusing teaser rates and other features, allowing them to come forward with simplified forms so that they could compare prices and get the best price and product for them. It would make risks clear and prices clear. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to defang and delay it. I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mrs. MALONEY. I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is recovering from a knee injury.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1315, which will transfer all authority that the CFPB would receive to the Secretary of the Treasury if no Commission chair is in place by July 21 until such time as the confirmation by the other body. There is no more blatant effort to derail the consumer protections than the section of this bill that delays the full transfer of authority that the CFPB would have to protect consumers until a Director is in place. Under the Republican bill, the Bureau would not be able to do anything starting today, even write rules under the existing consumer laws as Dodd-Frank envisioned. As we know, there are 44 Republican Members of the other body that have indicated in writing in a letter to the President that they will not vote to confirm anyone unless President Obama bends to their demands that would weaken the CFPB. The Republican bill is not about improvements; it's about preventing the CFPB from effectively operating. This week, the President nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be the CFPB's first Director. He is now the Director of enforcement there, and will bring a voice for State AGs to enforce consumer laws. I hope that the other body will act on his nomination as soon as possible, but we know that there are 44 who say they will not confirm anyone. I do not believe that consumers should have to wait for this process to go forward. They should be protected today. My amendment says that if they are going to delay the ability of the Agency to protect consumers, at least give that authority to the Secretary of the Treasury until a Director is confirmed to head the Bureau. Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated their concern that there is no one officially at the helm; then let Treasury have that authority until a Director has been confirmed so that it can begin to go forward with the protections that Dodd-Frank envisioned. This includes the authority the bureau is set to receive today as well as the new supervisory authority for nonbank financial institutions and new rulemaking under unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Consumers should not have to wait any longer. My amendment will ensure that work can begin to advance the important mission of the CFPB. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, first of all, the President has made an appointment, and he confronts a threat by 44 Members of the other body who say they won't confirm anyone unless the powers of the CFPB are diminished and it's de-fanged and weakened. Consumers should not have to wait for a political confirmation process that the Republicans in the other body have vowed that they're going to hold up. They should be able to move forward with these critical protections and go forward. I must tell you that the American public is fed up with the delays and the efforts by the other body to prevent consumer protections. If we had had a CFPB in place, we could have prevented the financial downturn in 2008 which caused the high unemployment that the gentlelady is concerned about. The CFPB is carefully constructed, urgently needed, and should be allowed to go forward to protect consumers. My amendment will allow that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield to the ranking member.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank my colleagues for raising this issue. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed. House Republicans have today officially launched their legislative effort to make sure these protections will never have the chance to do the job of protecting our consumers and safeguarding the larger economy. It is as if our friends across the aisle are blind to the painful lessons of the Great Recession. It's the group that says let's pretend the recession never happened. The Republican strategy to defang, defuse, and delay the consumer protection agency ignores critical issues that contributed both to the credit bubble and the financial meltdown. Deceptive and misleading practices, predatory lending, unsafe credit standards--these practices cost Americans dearly. According to the Federal Reserve, between 2007 and the final quarter of 2009, United States household wealth fell by $16.4 trillion of the net worth, and that is terrible. That is a sum that would be more than enough to pay for the United States national debt. If the CFPB had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided this painful, disruptive economic downturn that has hurt our overall economy, our standing in the world, and our consumers. We must let the CFPB go into effect to protect our economy and protect our consumers. I congratulate the gentlelady on her leadership.

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the great leader from New York State for her leadership on this committee and in this great Congress, and for fighting every day for the American people and New York State. Madam Speaker, 1 year ago today, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This landmark law helped restore faith in our institutions and markets, helped our economy, and helped consumers. Yet on this historic day, my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to defund, defang, and derail the important consumer protection office. Now, what is this office supposed to do? It is going to make prices clear to consumers, risk clear to consumers, and make markets work for the American middle class families. We need this independent office. For too long, no one was looking out for consumers and we paid dearly for it in the financial crisis. But now with the CFPB, everyone who takes out a student loan, everyone who takes out a mortgage, everyone who takes out any financial product will have a financial consumer protection agency on their side. And we need this protection. Just yesterday, it was reported that one of our largest institutions received the largest fine ever, $84 million for illegally pushing borrowers into subprime mortgages--10,000 Americans in this suit alone--for falsifying loan documents. If a CFPB had been in place, that could have helped the 10,000 people. Let me tell you I'm calling this Republican bill: Let's just forget that the financial crisis ever happened. Let's just forget the pain that it caused to people and the painful lessons of the great recession. These practices cost our country dearly. According to the figures from the Federal Reserve, between the spring of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion. That is pain to the overall economy and to American families. That is a sum that would be more than enough to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. And if the CFPB had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided the most painful and disruptive economic downturn in our lifetime. We must fight to keep this in place to protect consumers. I believe when it comes to great recessions, once is more than enough. Let's stop these practices that hurt consumers. Protect our overall economy and protect our people. The American people agree: 73 percent favor it; 93 percent favor it. The American people favor the CFPB. We should let it open its doors to protect consumers.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for pointing out the priorities and the focus and the injustice and unfairness of the Republican proposal. At a time when Congress should be laser focused on finding new ways to grow our economy and create American jobs, we find ourselves, once again, bogged down in producing the Republican version of ``Waiting for Godot.'' We all know that this bill will never become law, that it is going nowhere in the Senate. Their slash-and-burn cuts have not created a single job for hardworking middle class families. And, in fact, most economists say that cutting too deeply, too strongly would hinder economic recovery and could return us to a recession. For the average American family, the Republican proposal would mean a cut in their future prospects, a cap on their dreams for tomorrow, and balancing the budget on the backs of America's seniors, while they refuse to even look at cutting a special interest tax break or subsidy. They continue to subsidize companies that send our jobs overseas and subsidize record-breaking profits that our oil companies have, but they're subsidizing some of them to the tune of 40 percent. The Republicans have brought us to the brink of a national default in an effort to force the American people to accept their ideological agenda.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce important legislation, the Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act, with Representatives Cummings, McCarthy, Conyers, Tierney, Connolly, Chu, Norton, Rangel, Moran, Lynch, Speier, Filner, and Ackerman, which will put in statute a gun trafficking prohibition, empowering law enforcement with the tools to stem the tide of illegal weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and other criminals. The Mexican drug cartel wars are raging and have claimed the lives of at least 40,000 people since 2007. They are fueled, in part, by illegal weapons procured in the United States and smuggled into Mexico. According to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mexico has seized approximately 100,000 guns in the last four years, and 84% of those guns came from the United States. According to ATF, 70% of firearms recovered in Mexico in 2009 and 2010 and traced to determine their source were either manufactured in the U.S. or first imported into the U.S. before being trafficked to Mexico. In hearings and interviews before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, law enforcement agents have said they are hamstrung in their attempts to stop illegal gun trafficking by the lack of a federal gun trafficking bill. Law enforcement agents identified three areas of current law that, if improved, would allow them to more effectively counter firearms trafficking--a reporting requirement for multiple long-guns purchases, stiffer penalties for straw purchasers, and a specific firearms trafficking prohibition in the criminal code. Just this week, the Obama Administration announced that they have approved the ATF's request to use their authority to request reports of multiple long-gun purchases, and earlier this year in April, the United States Sentencing Commission announced proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines that will essentially cause most straw purchasers to be ineligible for probation, and once in effect, Congress can reevaluate the impact of these changes and if additional changes are needed. With administrative action on two of the three proposals, our legislation accomplishes the third--a firearms trafficking prohibition in statute, with stiff penalties for traffickers and so-called trafficking ``kingpins.'' Under current law, prosecutors are forced to charge straw purchasers and traffickers with mere paperwork violations. This bill empowers law enforcement by criminalizing firearms trafficking, offering a sensible solution to ensure that weapons do not end up in the hands of criminals and drug cartels. Given the ongoing violence and the glaring loopholes in U.S. gun trafficking laws, it's time Congress gets serious about enacting narrowly tailored, sensible laws to combat illegal trafficking.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to an offset included in this bill that would rescind all unobligated high-speed rail funding. I support the gentleman from New Jersey's efforts to address the flood, but it should not be taken from such an important investment in the economic strength of our country. It is also an investment in moving us to energy independence. I would like to address my comments particularly to the Northeast Corridor, that is the corridor between New York and Washington and New York and Boston. This corridor is the most heavily traveled not only in the United States but probably in the world. And the MTA says that the corridor between New York and Boston, on day one, if we had high-speed rail, hundreds of thousands of people would travel it, and it would absolutely be a positive revenue source. It would literally make money because of the ridership that is in that area and also in the area between New York and Washington. In the money that was allocated, the MTA is focusing on high-speed rail between New York and Boston. And they are supporting the $294 million for the Harold Interlocking Amtrak Bypass Routes, which would create, according to analysis, well over 9,000 jobs immediately, as it is shovel-ready and ready to go. This is an investment towards high- speed rail, but it's needed right now to move three lines: the Long Island Railroad, Amtrak, and the New Jersey Transit. In this one area, the Interlocking has over 783 trains moving through this each day from the three different transit systems. So this obviously needs to be upgraded to take care of delays and to be able to move people and commerce faster. Because of the way the Harold Interlocking is currently constructed, conflicts among the three rail lines are frequent and result in delays, disruptions at Penn Station, and over the entire northeast corridor. So this critical funding will be used to construct a bypass that would allow these trains to move conflict-free and quickly. It is fully designed, has undergone extensive environmental review, including a final environmental impact statement. This project is shovel-ready and will be completed--if not interrupted by this action on the floor--by 2017, and will, very importantly, move us towards high-speed rail between two of the major commerce centers in our country, between Boston and New York. It would literally make money. To rescind this money would be penny-wise, pound-foolish, and would move us backwards. We should be investing in the economic corridors of our country, which is our rail, our high-speed rail. I strongly, strongly support the high-speed rail and urge my colleagues for the economic strength of our future to vote against this amendment, this section that would rescind the money for the very needed high-speed rail that would move us into the 21st century to be able to compete and win in the 21st century, move our people, move our commerce, create jobs not only in the railroad but in the commerce that is between the two centers. We cannot afford to fall behind in our transportation system. It's one of the things that made this country great. It is an important investment. It is an investment that would literally make money in the Northeast Corridor, and it would be absolutely tremendously foolish to rescind this investment towards the economic future of our country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I along with my colleagues Representatives Moore, Norton, Connolly, Conyers, Hirono, Grijalva, Jackson, Rangel, Towns, Lowey and Lee, am reintroducing important legislation that will protect the rights of women seeking information on family planning services. Too often, women who are facing the difficult consequences of an unintended pregnancy are being deceived and intimidated. No matter how one feels about the question of legal abortion, everyone can agree that deception has no place when a woman is seeking information about her pregnancy. Called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, CPCs, they advertise as a source of unbiased pregnancy counseling using neutral-sounding names. However, some CPCs deliberately use marketing practices which cloak their offerings in medical buzzwords to bring in clients, and then use deceptive propaganda to dissuade women from considering comprehensive birth- control options or legal abortion. If a woman enters a pregnancy center with full knowledge of the limited services and the center's bias that is entirely her choice. However this becomes an issue when a center knowingly uses misinformation, intimidation or coercion to cause and capitalize on her confusion. In response to the deceitful practices of these centers, I am introducing the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act. This legislation directs the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring it an unfair or deceptive act to advertise as a provider of abortion services if the entity does not provide abortion services. This legislation also states that an organization providing abortion services must not advertise that it does not provide these services. Yesterday, a judge enjoined a New York City ordinance requiring CPCs to post signs disclosing the limited nature of their services. My bill only applies to CPCs that engage in deceptive and misleading advertising. The signage requirement (as adopted by NYC) tackles this issue in a different way. While I support those efforts, my bill is different because it gives a Federal agency the ability to investigate reports on misleading claims in the same way it can for other products and services. Together, with this legislation, we can help women facing an already difficult and personal decision gain access to the best and most comprehensive healthcare without facing intimidation and deception.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I have never been more concerned about our Nation's economic security and future. Just this week, Moody's warned that the U.S. may lose our top-notch AAA credit rating if we fail to increase our Nation's debt ceiling. Economists say that if we fail to do so, it will put not only our national capital markets in turmoil, but the capital markets internationally in turmoil. It will hurt American wages and jobs. The stock market will tank. A letter signed by hundreds of senior company executives and organizations agrees. It said, and I quote: ``Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just for companies, but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and student debt.'' And yet some Members of this body have said that under no circumstance whatsoever will they ever vote to raise the Nation's debt ceiling. However heartfelt this may be, it is nothing short of a threat to commit economic suicide.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I respectfully suggest a small correction to the Republicans' statement that their position on the deficit negotiations is no new taxes. It would be far more accurate for them to state their position is no new taxes except for seniors, because sharp increases to participate in the costs of Medicare and Medicaid or decreases in the benefits of Social Security would act just like a tax on income targeted right at the elderly. The Republican proposal for Medicare would hit retired seniors immediately by reopening the doughnut hole. And according to a report from the Joint Economic Committee, for my home State of New York it would cost future retirees an additional $6,500 out of pocket. You can call that some sort of adjustment if you like, but I call it a tax, and I call it wrong. Grover Norquist agrees. He says changes to the CPI is a stealth tax increase: wrong for our seniors, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the country.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Res. 268, reaffirming America's support for direct Palestinian- Israeli negotiations as the best means to settle the conflict and the only path to statehood for the Palestinians. A Palestinian state created in the middle of this conflict would be a state created to make war. Nothing would be more dangerous or more unworkable than for the Palestinians to gain the status of statehood without at the same time taking on the duties of a responsible state--namely, a commitment to peace with its neighbors and basic rights for all of its citizens. The United Nations--a body established as a place of peace--should not create a state that is committed to destroying its neighbor. And, until the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel's right to exist and disarm the terrorists, there is no chance that a Palestinian state would be committed to peaceful co-existence with its neighbor. This resolution is a simple, basic, common-sense restatement of the clear fact that the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis cannot be resolved unilaterally; it cannot be resolved by UN fiat; it cannot be resolved by outside forces; it cannot be resolved if the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; it cannot be resolved if Palestinians refuse to forswear terrorism against Israel and take actions to dismantle their terrorist infrastructure; it cannot be resolved if the Palestinians continue to set preconditions for coming to the bargaining table; and, it cannot be resolved unless all members of the Palestinian unity government agree to abide by previous agreements with the United States and Israel. This conflict can only be resolved by both parties sitting down at a table and hammering out an agreement on the basic issues that divide them. The Palestinians must understand that they will only have a state once they make peace with Israel. I hope the United States would make clear its intention to veto any unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations and to penalize the Palestinians if they are foolhardy enough to pursue a path that will only lead to more conflict and bloodshed. That's why I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H. Res. 268 and in opposing the Palestinians' dangerous and desperate effort to obtain an empty declaration of statehood without peace at the United Nations.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to facilitate human trafficking and labor abuses on U.S. military bases. As cochair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Human Trafficking, I am particularly concerned that workers from South Asia and Africa are being trafficked to work on U.S. military bases and that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to unlawfully lure and transport them to work in extreme conditions. It is Army policy to oppose all activities associated with human trafficking. This must include the supply chain that provides services to our servicemembers defending our country. We must have strong oversight over our contracting system to ensure that it is free from human rights abuses, and this amendment works toward that end. I urge my colleagues to join us in fighting human trafficking and support this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, in our tough economic environment, individuals should not have to choose between caring for a loved one and their job. The high work participation rates among mothers and the caregiving needs of an aging population put further demands on American families. The landmark Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) has allowed millions of employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work to care for a new baby or to care for a spouse, child under age 18, or parent who has a serious health condition. However, the law does not allow leave to care for a same-sex partner or spouse, a grandparent or an adult child. Anecdotal evidence suggests that same- sex partners have endured negative reactions and denials to requests for leave when partners gave birth or had a serious medical condition. When a loved one is in need of care, employees should not be subjected to discrimination but should be allowed to take advantage of the benefits FMLA provides. Already, hundreds of companies, several states, and the District of Columbia have extended such protections to individuals not originally included in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. In order to do this at the federal level, today I am reintroducing the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This legislation will allow an employee to take unpaid leave from work to care for his or her same-sex spouse or domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild or grandparent if that person has a serious health condition. Additionally, in light of the recent repeal of the Military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, the legislation permits leave for domestic partners of service members. I thank Senator Durbin for reintroducing the Senate companion legislation and thank original House cosponsors Reps. Polis, Towns, George Miller, Stark, Frank, Holmes Norton, Susan Davis, Connolly, Israel, Frederica Wilson, Olver, Sherman, Capps, Serrano, Nadler, Engel, Moore, Barbara Lee, Chu, and Jackson Jr. Almost two decades after enactment, it is time FMLA caught up to the growing demands on and changing makeup of American families.