Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, for years, the other side of the aisle has been trying to get between a woman and her doctor. Now they are trying to come between a woman and her health insurance company. They want to open a new front in the war on women, and this one cruelly focuses on poor women.

The law of the land is already clear: no Federal funding for abortions. But with H.R. 7, which will be on the floor today, even private insurance plans could be restricted from covering abortion if you get a government subsidy. So if you are a low-income woman who needs help affording health care insurance, this bill is aimed squarely at you.

Rather than tackling the real the problems of economic growth and job creation, the other side of the aisle seems obsessed with curbing a woman's reproductive rights. They may not want to call this a war on women, but I would point out to my colleagues that women--and only women--are the casualties of this multifaceted assault on a woman's right to choose and reproductive rights.

Madam Speaker, extending Federal unemployment insurance will create between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs this year alone and boost GDP by 0.2 percentage points, according to a new report just issued by the Joint Economic Committee Democrats.

For every dollar we invest in unemployment insurance, we get back almost $2 in economic activity. That is a great return everyone from Main Street to Wall Street should be able to agree on.

The JEC Democrats' report also found that unemployment insurance is one of the most effective tools that we have to keep families out of poverty. Last year alone, the program kept nearly 2.5 million people, including 600,000 children, out of poverty.

Allowing Federal unemployment insurance to expire is not only wrong on a moral level because it pulls the rug out from under some of our neediest people, it is also an absolutely terrible investment decision for our country's economy.

I urge my fellow Democrats and Republicans to extend unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the majority's refusal to extend unemployment benefits to some of our Nation's neediest families, including 137,315 workers in the great State of New York.

Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their tremendous leadership in putting together this compromise budget.

The bill is a step forward. It increases funding for many important priorities like housing authority operations and section 8. We have got an affordable-housing crisis in New York City, and these additional resources will help.

The bill also makes important infrastructure investments. It fully funds the President's request of $14.6 million for the Second Avenue Subway in the district I represent and $215 million for the East Side access that will help create thousands of jobs in our Nation's largest city and is in the district of Mr. King and my district.

I am also pleased to see that there isn't a single anti-woman rider that would threaten women's access to comprehensive health care.

This bill isn't perfect, but it is a step forward. I had hoped it would include an extension of unemployment insurance and refund the cuts for the National Institutes of Health, but it is a vast improvement over the current budget, and I will be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson's historic war on poverty, but lately it seems more like a war on the poor.

Earlier today, at a meeting organized by Congresswoman Lee, President Johnson's daughter, Lynda Johnson Robb, said that she accompanied her father on his historic tour of Appalachia. She said:

When Daddy came to this town and was sworn in as President,

the poverty level of our country was at 20 percent. When

Daddy left this town, it was at 12 percent of the population.

He made a big difference working with this body in a bipartisan way-- and we can do it again.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass a jobs plan, raise the minimum wage, restore nutrition assistance and affordable housing assistance, and extend unemployment benefits to help those families get by while they are looking for work.

As Lyndon Johnson did five decades ago, let us again declare an ``all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1, I was at a Steering and Policy Committee meeting with Leader Pelosi. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that more than 60 million Americans are at risk of serious vision loss--a number expected to increase as the baby boomer generation ages. Along with my colleague Rep. Gus Bilirakis, I am proud to introduce legislation to support Americans with limited or impaired vision. For someone with a visual impairment, reading a book or crossing the street could be blurred or distorted even with the help of glasses or contact lenses. In many cases a physician can prescribe magnifiers or special optical devices to help an individual remain independent. While there are a wide variety of options to help people with low vision, currently, there is an exclusion from Medicare coverage for devices that include a lens to aid vision or provide magnification of images for impaired vision. Ultimately, not having these assistance devices could shift more individuals from independent living to care facilities or nursing homes.

To understand the impact of covering these devices for America's seniors, we are introducing the Medicare Demonstration of Coverage for Low Vision Devices Act of 2013. This legislation would create a five- year national demonstration project administered by the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate the economic impact of allowing reimbursement for certain low vision devices under the Social Security Act. Coverage of such devices could help Medicare beneficiaries with low vision lead healthy, safe, and independent lives.

Mr. Speaker, last month we recognized Breast Cancer Awareness Month--acknowledging the toll the disease takes on individuals and families, and the importance of continued research and awareness efforts. Since 1989, thanks to earlier detection, increased understanding, and improved treatment, the death rates for breast cancer have continued to decrease. Yet breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in women, with one in 36 women dying from the disease. While breast cancer used to be considered a disease of aging, recent trends show that more aggressive forms of the disease have been increasingly diagnosed in younger women. Just this year, it is estimated that 232,340 women will be diagnosed with and 39,620 women will die of cancer of the breast in the United States.

We need to do more to tackle this disease. Each year roughly $16.5 billion is spent in the United States on breast cancer treatment, according to the National Cancer Institute estimates. While the federal government remains the largest funder of breast cancer research in the United States, in 2012, the National Cancer Institute reduced funding by almost $30 million and the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program grants decreased more than 22 percent from 2010 funding levels.

Additional private sector support will help us find a cure for breast cancer even faster. That is why my colleague Representative Aaron Schock and I are introducing the Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act. Additional private sector support will help us find

a cure for breast cancer even faster. Proceeds from the sale of the coin will benefit the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen for the Cure. These two organizations have spent more than $450 million and $790 million, respectively, on research funding. But more needs to be done to find better treatments and a cure.

Our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, cannot afford to wait. I encourage you to support this new legislation.

I rise today to honor my dear friend Susan Scanlan upon her retirement as the president of the Women's Research and Education Institute (WREI) and chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO) at the end of this year. For four decades, Susan's leadership has brought together women's advocacy groups, helped expand women's roles in military combat, and shed light on gender disparities in the media, education, and the workforce.

A third generation Washingtonian, Susan has been advancing women's standing in government since joining the office of U.S. Representative Charlie Wilson (1972-1977), where she coauthored legislation to designate March as National Women's History Month and to admit women to the U.S. military service academies. In 1977, she helped found and direct the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, as well as the Caucus' research arm, the Women's Research and Education Institute. Following a seven year adventure in China with her husband Jared Cameron, Susan took over as president of WREI in 2000. A few years later Susan took on the additional role of chair of NCWO, a coalition of 240 progressive women's groups representing 12 million American women.

Susan's most enduring legacy will continue long after her retirement through the women she has placed throughout the halls of Congress with WREI's congressional fellowship program. Over more than 30 years, this program has positioned more than 350 women on Capitol Hill, and Susan takes great pride in each one of them. Through meetings with women leaders in all fields, Susan has exposed these fellows to the important work already done and yet to be done on behalf of women in America and around the world. Her contributions to women's advancement and empowerment are felt throughout the sectors these fellows occupy, including state legislators and legislative staff, the business and nonprofit communities, and academia and think tanks.

My office and I have benefitted from her efforts to help women enter the legislative pipeline, including hosting fellows for 14 years. These women have brought their expertise and enthusiasm to my office in countless ways, such as advocating for women's rights in Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, advancing legislation that would stop human trafficking and end obstetric fistula, and creating reports to make the public aware of how votes in Congress affect women. Like their classmates, the ``Maloney Fellows'' have gone on to work as women's advocates, academics, and architects of change both here in the nation's capital and around the country. In fact, two of my current staff came to me through Susan.

Through the Women's Research and Education Institute and the National Council of Women's Organizations, we have worked together on so many issues important to women, such as the Equal Rights Amendment, the National Women's History Museum,

and women's economic equality. We both know from our years working together that nothing happens with action, perseverance, and a little outrage. I know Susan will continue to use these attributes in her next endeavor. I treasure her friendship and her council.

Congratulations to Susan on her retirement. She has inspired those who have worked with her and been mentored by her. I wish Susan and Jared all the best.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that we are still recovering from a massive financial crisis that cost this country $16 trillion, and I would venture to say that we should be more focused on protecting investors, not removing investor protections. And I would say that all investors deserve to be protected--sophisticated investors, retail investors, pension investors. All investors should be protected, which is why the Obama administration has come out so strongly in opposition to the underlying bill and why the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose mission is to protect investors, is so adamantly, strongly opposed to this bill.

Now, I am sympathetic to the point that my colleagues have raised on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle that some of the reporting and registration requirements are onerous. So let's address that. Let's direct the SEC to come forward with simplified forms, to do it quickly, within 6 months. Let's save money. Let's simplify the process. But let's not remove important investors' protections, such as the fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interest. What is wrong with that? I think that is a moral responsibility, such as the obligation to disclose conflicts of interest.

Now, that is not onerous. How difficult is it to say, yes or no, I have not had any conflict of interest? Or if you are advising your client to invest in your business, then disclose your conflict of interest. What is so onerous about that? That is not onerous. That is easy.

And what is wrong with the obligation to disclose fees? Everyone talks about transparency. That is why we are opposing this bill. We want it to be transparent, and we want to protect investors.

I feel that there are many ways that we could address this that would come forward with a strong piece of legislation that President Obama could sign into law. Instead, he has got a lot of ink in his veto pen, and he has said right out front that he would veto this bill.

Now, if they want to simplify disclosure and registration requirements, then let's do that. Let's require the SEC to come forward with it. Let's simplify the process and save the cost for small businesses. We want to save that cost.

Honest private equity firms have grown jobs in this country, and it is important to grow jobs. It is important to support them in every single way. But removing all investor protections, according to the Obama administration, would literally assault the safety and soundness and the strong financial security that we are trying to build in this country.

What is wrong with protecting investors? That is what we are saying. I have an amendment which would do just that, protect the investors but simplify the forms and maintain the cost.

If their goal is to save money for the small firms, then let's do that, but let's not erase very important investor protections in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their hard and dedicated work on the Financial Services Committee.

I would also like to commend the vice-chairman, Congressman Hurt, for his work on this bill. I agree with him that private equity funds did not cause the financial crisis.

I also agree that many private equity funds--and especially the small private equity funds that invest in middle-market businesses--support jobs across our country. I also agree that for many small equity funds, the cost of complying with every single requirement in the Investment Advisers Act can be burdensome and costly.

However, while I share the goal of reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on small private equity funds with under $1 billion in assets, I believe that there are better ways to accomplish this goal to reduce the burden, to reduce costs without eliminating important investor protections.

I would say that we should have equality in this country--and equality of treatment for everyone, including investors. If you are a small investor, a large investor, a teacher, an unemployed worker, and you have invested, whoever you are, you should have protections. Aren't we a country of laws and equality of treatment? So my amendment would direct the SEC to create a simplified disclosure form for fund advisers between $150 million and $1 billion, while also retaining important investor protections.

We would reduce the burden, reduce the reporting, reduce the disclosure, simplify the forms, make it easier, but protect the fiduciary duty to act in a client's best interest. Isn't that the moral, right thing to do?

There is the obligation to disclose conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose fees. I thought we all supported transparency. Well, let's have transparency in these investment funds, too.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to this amendment how much of a burden is it to disclose whether or not you have a conflict of interest. You just have to check yes or no, I have a conflict of interest. Then maybe you have to disclose what that conflict is. But that is the fair and right thing to do.

How burdensome is it to disclose fees? Tell people what you are charging them. And how burdensome is it to have the necessary fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interest? Most people think that you are acting in their best interest. I think they would be horrified to know that some Members of this body want to roll back that protection for them.

I would also like to note that in August the SEC did provide relief for

smaller private equity funds from what the industry tells me is one of the most burdensome aspects of registration--the so-called custody rule--which requires that the funds use independent custodians for stocks that don't even trade. So private equity funds have already gotten relief, and I applaud the SEC for this commonsense decision.

The reforms in my amendment would build on this relief and would direct the SEC to act quickly on simplified forms--within 6 months--and save these small businesses money so that money can go out into the community.

The underlying bill grants a complete exemption to private equity fund advisers with under 2 to 1 leverage, which is pretty much the entire industry, because the funds themselves are not leveraged. It is the companies the funds invest in that are leveraged.

The underlying bill is opposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose prime mission is to protect investors, and by President Obama's administration. He has even threatened a veto.

If the problem is the high cost of registry at the SEC and preparing the required disclosures, then the solution is to simplify the registration and disclosures for small equity funds. That is what my bill does. But it also protects investors.

It does not exempt the entire industry from investor protection, which is what the underlying bill does, and I do not believe that that is the intent of my colleagues on either side of the aisle.

So my amendment accomplishes the express goal of saving money and simplifying, but protects the integrity of our financial system and investors.

I urge everyone to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this legislation and so many other important areas before our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, H.R. 1846, the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site Amendments Act, which was authored and introduced by my good friend and colleague, Nydia Velazquez from New York.

This legislation will expand the boundaries of the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site to include 103 Orchard Street, which is located just two doors down from the original museum location. Because of this, it will be able to expand its educational programs and allow more people to learn about our Nation's immigrant history.

I had the privilege of representing the Tenement Museum in Congress prior to this year, when new congressional boundaries were implemented, and I still serve as an honorary trustee of this important institution. I can say without hesitation that the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is one of our Nation's most important historic and

cultural institutions. In recognition of the important work that they do, the National Endowment for the Humanities just recently awarded them a $500,000 matching grant.

Founded 25 years ago, the museum brings to life the experiences of those immigrant families who settled in one of our Nation's most iconic and important neighborhoods--the Lower East Side. Through these stories, the museum tells the story of our great country, a nation of immigrants, and how our national identity is constantly evolving and changing thanks to immigration.

Over 200,000 people visit the museum each year to learn about these stories--and that's not by accident. The Tenement Museum has found a unique way to personalize and bring to life history through the stories of individual families who actually lived in these buildings. They take rooms, and they make one for the Irish, one for the Greek, one for the Jews. They have all these stories, and you learn not only the history, but the stories of the particular families who lived there.

The original museum building at 97 Orchard Street tells the progression of our country through the stories of immigrant families from Italy, Ireland, Poland, Greece, Austria, Russia, Germany, and Lithuania through 1935.

The bill before us will allow the museum to expand to a new site so it can tell the stories of Jewish Holocaust survivors, post-1965 Chinese families, and Puerto Rican families in the 1950s--bringing immigrant history to the present day.

I commend the Natural Resources Committee for reporting out this legislation, the House leadership for bringing it to the floor, and my colleague and friend Nydia for authoring it, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1846.

Mr. Speaker, we all know about Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but I am proud to support Giving Tuesday, a national day dedicated to charitable giving and volunteerism.

On December 3, Giving Tuesday will harness the collective power of charities, families, businesses, and individuals to transform how people think about, talk about, and participate in the giving season.

Launched by the 92nd Street Y in New York City last year, in the district that I am privileged to represent, Giving Tuesday inspires Americans to take action to improve their local communities and strengthen our country.

Thousands of partners in all 50 States are joining in this national movement of individuals and organizations that believe that everyone, whether you are a large donor or an individual volunteer, has a role in helping to solve the challenges our communities face every day.

Americans are the most charitable people in the world, and Giving Tuesday is a day for us as a Nation to celebrate our spirit of generosity.

I urge everyone to spread the word about Giving Tuesday to your constituents so together we can celebrate the giving season and aid the important work of charities and organizations.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in providing health care for over 40 million Americans who did not have it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 46th time that our Republican colleagues have tried to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. I rise in opposition to this closed rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Upton bill.

We are here today supposedly to help those people who unexpectedly had their insurance policies canceled. This is a real issue as the President, himself, clearly acknowledged last night. That is why he is taking steps to help these people in the private health care market keep their plans. However, the bill before us now not only fails to solve the problem, it makes things worse by fundamentally undermining the Affordable Care Act in a way that is calculated to doom it to eventual failure.

You would be changing the rules in the middle of a game and virtually guaranteeing that premiums would eventually skyrocket for people who did the right thing--who went to the exchange and got a plan. This would price the program out of existence. Doing that would take us all back to a time when over 40 million Americans did not have access to affordable health insurance, including 2.6 million New Yorkers.

We must not turn our backs on those people now. We absolutely have problems we need to fix, and we have issues we need to solve, but we are on the verge of finally covering millions of Americans who lack the fundamental security of affordable health coverage for their families. We are finally close to achieving a goal for millions that has been pursued for nearly a century under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

This is a problem we must solve without turning our backs on those families forced into bankruptcy simply because someone in the household got sick. This is a problem we must solve for the sake of all of those women who were denied insurance or who had to pay up to 40 percent more for insurance simply because they were women. This is a problem we must solve for the sake of all of those people with preexisting conditions and for all of those young adults who can stay on their parents' plans until they turn 27.

We did not embark on this effort because we thought it would be easy. We embarked on this effort to provide health care to millions because we thought it was a moral imperative, an economic necessity, and a fundamental human right. Yes, it is hard to get it right, but ultimately this is an effort that history will judge not by the number of computer errors but by the number of lives saved.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and ``yes'' for health care for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that each year in the United States 1.6 million children and youth run away or are thrown out of their homes. Every child reported to have run away is required by law to be listed in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database as a missing person. This cooperative effort of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies aids in information- sharing and promotes cooperation in investigating and resolving multi- jurisdictional cases. The NCIC database is an important part of the puzzle because it can be accessed by virtually every law enforcement officer in the United States. Without an NCIC entry, officers in one part of the country have no way to know that a child is missing at all.

Sadly, an estimated 16 percent of reported runaways are never entered in the NCIC database as missing persons. Without an NCIC entry, law enforcement officers will not share information or resources, and are far less able to discover or protect a missing child because law enforcement doesn't know to look for him or her.

To help address this problem, my colleague Rep. Ted Poe and I are introducing the Runaway Reporting Improvement Act. This legislation would require law enforcement agencies to certify that they are complying with the law and entering all runaway children into the NCIC database. Additionally, agencies would be required to give parents or guardians of missing children information about the help available through the 24-hour, toll-free phone numbers for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Runaway Safeline. These two organizations provide referral services and counseling to the parents or guardians of missing children.

The necessary resources are already in place. We simply must do better by our children. The Runaway Reporting Improvement Act will help ensure that existing processes are used to find and protect those most vulnerable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 992. This bill passed overwhelmingly out of the Financial Services Committee earlier this year with broad bipartisan support with a vote of 53-6.

The whole point of the Dodd-Frank reforms was to improve the safety and soundness of our financial system; and H.R. 992, the bill before us, will help us do just that.

This bill does not expose the taxpayer to any additional risk. In fact, it includes a ban on taxpayer bailout of any swaps or any use of taxpayer money. Under H.R. 992, truly risky swaps will still be pushed out of commercial banks while at the same time bank regulators can see all of the bank's swaps activities.

As well intended as section 716 is, it turns out it would actually hinder the oversight of regulators of the derivatives market. That is why Barney

Frank, the former chairman of the Financial Services Committee and, of course, the Frank in Dodd-Frank, said during the debate in the last Congress of this same bill that is before us now, H.R. 922:

It will not in any way, shape, or form reduce sensible

regulation of derivatives; it will not increase any exposure

to the financial system from derivatives.

The economist of Moody's, Mark Zandi, also supports this bill and has said that section 716, as written, actually increases systemic risk and creates major inefficiency in the markets.

Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke opposed section 716, as written, stating that the way it forces these activities out of insured depository institutions ``would weaken both the financial stability and strong regulation of derivative activities.''

So Ben Bernanke has said that our bill before us will protect safety and soundness. Barney Frank agrees. Mark Zandi of Moody's agrees. I agree. And I urge my colleagues to agree with us and support safety and soundness of our financial institutions by supporting H.R. 992.

Minority Views

112th Congress

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

requires, for the first time, the regulation of over-the-

counter derivatives, previously opaque transactions that

helped bring our financial system to the brink of disaster.

The vast majority of derivatives must now be centrally

cleared and publicly reported, and be backed by margin and

capital to ensure that swap dealers and major swap users can

honor their commitments. In addition, the reform law also

prohibits banks from placing bets with federally insured

deposits through the ``Volcker Rule''. Both measures serve as

important safeguards as we rebuild trust in our financial

system. As amended, H.R. 1838 would repeal portions of

Section 716 of the financial reform law, also known as the

``push-out provision.'' Section 716 prohibits banks from

engaging in several types of derivatives. Questions have been

raised about this provision by economists and regulators

including FDIC's Sheila Bair, who are concerned that it might

interfere with a bank's ability to use derivatives to

diminish risk. Section 716 was not part of the original

House-passed version of the financial reform law. During the

Full Committee markup, Democrats worked with the Majority to

amend H.R. 1838 to continue the prohibition of complex swaps

employed by AIG with devastating effect. H.R. 1838, as

amended, addresses the valid criticisms of Section 716

without weakening the financial reform law's important

derivative safeguards or prohibitions on bank proprietary

trading.

Barney Frank, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gwen Moore, James A. Himes,

Ruben Hinojosa, Andre Carson, Gary L. Ackerman, Al Green,

Stephen F. Lynch, David Scott, Maxine Waters, Carolyn B.

Maloney, Melvin L. Watt, Luis V. Gutierrez, Gary C. Peters,

Ed Perlmutter, Michael E. Capuano, and Gregory W. Meeks.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, New York City and the entire eastern seaboard were ravaged by Superstorm Sandy. Entire communities were shattered, families were torn apart, and lives were lost.

In New York City, the water level was so high it was covering cars. The Nation's largest and busiest mass transit system closed down for the first time in a century; 8\1/2\ million people lost their power and some still do not have it returned; and 125 Americans lost their lives.

The gratitude I feel for all those who helped their friends and neighbors is hard to express. There were a great number of heroes and heroines, and we sorely needed them.

On the Federal level, with the support of this body, FEMA has approved over $3.2 billion in funding for emergency work and over $1.4 billion in assistance to over 182,000 survivors. The Small Business Administration has approved $2.4 billion in low-interest loans. The National Flood Insurance Program has provided more than $7.9 billion to policyholders.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues and all those who stepped up to help during these difficult times. New York and others are deeply grateful.