Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a longtime advocate for women both in the United States and around the world, I am pleased to recognize the many achievements of women on International Women's Day which we celebrate today, March 8, 2012. We honor the countless contributions made by women in all areas and observe the tireless work of female leaders throughout the world who have struggled to attain social, economic and political equality for women.

While there is much to be proud of, there is also much work to be done. Throughout the world, women continue to face the same collective barriers and embrace the same hopes--to live in a world free from violence, to be educated, vital members of society and to possess the independence to make decisions that govern their bodies and well-being. This is why I continue to fight for women and have authored legislation to achieve theses outcomes: H.R. 418, the International Women's Freedom Act to establish a Commission on International Women's Rights to report yearly on the status of women's rights around the world; H.R. 949, the Obstetric Fistula Prevention, Treatment, Hope and Dignity Restoration Act to aid in the prevention and treatment of obstetric fistula; and, H.R. 2759, the Business Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act, which works toward ending human trafficking by increasing transparency in the business supply chains of multi-million dollar global companies.

We know that when women are empowered, nations are fairer and stronger, governments flourish, and society as a whole benefits. Today, I salute the immeasurable successes of women and pledge to work to create a world filled with greater opportunities for women here and abroad, where women are safe, empowered and are heard and respected.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and compliment him on his very thoughtful amendment, and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle.

This amendment is aimed at supporting the growth of small and medium- sized businesses and easing the sometimes daunting task of figuring out just what new legislation will mean to them.

This amendment requires the SEC to provide online information and, perhaps more importantly, outreach to small and medium-sized businesses, businesses owned by women, minorities, and veterans.

It is widely recognized that such businesses face a unique set of challenges. We should be doing everything we can to encourage their growth and supporting their success.

Again, I compliment the hard work and really meaningful amendment that my friend from the great State of Iowa has put forth, and I urge unanimous support of it and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 10 year anniversary of the Recruiting Excellence in Academics for Catholic High Schools, or the REACH program, an innovative program devised and operated by Regis High School in my district for low income middle school students to prepare them for acceptance into the elite private, Catholic and public high schools in New York City.

Regis High School was founded in 1914 as a 100 percent scholarship school and continues this fine tradition today. In that spirit Regis began the REACH program ten years ago to help low income middle school students to excel in their studies to allow them to not only attend the best high schools, but eventually the best colleges and universities in the country. Students from the REACH program have gone on to attend MIT, Boston College, Cornell, Williams and the University of Scranton.

The REACH program is a study in what can be achieved if students are given the proper tools to excel. Students attend a six week summer program, Saturday sessions in both the spring and fall and engage in an independent research program in the winter. During each of these phases students are not only tutored to excel academically but are also provided with leadership training, a student mentor from Regis and eventually placement services into the best high schools in New York City.

Ninety-six percent of students who participate in the REACH program have gone on to a four year institution of higher learning, many of whom are the first in their family to attend college. The REACH program can be used as an example for all of us that by giving students the appropriate tools they will excel.

I want to congratulate Regis on their wonderful success and wish them even greater success in the next ten years.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his leadership on the Rules Committee.

I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. It's a package of bills designed to encourage the growth of smaller companies and start-ups, and it contains six separate bills, four of which have already passed this body by overwhelming majorities.

I share the concerns of the ranking member, Mr. Frank, that these 17 amendments that were put in place, adequate time has not been given to fully debate them.

I do want to take issue with my good friend from North Carolina in his criticism of the CARD Act, saying that it has made it harder for Americans to receive cards. This bill that passed this body overwhelmingly, with Democratic leadership, I was proud to be the lead sponsor on it, working with all of my colleagues on the Democratic side. And what it did is it stopped unfair deceptive practices.

Money magazine called this bill the best friend a credit card holder ever had, and The Pugh Foundation came out with a report earlier this year saying that this Democratic bill alone saved consumers in our country $10 billion in 1 year. I would say that's an advantage for consumers, an excellent goal that was championed by our President and by the Democratic leadership.

I would like to take issue with this comprehensive jobs agenda. I do support it, but I think that we should be working on major job-creating opportunities, such as the transportation bill and the President's Jobs Act, and these two bills would create half a million jobs. Here we are repackaging a group of old bills that we've passed before, and it does not constitute a comprehensive jobs bill.

As I said, four of the six bills have already passed the House with major support on both sides of the aisle. And I'm disturbed that one bill was taken from my Democratic colleague, Jim Himes.

I would like to quote The Washington Post. The Washington Post said:

The JOBS Act is not new legislation but is instead a grab

bag of items that have already passed at the committee level

or on the House floor by wide bipartisan votes.

These previously-passed bills make some useful yet modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or passage of the full American Jobs Act. These bills make modest changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks.

I would say the prime goal of the Democratic leadership is to reignite the American Dream by building the pillars of success for small businesses, our entrepreneurs, and by making our economy stronger. These bills before us do help in many ways, although they are not a comprehensive jobs package. It rightly gives smaller companies and start-ups greater flexibility to grow and flourish.

I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bills. I do want to mention the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which creates a new exemption from registration for crowdfunding securities. It permits a company to raise up to $2 million a year, with investors permitted to invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of their income annually in such companies.

I was pleased to work with my colleague, Mr. McHenry, on this bill. It has a number of others that would reduce the cost of going public, and would aid in the capital formation for job creation in our country.

I do want to note that the President of the United States, his administration, is supporting these bills, and I urge passage of them.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise to support H.R. 3606, which would help start-ups and small businesses succeed and create jobs during this economic recovery.

I want to really congratulate and thank the ranking member for his leadership, along with the administration, during the worst recession after the Great Depression.

Christina Romer testified before this Congress that the economic shocks to our economy were three times greater than the Great Depression. We were shedding over 700,000 jobs a month when the President assumed office.

In a report by Chairman Bernanke, he showed a chart where we are digging our way out under his leadership. We have gained 3.7 million private sector jobs. This is an important step forward.

The financial reform bill that Ranking Member Barney Frank--we're going to miss you, Barney. You did a great job, and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your leadership during this time.

But what we need now is a real jobs bill, not just a tweaking around the corners with a few words and a few changes in the securities law. What we should be debating today, which would have a huge impact on jobs, is the transportation bill or the President's American Jobs Act, which would create more than a half million jobs and move us forward.

This particular bill, the package is important, but it is not a comprehensive jobs bill or agenda which we need. There are some modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or a passage of a full American Jobs Act.

These bills make only very modest changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks.

I support it, but it does not really do a great deal to create more jobs, which we need.

I must say that I have cosponsored parts of it, and all four of them have already passed this body overwhelmingly with over 300 votes. And I'd like to note that the administration supports the passage of this act, as Congress clearly has already done.

I do want to join the chairman in speaking in support of my colleagues, Mr. Himes and Mr. Schweikert, on the committee. They championed the provision of the bill that raises the shareholder threshold for having to register with the SEC, and this title passed this body on its own already by a 420 2 margin. That's quite an achievement for them.

But by putting another person's name on it, we have a clear example of the majority more interested in scoring points than in working in a bipartisan way for job development. I will place in the Record further comments on these bills and their importance and my work with Mr. McHenry on crowdfunding.

Summary of HR 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

Title I ``Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth

Companies Act of 2011'' (HR 3606, Carney-Fincher)

HR 3606 creates an expanded on-ramp for newly public

companies by exempting a new category ``emerging growth

companies'' (companies with less than $1 billion in revenues

or $700 million in public float) for up to five years from a

variety of securities law requirements, including: say-on-pay

votes; certain executive compensation reporting; requirements

to provide 3-years of audited financials (would only need 2

years worth), SOx section 404(b) auditing of internal

controls over financial reporting; and any future auditor

rotation or other auditor requirements. HR 3606 also eases

restrictions on communications and research related to an

IPO. HR 3606 passed the Financial Services Committee by a

vote of 54 1 on 2/16/12, has not previously come to the floor

action.

Title II, ``Access to Capital for Job Creators Act'' (HR 2940, McCarthy

of CA)

HR 2940 amends section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933

to permit use of public solicitation in connection with

private securities offerings, provided that the issuer or

underwriter verifies that all purchasers of the securities

are accredited investors. In addition,

the SEC would have to share offering materials and

documentation with the states. HR 2940 passed the House 413

11 on 11/3/11.

Title III ``Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act'' (HR 2930 McHenry)

HR 2930 creates a new exemption from registration under the

Securities Act of 1933 for ``crowdfunding'' securities. HR

2930 permits a company to raise up to $2 million a year, with

investors permitted to invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10% of

his or her income annually in such companies. HR 2930 pre-

empts the state regulators' registration authority for the

exempt securities, but websites and issuers must register

with and provide notice to the SEC, which would be shared

with the states. HR 2930 passed House 407 17 on 11/3/11.

Title IV, the ``Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011'' (HR 1070,

Schweikert)

HR 1070 requires the Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC) to create a new and larger exemption, effectively

raising the limit from $5 million to $50 million for its

Regulation A (``Reg A'') security offerings and permitting a

more streamlined approach for smaller issuers. The current

limit is $5 million, but the mechanism is little used due to

the small size of issuances permitted. The bill would permit

SEC to impose conditions on issuance under the rule, and

would require periodic review of the limit. HR 1070 passed

House 421 1 on 11/2/11.

Title V, ``Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act'' (HR 2167,

Schweikert)

HR 2167 allows companies to remain private longer, with no

SEC filings, by raising the minimum shareholder threshold

triggering public reporting for all companies from 500 to

1000 shareholders, and by excluding employees from the

definition of a shareholder. HR 2167 passed the Financial

Services Committee on voice vote 10/26/11, but has not

previously come to the floor.

Title VI, ``Capital Expansion'' (HR 4088, Quayle)

HR 4088 is identical to House-passed HR 1965 (Himes) except

that HR 4088 removes a cost-benefit analysis study on raising

the shareholder threshold for all companies (see Title V). HR

4088 allows banks and bank holding companies to remain

private longer by raising the threshold triggering public

reporting from 500 shareholders to 2000 shareholders. The

bill also eases restrictions for discontinuing public

reporting by increasing the minimum threshold from 300

shareholders to 1200 shareholders. The employee exclusion

discussed in Title V also applies to banks and bank holding

companies. HR 4088 has not been considered in the Financial

Services Committee. However, HR 1965 passed the House 420 2

on 11/2/11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, with so many others today, to note the upcoming anniversary of the infamous ``Bloody Sunday'' on March 7, 1965--the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, where over 500 demonstrators were met with violence--billyclubs, tear gas, and horses--by the local sheriff deputies and state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Speaking from this distance, 47 years later, it's hard to imagine the day-to-day reality of Selma, the seat of Dallas County, Alabama, where the 1960 census showed that the population was 57% black, over 80% of them living in poverty. With 15,000 voting-age blacks in the County, only 130 were registered to vote.

Against that backdrop, civil rights organizers--including our own beloved colleague John Lewis--had been attempting to register more blacks to vote.

On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act of 1964 declaring segregation illegal.

On July 6, 1964, John Lewis led 50 black residents to the Dallas County Courthouse--on one of the two days per month that registration was allowed. The county sheriff arrested those fifty people rather than allow them to register.

And on July 9, 1964, a local judge issued an injunction which forbid any gathering of three or more people under the sponsorship of civil rights organizations, and made it illegal to even talk to more than two people at a time about civil rights or voter registration in Selma.

On January 2, 1965, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King defied that injunction, speaking to a mass meeting in the Brown Chapel, launching the Selma Voting Rights Movement.

Mr. Speaker, the Selma Marches--``Bloody Sunday'' was the first of three--shifted American public opinion on the Civil Rights Movement.

President Johnson presented what would become the Voting Rights Act in this chamber in March, 1965, speaking to a Joint Session of Congress. And after the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed into law that August, more than 7,000 blacks were added to the voter rolls in Selma--and millions more across the United States in the decades since.

So it is only right that we mark this anniversary today. I will be in Selma this weekend to help commemorate the brave men and women who took a stand against bigotry then, and am especially proud to serve in this body today.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of demographic shifts over the last 50 years, the modern workforce has a different, more diverse set of needs. 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. The number of married households with children where both parents were in the labor force rose to 66 percent in 2010, while the number of single parent families has almost tripled over the last fifty years, from 5 percent in 1960, to 14 percent in 2010. Furthermore, more households are caring for older relatives as medical advances mean people are living longer, with studies showing that almost 60 percent of those who provide unpaid care to an adult or to a child with special needs are employed.

Flexible work arrangements are the key to meeting these diverse workforce needs. Such voluntary arrangements between employees and employers include changing the time, amount, and/or place that work is conducted in order to allow workers to more easily meet the needs of both work and family life. To give employees the right to request flexible work options in terms of hours, schedules, and work location, today I am introducing the Working Families Flexibility Act. This legislation also provides employers with flexibility by encouraging them to review these requests, propose changes, and even deny them if they are not in the best interest of the business.

Having flexible workplace policies has been shown to boost employee satisfaction and morale as well as improve business bottom line.

These policies help businesses retain key talent, reduce absenteeism, and enhance employee productivity. President Obama's Council on Economic Advisors found that as more firms adopt flexibility practices the benefits to society, in the form of reduced traffic, improved employment outcomes, and more efficient allocation of workers to employers, may be greater than the gains to individual firms and workers. In addition, a 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that a flexible work environment can increase and enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Flexibility is clearly a win-win for employees and employers. I offer special thanks to Senator Bob Casey for introducing Senate companion legislation, and to my colleagues Representatives John Lewis, George Miller, and Jose Serrano for their cosponsorship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the following statement along with my colleague from California, Rep. Darrell Issa:

The introduction of H.R. 3699 has spurred a robust, expansive debate on the topics of scientific and scholarly publishing, intellectual property protection, and public access to federally funded research. Since its introduction, we have heard from numerous stakeholders and interested parties on both sides of this important issue.

As the costs of publishing continue to be driven down by new technology, we will continue to see a growth in open access publishers. This new and innovative model appears to be the wave of the future. The transition must be collaborative, and must respect copyright law and the principles of open access. The American people deserve to have access to research for which they have paid. This conversation needs to continue and we have come to the conclusion that the Research Works Act has exhausted the useful role it can play in the debate. As such, we want Americans concerned about access to research and other participants in this debate to know we will not be taking legislative action on H.R. 3699, the Research Works Act. We do intend to remain involved in efforts to examine and study the protection of intellectual property rights and open access to publicly funded research.

Mr. Chair, like a broken, outdated record player, with this legislation the Republican Majority in the House shows itself to be out of touch with America's energy needs and energy future. The Congress should be encouraging innovation in our energy sector and natural resource preservation. Instead, H.R. 3408 shirks environmental stewardship and ignores all lessons from past drilling and spill related disasters. Almost two years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster there are still no new safety measures or reforms in place to prevent and mitigate a future catastrophe. Rather than meaningful efforts to prevent loss of life and loss of habitat, the Republican Majority chooses to open up nearly every coastline of the U.S. for development of oil and gas drilling.

This bill threatens our nation's most pristine wilderness, the beautiful Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening this area to oil and gas drilling is not projected to lower gas prices in the near future or by any significant amount--less than two cents per gallon 20 years from now. But this is not the only area that would be opened up for offshore drilling under this bill. The Majority wants to mandate that broad swaths of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts be made available for drilling leases. I thank my colleague in the New York Delegation, Mr. Bishop, for his amendment that would prevent oil and gas leases in the Northeast region. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Amendment 12 offered by Mr. Deutch.

The grievances continue. The Majority repeats itself by again attempting to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Throughout the 112th Congress they have refused to allow for a thorough review and study by the State Department. Seeking to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the pipeline within 30 days without conditions is wholly irresponsible and does nothing to ensure the safety and security of workers, residents, and communities impacted by the pipeline.

The Republican Majority has tried to say opening up these lands to drillings will pay for a transportation package but that is false. This legislation would cover less than one percent of the overall cost of their transportation proposal.

For reasons listed above, I oppose this misguided and dangerous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for reaching an agreement on a longer term extension of the payroll tax cut. While this bill is not perfect, it does provide the average American middle-class family with an additional $1,000 over the year through the payroll tax cut extension, it continues Unemployment Insurance through the end of the year, and prevents cuts in Medicare physician payment rates. More than 160 million Americans will benefit from the payroll tax extension and millions of seniors using Medicare will be able to continue to see the doctor of their choice.

Despite the assistance this legislation will provide to millions across the country, I have reservations about a number of problematic provisions. The Republican Majority continues to put the burden of the recession on Federal public servants. By requiring an increase in retirement payments by new employees, this legislation further undermines the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain the best talent. The vital services provided by the more than 2 million civilian employees cannot be compromised. It is time this Congress recognized the service that Federal employees provide to our senior citizens and the disabled, to our military service members and veterans, and to our overall safety and health. In addition, the reduction in weeks of unemployment insurance benefits starting in May will put a hard burden on some of America's hardest hit families. Lastly, the cuts to reimbursements for hospitals who serve large numbers of un-and-under-insured patients will put the load of the cost directly on the hospitals providing care.

Despite these concerns, I support this bill today because the extensions help this country continue on a path of job creation and economic growth. We are well in to the second session of the 112th Congress and still my colleagues on the other side have failed to bring meaningful jobs legislation before the House for a vote. It is time the Republican Majority responded to calls from the American people to strengthen our workforce for middle class families.

Mr. Speaker, it was with tremendous sadness that I learned today of the passing of Dr. Stephen Levin. Dr. Levin was one of our Nation's foremost experts in occupational and environmental medicine and in his career cared for thousands of Americans with work- related injuries and illnesses. But New Yorkers may know Dr. Levin best at the Director of the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program, where he helped identify the emergence of 9/11- related illnesses and led the medical community's response to this unprecedented health crisis.

The Medical Screening Program was a precursor to the current World Trade Center Health Program, whch was enshrined in law by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, a bill I authored with Congressmen Nadler and King and on which I worked with Dr. Levin to pass. Without Dr. Levin's pioneering research, service, and dedication to 9/11 responders, volunteers, and survivors, we may never have passed the Zadroga Act.

This is no doubt a terribly sad time for Dr. Levin's loved ones, but I hope they will be comforted by the fact that his life was so well- lived, and by the thoughts and prayers of thousands of Americans whose lives are immeasurably better because of his work.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard work on this issue and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I am really very pleased that we are finally working to address the insider trading issue in this body and that it will finally be on the floor tomorrow. We should not have had to wait so long for a bill that has 270 cosponsors; and I am proud to be one of them, and I have been in past Congresses.

I want to thank my colleague from New York, Louise Slaughter, who has worked on this legislation for 6 long years, and my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Walz, for their excellent leadership, perseverance on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before: Elected officials must be like Caesar's wife in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The need to expressly prohibit this activity in statute cannot be overstated. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street and it should be illegal on Capitol Hill.

The STOCK Act is bipartisan, commonsense legislation to prohibit federally elected officials from profiting on nonpublic information they receive through their legislative duties. This is long-overdue reform of how Washington does business, and the American people deserve and expect us to pass it swiftly.

Regretfully, the bill introduced by the Republican majority does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community. In fact, when they wrote their version of the STOCK Act--and they did not go through regular order; it should have gone through the Financial Services Committee, on which I serve, and others--the Republican leadership did not consult with the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill for years. They did not mention anything to Mr. Walz or Ms. Slaughter and, as a result, they introduced a flawed bill. This bill is weaker, not stronger, and it has been denounced by Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy.

Like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operatives use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. Unlike lobbyists, these operatives are nameless. Under current law, they are not required to identify themselves as they go about their work. And we know all too well what happens when Congress and K Street work in the dark.

I join my colleagues, Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Walz, in calling for a conference committee where Senators Leahy and Grassley, and also a bipartisan coalition here in the House, can work together to make sure that the political intelligence community is covered by this bill.

I thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I will join them in working to make this stronger, to really return it to the strong form that my colleagues drafted.

Thank you.

I rise in support of the President's action and Secretary Sebelius' action in the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the birth control benefit for working women across this country.

This birth control benefit increases access to preventative health care while respecting religious freedom. This is accepted practice in 28 States--28 States that require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA-approved contraception drugs.

Taking this benefit away would be devastating for millions of workers. Women's access to care is absolutely on the line, and they have turned it into a religious versus reproductive freedom debate. Birth control is medication prescribed for women's health, plain and simple. It is not radical. As I said, 28 States already supply it, and roughly 99 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives; but the only way they can use it is if they can get it, so the right to choose is absolutely meaningless without the means and access to choice.

The President's thoughtful decision allows insurance companies to cover contraceptives. It does not in any way interfere with one's religious beliefs or the beliefs of the church. It does not force anyone to use them, and it certainly does not require anyone--churches or anyone else--to cover them. Yet, if it is a university, if it is a major employer that is employing many people and not people of one faith but of many different faiths, then it is required to follow the law of this country.

So let's end this assault on women's health, and let's listen to the millions of Americans who rely on birth control each and every day. It's important for their health, and I applaud the President and Secretary Sebelius.

I yield to the great Congresswoman from the great State of California.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3835 because of the negative cost it puts on the backs of our federal public servants. At a time when Congress must make tough budget choices, I fully support a freeze on the salary of Members of Congress. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3858, a clean bill that would freeze Congressional pay.

However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing politics with the federal workforce. It is shameful that some of my colleagues want to blame the federal workforce for our country's problems and to make them pay the cost for climbing out of the recession. These hard working men and women provide vital operational support to our military members; ensure our senior citizens receive their Social Security checks; protect our borders; ensure the safety of our environment, food, and water; treat our wounded veterans; and research cures for cancer and other deadly diseases.

The Federal Government is our country's largest employer, providing jobs to about 2 million civilian employees. Roughly 85 percent of the federal workforce is located outside the metro Washington, DC area. These federal families are facing the same economic challenges as families across America. Federal workers already are subject to a two year pay freeze that will save more than $60 billion over the next decade. An additional third year of pay freezes on federal employee salaries as proposed in today's legislation further undermines the federal government's ability to attract and retain the highest talent. It also threatens to close the pipeline of new talent moving up the federal civil service. A report from the Partnership for Public Service highlighted that employees with high-demand skills are those most likely to have alternative employment options.

Until we have the opportunity for a clean vote, I must urge a no vote on H.R. 3835, legislation that places too much cost on the federal workforce.

Mr. Speaker, on January 23, I missed rollcall votes Number 5 and 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 5, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3115), the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 6, providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1141), the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act.