Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule. I am disappointed that this rule is preventing many of us from even offering amendments that are very important to any discussion of the Patriot Act. Yesterday I went to the Rules Committee seeking an opportunity to offer two amendments. One that dealt with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. It was the third such time that I, in a bipartisan way with Congressmen Shays and Tom Udall, that we have sought the opportunity to debate this issue, but each time the Committee has not made it in order. I don't understand why this body refuses to even discuss this issue. If our amendment was made in order, it would: 1. Give the Board subpoena power. Currently the board needs the permission of the Attorney General to issue a subpoena. 2. Create the Board as an independent agency in the executive branch. Currently the board is in the Executive Office of the President. 3. Require that all 5 members of the Board be confirmed by the Senate. Currently only the Chair and the Vice Chair will be confirmed. 4. Require that no more than 3 members can be from the same political party. 5. Set a term for Board members at 6 years. Currently members will serve at the pleasure of the President. 6. Create the chairman as a full-time member of the Board. 7. Restore the qualifications of Board members that were originally included in the Senate bill. 8. Restore reporting requirements to Congress. 9. Require each executive department or agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism functions--should designate a privacy and civil liberties officer. The reason why we sought to offer this amendment is because the Civil Liberties board that we have right now does not have the teeth it needs to do its job. In fact, the board that we have right now has never even met and we are still waiting on confirmation of the Chair and the Vice Chair. As we fight to prevent future terrorist attacks, we must also protect the rights we are fighting for. The 9/11 Commission got it exactly right when they wrote: We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protects the other. . . . If our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values we are struggling to defend. This is why we need a robust board. That is why this body at the very least should be allowed to have this discussion. My other amendments dealt with humanitarian relief that we owe the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. This amendment was also offered in a bipartisan manner with my colleague from New York, Peter King. Temporary relief for non-citizens, who were here legally or not, was included in the original Patriot Act. I could think of no better time than now, during reauthorization of the act that gave many temporary relief, to make this relief permanent. The Maloney/Peter King amendment, provides adjustment in immigration status to ``an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' and a stay of removal to the surviving spouses and children of individuals who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To receive this adjusted status, the individual must be either lawfully present or be deemed a beneficiary of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund. These families have already suffered once, suffering the loss of a loved-one in the attacks of 9/11, we should not prolong their suffering. This body should have made this amendment in order. This body should be taking up the important issues that surround this bill. Instead, we have a restrictive rule. All we are requesting is an honest debate and unfortunately this rule does not provide this.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 31st anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I have commemorated this day each year since I became a Member of Congress. PSEKA, the International Coordinating Committee, Justice for Cyrus, the Cyprus Federation of America, the World Council of Hellenes Abroad, the Federation of Hellenic Societies are all located in the 14th Congressional District of New York, which I am fortunate to represent. These organizations believe that peace will come to Cyprus, and they have been strong advocates against the division of Cyprus and the human rights violations perpetrated by the Turkish army in Cyprus. While we must remember this black anniversary, we also need to look to the future. Cyprus' accession to the European Union was an historic achievement. As an EU member, Cyprus represents European values and policies, and at the same time is working toward even stronger transatlantic ties with the United States. This was a long time in coming, and I believe that Cyprus has much to contribute to the EU. Although all of us, including the Greek Cypriots and Turkey Cypriots, want to see the division of Cyprus end before its entrance into the EU, the Annan plan for a Cyprus settlement was justly voted down by the Greek Cypriots by an overwhelming 76 percent. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), outlined the many reasons why this vote took place. But we have also heard that many of the residents are working to resolve these disputes and that there is growing strength for a unified Cyprus. A unified Cyprus would promote stability both politically and economically to the entire Mediterranean region. The people of Cyprus deserve a unified and democratic country, and I remain hopeful that a peaceful settlement will be found so that the division of Cyprus will come to an end. Some of us are calling for a special envoy to Cyprus to work towards achieving that end. However, there have been recent developments that concern me, and I know that they may concern many of my colleagues. Earlier this month, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and I sent a letter, along with 30 other Members of this body, to Secretary of State Rice asking for clarification about U.S. policy toward Cyprus. Specifically, we are seeking answers about the policy of the United States regarding travel directly into the northern occupied parts of Cyprus by U.S. citizens. While we have not yet heard from the Secretary, I remain hopeful that our relations with Cyprus will remain steadfast and that we will continue to adhere to international treaties and U.N. Security Council resolutions on this issue. I also want to mention the ongoing issue in Cyprus over property in the northern part of the island. Since Turkey invaded Cyprus, American citizens have been denied access to their property even though they hold titles to that property. I urge my colleagues to support legislation offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), H.R. 857, the American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act, which would enable U.S. citizens who own property in the Turkish- occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus to seek financial remedies with either the current inhabitants of their land or the Turkish Government. Additionally, I have introduced a resolution, H.R. 322, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives in support of the European Court of Human Rights for its decision in the Loizidou v. Turkey and the Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey cases and for admitting similar cases before the court. The European Court of Human Rights in 1996 ruled that Turkey must pay Titina Loizidou for denying her access to her property in the occupied part of Cyprus. Earlier this year the European Court of Human Rights decided that a similar case brought by Xenides-Arestis against Turkey was admissible and that Turkey continues to be responsible for what happens in the occupied areas of Cyprus since Turkey exercises effective and overall control through the presence of over 30,000 troops in northern Cyprus. While I hope that Turkey respects the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, I believe that denying property owners access to their land in northern Cyprus is wrong and that steps should be taken immediately to address this issue. Thirty-one years is too long to have a divided country. It is too long to be kept from one's home. It is too long to be separated from one's family. We have seen many tremendous changes around the world. It is time for Cyprus to live in peace and security with full enjoyment of their human rights. In recognition of the spirit of the people of Cyprus, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 31st anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. Long live freedom. Long live Cyprus. Long live Greece. And long live the United States and the friendship between our countries.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership. It was absolutely everyone's understanding that this legislation to help prevent fistula would proceed with the language added in committee by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to expand access to contraception. It seems that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is intentionally eliminating all mention of contraception in this bill. What is going on? Why is he against birth control? In the same week the House Press Secretary refuses to say, when asked publicly in a press conference, whether the President is opposed to contraception, the gentleman from New Jersey offers an amendment to delete birth control from the list of fistula preventative services. All of this while some pharmacists are denying women their birth control prescription. There is only one answer: Some Members on the other side of the aisle simply oppose access to birth control. And I just would like to ask my colleagues, what do they have against birth control? This amendment will undermine one of the most effective methods of fistula prevention, helping to delay pregnancy among married young women whose bodies have not fully developed. We are talking about 11, 10, 9, 12, 13, 14, very young women. And it is important that contraception be used to prevent them from getting pregnant and having fistula, from having a child too young. In many countries where the use of birth control is very low, fistula is very, very common. The underlying bill recognizes the critical role that birth control can play in preventing this condition. I oppose the amendment. The underlying bill recognizes the critical role that birth control can play in preventing this horrific condition. Two years ago, I put in the first bill to call attention to the need for American support for fistula prevention and treatment. Fistula is a problem we can address, and I was happy to be able to support the language in the bill as reported by the Committee. But, this amendment will effectively gut the prevention section of the fistula program and all because of what seems like ideological opposition to birth control. I hope my colleagues will oppose it.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as a proud New Yorker, I rise today to mark the anniversary of the first women's suffrage convention in Seneca Falls, New York. Our founding mothers and their successors ultimately gained the right to vote in 1920. Unfortunately, it is the only women's right in the Constitution. The suffragettes also called for equality of opportunity for women. That is our moral mandate and our great unfinished business. And 157 years after Seneca Falls, we find ourselves in the midst of a rollback of rights we have already won. Passing the Equal Rights Amendment would protect women against these rollbacks. Title 7 has been weakened. Women's role in the military has been attacked, and Head Start, affordable housing, and child care programs that most benefit women and children are being slashed. We owe it to the suffragettes to establish that all men and women are created equal. It is time to realize our foremothers' goals and get equal rights written into the Constitution.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle and Americans of all political persuasions are heaping praise on Sandra Day O'Connor for her distinguished service on the Supreme Court. Finding a fair-minded, evenhanded Justice to replace her, someone who will receive similar bipartisan accolades when all is said and done, should be our goal. And I know she is out there somewhere. Will the President make it a priority to maintain women's representation on the Court at a paltry 22 percent? Or are we bound to a dismal 11 percent? We do not need a return to token representation. In the President's campaign, he used the slogan, W is for women; but anyone familiar with his administration's record on equal pay, child care, reproductive freedom, and enforcing discrimination laws knows that W is for woeful on women's issues.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and the census in general. It is not only a foundation of facts on which our government and the private sector formulate public policy, it keeps our government fair. Every 10 years based on census numbers, we redistribute power among the States in order to have a fair representation based on the numbers of people in our country, and it tells us who we are. It tells us about our diversity, it tells us about our growth. It is literally a portrait of our country every 10 years. This particular report, the Quarterly Financial Report, is a very important part of that portrait. So I rise very strongly in support of this bill and the census in general. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Turner) for moving this bill so quickly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2385 as amended. This bill will reauthorize for 10 years the Quarterly Financial Report conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, and I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Turner) for moving this bill quickly through the committee process. The reauthorization of this program expires this September, and it is very important that Congress gets this bill to the President before that deadline. The QFR is critical data collection for economic statistics and policy. It is used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in constructing the national income and product accounts and in calculating the gross domestic product. Quarterly Financial Report data are also used by the Federal Reserve in tracking the investments and liabilities of households and corporations. Quarterly Financial Report data are used by the Treasury Department in developing economic policy, and by the private sector in planning for the future. There are two important issues that were considered by our committee in reauthorizing this data collection. First, the Quarterly Financial Report is a mandatory survey. That means that businesses can be prosecuted if they do not provide the information the Census Bureau requests. Secondly, like any survey, the Quarterly Financial Report imposes a certain burden on those who provide the information to the government. The Quarterly Financial Report is one of the few mandatory data collections authorized by Congress. The decennial census is mandatory, and is required by our Constitution. The Census Bureau also conducts the American Community Survey as a mandatory survey telling respondents that they are required by law to provide the requested information. That authority does not come from any explicit authorization by Congress, but rather through an interpretation of the law by the Office of Management and Budget. As representatives of the people, Congress should monitor closely any information collected that carries with it a penalty for not complying with the request. It is unfortunate that the mandatory authority is necessary for the Quarterly Financial Report. The Census Bureau has assured Congress that without this authority, the quality of the information collected would seriously decline. The Quarterly Financial Report asks businesses to provide detailed information on financial transactions during the quarter. In return, the government and the private sector use this information to form sound economic policy. According to the Census Bureau, the basic form can take up to 10 hours to complete and the average is almost 4 hours. I believe that is a fair balance of burden and benefit. I am a strong supporter of a Quarterly Financial Report. Through my work on the Joint Economic Committee, I have seen firsthand the importance of the data provided by this survey. At the same time, I take my responsibility as an authorizer seriously. When we reauthorized this program in 1998, it was for 7 years. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to make this authorization for 10 years rather than a permanent authorization. I believe our committee should regularly review programs that place mandatory burdens on the public. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today the administration is telling us that the Federal budget deficit for this year will not be as large as they were predicting it would be back in January. Some are taking this as evidence of some type of supply-side miracle, but nothing could be further from the truth. As analysts at Goldman Sachs have pointed out today, this year's large increase in tax receipts stems from temporary factors that are unlikely to be repeated, and some short-term improvement does not change the big picture. The Bush administration has given us a record: the largest national debt in history, over $7 trillion; and they have raised the ceiling, the debt ceiling three times. This breaks down to each citizen's share being over $26,000. And they still have a record trade deficit, another record: the largest in history. The administration may have another excuse to ignore the long-term structural budget problems of this Nation, but the American people deserve to know the truth: $7 trillion, a debt that our children will have to pay.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her outstanding, consistent leadership on behalf of our veterans. It is incredibly important. I rise in full support of this increase of benefits of an across-the- board cost-of-living adjustment, but I rise particularly to speak about the authorization for the permanent Parkinson's disease research education. As the founder and co-chair of the Parkinson's Task Force, this is critically important. Many of our veterans, because of exposure to toxic elements, suffer from Parkinson's. This research is important. Some of their breakthroughs in these veterans' research facilities have led to cures. I rise in strong support of the overall bill and for this particular aspect that will help many veterans and many Americans across our Nation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and advise that that concludes the speakers on this side. As revealed by the eloquent statements from my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a 10-year member of the Committee on Science; and the gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and (Mr. Gene Green), both of whom represent NASA employees, I would say there is great enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle, with over 300 cosponsors. This is important legislation. It honors not only NASA on its 50th anniversary but the commitment of this country and body to science and scientific advancement. I thank very much the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who has really been the fight behind moving this to the floor, along with the fine help of Joe Pinder. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), who has the honor of representing many NASA employees.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 68, the NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act. Since it was first introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) at the beginning of this Congress, it has gathered almost 300 bipartisan co-sponsors, and I am very proud to have worked with him in this effort. It is not surprising that it has such strong support. NASA is a national institution that has always had strong support in this body. Its quest for scientific knowledge and new frontiers of exploration has often pulled this Nation together. In the half century since its founding, NASA has so often given us something to be proud of and patriotic about. When President Kennedy first told the world that the United States would be the first to put a man on the moon; when Neil Armstrong fulfilled that promise with one small step seen around the world, and I do not think any of us who had the honor of seeing that will ever forget it; when the Hubble telescope sent back those first amazing photos of far away galaxies 15 years ago; when the Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity found evidence of a former sea deep beneath the surface of the red planet, these are just a few of the very proud moments that this coin remembers. This coin also honors those brave men and women who have given their lives in their pursuit of knowledge. The crew of the Challenger, the crew of the Columbia, the Apollo I crew. These are true heroes, and it is imminently fitting that the proceeds of this coin will go to the families of NASA personnel who have died in the line of duty. It is particularly appropriate that we consider this bill today just hours before the important launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery tomorrow. That launch begins the mission stage of the Return to Flight program NASA undertook after the Columbia tragedy. That review included new safety procedures, new analysis and reporting procedures, and new cost efficiencies. Let us hope that it is the successful beginning of a new and exciting era of this agency. Commander Eileen Collins, the first woman to command a space shuttle mission, and her crew of 7 will once again take the shuttle to the International Space Station testing new safety procedures and delivering supplies. Although there have been several well-known women astronauts before, Commander Collins is still a new first, and I for one am particularly excited about this mission. We, the world, will be watching as Discovery lifts off tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 68, which commemorates the proud history of our National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and I would like to join my colleagues in thanking Joe Pinder, a member of the committee, for his very, very hard work in bringing the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) a member of the committee whose district is very close to where the shuttle will take off tomorrow and who is also a member of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday we got another employment report showing that American workers are losing out. Payroll employment growth was disappointing once again. Only 146,000 jobs were added in June, when market forecasters were expecting between 175,000 and 200,000. Though the unemployment rate edged down, it was not because people are reentering the labor force. There still seems to be a great deal of hidden unemployment. Compared to the start of the recession in early 2001, participation in the labor force now is actually 1.2 percent lower. A smaller proportion of the working age population has a job now compared to then. Worst of all, inflation is still outpacing wages, and the distribution of earnings is increasingly imbalanced. The signs are clear, workers are being shortchanged in this economic recovery, but this administration is standing idly by.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to return to private airline screeners, now is the time to continue to focus on passenger safety. Last November, airports were given the option to start the process to opt-out of having Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners in favor of hiring private screeners. Thankfully, no airport has opted out. If this is allowed to happen, it will be a step backwards in airline security. TSA has only been in existence for a few years and has certainly suffered through some growing pains. Because of this, we should be focused on ensuring the success of TSA rather than adding the new challenge of privatization that could jeopardize their future and potentially endanger the security of airline passengers. That is why I am introducing the Passenger Safety Act which will repeal the opt-out language in the law that created the TSA. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative to protect passenger safety.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the life and achievements of Gershon Jacobson, the veteran Yiddish journalist, who founded and published the Algemeiner Journal. I am saddened to report that Mr. Jacobson passed away on May 29, 2005. He is survived by his loving family and his many friends, who have established the Gershon Jacobson Jewish Continuity Fund to serve as an anchor for the perpetuation of Mr. Jacobson's legacy. Mr. Jacobson was one of our Nation's most respected and influential journalists. He was born in Moscow in 1933 and soon emigrated to France, where he began his writing career. He then moved to America and immediately began working for the New York Herald Tribune. In the 1960s, Mr. Jacobson replaced Eli Weisel as the U.N. correspondent for Israel's largest daily, Yediot Achronot. During this time, Mr. Jacobson became renowned for excellent reporting on the capture of German war criminal Adolf Eichmann and for his interviews with world leaders and other notable figures. In 1972, Mr. Jacobson founded the Yiddish- English weekly, Der Algemeiner Journal. For the next 33 years, Mr. Jacobson served as its editor and publisher, and made it into a vital source of information for the Jewish community. Mr. Jacobson stood at the forefront of Jewish life in America for close to 60 years and served the public as an indispensable guide to the post-World War II period. The prominent Israeli daily Haaretz stated, ``Gershon Jacobson created a revolution in the Yiddish Press. Till his day, the Yiddish press occupied itself primarily with memories of the Shtetel, with romantic tales, and Yiddish literature and prose. Mr. Jacobson introduced into Yiddish journalism an acute awareness of the reality of Israel and the burning issues of contemporary Jewish life.'' The Gershon Jacobson Jewish Continuity Fund will honor Mr. Jacobson's legacy and continue his work to battle for spiritual integrity and moral clarity. The fund's overall goal is to create a broad range of vehicles that will serve as a voice for Jews in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in honoring the late Gershon Jacobson, whose keen insight into international and domestic affairs made him a strong and courageous voice on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. With his passing, the community has lost one of its true heroes. My heart goes out to his family and friends who will miss him deeply.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment and for accepting the doubling of the funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for accepting my amendment and this modification which we worked on together with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). Our amendment would double the funding for the government wide Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. Mr. Chairman, one way Congress and the President can show their support for a program is the level of funding appropriated. When we passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act last year a key aspect of this legislation was the creation of a government-wide Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. In the legislation, Congress and the President negotiated that this board would receive ``such sums necessary'' for the board's operations. We recognized that a robust civil liberties board is a critical tool in the fight against terrorism. The board we have is a giant step toward this goal and I am pleased that the necessary appointments to this board have been made. Right now we are awaiting Senate confirmation of the chair and vice-chair. The appropriations bill before us today and the budget the President submitted both include a sum of $750,000 for this board. This board is to be funded from the $53 million account provided for the Executive Office of the President. Since the President made the request of $750,000, there has been concern that this was not an adequate funding level for a board charged with monitoring civil liberties and privacy government-wide. That is why we are offering an amendment to today's bill to increase funding for the board from $750,000 to $1.5 million. Our amendment would increase the amount reserved for the board in the funding for the Executive Office of the President. Should our amendment prevail, the Executive Office of the President will still have discretion of over $50 million of their $53 million budget. Increasing funding from $750,000 to $1.5 million is a modest, but important increase. Quite frankly, we provide much more than $750,000 to each Member to fund the operation of their Congressional Office. How can we expect a board to monitor privacy and civil liberties government-wide for less than the cost of funding one of our offices? This funding will be the difference between a board that will struggle standing itself up due to budget constraints, to a board that is able to do their job with the staff and infrastructure needed to appropriately monitor privacy and civil liberties. Supporting this amendment will send a message that Congress fully intends to support this important board and that we take the job of protecting the American people's civil liberties seriously. To put this in perspective, a $1.5 million funding level is still far less than the $13 million budget for the Privacy Office at the Department of Homeland Security. It should be noted that the 9/11 Commission in their Reports stated in their recommendation for the creation of a civil liberties board stated: ``If our liberties are curtailed, we lose the value we are struggling to defend.'' I know that I do not have to remind anyone here about the importance of preventing a future attack, but in order to make sure that the American people remain steadfast in our fight and we do not unduly violate the privacy and civil liberties we must empower this board to do their job. I have a poster here of some very questionable headlines regarding civil liberties. Including: A New York Times headline: ``Secret court says F.B.I. misled judges in 75 cases'' or A Washington Times headline ``Bill seen as threat civil liberties'' and a CBS News headline of ``Patriot Act Abuses Seen'' They may speak the truth or they may be hyperbole, but we may never know unless we appropriately fund this board. One issue that I would like the new board to investigate is the Social Security's use of their ``adhoc'' authority to release Social Security data after 9/11. While I have confidence that the Social Security Administration acted properly in releasing data, a front page story last week in the New York Times, as well as documents the administration released in a FOIA request, raises more questions than answers. The story reported that the Social Security Administration has relaxed its privacy restrictions and searched thousands of its files at the request of the F.B.I. as part of terrorism investigations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This might be all above the board or there might be something that is worth looking into. Regardless we need a board that has the resources to undertake such a project. I would also like to mention that I and the other sponsors of this amendment have been advocates for an even more robust board. In the future I think we need to consider such things as granting subpoena power to the board. But today, we must make a commitment of funding to this board. To quote former 9/11 Commissioner Richard BenVeniste: ``The proposed budget of $750,000 for the new Board is plainly inadequate to carry out the robust oversight function the 9-11 Commission deemed critical to ensuring that enhanced governmental powers to combat terrorism are not misused.''

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.