Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and for yielding.

This is a very strong bipartisan effort, and I rise today in support of H.R. 742, the Swap Data Repository and Clearing House Indemnification Correction Act.

In enacting the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress passed the most sweeping reforms to the financial industry in decades in response to the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. The facts are clear: the financial system is global and, as a result, systemic risk is global as well. We saw it in 2008 with the exposure that European banks had to counterparties like Lehman and Merrill, and we see it today with U.S. banks' exposure to the European debt crisis. The great equalizer here is data.

This is the reason Dodd-Frank created swap data repositories. It was so that the regulators, domestic and foreign alike, could recognize prospective cracks in the financial armor before they become gaping holes. This is critically important, and we must get it right. Data collection has been one of the issues that I've worked hard on in the past, and I want to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support collaboration and to encourage an open exchange of data with our foreign counterparties.

Virtually everyone agrees that the indemnification provisions in Dodd-Frank will have the unintended consequence of limiting the extent to which our U.S. regulators share information with well over 50 foreign regulators. That is the complete opposite of the direction we want to go. This bipartisan effort to correct a problem in Dodd-Frank is not an attempt in any way to weaken the bill. It is an attempt to make good legislation even better.

This bill will go a long way toward furthering a major goal of the Dodd-Frank legislation in reforms, which is sharing data and collaborating with foreign entities to reduce global systemic risk. This not only has strong bipartisan support, but it is likewise supported by the SEC. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important correction.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. I commend the work of Mr. Turner and others for strengthening protections for women in the military, but it's not enough. The amendments from Jackie Speier and other women leaders were not included. We need an open rule where all of these ideas can come to the floor to protect our men and women in the military.

The status quo in the military is not a way to solve the problem of sexual abuse. Too often, it is the problem. Every year that I have been in Congress, the military brass has come to us and said that they will stop this abuse. Yet each year, it seems to be getting worse. Women are even afraid to report it. They're then afraid that they'll be punished in some way.

Despite the widespread public and congressional outrage, some top military officers still seem to resist important, fundamental changes to a culture that has clearly failed in one of its single, most important missions: keeping its own people safe. And the casualties are mounting every day.

For example, a U.S. military officer overseeing sexual assault prevention at Fort Hood in Texas is under investigation for his sexual assault of soldiers. The officer in charge of the Air Force's sexual abuse prevention program was recently arrested for groping women. We need to end the culture of tolerating the abuser and punishing the victims.

We created a database for them to report in, but they won't report because they are afraid of retaliation. Too often they've seen if you're a woman who's been raped and abused, then you're told to be quiet. If you report it, you'll be punished, but if you're the abuser, you might end up in charge of the sexual abuse prevention program and get a promotion.

The strongest military in the world has got to learn how to protect its own soldiers. It's got to keep them from being wounded by rape and sexual assault. We need to stop this, allow an open rule, and allow amendments on this important protection of our soldiers.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act.

I oppose this bill, as does the Obama administration, because it would fundamentally undermine Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms and would create a loophole big enough to drive an AIG-sized truck through.

Many of the derivatives that brought down AIG in 2008 were executed through one of its foreign branches, and many of the counterparties on those derivatives were European banks. These derivatives were a big factor in the AIG bailout that cost our taxpayers $182 billion and in the financial crisis that cost our economy well over $12 trillion.

H.R. 1256 would require the CFTC and the SEC to issue a joint rule detailing how U.S. derivatives rules would apply to transactions between U.S. and foreign companies or individuals. However, the bill then requires the agencies to exempt foreign companies from U.S. rules unless both agencies determine that the derivatives rules in the foreign country are broadly equivalent to U.S. rules, a vague standard that would weaken both the CFTC and the SEC's proposed rules governing crossborder transactions.

In the modern financial system, risk knows no borders. Problems in a U.S. bank's foreign office flow right back to the parent company here in the U.S., and it is the U.S. parent company that ultimately bears the loss. This is especially true in derivatives, which are traded in a global and highly interconnected market. For these regulations to be truly effective, however, they must cover derivatives executed in the foreign branches and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. banks.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act.

I oppose this bill and the Obama Administration opposes because it would fundamentally undermine Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms, and would create a loophole big enough to drive an AIG-sized truck through.

Many of the derivatives that brought down AIG in 2008 were executed through one of its foreign branches, and many of the counterparties on those derivatives were European banks. These derivatives were a big factor in the AIG bailout that cost taxpayers $182 billion, and in the financial crisis that cost our economy over $12 trillion. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake?

H.R. 1256 would require the CFTC and the SEC to issue a joint rule detailing how U.S. derivatives rules would apply to transactions between U.S. and foreign companies or individuals. However, the bill then requires the agencies to exempt foreign companies from U.S. rules unless both agencies determine that the derivatives rules in the foreign country are ``broadly equivalent'' to U.S. rules--a vague standard that would weaken both the CFTC and the SEC's proposed rules governing cross-border transactions.

In the modern financial system, risk knows no borders. Problems in a U.S. bank's foreign office flow right back to the parent company here in the U.S., and it is the U.S. parent company that ultimately bears the loss. This is especially true for derivatives, which are traded in a global and highly interconnected market.

For these regulations to be truly effective, however, they must cover derivatives executed in the overseas branches and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. banks. This is what the CFTC has proposed, and what the supporters of this bill are seeking to prevent.

We cannot afford to outsource derivatives regulation to foreign jurisdictions when it is U.S. taxpayers, and not the taxpayers of the foreign jurisdiction, who are ultimately bearing the risks. We learned the hard way with AIG that risk in the derivatives market flows across borders. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake?

In response to the financial crisis, Congress enacted Dodd-Frank, which imposes common-sense rules on the derivatives market, such as capital and margin requirements for U.S. derivatives dealers. These rules will make the financial system safer by ensuring that U.S. banks that deal derivatives are sufficiently capitalized, and have the ability to pay off all of their derivatives without government help.

H.R. 1256 would undermine these basic reforms. This is why I oppose the bill, why the Obama administration opposes the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office,'' to honor this historic letter carrier leader and all the work he did as the president of National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC).

Mr. Sombrotto was one of the most significant labor leaders of his generation. As president of NALC from 1978 to 2002, Mr. Sombrotto worked to increase letter carrier wages, moving them from poverty level to middle class. To this day letter carriers benefit from Mr. Sombrotto's commitment to the wage increases.

In 1992, he began the NALC food drive which has developed into the country's biggest one-day food drive. Held on the second Saturday every May, it has to date, provided more than 1.2 billion pounds of food for banks in communities throughout the United States, with letter carriers collecting non-perishable food individuals and families leave in their mailboxes.

As a firm believer in civic responsibility, Mr. Sombrotto and the NALC worked with the United States Postal Service and emergency services organizations to establish Carrier Alert. This nationwide program allows carriers to perform heroic and humanitarian deeds on their routes including saving lives, finding missing children, looking over the elderly, and stopping crimes.

Mr. Sombrotto deserves our respect for the work he has done to help the lives of letter carriers, and their families, across the country. That is why I would like to rename the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this and in so many other areas.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 3. It is a very bad deal. It's bad for our environment, our energy policy, American workers, and a bad deal for America in general.

In the way this bill is written, a foreign company pumping a very dirty form of oil all the way across this country would not have to pay a dime into our oil spill liability trust fund the way that American companies have to do. Under this bill, the highly polluting tar sands that the pipeline carries would produce over 40 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil and would increase America's dependence on one of the single dirtiest petroleum products there is just as the predictions of climate change catastrophes grow more dire each and every day, and that is just not right for America's future.

H.R. 3 leaves Americans with all of the risk of spills, environmental damage, and air and water pollution, but none of the lasting rewards. It's a bad idea and it's bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the lady for yielding and for her leadership.

I strongly oppose this bill because I believe it would in effect cripple the SEC just as it undertakes the immense task of implementing the essential Dodd-Frank reforms. May I remind my colleagues that this country lost $12 trillion, according to some estimates, and it happened in part because regulators, like the SEC, were ill-equipped, underfunded, and did too little, too slowly.

The Republican bill comes in the guise of requiring the SEC to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of regulations. But it is really a prescription for paralysis of the SEC's ability to protect our investors and our markets.

There is already a multilayered and highly effective cost-benefit analysis built into the SEC rulemaking process. Just look at the recent D.C. Circuit case where the court overturned an SEC proxy access rule and sent a message back to the SEC reminding them of all the cost- benefit analysis that they are required to do now by law. They stated they will vacate any rule if this is not done.

Already there is analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. And just for the SEC alone, in 1996, we passed the National Securities Market Improvement Act requiring a cost-benefit analysis.

It is already there, it is on the books, and it is enforced by our courts. So what is before us today? A hurdle. Let's do more. Let's require them to go back to 1933, review every rule, so they cannot do their important work of protecting the American taxpayer and our economy of derivatives fraud, other fraud, and other abuses to investors.

I'm just warming up. I think my colleagues have a lot to say. It is a prescription for paralysis. I urge a ``no'' vote for investor protection.

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

I thank the Chair, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

First, I would like to say that I am happy to work with Mr. Garrett on a variety of issues. I respect his leadership. But I must respectfully and strongly disagree with him on this issue before us today.

It seems clear that the intended effect of the Republican bill is to cripple the SEC just as they undertake the very tough and important job of implementing the badly needed reforms we passed in Dodd-Frank.

May I remind my colleagues that we passed Dodd-Frank in response to the worst financial crisis in our lifetime, one in which we were at one point losing 700,000 jobs a month, and by some estimates the loss was well over $12 trillion.

My amendment strikes the underlying bill and puts a sense of Congress in its place.

My amendment contains findings that very clearly lay out the cost- benefit analysis process that the SEC already has to go through in proposing or adopting a rule.

What this bill would do now, the Republican bill, is handcuff the SEC commissioners with unnecessary redtape so that the Commission will be unable to protect investors effectively.

Despite what the other side of the aisle is saying, there is already a multi-layered and effective cost-benefit analysis built into the SEC rulemaking process.

The SEC is already required by law to do cost-benefit analysis under the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Congressional Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and for the SEC specifically under the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996.

In fact, just last year, the GAO issued a report praising the SEC's guidance on cost-benefit analysis saying:

The basic elements of good regulatory economic analysis.

And in evaluating a recent proposal on swaps regulation, the cochairman of the Financial Services Department at Cadawalder wrote:

The SEC release contains the most detailed attempt at an

economic analysis of the effect of the rules that I have seen

from any agency.

But under this Republican bill, the SEC would have to divert its limited budget resources away from enforcement or examining the impact of worldwide derivatives markets only to duplicate things it is already doing.

This bill also says that every 5 years the SEC is required to do a cost-benefit analysis of every regulation it has ever issued on any subject going back some 80 years, back to day one in 1933. And it would have to magically do all of this without one additional red cent of additional funding to cover the cost of it.

If we want to highlight anything, we should be highlighting the extensive process that exists and the judicial scrutiny that it includes, which is what my amendment does.

The stated mission of the SEC is to protect investors; not give them more redtape; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Let's help them do that--not just make them jump through unnecessary, costly, and duplicative hoops.

The underlying bill, the Republican bill, is a prescription for paralysis of the SEC's ability to protect investors. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the circuit court decision underlines the point that I'm making in my amendment. It says clearly that there are cost-benefit analyses that are required by the SEC, and it made clear that there is a judicial review, that not only is analysis required, but you can always appeal to the court.

I yield my remaining time to the distinguished ranking member from the great State of California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing important legislation that will protect the rights of women seeking information on family planning services.

This week is National Women's Health Week, a weeklong effort to empower women to live happier, healthier lives. We want to encourage women to prioritize their health, but not deceive them about what medical options are available. Unfortunately, there are some centers that deliberately misinform or mislead women seeking information on family planning services. Called Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), they pose as sources of unbiased pregnancy counseling, using deceptive propaganda to dissuade women from considering comprehensive birth- control options or legal abortion. Fake reproductive health clinics entice women with unintended pregnancies through their doors under the pretense of providing the full range of reproductive options and services.

The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring it an unfair or deceptive act for an entity, such as a crisis pregnancy center, to advertise as a provider of abortion services if the entity does not provide abortion services.

Deception has no place when a woman is seeking information about her pregnancy. Working together we can help stop the fraud and confusion these Crisis Pregnancy Centers are perpetrating on the women of America.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and for her extraordinary leadership. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act and in opposition to the rule.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the American people would like Congress to focus their attention on increasing and growing the economy and job growth, we are instead, for the 37th time, involved in partisan politics.

It is especially troubling that our Republican colleagues have chosen to celebrate National Women's Health Week by attempting to undo the important gains that were made for women's health in the Affordable Care Act. A study issued by the Joint Economic Committee while I was chair found that across this country, under the old status quo, an estimated 64 million women lacked adequate health insurance, and 39 percent of all low-income women had no health insurance coverage at all.

A repeal now of the Affordable Care Act could mean that millions of American women could find it nearly impossible to gain insurance if they had a preexisting condition, such as pregnancy. A repeal now would take away benefits women are already receiving such as free mammograms. A repeal now would mean the end of lower-cost prescription drugs for our seniors. A repeal now would yank young people between the age of 23 and 26 off their parents' policies. A repeal now would send us back to the bad old days, to the days of preexisting conditions, gender ratings, and lifetime caps. It would mean that in this next year alone, over 1.9 million people would not have access to quality, dependable health insurance coverage.

Vote ``no'' on this repeal.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act with my colleagues Ms. Moore, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Lee, Mr. Conyers.

The health benefits of breastfeeding, to both mother and child, are significant. Scientific studies show babies who are breastfed the first six months of life have a greatly reduced risk for acute and chronic disease, yet only ten percent of all infants in the U.S. are breastfed.

A 2001 USDA study found that if just half of the babies in the U.S. were exclusively breastfed for six months (as recommended by the United States Surgeon General), our nation would realize a savings of $3.6 billion in health care costs for the three leading childhood illnesses alone. According to the United States Breastfeeding Committee, if we replicate that study based on current breastfeeding statistics, the savings could reach nearly $11 billion in health care costs for all childhood illnesses in a single year.

I was so proud to partner with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to pass into law a provision of our bill, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009 (H.R. 2819, S. 1744), in comprehensive health care reform legislation signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The provision requires that employers provide breastfeeding employees, who are hourly workers, with ``reasonable break time'' and a private, non-bathroom place to express breast milk during the workday, up until the child's first birthday.

This was a great success but more work needs to be done. Our bill will further encourage and promote breastfeeding by removing common obstacles to breastfeeding and expressing milk in the workplace that many women face. This bill expands the requirement under current law for employers to provide break time to express breast milk, as well as make reasonable efforts to provide a private place for them to do so, to salaried workers in traditional work or office environments.

Public opinion and awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding continue to grow, and the momentum we've recently gained presents the perfect opportunity to build on that progress in achieving our goals.

We urge all of our colleagues to support this important legislation. The health and economic benefits of breastfeeding are overwhelming and public opinion and awareness of these benefits continue to grow. We must ensure that working moms who choose to breastfeed have the support they need to do so.

We urge all of our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we look for ways to ensure government dollars are used efficiently, Congress should reform the procurement process to limit bid shopping on federal construction contracts. Restoring equitable safeguards in the low bid system will assure that agency practice will conform to the highest standards adhered to by industry professionals and contractor associations, and will reflect best practices followed by a great many other public procurement systems nationally and internationally.

That is why I am introducing the Construction Quality Assurance Act, legislation that would require prime bidders on low-bid projects valued at $1 million or more to list each subcontractor on work categories of $100,000 or more with their bid submissions. Substitutions of listed subcontractors after contracts are awarded would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and only with the consent of the contracting officer.

The bill would impose financial penalties for improper substitution of listed subcontractors.

It would also apply to subcontractors. Both prime contractors and subcontractors would be subject to debarment or ineligibility determinations in cases where there are two infractions of the prohibitions over any three-year period.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and ensure integrity in the federal procurement system.

I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's bill. It should be called the Fake Flexibility Act and should more aptly be named More Work For Less Pay For Working Mothers.

Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Majority's so-called Working Families Flexibility Act. The American people should not be deceived by this fake advertising.

True workplace flexibility should be a two-way street for both employees and employers.

I am a longtime sponsor of work-life balance legislation, including the original bill titled the ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' that provides both employers and employees with protections in discussing flexible work arrangements.

Over the last 50 years there have been tremendous changes to our workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 70 percent of children are raised in families that are headed by either a working single parent or two working parents. In addition, studies show that 60 percent of those who provide care to an adult or to a child with special needs are employed.

The numbers show the real case for flexibility in the workplace.

And yet, Americans must not be deceived about the recycled bill on the floor this week. The more aptly named ``More Work, Less Pay Act'' undermines the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

I urge my colleague to bring to the floor true workplace advancement legislation and oppose the H.R. 1406.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership.

I rise in opposition to the Republican Party's Working Families Flexibility Act. It should be named the ``Fake Flexibility Act.'' It's a failure to advertise truthfully. If you were true, you would call it the ``More Work and Less Pay Act.''

Under this bill, workers would lose the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It would deprive hardworking men and women of their earned income and fail to guarantee them the right to use that overtime when they need to use it for a personal or family emergency.

Shamefully, the United States ranks among the least generous of industrialized countries when it comes to family-friendly policies. We are one of three countries that fail to provide paid leave for the birth of a child. True workplace advancement benefits both businesses and worker interests. Instead, the Republican bill hurts employees by giving them less pay at a time when American wages are stagnant.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and bring up the Democratic minority's alternatives for paid sick leave, paid leave for the birth of a child, and true flex time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the majority's Working Families Flexibility Act.

It troubles me to oppose a bill that has the exact same name of a bill that I've introduced in the three previous Congresses that provided real workplace flexibility for working men and women. I believe that this bill, the Republican bill, would be more aptly named the More Work, Less Pay Act.

My bill would have provided employers and employees with protections in discussing flexible work arrangements. Under the More Work, Less Pay Act, workers would lose the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It would deprive hardworking people of their earned income and fail to guarantee them the right to use that overtime even for a personal or family emergency.

Shamefully, the U.S. ranks among the least generous of industrialized countries when it comes to family-friendly workplace policies like paid family leave and paid sick leave. Congress should be focused on increasing the minimum wage, expanding family and medical leave, and providing opportunities for real flexible work options.

These policies are common sense. True workplace advancement benefits both business and worker interests. Instead, the Republican bill hurts employees by giving them less pay at a time when their wages are stagnant.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to oppose this rule, and bring up the minority's alternatives and allow the minority to have amendments and alternatives to the rule.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to welcome His Highness Sheikh, Hamad Bin Khalifah Al-Thani, the Amir of Qatar, on his visit to the United States and express my deep appreciation for the strong and growing friendship between our two countries. I also would like to recognize the State of Qatar for their promotion of democracy and higher education.

Qatar is a critical ally and is host to our troops at Al Udeid (OODADE), the largest U.S. military air base on foreign soil, in Doha which continues to be invaluable to our efforts in the region. Qatar is also particularly important because of its efforts to promote democracy and the right to vote around the world. I know this because I traveled to Qatar in 1999 to celebrate its first democratic elections--the first in which a Gulf Cooperation Council state allowed women to vote and run for office. It was a momentous occasion. Allowing women to vote and giving them the opportunity to run for office was a major step forward in the democratic transformation of Qatar. Today they continue to boldly support democratic ideals by making great strides in education.

Now, with the help of the leadership of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, women have the ability to earn a college degree in Qatar's Education City. This visionary woman is the moving force behind showing people everywhere how important and powerful the voices of women can be not just in Qatar, but around the world. This has not only been important for the rights of women, but it has helped the country further develop its educational offerings. Today, Education City houses branch campuses from some of the world's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, including Cornell University's Weill Medical College, Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, Northwestern University, Texas A&M University, and Virginia Commonwealth University. This unprecedented support for education in the region has helped women in their fight for equality and has made Qatar a beacon of higher education in the region and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Israel's 65th Independence Day. Sixty-five years ago, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of Israel as the national home for the Jewish people. The celebrations taking place today in New York and across the country commemorate that inaugural event and underscore the special bond between the United States and Israel.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations issued resolution 181, which approved the Special Committee on Palestine's partition plan establishing a Jewish state. On May 14, 1948 (the 5th of Iyar, 5708 according to the Jewish calendar), the day before the British mandate expired, David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in the main hall of what was then the Tel Aviv Museum. President Harry S. Truman waited only minutes to issue the United States' formal recognition of the Jewish State.

Today, Israel remains a beacon of hope and democracy in the Middle East. Throughout its history, Israel has been a safe haven for Jews across the world who have faced persecution and repression. Nonetheless, Israelis have yet to know one day without war. Constantly under attack, Israel has rightfully defended its citizens while also searching for a true partner in peace. Americans strongly identify with Israel's historic struggle for independence and continued hope for a peaceful future. With shared values and shared ideals, Israel is the United States' closest ally in the Middle East. I remain hopeful for a long-term peace agreement so that Israel and its neighbors can finally know peace.

Israel draws its strength from the diversity and tenacity of its people. Israel has demonstrated that a small country with few natural resources, surrounded by hostile nations that deny its right to exist, can still thrive, thanks to its smart investments, an entrepreneurial culture, and a people determined to succeed.

Today, Israel is a center of scientific, medical and technological innovation, and a leader in agriculture, water purification, alternative energy and public health. Israel has more high tech start ups and a larger venture capital industry per capita than any other country in the world. In 2010, Israel became a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), marking it as one of the world's most highly developed economies.

Adversity has challenged Israel to innovate in ways that have improved lives across the globe. Lacking potable water, Israel has invested in desalination plants that have significantly reduced its need to pump water from the Sea of Galilee. Lacking arable land, it developed drip irrigation systems that are now being implemented in other desert countries. Lacking energy, it has pioneered advances in solar and wind energy. Lacking security, it has built some of the most effective security products and strategies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the 65th Israeli Independence Day. Today we rejoice in Israel's virtues, embrace its people, and renew our nation's commitment to standing alongside Israel in defense of its right to safety and prosperity. Am Yisrael Chai--the people of Israel live!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The ASPCA, headquartered in my congressional district on the East side of Manhattan, was founded 147 years ago this month. The oldest animal welfare organization in the United States, the ASPCA is the leading voice for the prevention of cruelty to animals in New York City and nationwide.

This past year, the ASPCA answered the call to help families and animals affected by Hurricane Sandy in my district and all across New York City. When families were displaced by the hurricane, the ASPCA set up a temporary boarding facility where pets remained safe and properly cared for while families worked to rebuild or find permanent housing. In the aftermath of the storm, the ASPCA was in Sandy-affected areas to rescue and reunite animals with their families, distribute critical supplies, and provide veterinary care for impacted animals. More than 300 animals were rescued by ASPCA responders after Sandy, and through a pet supply distribution network and mobile wellness clinics, the ASPCA assisted tens of thousands of animals in storm-affected areas of New York City and Long Island.

I am proud to congratulate the ASPCA and its over 2.5 million supporters nationwide on the organization's 147th anniversary. They continue to be the voice of those unable to speak for themselves.