Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, I attended a family event and missed rollcall votes Nos. 294, 295, and 296. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these votes. Specifically, I believe that rollcall vote 294, the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 is critical to the health and safety of all Americans. It ensures that people have access to crucial medicines and medical devices, improves access to new and innovative medicines and devices, helps prevent and mitigate drug shortages, and reduces drug costs for consumers by speeding the approval of lower-cost generic drugs. Very importantly, the bill includes important provisions to help prevent and mitigate drug shortages which have become too frequent and with dire consequences. These provisions include:

Require manufacturers of critical or life-saving drugs to notify the agency within six months, or as soon as possible, of an interruption or permanent stop in manufacturing;

Require FDA to expedite the review and approval of manufacturing changes that could help mitigate or prevent a shortage;

Require FDA to maintain a public updated list of drugs experiencing shortages.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation, with my colleagues Representatives Charles Gonzalez and Michael Honda, which would help eliminate uncertainty for military and overseas voters when they request an absentee ballot this year that they will get ballots for each of the elections for the full year when voting absentee.

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 repealed several subsections of Section 104 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which has caused concern among overseas voting groups that this change may result in a situation in which a military or overseas voter might vote in a primary election but not receive ballots for the general election. This legislation would amend UOCAVA to make clarifications to the law and ensure that voters who request an absentee ballot will receive ballots for each election that occurs during the full election cycle.

The MOVE Act was a major step forward in the reform and modernization of UOCAVA; however, this particular change may have unintended consequences. As we are in the 2012 election cycle, we need to ensure that this does not inadvertently disenfranchise large swaths of our military and overseas voters. This bill proposes simple fixes that will help ensure the votes of every overseas American are counted.

Mr. Speaker, according to a report produced by the Urban Land Institute, the United States has been conspicuously underfunding infrastructure spending for the past 30 years. The report estimates that there is at least $2 trillion in funding needed just to rebuild and repair our crumbling infrastructure and our aging networks that are operating well beyond their planned life cycles. These systems include roads and bridges, waterlines and treatment plants, dams and tunnels, and mass transit that serve our Nation's vital economic centers. But we just have not had the political will to face the problem, we have not had the funds available to fix the problem, and we have not even had a bipartisan consensus that there is a problem.

While at the same time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News, U.S. companies have stockpiled approximately $1.2 trillion overseas in untaxed profits. As things stand now, that is money that is not likely to be brought back to the United States because large corporations find that it's far more profitable to just leave the money where it is and borrow any cash they need back home. There is just no economic incentive for them to repatriate the money. So we need some fresh ideas about how we can create incentives for corporations to bring home some of that $2 trillion and put it to work, helping to put more Americans back to work.

Our Republican colleagues have proposed another tax holiday for repatriating offshore profits, similar to the one they crafted back in 2004. Back in 2004, companies that brought back profits earned abroad were taxed at roughly 5 percent instead of the top 35 percent corporate rate. They were also obligated to use the money they saved on taxes to create new jobs.

But there were a number of problems with that 2004 program, the biggest one being that it didn't work to create jobs. In fact, it did the opposite.

The program brought corporate profits home all right, but according to a report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations last year, the 15 companies that benefited the most from the 2004 tax break actually cut a net of 2,000 jobs between 2004 and 2007. The companies also decreased the pace of their spending on research and development. But the top 15 repatriating companies did accelerate their spending on some things, such as stock buybacks and executive compensation. Those are not exactly the kinds of results we were looking for in that program.

Democrats, on the other hand, have suggested an infrastructure bank with $60 billion in seed money from the Federal Government, but our Republican friends have let us know that that is not going to happen.

The good folks over at Citizens for Tax Justice have suggested a totally different approach to dealing with all of that money sitting overseas. They suggest that the best approach is to flat out repeal the tax rule that indefinitely exempts offshore profits from United States corporate income tax. But I can simply look across the aisle at the faces of any of my Republican colleagues when I even say something like that out loud, and I know very well that the chance of that proposal becoming law is probably at zero.

So let's try something a little bit different, something with a little bipartisan flavor to it, something that just might actually work.

What if we took the incentive idea of a tax holiday for repatriated profits and tied it into helping to fix the infrastructure problem? Let's tell corporations that they will get the tax break they want if they bring that overseas money home. It will be taxed at just 5 percent instead of the full corporate rate of 35 percent, but all of the money that they save on the taxes on those profits will need to be invested in municipal bonds that are tied to approved infrastructure projects in our States, our cities, and rural areas across America. The bonds would typically be issued for terms of 50 years, paying 4 percent interest, and taxable to the corporations. There would also need to be a minimum holding period, perhaps 5 years before they could sell those bonds. For instance, Corporation X can save $10 million in taxes, but then it must put that $10 million to work putting Americans back to work rebuilding our highways and repairing our schools and bridges.

Think of the virtuous cycle this creates. The corporate money comes home from overseas. The corporation knows the tax ramifications with total certainty. Their profits are then safely invested in municipal bonds, which are then used to tax and fix our infrastructure, which then creates jobs that can't be sent overseas.

Those newly hired people will pay taxes on their wages and increase their spending on products and services, creating more jobs, and on and on and on. It is the road to a bipartisan recovery, thanks to a bipartisan solution.

Let's face it, Americans are tired of our squabbling. They are tired of our inaction. They are tired of the politics of division. Let's stop this ``all or nothing,'' this ``my way or the highway'' approach, and let's just fix the infrastructure of our country. Let's bring that money home. Let's put it to work here at home where it belongs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I urge a ``no'' vote. This bill is but one more assault on what has become, sadly but surely, known as the war against women.

A government has no greater responsibility than to keep its citizens safe, but in its current form, this bill says there are some we will not help. We will not protect Native Americans, LGBT people, and immigrant people.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not extend the protections of this bill to tribal residents. Why? Do they not suffer when they are assaulted? This bill, in its current form, would not protect people from discrimination in the LGBT community. Why? Do they not bleed when they are struck? And this bill, in its current form, eliminates the path to citizenship for some visa holders who have been victims of sex trafficking, torture, and rape. Why? Do they not bruise and bleed when they are beaten and battered?

Thank you.

There is an indifference to the suffering of some--just some--in this bill that is as chilling and callous as anything I have ever seen in this Chamber in modern times.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority is proposing legislation that puts Americans directly on the Road to Austerity. Similar to the Ryan Budget, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act is noteworthy for the harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to the few.

Instead of closing tax loopholes or asking millionaires to contribute to deficit reduction, this bill focuses only on cutting spending while hurting millions of Americans.

This bill puts the burden of deficit reduction squarely on the backs of seniors, the middle class, and the most vulnerable among us:

It slashes food stamps by $33.2 billion at a time when families can least afford it; permanently eliminates the Social Services Block Grant program which provides assistance for nearly 23 million Americans including 4.4 million children and 1.7 million older Americans who receive ``Meals on Wheels''; cuts investments to women's health by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund which promotes maternal and child health; and politicizes the funding process for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was created by the Dodd- Frank law to deal with banks that are ``too big to fail.''

Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree that we need deficit reduction, but demand that we do it in a balanced and fair way. The proposal before us shreds the social safety net that protects millions of hardworking families in an effort to protect defense cuts under sequestration and makes billions of dollars in cuts beyond what

was agreed to under the Budget Control Act for FY13.

This bill is another example of a partisan bill that has no chance of going anywhere but that sends a message to all Americans: You are on your own. From Medicare to child protective services, to respite care for disabled individuals, the Republican majority is cutting your services while handing a neatly wrapped gift to our Nation's millionaires.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to federal office, I have been a champion for women's equality and have introduced the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, for the last 15 years. I will continue to advocate for this important legislation until women are included in the Constitution.

Despite determined efforts by many dedicated activists, the ERA has never become part of our Constitution. On the 40th anniversary of the Congress passing the Equal Rights Amendment, I was joined by a number of speakers who spoke about the importance of equality for women. I submit their comments below to demonstrate the wide support for this Constitutional amendment. It is my great hope that we will soon realize a time when my bill does not need to be reintroduced and speeches and events to raise awareness of the ERA are not needed; simply put, a time when the ERA has been adopted and true equality has finally been achieved.

Senator Birch Bayh

Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of Congressional Passage of the Equal

Rights Amendmentm Birch Bayh

To Bobbie Francis and Members of the NCWO-ERA Task Force:

I'm sorry I can't be there to share interesting

conversations with all of you. I particularly appreciate the

invitation from Bobbie Francis to join her and all of the

friends of the NCWO-ERA Task Force in discussing an issue

that has been close to my heart for more than 40 years.

Recent events have seen an assault on those who provide

health care services to women and we have even seen questions

raised anew about issues like contraception. It may have been

40 years since we passed the ERA in Congress but the reasons

why many of us tried to write women's rights into the

Constitution are still with us today.

As the Chief Senate Sponsor and floor leader of the Equal

Rights Amendment, I remember well the intensity of the battle

we fought in the early 1970's. America's history has been a

steady expansion of individual rights, beginning with the

expansion of the franchise in our early years. From the

rights of former slaves after the Civil War to the expansion

of the vote for women and then for 18 year olds, we have

codified in our Constitution an ongoing commitment to

individual rights. It seemed fitting then, and seems fitting

now, that our Constitution speak loudly and clearly that the

law allow no discrimination on the basis of gender.

While the principles involved in this battle remain, the

country has evolved quite a bit since 1972. In 1972 there

were 2 women in the US Senate and 13 in the House of

Representatives. Now there are 17 women Senators and 75

Congresswomen. There were no female Governors in 1972 and had

been only 3 in all our history before that, there are 6 now.

We have had a female Speaker of the House and have scores of

CEOs, business owners and leaders in all walks of life who

are female. The number of women elected to state legislatures

across the country is larger than ever before. The number of

women in the military cannot be compared to the numbers 40

years ago. And in a recent issue of Newsweek, long-time

Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg spoke about taking the

job at NPR in the 70s because the pay was too low for men to

want the job.

There has indeed been progress, but the principles remain

the same.

To open the sports pages in the morning is to see female

athletes in a number of sports. To watch the television news

in the evening has us watching many female anchor persons,

weather ladies, and sports announcers. Even the major sports

telecasts regularly involve on-air female broadcasters. But

is there equal pay for equal work today? Are there still

obstacles on the professional paths to boardrooms for women?

Is sexual harassment still a prominent issue in offices

around America and in our military?

It is still fitting in the 21st century for our nation to

include in its basic law the principle that discrimination

based on sex has no place in American life. It is fitting for

our daughters and granddaughters to be reminded that their

parents and grandparents took a stand to protect their

futures and to ensure that they have an equal place in modern

America.

In closing, let me stress that the ERA is still the right

thing to do, not only in principle but in every day practice.

Thank you for your continued, dedicated efforts.

Janet Kopenhaver, FEW

Janet Kopenhaver, Washington Representative, Federally Employed Women

(FEW), Remarks at 3/22 Press Conference

I want to thank Rep. Carolyn Maloney and all the co-

sponsors on the ERA bill for their continuing support of

women's issues. I am so happy to be here representing

Federally Employed Women. The enactment of an Equal Rights

Amendment is our number one legislative priority and our

members have been busy sending letters to their

Representatives urging them to co-sponsor this critical bill.

On my way in today on the metro, I was carrying one of

those green ERA signs, a woman came up to me and said ``Wow--

that sign is old.'' No kidding! Too old in my opinion.

Hopefully we can soon put all these signs in the Sewall

Belmont House as historical artifacts no longer needed for

lobbying!

But really, in a nutshell, no one in this country would say

that women are not equal to men. No one! So let's end the

hypocrisy and pass the ERA this year. The time has come and

the time is now!

Sarah Bear

Remarks by Sarah Bear, Equal Rights Amendment Press Conference, March

22, 2012

I cannot begin to tell you how many people I've encountered

that believe the Equal Rights Amendment has been passed. They

are shocked when I break the unfortunate news to them that it

has not, in fact, been passed. Shouldn't this, in and of

itself, be proof that the ERA should be ratified?

It is such a simple statement: ``Equality of rights under

the law shall not be denied or abridge by the United States

or by any state on account of sex.'' Is it so difficult to

ratify this amendment and permanently add it to the

Constitution? What makes men, women, or transgendered

individuals so different that we don't deserve equal

protection under the Constitution? We're all people. We all

feel, cry, smile, laugh. We're just as much human as the

person next to us, whether or not we share similar

reproductive organs.

As a distant relative of the inspirational suffragist and

author of the ERA, Alice Paul, it is in my blood to fight for

this basic right. I promise to her, the Alice Paul Institute,

and all the amazing women and men who have fought and

continue to fight for equal

rights, that I will not relent or give up. Alice said, ``I

never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most

reforms, most problems are complication. But to me, there is

nothing complicated about ordinary equality.'' How true this

statement is.

Terry O'Neill, NOW

Remarks by Terry O'Neill, Equal Rights Amendment Press Conference,

March 22, 2012

Thank you to Congresswoman Maloney for having the courage

and the tenacity to reintroduce the ERA every year until we

get it done. We will not give up. We will get the ERA one way

or another. I have told people over and over again, if we

have to get the ERA swinging from the chandeliers, that's the

route we'll take to get it. I'm so grateful for all the

leaders we have here. Thank you for your leadership. Women

are only 17 percent of the United States Congress. That is

not okay. Women are only three out of nine Supreme Court

justices and given what the Supreme Court has started doing

to women these days, that is really not okay. This year--

2012, needs to be the year of the women. If we had had women

in state legislatures in those key legislatures in 1982 when

we almost ratified the ERA back then, in Illinois, in Florida

and in North Carolina. If we had had women and if we had had

people of color, men and women of color, we know that we

would have ratified the ERA. We have got to change the

complexion of our elected leadership. It starts this year,

women will be voting this year, we've had it, we've had

enough. Enough with the war on women, we're going to elect

more women to support the ERA.

Thank you so much.

--Terry O'Neill, National Organization for Women,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Overdraft Protection Act of 2012.

With the rise of debit cards and the constant presence of swipe terminals to use those cards to pay for everything from McDonald's to gas to candy bars, it's easier than ever for consumers to overdraw their checking accounts and incur overdraft fees.

That's how a fancy $5 cup of coffee can become a $35 cup of coffee faster than you can say `overdrawn'! Some institutions have responded to consumer outrage over these fees by implementing a policy of denying debit card transactions that would overdraw an account and I applaud them.

But too many financial institutions don't make consumers aware of the perils of overdrafts, and most reorder the posting of transactions in a way that maximizes their fees.

Although the Federal Reserve issued a rule requiring institutions to obtain affirmative consent from consumers to opt into overdraft coverage two years ago, it is quite clear more needs to be done in the area of consumer disclosures and to help consumers avoid multiple overdrafts.

A survey released last week by Pew Charitable Trusts highlights the need for the bill I am introducing today.

More than one-third of those surveyed--people who had overdrawn their accounts in the past year--didn't know their bank offered overdraft coverage until they incurred a penalty fee, and more than half of people did not believe they had opted in. The Pew study also found that most of the people who overdraft their accounts do so more than once.

According to Moebs Services, overdraft fees brought in over $31 billion dollars in revenue to financial institutions in 2011.

As a result of the Federal Reserve's opt-in requirement the number of overdrafts has fallen, but some institutions have responded to the drop by increasing the cost of overdraft fees and continuing to intentionally manipulate the transactions' posting order in a way that maximizes the fees they can earn from this service.

My bill increases disclosure to consumers, limits the fees' price and frequency, and bans the manipulation of transactions.

Specifically, the Overdraft Protection Act will:

Require consumer consent before banks can permit overdraft fees to paper checks, automated charges and debit card swipe-terminal transactions.

Require that fees be `reasonable and proportional' to the amount of the overdraft.

Cap the number of fees that can be charged at one per month and six per year.

Prohibit banks from manipulating the sequence in which checks and other debits are posted if it causes more overdrafts and maximizes fees paid to banks.

Require that consumers be warned at ATMs if their withdrawals will trigger an overdraft.

Require the CFPB to study the practices of pre-paid cards and if necessary extend these provisions to those products.

The Overdraft Protection Act will ensure consumers are protected from misleading practices and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I thank my great friend and colleague from the great State of New York for yielding me time and for her leadership on so many important areas before this Congress.

I rise in strong support of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. I would also like to commend the Democratic whip, the distinguished leader from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, for working with the other side of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor today with a 3- year reauthorization and an increase in the Ex-Im Bank's exposure cap. I hope that we'll see more of this type of cooperation on important legislation from both sides of the aisle, as we have seen on this bill.

The Ex-Im Bank has provided $32.7 billion in financing and supported 290,000 jobs across our great country. Eighty percent of those companies that were supported were small businesses--and at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

It is critical to America and critical to districts such as mine in New York. The bank has financed $1.7 billion in export sales in my district alone and $4.4 billion in the State of New York over the past 5 years. And the bank supports 128 firms in my district, either directly or indirectly. These are jobs for my constituents, and it is critically important that we reauthorize this bank before its charter expires at the end of the month.

Some important changes and improvements have been made to the bill over the past few weeks that will strengthen taxpayer protection provisions and that will enhance transparency at the bank. So I commend my colleagues, and I urge support for this bill. I hope we see more examples of bipartisan support on important projects, as we're seeing today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following materials in support of H.R. 2072, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act, as amended.

May 4, 2012.

To Members of the United States Congress: We are writing to

urge your support for reauthorization of the Export-Import

(Ex-Im) Bank of the United States, and a simultaneous

increase in its lending cap. Ex-Im Bank--which is set to

expire on May 31--is a vital resource in helping U.S.

companies both large and small to successfully engage in

international trade.

The Ex-Im Bank is a self-sustaining federal agency that

assists In financing the export of U.S. goods and services to

international markets. In the five years since Congress last

reauthorized the Bank's operations, it has returned about

$3.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury above and beyond the cost

of its operations. For the fiscal year ending on September

30, 2011, Ex-Im Bank supported $40.6 billion worth of U.S.

exports at more than 3,600 U.S. companies, helping to create

or sustain 290,000 export-related U.S. jobs.

This past December, Congress extended Ex-Im Bank's

authorization until May 31 at its current lending ceiling of

$100 billion. Due to unprecedented demand for export

financing over the last few years, Ex-Im Bank estimates that

it will reach this limit well before May. As a result, unless

Ex-Im Bank is reauthorized quickly and at an increased

lending cap, it will be forced to halt new transactions--

depriving U.S. businesses of a vital financing source at a

time when exports are becoming an increasingly vital part of

our nation's economic recovery.

Ex-Im Bank is particularly critical for small businesses,

where--in 2011 alone--Ex-Im Bank lent more than $6 billion to

almost 2,000 such companies. In many cases, the trade finance

supplied was essential for the completion of the export

transaction, and would not have been available from the

private sector. Ex-Im Bank's support extended to exporters in

industries as diverse as aerospace, wine, global health,

clean technology and agriculture.

Ex-Im Bank is also critical to the ability of U.S.

exporters to compete on a level international playing field,

where competitors receive aggressive support from their own

countries' export credit agencies. The U.S. trails countries

like Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, and Italy

in official export credit volumes as a share of each

country's national economy. According to the Information

Technology & Innovation Foundation, export credit banks in

Brazil and China provided 10 times more financing to their

exporters as a share of GDP in 2010 than the Ex-Im Bank did

for American exporters. Even the export credit agency of

Canada--which has an economy about one-eighth our size--does

more lending volume.

Without Ex-Im Bank reauthorization, our country's exporters

won't be able to compete effectively in the global

marketplace. We urge you to join us in supporting swift Ex-Im

Bank reauthorization.

Yours truly,

Birmingham Business Alliance (AL), Business Council of

Alabama (AL), South Shelby County Chamber of Commerce

(AL), Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Associated

Industries of Arkansas (AR), Arizona Chamber of

Commerce and Industry (AZ), Buckeye Valley Chamber of

Commerce (AZ), Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce (AZ),

Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (AZ), North

Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Tucson

Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Alliance of

Chambers of Commerce of Ventura and Santa Barbara

Counties (CA), California Chamber of Commerce (CA),

Greater Fresno Chamber of Commerce (CA), Greater Oxnard

Chamber of Commerce (CA), Huntington Beach Chamber of

Commerce (CA), Irvine Chamber of Commerce (CA), Long

Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Los Angeles Area

Chamber of Commerce (CA), Orange County Business

Council (CA), Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce (CA),

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce (CA), San Francisco

Chamber of Commerce (CA), Santa Clara Chamber of

Commerce and Visitors Bureau (CA);

Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce (AL), Shoals Chamber of

Commerce (AL), San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce (CA), Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA),

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce (CA),

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Colorado

Association of Commerce and Industry (CO), Crested

Butte/Mt Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce (CO), Denver

Metro Chamber of Commerce (CO), Greater Colorado

Springs Chamber of Commerce and EDC (CO), Connecticut

Business & Industry Association (CT), Fairfield Chamber

of Commerce (CT), Delaware State Chamber of Commerce

(DE), Florida Chamber of Commerce (FL), Greater Miami

Chamber of Commerce (FL), Barrow County Chamber of

Commerce (GA), Georgia Chamber of Commerce (GA),

Greater Rome Georgia Chamber of Commerce (GA), Gwinnett

Chamber of Commerce (GA), Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii

(HI), Hong Kong.China.Hawaii Chamber of Commerce (HI),

Kauai Chamber of Commerce (HI), Kona-Kohala Chamber of

Commerce (HI), Maui Chamber of Commerce (HI), Molokai

Chamber of Commerce (HI), Greater Craigmont Area

Chamber of Commerce (ID), Greater Pocatello Chamber of

Commerce (ID), Batavia Chamber of Commerce (IL),

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (IL), Downers Grove

Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry (IL), GOA Regional

Business Association (IL), Illinois Chamber of Commerce

(IL), Joliet Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry

(IL), Kankakee Regional Chamber of Commerce (IL),

Mendota Area Chamber of Commerce (IL), Mendota Area

Chamber of Commerce (IL);

Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce (IL), Peoria Area

Chamber of Commerce (IL), Rockford Chamber of Commerce

(IL), Rolling Meadows Chamber of Commerce (IL), Western

DuPage Chamber of Commerce (IL), Quad Cities Chamber of

Commerce (IL/IA), Greater Fort Wayne Chamber of

Commerce (IN), Warsaw/Kosciusko County Chamber of

Commerce (IN), Fredonia Area Chamber of Commerce (KS),

Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce (KS), Wichita Metro

Chamber of Commerce (KS), Greater Louisville Inc--The

Metro Chamber of Commerce (KY), Kentucky Chamber of

Commerce (KY), Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

(KY), World Trade Center Kentucky (KY), Baton Rouge

Area Chamber (LA), Central Louisiana Chamber of

Commerce (LA), East St. Tammany Chamber of Commerce

(LA), Greater New Orleans, Inc. (LA), New Orleans

Chamber of Commerce (LA), Southwest Louisiana Economic

Development Alliance (LA), The Southwest Louisiana

Economic Development Alliance (LA), Chambers Southwest

Louisiana (LA), Associated Industries of Massachusetts

(MA), Carroll County Chamber (MD);

Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce (MD), Auburn Hills

Chamber of Commerce (MI), Detroit Regional Chamber of

Commerce (MI), Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce

(MI), River Heights Chamber of Commerce (MN), Missouri

Chamber of Commerce (MO), St. Louis Regional Chamber &

Growth Association (MO), Covington County Chamber of

Commerce (MS), Montana Chamber of Commerce (MT),

Ahoskie Chamber of Commerce (NC), Cabarrus Regional

Chamber of Commerce (NC), Charlotte Chamber of Commerce

(NC), Fayetteville-Cumberland County Chamber of

Commerce (NC), Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce

(NC), Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce (NC),

Laurinburg/Scotland County Area Chamber of Commerce

(NC), North Carolina Chamber of Commerce (NC), Rowan

County Chamber of Commerce (NC), North Dakota Chamber

of Commerce (ND), New Hampshire Business & Industry

Association (NH), Gateway Regional Chamber of Commerce

(NJ), Mercer Regional Chamber of Commerce (NJ), New

Jersey Chamber of Commerce (NJ), Boulder City Chamber

of Commerce (NV), Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce and

Visitors Authority (NV), Henderson Chamber of Commerce

(NV), North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce (NV);

White Pine Chamber of Commerce (NV), Adirondack Regional

Chamber of Commerce (NY), Albany-Colonie Regional

Chamber of Commerce (NY), Buffalo-Niagara Partnership

(NY), Business Council of New York State, Inc. (NY),

Chamber of Schenectady County (NY), Long Island

Association (NY), Manhattan Chamber of Commerce (NY),

North Country Chamber of Commerce (NY), Rochester

Business Alliance (NY), Ashland Area Chamber of

Commerce (OH), Chamber of Commerce Serving Middletown,

Monroe & Trenton (OH), Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber

of Commerce (OH), Clermont Chamber of Commerce (OH),

Lima/Allen County Chamber of Commerce (OH), Waterville

Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Westerville Area Chamber

of Commerce (OH), Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber

(OH);

Cushing Chamber of Commerce (OK), Tulsa Metro Chamber

(OK), Gresham Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Lebanon

Chamber of Commerce (OR), Portland Business Alliance

(OR), Wilsonville Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Erie

Regional Chamber & Growth Partnership (PA), Greater

Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce (PA), Pennsylvania

Chamber of Business and Industry (PA), Schuylkill

Chamber of Commerce (PA), Northern Rhode Island Chamber

of Commerce (RI), Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce

(SC), Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce (SC),

Greater Summerville/Dorchester County Chamber of

Commerce (SC).

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this negative amendment that would eliminate funding for the American Community Survey.

Some have labeled the Majority the do nothing party. This amendment would make them the ``know nothing party.''

The ACS is the only source of national, annual socioeconomic, housing, and demographic data. It is used by Congress to help allocate $450 billion a year in federal grants to state and local governments, including the distribution of funds for veterans' job training programs and for improvements to low-income schools. The business community uses the ACS to help guide investment decisions like location and expansion plans.

Congress has required, directly or indirectly, all of the data gathered in the ACS. The ACS passed with bipartisan support under the previous Administration to ensure greater accuracy and streamline the decennial census.

Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, recently wrote about the ACS and asked, ``Why would some members of Congress want to run the government without the most accurate information available to guide their decisions?''

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Webster amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2012, I missed votes on various amendments to and final passage of H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

On the Langevin amendment, rollcall No. 184, which would expand eligibility to participate in the voluntary information sharing program created in the bill to include critical infrastructure owners and operators and ensure that all critical infrastructure entities are able to receive vital cybersecurity information and better secure their networks against cyberthreats, I would have voted ``yea.''

On amendments including rollcall Nos. 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, and 190, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the Democratic Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``yea,'' and on final passage of H.R. 3523, I would have voted ``no.''

I strongly support efforts to improve information sharing among the various stakeholders critical to keeping Americans safe from cyber threats, but not at the expense of our civil liberties. This legislation does not effectively protect privacy and ensure that Americans' rights are upheld.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th Anniversary of Marymount Manhattan College. Since opening its doors in 1936, Marymount Manhattan has evolved from a two-year Catholic women's college, founded by the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, into a four-year nonsectarian liberal arts college of 2,095 students who can choose from 18 individual majors and 40 minors.

Faithful to the vision of its founders, Marymount Manhattan has a long history of reaching out to diverse populations in need of higher education. Over the years, Marymount Manhattan's mission as an urban, independent, coeducational liberal arts college has expanded to include a greater variety of students, including men, nontraditional students, and students from a variety of ethnic and geographic backgrounds. A record number of 130 international students from 60 countries were part of the student body in the fall of 2011. The College's growth has also resulted in a greater diversity of academic opportunities in the Fine and Performing Arts, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Accounting and Business Management, and the Humanities and its commitment to intellectual excellence and community service in my home state of New York deserves to be recognized and applauded.

The faculty at Marymount Manhattan College is passionate about their work and their academic integrity is reflective of their talent as educators. Marymount Manhattan College's size offers the luxury of individual attention and allows for ease in cross-disciplinary studies to provide a well-rounded academic experience.

Marymount Manhattan College's commitment to community service is best exemplified by its Bedford Hills College Program, which successfully transforms and rehabilitates women incarcerated through educational and intellectual pursuits. The Bedford Hills College Program graduates many students summa cum laude and is a proven success, elevating the quality of these women's lives and improving our society.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Marymount Manhattan College's commitment to providing its students with a robust intellectual atmosphere, fostering a diverse student body, and serving the community. I commend their 75 years of success and I am sure this is only an indication of continued growth and achievement for many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is celebrating the 64th Anniversary of its declaration of Independence, issued one day before the expiration of the British Mandate. For 64 years, Israel has grown from an agricultural nation of pioneers to an ultra-modern high tech powerhouse.

Israel has repeatedly absorbed hundreds of thousands of immigrants, found employment for them and used their skills and ingenuity to build a remarkable country. Since its founding, Israel's population has grown tenfold, thanks in part to the arrival of Jewish populations fleeing discrimination in Europe, Arab countries, Africa and the Soviet Union. As a nation of immigrants, Israel draws its strength from the diversity of its people, much as the United States does.

Against all odds, Israel has grown into an economic powerhouse. It was welcomed in 2010 as a member of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), marking it as one of the world's most highly developed economies. Israel has shown that a small country with few natural resources can succeed by investing in its people and supporting its emerging companies. Israel has more high tech start-ups than any other country in the world other than the United States, and it attracts more venture capital per capita than any other nation.

Israel has succeeded by transforming its challenges into assets. Adversity has made it innovative. Lacking potable water, it is at the forefront of desalination efforts. Lacking arable land, it developed innovative ways to grow produce in a desert. Lacking energy, it has pioneered advances in solar and wind energy. Lacking security, it has built one of the world's best militaries and produces some of the most effective security products. Lacking space, Israel has invested in developing information technology which requires intellectual capital but little land. Some say that Israel's culture is ideal for innovation, with its lack of hierarchy, comfort with risk-taking and drive for individualism.

Despite Israel's great advances, Israel continues to face a hostile neighborhood and is surrounded by hostile nations that deny its right to exist. In my view, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel faces the challenges of a pluralistic society. Israel shares our devotion to a free press, freedom of association and adherence to the rule of law.

Although Israel's economy is currently thriving, it has spent its entire existence in a state of war. In light of the challenges that confront it, Israel has the absolute right and sole discretion to take whatever steps may be necessary to defend itself and its citizens.

Today on Yom Ha'atzmaut we rejoice in Israel's successes and renew our commitment to support the right of Israel's citizens to live in safety and security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Fortune, the venerable and leading business magazine, as it plans to release its 58th Fortune 500, the definitive list of the country's largest public corporations, on Monday May 7. The companies on the very prestigious Fortune 500 list are putting America to work with a collective 17 million U.S. jobs and are a major force in driving economic growth in this country; their combined revenues exceeded $11.7 trillion last year.

To mark the release of this list, Fortune magazine is convening Fortune 500 CEOs and military leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, on Fortune 500 Day, for a forum at the New York Stock Exchange to put a spotlight on one of this nation's greatest resources: our military veterans. As Fortune reported in a recent cover story, U.S. companies are quickly realizing the value of hiring talented veterans with their special set of leadership skills, and the goal of the event is to bolster this positive trend in corporate America.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored that Fortune, a New York-based institution, headquartered in my congressional district, is continuing to set the gold standard for American business with the release of its Fortune 500 list, and is turning this high-profile platform into an opportunity to help our military heroes become the next generation of American business leaders.

Mr. Speaker, on Holocaust Remembrance Day--we remember the 6 million Jews who were brutally murdered by the Nazis and their allies.

The world stood silent while Jews were rounded up and shot, while families were taken from their homes while entire communities were ``liquidated''--and Jews were transported to concentration camps or murdered.

While millions perished in the gas chambers. There was no outrage. There were no protests.

And the world stood by while one-third of the Jewish community was murdered. The numbers are almost incomprehensible. And perhaps the world stayed silent because the threat was simply unbelievable. Who could believe that civilized Germany, with its musicians and philosophers, could possibly mean to murder so many?

But now we know better--we know that when a dictator rises up--when he swears that he will destroy Israel--when he denies that the Holocaust ever took place--when he murders his own people and suppresses democracy--should not be allowed to develop the capability to murder millions of people with a single bomb.

We know that we have an obligation to stand up--we know we have an obligation to act. We know that a nuclear Iran can blackmail the world, threaten oil supplies and carry out its threat to wipe Israel off the face of the map. If Iran develops nuclear bombs, it will have the ability to do in a matter of minutes what it took the Nazis six years to do.

The best way to ensure that there's no possibility of a new, deadlier holocaust is to make sure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

I support efforts in Congress and by this administration to implement strong sanctions to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

But above all, Israel has an absolute right and sole discretion to take whatever steps may be necessary to defend itself and its citizens.

A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world and we all have a responsibility to act.

We cannot afford to stand by in silence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4628. While I fully support extending the Subsidized Stafford student loan interest rate of 3.4 percent, the cost of it should not defund efforts to reduce health disparities, especially for America's women and children. I am glad the Majority in the House recognizes the need to extend the interest rate but they are toying with students by tying the extension to the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Already this Fund has awarded more than $62 million to New York State to combat obesity and tobacco use, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and train the State's public health workforce to meet modern health care needs. These and other critical services, including screenings for breast and cervical cancer, are being offered all across the country.

I am committed to the House Minority's effort to prevent the student loan rate from doubling for millions of Americans. My Congressional district is home to numerous colleges and universities, and I know the amount of debt that students incur by attending these schools. Federal loan and aid opportunities are critical to giving students the opportunity to pursue higher education. In his 2012 State of the Union, President Obama called on the Congress to advance new reforms to address the rising costs of college so that the American workforce is prepared for 21st century jobs. Now is the time to work to make college accessible and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support the Minority's legislation that would extend the lower interest rate for students without hurting the health of our nation.