Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

This is truly a bipartisan effort, and one that is sorely needed, as we can see from the hearing that we held last week in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the General Services Administration. And it was just outrageous that they would spend over $800,000 for some conference with mind readers and clowns when so many Americans are struggling and working hard.

This bill will help prevent this type of abuse from happening again, and I am rising in strong support of H.R. 2146, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act.

It is good government, it is bipartisan, it is something that we can all agree on. It is common sense, and if it had been in place earlier we could have possibly prevented the type of abuse that we are both dedicated to cleaning up.

This bill will improve congressional oversight of how Federal dollars are being spent. This bill does this by creating a single online portal for information about where Federal spending can be tracked. The bill requires recipients of Federal grants, loans, and contracts to disclose how much money they receive and how that money is spent, and reduces the compliance burden on recipients of Federal funds by streamlining reporting and establishing universal data standards.

The Congressional Budget Office has certified that:

H.R. 2146 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA), and would impose no additional costs on State, local

or tribal governments.

This is designed to save money and to save the taxpayers, and to allow the public to have insight into how these dollars are being spent, too.

The DATA Act capitalizes on the reporting required under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and President Obama's executive order establishing the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, and it will give legislative teeth to increase transparency and accountability over Federal spending across the government.

The DATA Act also caps nonmilitary travel spending at 20 percent below FY10 levels and limits both the number of and amount spent on agency conferences, which will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

So this is truly something we can all agree upon. The technology is there. This bill puts the political will behind having this accountability. We do know how to track this. This will be in one centralized place, it will be available to the public, and it's an improvement in all ways.

Currently available data on Federal spending is incomplete, confusing, and inconsistent. This act would centralize and simplify the convoluted reporting that is in place now, and everything would be reported in the same way. The bill also includes uniform reporting from the recipients of the Federal funds and, very importantly, all of this would be available to the public.

The independent commission that would be established by this would be responsible for publishing and monitoring Federal spending. A number of

diverse groups have come out in favor of it. I have roughly 20 groups that have written in support of the bill, from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, to POGO, to OMB Watch.

I believe this is an important bill. I believe it will make the government perform better, save taxpayers money, and the time of those who are tracking where these dollars are going. It is well overdue, and it should pass today.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this important piece of legislation.

POGO and Partners Strongly Support Passage of the DATA Act

April 23, 2012.

Members of the House of Representatives: We, the

undersigned organizations, are writing in strong support of

the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act),

H.R. 2146, which is planned for a floor vote this Wednesday.

The DATA Act is an important step towards improving federal

financial transparency and would empower the public to better

understand how their federal dollars are being spent.

Currently available data on federal spending is incomplete

and inconsistent. The DATA Act would centralize and simplify

the convoluted spending reporting standards so that every

government agency reports their spending in the same way.

Importantly, the bill also includes uniform reporting from

recipients of federal funds. All of this information will be

readily available to the public.

The DATA Act establishes an independent commission

responsible for publishing and monitoring federal spending,

modeled after the Recovery Accountability and Transparency

Board. It also sets consistent government-wide standards for

financial data reporting. Its enactment will greatly improve

the scope, granularity, timeliness, usefulness, and accuracy

of public reports on federal spending beyond what is

currently available.

Concerns many of us expressed with earlier versions of the

legislation have been addressed. For example, the bill

provides for continuity of the Federal Funding Accountability

and Transparency Act and USAspending.gov. It ensures that

reporting requirements will persist even if the Commission

sunsets. It requires prime federal award recipients to

identify all sub-awards, and expands Treasury Department

reporting requirements. It also strengthens the Government

Accountability Office's ability to obtain certain agency

records.

This bill, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R CA),

cosponsored by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D MD) and 13 others, was

passed unanimously by the House Oversight and Government

Reform Committee, and enjoys strong bipartisan support.

We urge that you be present and vote ``yes'' on the DATA

Act to shine a light on the spending of our tax dollars.

For more information, please contact Daniel Schuman of the

Sunlight Foundation, Angela Canterbury of the Project on

Government Oversight, or Sam Rosen-Amy of OMB Watch.

Sincerely,

Center for Responsive Politics, Citizens for

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, (CREW), Cost

of Government Center, Data Transparency Coalition,

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fore See, Global

Financial Integrity, iSolon.org, Jubilee USA Network,

Liberty Coalition, Missionary Oblates US Province.

National Freedom of Information Coalition, National

Priorities Project, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org,

Progressive Librarians Guild, Project On Government

Oversight (POGO), Tabulaw Inc., Taxpayers for Common

Sense Action, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, The

Sunlight Foundation, U.S. Transparency, Washington

Coalition for Open Government, WashingtonWatch.com.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation urging the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to work within the framework of the United Nations process with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of resolving the name dispute and encourages the United States to work with its NATO allies to uphold previous NATO Summits decisions, with regard to the enlargement issue.

Negotiations are ongoing between Greece and the FYROM to resolve the name dispute. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Macedonia is a Greek name that has designated the northern area of Greece for 2,500 years. In 1944, the name of the Skopje region was changed to Macedonia as part of Tito's imperialist campaign to gain control of the Greek province of Macedonia.

NATO's Heads of State and Government unanimously agreed in Bucharest (April 3, 2008) that ``. . . within the framework of the UN, many actors have worked hard to resolve the name issue, but the Alliance has noted with regret that these talks have not produced a successful outcome. Therefore we agreed that an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached. We encourage the negotiations to be resumed without delay and expect them to be concluded as soon as possible''--an agreement for which the heads of State and Government participating in the NATO Summit meetings in Strasbourg/Kehl (April 4, 2009), as well as in Lisbon (November 20, 2010) reiterated their support.

This resolution urges the FYROM to work within the framework of the United Nations process with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of resolving the name dispute and encourages the United States to work with its NATO allies to uphold previous NATO Summits decisions, with regard to the enlargement issue and extend an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached.

Mr. Speaker, held every April, Equal Pay Day signifies the point in the year that a woman must work to earn what a man made in the previous year. Only in April will a woman finally earn what a man has made.

In my own state of New York, women make 83 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. According to a report by the National Partnership for Women & Families, full-time working women in New York lose approximately $24,257,741,976 each year due to the wage gap. The national average is even worse: on average, women in the United States earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by male coworkers.

Though the Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963, when women earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by men, it is nearly 50 years later and women STILL aren't being paid equally.

The work women do matters--women make up nearly half of the labor force and mothers are the primary earners or co-earners in two-thirds of all families. Equal pay isn't merely a women's issue--when women don't earn fair pay, the families that rely on their wages struggle. Families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet. In typical married households, women's incomes accounted for 36 percent of total family income in 2008, up from 29 percent in 1983.

This Equal Pay Day, I recognize the many achievements and contributions of women across the country to our economy and pledge to work towards economic equality for women, to a time when women can finally receive the wages they have worked for and rightfully earned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 9, the so-called Small Business Tax Cut Act, which, instead of helping small businesses or growing the economy, is merely another tax giveaway to the rich.

Americans are demanding that we take action to create jobs and spur economic growth, but this legislation before us today adds $46 billion to the deficit in the next year alone, fails to create jobs and actually discourages the investments our economy needs.

Now is the time to support American small businesses and grow the economy, as Democrats would do in an alternative proposal, by allowing companies to deduct 100% of the cost of capital, or ``bonus depreciation,'' in the first year for new investment in machinery and equipment--a proposal even conservative economists consider one of the most productive ways to boost economic growth.

This is not the time to hand another tax cut to our nations' wealthiest as H.R. 9 proposes, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the country, affordable and safe child care is essential for working families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 70 percent of children have one or more parents in the labor force. A survey commissioned by the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies revealed that 57 percent of parents reported in 2010 that child care was a necessity, compared with 49 percent in 2006.

Despite the great need for affordable child care, there is a wide gap between what today's families are earning and the cost of child care and household expenses. In 2010, the average cost of full-time care for an infant in a child care center varied from $4,650 in Mississippi to over $18,000 in the District of Columbia. In my own state of New York, the average yearly cost of part time care for a school-age child is an exorbitant $10,400. The amount of assistance offered by the current federal credit for child care costs is a minimum of only $600 for one child and $1,200 for two children. Unfortunately, this amount does little to offset our country's extraordinarily high child care costs. To ease the burden on our working families, today I am introducing the Child Care Affordability Act. This legislation would create a new tax deduction for child care and dependent care expenses and expand the current credit for child and dependent care expenses, so families receive a truly impactful level of assistance. Parents would be given the choice of utilizing the tax deduction or the tax credit to select the option that provides them with the greatest amount of relief.

During tax season, it is important to offer working families who are struggling to afford child care.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Parkinson's Disease, I am pleased to recognize April as Parkinson's Awareness Month. It is critical that we raise awareness of this debilitating disease and continue to work towards discovering treatments and eventually, a cure.

As the second most common neurodegenerative disease in the United States, it's estimated that there are between 500,000 and 1.5 million Americans living with Parkinson's and as the baby boomer generation ages, this number will only increase.

Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive neurological disease that debilitates those living with Parkinson's and affects their families, as well. There is no therapy or drug to slow its progression and a cure has yet to be found. As the loved one of someone afflicted by Parkinson's disease, I witnessed personally the toll that Parkinson's disease took on my father. As a result, I know firsthand that we must provide support to the loved ones, caregivers and researchers attempting to improve the welfare of those living with Parkinson's.

I call for continued research funding to identify treatments and a cure. I also applaud the many advocates, medical staff, volunteers, and organizations who work tirelessly to advance the quality of life for those living with Parkinson's disease and their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, while the Augusta National Golf Course is known as a premier golf course and for hosting the Master's tournament, the club is also known for its discriminatory policy of denying women membership. Yet Augusta is not the only `boys club'--over 20 other clubs throughout the country prohibit women from joining.

In addition to these unfair and unjust policies, Augusta and other clubs around the country are benefitting from federal tax breaks that allow deductions of business-related entertainment, business meals, and business expenses associated with travel and meetings. The government currently indirectly subsidizes discrimination by allowing tax deductions when individuals and corporations do business at private clubs that discriminate. It is simply outrageous that taxpayers barred from joining these clubs are forced to pay for business expenses associated with them. This is why I am reintroducing the Ending Tax Breaks for Discrimination Act of 2012 so that clubs that discriminate will not be subsidized by the government. This legislation would deny all deductions for business expenses associated with the use of a club that discriminates on the basis of sex, race, or color. Discriminatory clubs will have to state on their receipts that their expenditures are nondeductible.

It's time to end tax breaks for discrimination--plain and simple.

Instead of being called the ``Road to Prosperity,'' the Ryan Republican budget should have been named the ``Road to Austerity,'' because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to the few.

Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman has called this budget proposal the most fraudulent budget in U.S. history, calling its priorities inconceivably cruel. Our recent economic history has shown that while Republican budgets might poll well, they do not perform well. The Bush budgets produced stagnant income growth for the middle class, a jobless recovery, and a huge deficit. The Ryan Republican plan is the Bush budget plan on steroids.

If we look at what actually worked in the past, the single best model for growing jobs, sustaining economic growth, and reducing the deficit can be found in the 8 years of the Clinton administration, which created 22 million jobs, erased the deficit, and left this country with a huge surplus. A more balanced approach to deficit reduction will work for everyone. Let's pass a budget based on facts, not on fictions. Pass the Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor Ellie Smeal, a true global leader for women and a national treasure on the Feminist Majority Foundation's 25th Anniversary. Since its founding in 1987, with Ellie's leadership, the Feminist Majority Foundation has advanced the legal, social and political equality of women, challenged the hostility that women's advancement faces, and recruited and trained countless young feminists to foster future leadership of the feminist movement.

The Feminist Majority Foundation received its name after a Newsweek/ Gallup public opinion poll revealed that the majority of women in the United States self-identified as feminists. With the belief that feminist men and women are the majority, the organization has been on the forefront of the women's movement, championing women's equality, reproductive health, and non-violence. The Feminist Majority Foundation has achieved many triumphs that benefit women in the United States at the local, state and federal level and abroad: ballot initiatives to repeal state-wide abortion bans, recruiting an unprecedented number of women to run for elected office, resulting in 1992 being the Year of the Woman, and amending the 1991 Civil Rights Act to award monetary damages to women who win sexual harassment lawsuits in court. The Feminist Majority Foundation is the sole publisher of Ms., a feminist publication dedicated to covering issues impacting women around the world.

For more than two decades, Ellie Smeal, the President and Founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, has fought for equality for women. She has held pivotal roles in nationwide and state efforts to achieve women's rights legislation and key court cases to advance women's rights. A gifted strategist and organizer, Ellie was the first to identify and highlight the ``gender gap'' and the differences in the ways men and women vote.

While President of the National Organization for Women, Ellie led the fight to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment through the largest grassroots effort in the modern women's rights movement. She continues to work tirelessly towards ensuring that men and women are granted equal rights by the United States Constitution. Last week, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of Congress's passage of the ERA and Ellie was front and center, staunchly affirming the need for the ERA.

A tireless advocate of women's reproductive rights, she developed a program to train clinic defenders in nonviolent clinic defense and fought a 12 year battle to allow American women access to mifepristone. Her organizing abilities have brought together all segments of the women's movement, including young feminist leaders. Ellie has been critical in recruiting the next generation of female leaders through her creation of the Choices Campus Leadership Program, which has produced nationwide campus based feminist groups.

Under Ellie, the Feminist Majority has focused on increasing the ranks of feminists running for office and has achieved numerous key legislative victories for women: the Violence Against Women Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Civil Rights Restoration Act and many state and federal campaigns. Through her global advocacy, Ellie and the Feminist Majority called worldwide attention to the Taliban's treatment of women and prevented the United States and the United Nations from officially recognizing the Taliban government.

Having worked with Ellie on the ERA and so many other initiatives, I can personally attest that there is no one more determined and dedicated to advancing women's equality than Ellie Smeal. In Ellie, the women's movement has a tireless advocate and through her leadership of the Feminist Majority, women are

closer to achieving political, social and economic equality. We are all fortunate to have witnessed and benefitted from Ellie's passionate commitment and determination. I am proud to have worked with Ellie and to call her my dear friend. In appreciation for her all she has accomplished, I am proud to congratulate her on the 25th Anniversary of the Feminist Majority Foundation and look forward to continuing our work to achieve equality for women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an admirable public servant and a dear friend.

Ann Kaplan, a celebrated constituent from the great state of New York, has served selflessly and diligently as a member of the American Red Cross Board of Governors since 2003 and next week will complete her third and final term on the Board.

The American Red Cross depends upon experienced leadership that understands the significant operational challenges it faces in delivering a full range of services each and every day. From supporting the armed forces around the world to safely supplying nearly half the Nation's blood supply to directly helping the American public and businesses prepare for and respond to over 70,000 disaster annually, the American Red Cross Board of Governors plays an integral role in developing effective strategy for the organization.

During Ann Kaplan's service on the Board of Governors, the American Red Cross has gone through an unprecedented internal transformation including comprehensive governance reform resulting in bold changes that are a model of corporate governance, and internal restructuring in order to eliminate a significant operating deficit, streamline operations, and improve service delivery.

Ms. Kaplan has made significant contributions to the organization through her service on the Board including leading the Board-directed mandate to address the organization's operational and financial issues and to restructure the oversight of investments. Her service on the Board includes the following leadership positions: Vice Chair, Finance Committee (2005 2006); Chair, Finance Committee (2006 2008); Vice Chair, Compensation and Management Development Committee (2009 2012); Chair, Investment Committee (2010 2012); and Vice Chairman of the Board (2007 2012).

While Red Cross Board members normally serve two terms, Ms. Kaplan served a third term at the unanimous request of the Board during a critical period because of her passionate and able leadership and financial expertise.

Ms. Kaplan has been a generous supporter of the American Red Cross and has served the organization in various other capacities including Co-Chair of the Chairman's Council,

which recognizes individuals and families whose cumulative giving to the American Red Cross exceeds one million dollars. She also served as a disaster relief volunteer with the New York City Chapter, which serves my district.

I rise on behalf of my Congressional colleagues, the Hon. Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, the Chairman of the American Red Cross, and, the entire Board of Governors, Gail J. McGovern, President and CEO and all the staff and volunteers of the Red Cross to thank Ms. Kaplan for her extraordinary service as a member of the Board of Governors.

March might be American Red Cross Month in America. But the first week of April will be a week to honor and celebrate Ann Kaplan's contributions to strengthen the organization as it strives to better serve this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am afraid that our colleagues have made a slight mistake in naming their plan. This budget should be called the ``Road to Austerity'' because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the rather harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefits it extends to the few.

It clearly envisions a rising tide of selective tax cuts that would lift all

yachts, but leave most dinghies. Our Republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. What they propose here would indeed make things much harder for millions of Americans, but it will also make things much easier for a fortunate few--millionaires and billionaires. That's their plan.

But before we get to the specifics of the plan tonight, it's important to examine where we are before we decide where we want to go.

Because of President Obama's economic policies, there are continuing signs of economic progress and recovery. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2011 and through the beginning of this year, there is fresh new data showing that the recovery is gaining strength. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for 3 straight months. As you can see from this chart, private sector employment has increased for 24 consecutive months; And during these past 24 months, the economy has added almost 4 million private sector jobs.

On this chart, the red bars are the Bush administration. It shows that in the closing days, the closing months, this country was losing over 700,000 jobs per month. The blue bars are the Obama administration. And you can see the steady, slow gains and the 24 months of gains of jobs in the private sector.

This chart is similar to one that was presented by Chairman Bernanke in his testimony before the Financial Services Committee in the Humphrey-Hawkins hearings. This is from his report. It shows the low, deep area we were in when President Obama took office, losing so many jobs, and because of his policies, the steady gain and the continuing gain we hope to see.

Actions taken by the President and Congress, including passage of the Recovery Act and recent legislation to continue Federal Unemployment Insurance and extend the payroll tax cut through 2012, have played an important role in driving this economic recovery and private job gain.

Few would disagree, however, that to reach this point has taken longer than we would have liked. It has required fiscal interventions to sustain and strengthen the economy and to support those harmed by the Great Recession. And it has required a variety of creative and effective approaches from the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy and boost growth.

I would also like to show the chart on unemployment. It shows that the unemployment rate has fallen significantly, from 9.1 percent last August to 8.3 percent in February, which is well below the peak of 10 percent reached in October 2009. So, again, these are positive signs under the Obama administration.

Still, there are far too many Americans hurting. The reality is that we have a long way to go to regain the ground that we lost during the Great Recession: 12.8 million Americans remain unemployed, and more than four out of 10 unemployed have been jobless for more than 6 months. The share of those unemployed and out of work for more than 6 months has been greater than 40 percent since December of 2009, a period of time that has been unprecedented.

Clearly, cutting further into the unemployment rate and bringing down the rate of long-term unemployed must be continuing priorities of this Congress. I can say that Democrats will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can get a job. So while we have made some economic progress, there are many challenges ahead.

While GDP has grown for 10 straight quarters, GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 is projected to slow to an annual rate of just 1.9 percent. This is far from robust economic growth. The European community's economic weakness may present new headwinds in the months ahead. And the recent spike in U.S. oil and gas prices leaves consumers with fewer dollars in their wallets for other purchases, putting new pressure on the recovery.

Clearly, we need Congress to stay vigilant on the fiscal side. Part of this fiscal vigilance is rejecting austerity plans and short-sighted budget cuts that will jeopardize the recovery while harming the most vulnerable among us, including low-income Americans and senior citizens.

The reality is that the majority's Ryan budget harms those who need help and doles out tax breaks and benefits to those who don't. Let me be as clear as I possibly can. The Ryan budget, if it were passed by this House, would risk our recovery.

The majority's budget resolution for 2013, the Ryan budget, abandons the economic recovery, contains policies that ship American jobs overseas, and harms our Nation's economic competitiveness. And by slashing programs that low-income and elderly Americans count on, while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthiest individuals, the Ryan budget provides the latest, clearest example of Republican economic priorities.

Just like last year, the Ryan budget ends the Medicare guarantee, shifts the burden of rising health care costs onto seniors, and shreds our Nation's social safety net. These are bad choices for America.

The Ryan budget extends the Bush tax cuts and lowers the current top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, giving millionaires and billionaires a 10 percentage-point tax cut.

Instead of asking the wealthiest Americans to do what they can to help restore fiscal responsibility and preserve vital services, Republicans would choose to slash support for tuition assistance and other services in order to pay for tax cuts that provide a huge benefit to millionaires and hurt America's working middle class.

The Ryan budget includes the latest attempt to end Medicare as we know it. Instead of strengthening Medicare, Ryan's plan would replace Medicare's guaranteed benefits with a voucher for Medicare or private insurance, creating higher costs for seniors and unraveling the traditional Medicare program.

Initial analysis shows that the plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, shifting costs to seniors and diminishing their access to quality care. Republicans continue to propose ideas to end Medicare, even though 70 percent of Americans support keeping the program as it is.

The Ryan budget would strip away health care benefits for millions of American families. By repealing the Affordable Care Act, Chairman Ryan's plan would eliminate benefits that are providing stable and secure care for millions of Americans and go back to the days when insurance companies would deny coverage or jack-up prices, or just refuse coverage because of preexisting conditions whenever, and however, they pleased.

The Republican budget would get rid of benefits Americans are already receiving, such as the following:

Free preventive health services for 32 million seniors; $3.2 billion in prescription drug savings for 5.1 million seniors by reopening the doughnut hole; reducing drug coverage; preventive services like mammograms, cervical cancer screening, and contraception for over 20 million women; coverage for 2.5 million young Americans who have already gained coverage on their parents' insurance plans; protections from insurance companies canceling coverage when people get sick; and denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.

And the Ryan budget also eliminates benefits slated to help Americans in the coming 2 years, such as access to stable and secure care for 32 million Americans; protections against being discriminated against due to gender or preexisting conditions; or facing limits on coverage for over 105 million Americans.

Chairman Ryan's budget does something else. It breaks the agreement made last year to reduce the deficit, backing out of the bipartisan deal Republicans and Democrats made on government spending. Many will recall last year, in order to avert an unprecedented national default, Democrats and Republicans passed the Budget Control Act.

The Ryan budget breaks that agreement, that bipartisan agreement, by slashing government services by $19 billion more than was agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Republicans would break their word on spending and reduce services and investments, all while slashing tax rates for millionaires and billionaires.

The Ryan budget block-grants Medicaid, slashing $810 billion from the program, jeopardizing nursing home care for seniors, and shifting costs to States.

Chairman Ryan's plan reaffirms the Republican call to end Medicaid as a

safety net, jeopardizing vital services that seniors depend on, like nursing home care and home health care aides, and shifts the burden of rising health care costs to cash-strapped States.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, these dramatic reductions in spending ``might involve reduced eligibility coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries, all of which would reduce access to care.''

The Ryan budget increases the burden on low-income Americans. The Republican budget block-grants and slashes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by almost $123 billion over 10 years, jeopardizing economic security for millions of Americans.

The Ryan budget would also just pull the plug on America's clean- energy industries. Instead of moving toward a clean economy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels, Chairman Ryan's plan pulls the plug on support for clean-energy technology and simply calls for opening more land to drilling, even though American oil production is at its highest level since 2003, and the oil and gas industry is using less than one-third of the 75 million acres of land offered for development. And it continues the subsidies to the oil industry.

This plan would pull Americans out of the race to create well-paying new jobs and dominate the growing global market for clean-energy technology.

The alternative, of course, is the Democratic plan, which takes a totally different approach, a balanced approach of shared sacrifice that meets the Nation's need to invest in the future, keeps our country strong, and preserves Medicare and our social safety net, while continuing tax relief for working families.

For me, the choice is easy, not hard. I urge you to join me in supporting the Democratic plan, supporting Medicare, supporting working families, supporting the middle class, and supporting the firm belief that the American Dream is alive and well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee, Allyson Schwartz.

I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman Cooper.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Fattah.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would like to respond to my colleague from the other side of the aisle who objected to my calling the Republican plan, which is called the Road to Prosperity--when I said that it actually should be called the Road to Austerity. On the negative side of the Republican plan, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Republican austerity plan will destroy 4.1 million jobs through 2014. But at the same time, the Republican budget makes tax cuts for the most fortunate few permanent, while those making over $1 million per year will get an average tax cut of at least $150,000, and tax breaks for Big Oil will be preserved. That's their plan.

The alternative, of course, is the Democratic budget plan, which takes a totally different approach, a balanced approach that meets the Nation's need to invest in the future while preserving Medicare and our social safety nets and supporting the firm belief that the American Dream is alive and well by investing in the future of our children and our Nation.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4014 to clarify that privileged information that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receives remains privileged throughout the supervision process.

I would like to commend my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga for bringing this bill forward. This issue has come up now in several congressional hearings, in the Oversight Committee, in the Senate Banking Committee and also in the Financial Institutions Subcommittee on which I sit.

Many institutions have expressed concern that there is no statutory protection of the attorney-client privilege for sensitive material that they turn over to the CFPB during the supervision process.

Director Cordray has testified that he would support a statutory extension of the attorney-client privilege to documents that the CFPB receives. This is standard for all of the banking regulators and it should be true for the CFPB as well.

It is critical that the process be an open exchange between the bureau and the entities it regulates. And that can only happen if the entities can trust that they aren't inadvertently waiving the privilege simply by turning documents over.

I would note that the CFPB office of the General Counsel has indicated in a recent memo that it would ensure that the privilege was not waived, but I know that the entities involved in the CFPB's regulator process would prefer that to be codified, and I would agree.

As it is currently drafted, the bill is identical to a bill introduced on a bipartisan basis in the other body. Both bills ensure that privilege is not waived when the CFPB receives sensitive information and when it shares that information with other agencies.

I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an attack on my integrity and my reputation.

Last week, Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I have served for many years, gave an interview to a newspaper in San Diego. The story was published on March 21, and it quoted the gentleman as accusing me of lying, knowingly and intentionally, during a hearing that was held before the Oversight Committee on February 16.

That hearing received a significant amount of public attention because it addressed the issue of insurance for reproductive health care, yet included no witness testifying on behalf of the tens of millions of women across this country who seek access to coverage for reproductive health and contraception.

I certainly understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have different viewpoints on this issue, and I'm not here to discuss the underlying policy differences we may have.

Today I ask from Mr. Issa the same commitment I ask of myself, to always strive to hear from all sides of a debate without resorting to name-calling or attacks on the personal integrity of others. Even when we disagree with what others might say, we have an obligation to listen to them and respect their viewpoints.

I am sure there are some who will accuse me of using these remarks to merely revisit the contraception issue. To the contrary, I am responding to statements published just last week by the gentleman from California, his arguments regarding my actions.

In his recent interview on the hearing, Mr. Issa said this, to be absolutely clear, and I quote:

Carolyn Maloney then made the famous statement, Where are

the women? That was an outright lie, and she knew it when she

said it.

First of all, I would like to point out that what I actually offered was an outright question. I asked it as I sat there looking directly at an all-male panel, the panel that you see in this now-famous picture. It is a picture that I believe is worth a thousand words.

And as I look at this picture again, my question is as pertinent and legitimate today as it was back then. Look at this picture and tell me, Where are the women? If you can point to one woman on this first panel, then I will happily withdraw and offer my apologies to Mr. Issa.

Just to make sure we have my question in context, let me repeat remarks that I made that morning that Mr. Issa and some found so objectionable. I said, and I quote:

What I want to know is, Where are the women? I look at this

panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the

tens of millions of women across this country who want and

need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care

services, including family planning and contraception. Where

are the women?

I still maintain, without fear of any contradiction, there is no one on this panel who is a woman, or who represents the tens of millions of women who want and need insurance basic coverage for family planning.

Now, if Mr. Issa believes or tries to argue that that statement is somehow false because there were two women witnesses who appeared later that day on a second and separate panel, I would draw his attention to the fact that those witnesses were not there to represent the woman's point of view that is upheld primarily by the Democratic Party on this particular issue.

Those Republican-appointed witnesses were there only to represent the interests of institutions. So even in surveying both panels, I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across this country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning.

In conclusion, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, rising for a point of personal privilege is sometimes accompanied by a call for a personal apology. Earlier today, Mr. Issa apologized to me, and he sent me this letter just an hour or two ago. I am encouraged by his actions, and I accept his apology.

In the fallout of that unfortunate hearing, women were called far worse than liars. I know what I said that day, and I know it to be true. But I do think the Democratic witness, Sandra Fluke, and the women of America are owed an apology, an apology for denying them a voice, an apology for denying them a seat at the table. It was wrong then, and it is wrong each time that it happens. And it is especially wrong when women's health, women's lives, and women's rights are being discussed. And to cavalierly dismiss or deny that fact does greater damage to the fabric of democracy than words can ever redress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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