Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1815, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to provide retirement credit to the members of the National guard serving on State duty who responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. I along with my friend and colleague, Representative King, and other members of the New York delegation, have introduced legislation, H.R. 2499, which would accomplish the same goal, and I am thankful that the Committee has worked with us to correct this inequity. In the aftermath of 9/11, the National Guard responded to the call of duty heroically. While others were moving toward safety, the guard moved into unknown dangers around Ground Zero. They did not know if another attack was coming, but they did not hesitate to respond. All they did was their selfless duty. They secured lower Manhattan, they protected against a possible second attack, and they stood up for our Nation, knowing their lives may be in danger. For almost a year after 9/11, these National Guard heroes streamlined the movement of rescue personnel during the critical first phases of the response and they endured the toxic air conditions of Ground Zero with thousands of responders. What we face now is a question of fairness. Last year, I visited the units of the Manhattan based 69th National Guard Regiment--known as the Fighting 69th--just days before they were to leave for Iraq. I asked if there was anything I could do on their behalf. And the had only one request. It was to seek fair federal retirement credit for their 9/11 service to the country. We, in Congress, now have a chance to express the Nation's gratitude to these soldiers, not just through words of praise but through action. The problem is a simple one: The national Guard units that served in the disaster zones of New York after 9/11 are not receiving Federal retirement credit, while the National Guard units that protected Federal sites like West Point are receiving Federal retirement credit. We all agree that protecting Federal sites was an important duty after 9/11, and that soldiers who served in that capacity deserve Federal retirement credit. But those who risked their lives at Ground Zero, in the most dangerous conditions anywhere in the country, deserve the same fair treatment. Right now, many of the same soldiers who protected New York after 9/ 11 from the Fighting 69th are serving courageously in Iraq. Sixteen members of the Manhattan-based 69th National Guard Regiment have died in the Iraq war--8 in the past year. In April, 6 members of the 69th were Awarded Purple Hearts after being wounded in Iraq from roadside bombs. We can honor the service of our National Guard, by providing them with fair Federal retirement credit for their 9/11 service. I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, Representative Snyder, and especially Representative McHugh, who were so instrumental in this process, and I commend them for their commitment to the men and women serving this country all over the world. I also would like to acknowledge both the majority and minority staff of the committee for their assistance. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an unprecedented event in American history. The provisions included in this bill will show our gratitude to the brave men and women who responded on that day by giving them the retirement benefits to which they are entitled.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis amendment which would allow our brave servicewomen to obtain safe, legal abortion services in overseas military hospitals at no cost to the taxpayers. Today a female soldier overseas lacks on-base access for her constitutional right to choose, even if she pays for it herself. At a time when the military is spread thin and not meeting its recruiting targets, we are sending an odd message to women soldiers and possible recruits. As a reward for protecting our freedom, we restrict yours. As a reward for risking your life, we give you a lecture on the right to life instead of giving you the care that you seek. As a reward for receiving modest wages, we tell you that you cannot buy some health care, even at any price. This Congress has made over 211 anti-choice votes since 1994. For the sake of our women serving in Afghanistan and Baghdad, let us not make it 212.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such a well-attended debate, which shows the importance of this issue; and I rise today on behalf of my father who died of Parkinson's Disease. I also rise today on behalf of the millions of Americans like me who have watched their loved ones battle the ravages of some dreaded disease. I ask my colleagues, How many more lives must be ended or ravaged until our government gives researchers the wherewithal to simply do their jobs? Although there are no guarantees, many scientists have told me that embryonic stem cell research offers the best and only hope to discover a cure for many, many dreaded diseases. Embryonic research offers scientists the opportunity to extend life and the quality of life for future generations of Americans. As we are debating, other countries, other States, other people are moving forward with research with all speed. We should pass the DeGette/Castle bill. Life is too precious to wait. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. As a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease, I support this legislation that will expand the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research. I believe this bill will reopen the doors to scientific inquiry, allowing us to be able, once again, to utilize embryonic stem cells while adhering to strict ethical guidelines. I am and continue to be an opponent of human cloning. However, I recognize that we must move forward with ethical research that could lead to new drug therapies. We owe this to those suffering from Parkinson's disease, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and Lou Gehrig's disease. And we owe this to scientists who are eager to explore new frontiers of science and medicine, but who are restrained by Federal restrictions. Mr. Speaker, I have met with doctors, scientists, and researchers in my district's leading medical institutions who warn of a ``brain drain'' as their best and brightest relocate to places where funding for embryonic stem cell research is not restricted. I have spoken with lawmakers in the State of New York, who have garnered $1 billion in embryonic stem cell research funding, but without Federal funding, stem cell research will move forward without crucial oversight and guidelines. I have been persuaded by directors at the National Institutes of Health who have spoken out against the White House policy on stem cells. And I have been moved by the pleas of my constituents who are eager to find cures for suffering loved ones. Mr. Speaker, this is a mandate. In 2003, over 900,000 Americans died of heart disease and more than 550,000 succumbed to cancer. I am sure that many in this Chamber have seen friends suffer through the misery of cancer and the indignities of chemotherapy. Who among us has not had a parent or grandparent look at us with vacant eyes because Alzheimer's has stolen their memory away from them? Too many of us have watched as our children with Juvenile Diabetes hold back tears as they give themselves insulin injections each day. Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be this way. Healing our children, family, and friends is a bipartisan issue. In fact, it is a moral imperative.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the President wants to create a culture of life. Stem cell research offers scientists the opportunity to extend life and the quality of life for current and future generations of Americans. In fact, stem cell research offers mankind continued insight into life itself. Who among us has not had a loved one look at us through the vacant eyes of Alzheimer's, tremble with Parkinson's as they reached for a glass of water, or watched a child inject themselves daily with insulin? How many more lives must be ended or ravaged? How much more unimaginable suffering must be endured until government gives researchers the wherewithal to simply do their jobs? With all speed, this body must pass the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Enhancement Research Act. Life is too precious to wait any longer.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 64th anniversary of the Battle of Crete by introducing this House Resolution which recognizes and appreciates the historical significance of the people of Crete during World War II. This was a historic event with direct significance to the Allies' victory of World War II. On May 20, 1941, thousands of German paratroopers and gliders began landing on Crete. Both the Allies and Nazis wanted Crete because of its strategic location. At that time the British controlled the island. It was a very strong point on the lifeline to India and protected both Palestine and Egypt. The Nazi invasion force included the elite German paratroopers and glider troops. Hitler felt this was to be an easy victory, yet he is quoted to have said shortly after the invasion, ``France fell in 8 days. Why is Crete free?'' The invasion of Crete took eleven days. It resulted in more than 6,000 German troopers listed as killed, wounded, or missing in action. The losses to the elite 7th parachute division were felt so hard by the German Military that it signified the end of large-scale airborne operations. This valiant fight by the Cretan people began in the first hour of the Nazi airborne invasion, in contrast to the European underground movements that took a year or more after being invaded to begin. Young boys, old men and women displayed breathtaking bravery in defending their Crete. German soldiers never got used to Cretan women fighting them. They would tear the dress from the shoulders of suspected women to find bruises from the recoil of the rifle. The penalty was death. On July 28, 1941, The Times (London) reported that ``five hundred Cretan women have been deported to Germany for taking part in the defense of their native island.'' Another surprise for the German soldiers who invaded Crete was the heroic resistance of the clergy. A priest leading his parishioners into battle was not what the Germans anticipated. At Paleochora, Father Stylianos Frantzeskis, hearing of the German airborne invasion, rushed to his church, sounded the bell, took his rifle and marched his volunteers toward Maleme to write history. This struggle became an example for all Europe to follow in defying German occupation and aggression. The price paid by the Cretans for their valiant resistance to Nazi forces was high. Thousands of civilians died from random executions, starvation, and imprisonment. The Germans burned and destroyed entire communities as a reprisal for the Cretan resistance movement. Yet this resistance lasted for four years. The Battle of Crete changed the final outcome of World War II, and significantly contributed in delaying Hitler's plan to invade Russia. The invasion was delayed from April to June of 1941. The 2-month delay in the invasion made Hitler's forces face the Russian winter. The Russian snowstorms and the sub zero temperatures eventually stalled the Nazi invasion before they could take Moscow or Leningrad. This was the beginning of the downfall of the Nazi reign of terror. This significant battle and the heroic drive of the Cretan people must always be remembered and honored. Democracy came from Greece, and the Cretan heroes exemplified the courage it takes to preserve it. Today, the courage and fortitude of the Cretan people are seen in the members of the United Cretan Associations of New York which are located in Astoria, Queens. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the Cretans in the United States, Greece, and the diaspora.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, because of this administration's lack of accountability for the money sent for the war in Iraq, I could not support this, the third emergency spending bill for Iraq, when the House first voted on it in March. It now comes back to us from the conference in worse shape than it was before, and I again cannot support it. The administration sold this war to the American people and Members of Congress under false pretenses, and the American people cannot continue to indefinitely fund this administration's gross incompetence, particularly without any real oversight tied to it. Meanwhile, important priorities here at home like homeland security and education go wanting for money. We have a new record level of debt, a record budget deficit and a record trade deficit. Mr. Speaker, my father and brother have both fought in wars for our country, and I support and honor our troops. I want nothing but the best protection and best equipment for them. Still, despite the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money that has been spent on Iraq, a recent New York Times report detailed how our soldiers in Iraq still are ill-equipped for the resistance they face. Why hasn't the money first and foremost gone to supply our troops with the equipment they need as quickly as possible? There have been independent audits showing billions of dollars in Iraq that have been misspent or that have simply gone missing. And there still is little to no oversight--there still is no open and honest accounting--to keep this administration in check, as they have repeatedly missed deadlines to detail the past, current and future spending. This bill now includes the REAL ID Act, which is an entirely separate issue from funding and should have no part of this bill. I am very concerned about the implementation of such sweeping provisions in this manner. There is no money to implement these new laws, we've had no hearings to understand how they would work, and the states, which would have to administer these laws, haven't even been consulted. Administratively these provisions seem difficult to implement, at best. Congress should never go about loading something like this onto a bill without full debate, but that's exactly what has happened in this case. Certainly, there are parts of this supplemental spending bill that I strongly support. The $650 million for tsunami relief and reconstruction is very important. It is disappointing, however, that the conference report does not include the amendment I introduced that was attached to the House version, which would have devoted $3 million for UNFPA's vital work in the tsunami region. This money would have greatly benefitted pregnant tsunami-stricken women by fostering better maternal health and reducing infant mortality. The improvement in death benefits for the military in this bill are crucial, and they are a long time in coming. I also support the provisions to aid the peace in the Sudan, as well as development assistance the president proposed for the West Bank and Gaza. Nevertheless, this administration must enforce a better accounting of the taxpayer money it spends. Before I can vote for another enormous expenditure of the American taxpayers' money for this war, I must be convinced that this administration will keep tabs on the money and make sure our troops get the equipment they need. Doing so will be good for the war effort, and will be good for our troops.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price Amendment, which would provide a much needed increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. This additional $10 million for the NEA and $5 million for the NEH would help expose our children to American art, history and culture. In addition to the enjoyment and life-enrichment that each participant in the arts experiences, the involvement of children in the arts has been shown to improve reading and language development, mathematics skills, fundamental cognitive skills, motivation to learn, and social behavior. The Arts and Humanities not only enhance the lives of our children-- they also keep our economy strong. Each year, the nonprofit arts industry creates $134 billion dollars in economic activity, generating $24.4 billion dollars in tax revenue for our local, state and federal governments, and supporting nearly 5 million full-time jobs all across our country. In my district alone, nearly 120,000 people are employed by the museums, theaters, art galleries and other arts organizations that I am proud to represent. In fact, with over 8,000 arts-related organizations, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, and the American Ballet theater, my district has the third highest number of arts-related business in the country. For my constituents, and for all Americans, the arts mean business. Because such a modest increase in funding would bring the arts and jobs to so many people, I strongly support the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks- Leach amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can change this restrictive rule. Yesterday I appeared before the Rules Committee to offer three amendments. All were blocked by the Rules Committee from even the opportunity to be debated on the floor. The Rules Committee also blocked an amendment by Congressmen Markey and Shays that would have required 100 percent check of cargo on commercial airlines. This restrictive rule also blocked 60 other amendments, forty-seven of which were Democratic amendments. It is amazing to me that the majority would deny us even the opportunity to debate what we feel is important to the American people. What the rules committee did last night was deny us the opportunity to address the health needs of the heroes of 9/11. One of my amendments was modeled after the Remember 9/11 Health Act. This is a bill that would provide medical monitoring and treatment for individuals who are sick or injured as a direct result of the attacks of 9/11. Right now we have a 6,000-person waiting list just to be a part of this medical screening. For the 12,000 who have been screened, about 50 percent of them are still sick as a direct result of 9/11. Despite clear evidence that we have thousands sick, we have yet to provide a single dollar for treatment. This is unethical. These are men and women who were there for us on 9/11 and now we have turned a cold shoulder to them in their time of need. We have precedent for caring for volunteers who get sick. When a volunteer firefighter becomes sick or injured while fighting a forest fire, he or she immediately receives all the Federal health monitoring and treatment he or she needs. If we can do it for volunteers for one disaster, we need to do it for volunteers from 9/11. Unfortunately the Rules Committee did not see it this way, because they would not even give us the opportunity to debate this on the floor today. The next amendment I wanted to offer was written by a Republican, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It is modeled after the Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act, H.R. 5329 in the 108th Congress. The amendment realizes that there are times when the health of first responders is at risk, such as during the response to 9/11, and with a Presidential declaration, would establish environmental and health monitoring. This amendment would send a message to future responders that if you risk your life in responding to a disaster, we will be there for you if you get sick. This amendment would not have cost us anything. It would just be good planning. The final amendment I wanted to offer would give teeth to the Civil Liberty Board established by the Intelligence Reform Act. This amendment is modeled after H.R. 1310, the Protection of Civil Liberties Act. This Amendment would create the board as an independent entity and provide it with subpoena power, among other things. The only way we will have a robust protection of our civil liberties is to have a robust civil liberties board. All we have right now is a weak board that does not even have a single member appointed. By not allowing these and many other amendments, we are restricting the ability of this House to do the business of the American people. We have thousands who are sick from 9/11 who need our help, but this Rule will not let their needs be heard.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on April 19 of this year, we observed Equal Pay Day, a day that indicates just how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned in the previous year. Because women on average earn less than men, they must work longer for the same pay. While many of my colleagues have addressed the impact of the pay gap on working women, I want to call attention today to how Social Security reduces this inequity for women in retirement in a way that private accounts will not. It is no surprise that women are particularly wary of President Bush's proposed private accounts for Social Security. Women are more likely than men to depend on Social Security for their financial well- being, not only in retirement but throughout their lives, through survivorships and disability benefits. The vast majority of Social Security recipients are women, representing almost 60 percent of all beneficiaries age 65 and over. And an even higher percentage of women that are seniors and are in older age groups are on Social Security. Unfortunately, women still make less money than men, about 76 cents on the dollar, and usually work fewer years than men. Social Security provides proportionately higher benefits for lower earners; so the progressive benefit structure counteracts the pay and pension gaps that women experience during their working years. As this chart shows, women typically earn about 24 percent less than men. Since their lifetime earnings are lower than men's, they receive smaller Social Security benefits than men, but the gap is narrower. The typical woman's Social Security benefit is only 17 percent lower than the typical man's, narrowing the gap by almost one third. In contrast, private accounts would preserve the wage gap. The typical woman would accumulate 24 percent less in her private account than the typical man. By taking time out of the workforce to raise children or care for ailing parents or spouses, women typically lose more than a decade of earnings. This second chart shows the impact that time out of the workplace would have on private account accumulations. A man born today with average earnings throughout his career who diverted 4 percent of his earnings into a private account would accumulate about $204,000. A woman who earned 24 percent less each year would only accumulate about $155,000. If she took 10 years out of the workforce, her private account accumulation would drop to about $112,000, just over half what the typical man would accumulate. If she only took 5 years out of the workforce, her private account accumulation would drop to about $132,000, 35 percent less than what the typical man would accumulate. Women are also more likely to work part-time, less likely to be covered by an employer-sponsored pension plan, and more likely to work in low-paying fields. As a result, they have lower lifetime earnings, making Social Security a larger portion of their retirement income. Because women earn less, they would have less to invest in private accounts than men and more to lose from the substantial benefit cuts under the kind of privatization plan the President supports. The President's preferred plan requires cutting guaranteed benefits by more than 25 percent, even for middle class workers, and even for those who choose not to invest in private accounts. Meanwhile, those that do choose a private account also would be hit with a privatization tax of 70 percent or more of the value of their account, which would be deducted from their Social Security benefits upon retirement. Because Social Security helps level the playing field for women, cutting their benefits would make it even harder for women to achieve financial security in retirement. Without Social Security, more than half of white and Hispanic senior women and almost two-thirds of African American senior women would live in poverty. Also, because women live longer, whatever they are able to save in private accounts would have to be stretched to cover more years in their senior years. Unlike private savings, you cannot outlive Social Security, and the benefits are not eroded over time by inflation. The President is having a hard time convincing the American people, especially women, that private accounts would be better for American families than Social Security, and rightly so. It has touched so many of our lives. Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment plan, and private accounts would destroy much of the insurance value of the program. The President's private accounts pose a serious threat to the future economic security of all Americans. Private accounts would cut Social Security's funding, weaken the program, and make its financial problems worse, not better. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that private accounts would do absolutely nothing to improve Social Security's solvency. The government would have to borrow nearly $5 trillion over 20 years to fund private accounts. That would increase interest rates, harm our economy, and lead to large tax increases. Democrats want to work with President Bush to strengthen Social Security for the long term, but we need to get it right. Clearly, women are disadvantaged when facing retirement. They are paid less and work fewer years than men, on average. Any reform that is enacted must keep the safety net intact. Our mothers, our daughters, and our granddaughters are counting on us.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for his amendment, which I rise in strong support of. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) would limit the high-threat grants to 50 total grants. If this amendment were enacted, it would ensure to a greater degree that high-threat funding truly goes to what it is intended to do, go to high-threat areas. When Congress first created the so-called high-threat program, it was limited to seven cities; yet last year that number jumped to 80 grants, with 50 cities getting funding and 30 transit agencies. This year, the Department again funded 50 cities. The practical effect is that those cities that are the highest threat may see the amount of money directed towards them diminished because of the ever-increasing pie. For example, 2 years ago, and I give the example of the city I represent, but it could be other cities, New York City received $150 million in funding. But last year, even though we remained high-threat number one in the Nation by all accounts, by all of the intelligence agencies, last year we saw a decrease of 69 percent to $47 million. This year, again we saw a dramatic shift upwards to $214 million. I think it is very easy to argue that New York City has been under the same consistent threat since 9/11, but this funding certainly does not reflect that. The example that I use of New York City is just one example of how it has varied widely across cities. One of the greatest reasons for this yo-yo funding is when you increase who is eligible, you decrease your options on how you distribute. So we need to make sure that this funding is based on risk rather than political calculations, and limiting the number of grants to 50 is certainly reasonable and a fair way. May I speak also very briefly on how far preferable the House version is to the Senate version in the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, thankfully, there have been a couple of bright spots over the past week in the economy. April was just the sixth month during this administration in which at least 250,000 jobs were created, a welcome relief for this struggling economy. Meanwhile, the trade deficit in March decreased from its record high level in February, though it is still on pace to become a record year, the highest trade deficit in the history of our country. Still, the positive news on the economy is often accompanied by equally troubling news. New statistics show that each paycheck American workers take home ends up buying less and less. The prices of many basic goods from gas to milk have shot up, but workers' wages have not kept pace. Americans are working hard and producing more, but they are not seeing the benefits in their buying power. This is terrible news for America's families. We have to have those wages at least keep pace with inflation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Israel as it celebrates the 57th anniversary of Yom HaAtzmaut, Independence Day. The Jewish nation rose from the ashes of World War II, and became a symbol of the survival of the Jewish people. Despite the genocidal actions of the Nazis, Jewish survivors of the Holocaust emigrated to Israel and dedicated themselves to transforming this desert region into a thriving nation. Israel has never known a day of true peace. On May 14, 1948, the 5th of lyar in the Hebrew calendar, the British Mandate expired and Israel declared its independence. That evening, the United States recognized the new nation. Less than 24 hours later, the regular armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded Israel, forcing the fledgling state to fight for its survival. The War of Independence endured intermittently over the course of 15 months and claimed over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time). Since that time, Israel has fought to defend itself over and over again, in the 1956 War, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon War and most recently, against two intifadas. Reviled by its neighbors, Israel has nonetheless succeeded in becoming a vibrant democracy with one of the strongest economies in the Middle East. While it began as a poor agricultural nation, Israel has recently become a leader in technology research and development. Indeed, Israel's standard of living rivals that of any Western nation. Mr. Speaker, on this day of Yom HaAtzmaut, I would like to recall the words spoken by Levi Eshkol, Prime Minister of Israel, at the end of the Six Day War: ``We saw clearly that this is no mere ingathering of the exiles, but a new yet ancient nation, a united nation, which has been tempered in the furnace of one Israel, forged out of all our tribes and the remnants of scattered communities they, their sons and daughters. A nation has come into being which is ready for any effort or sacrifice in order to achieve its goals.'' Mr. Speaker, I salute the people ofIsrael as they celebrate the 57th anniversary of the founding of their nation, and hope to join them in celebrating many more years of independence.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1544. It has been 3 years and 8 months since 9/11. I thank my colleagues for coming together and being so unified in helping New York during that very tragic period, and I thank very much the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) on the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. This is not a perfect bill but it does fundamentally change the way we distribute homeland security grants for first responders. This bill will distribute all homeland security funding on the basis of risk, rather than thinly spreading it around the country, with absolutely no standards, no basis for risk and absolutely no justification as to how the money was to be spent. While the Department of Homeland Security has always had the authority to distribute the majority of homeland security funding on the basis of risk, they have never done so. Previously, heavily populated States and heavily threatened or high-threat States like New York only received about $4 per capita, while other States, like Wyoming, received close to $28 per person. What might have been even worse is that States were not required previously to justify need or to justify how they were spending the money. They just got a check. We had no standards, and we had no way of knowing what level of preparedness we had in this country in our various localities and States. This bill should be the end of this and hopefully the end of troubling press reports of mis-spent homeland security funding. While I would have liked to have seen a bill with no State minimums, because I do not support funding homeland security projects without first determining a need, I understand the delicate negotiations that went into this bill. Again, this bill is not perfect but a much better way of protecting our country, and that is why I am supporting it. Like many of my colleagues, I will be watching the way the funding is distributed to make sure that the promise of this bill is fulfilled and that it is directed where the need is in our country to protect our citizens.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Sex Differences in Health Awareness Day. Scientists have long known of the anatomical differences between the sexes, but we also know that diseases and drugs can affect men and women differently. Thanks to the efforts of the Society for Women's Health Research over the last fifteen years to mandate that women be included in clinical trials and that analysis of research include sex differences at all levels, from genes to behavior, women and men are now gaining greater knowledge of their unique differences and optimal health care. Sex differences have been found everywhere from the composition of bone matter and the experience of pain to the metabolism of certain drugs and the rate of brain activity. Through sex-based biology research, the study of biological and physiological differences between men and women, scientists have discovered many differences between men and women in terms of their health. For example: Heart disease kills 500,000 American women each year--over 50,000 more women than men--and strikes women, on average, ten years later than men. Three out of four people suffering from autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, are women. Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of American women, causing an estimated 25 percent of cancer deaths in women in 2004. Several studies have indicated that compared to men, women who smoke are more likely to develop lung cancer at a younger age and at lower levels of exposure to cigarette smoke. HIV/AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death for women aged 35-44, and the sixth leading cause of death for women aged 25-34 in the United States. The efficiency of male-to-female infection of HIV is more than two times higher than that of female-to-male infection. Women are two to three times more likely than men to suffer from depression. Women comprise 80 percent of the population suffering from osteoporosis. Women are two times more likely than men to contract a sexually transmitted disease. Until the 1990s, biomedical research was firmly rooted in the male model--the belief that male biology (outside of the reproductive system) was representative of the species and that where female biology differed from male biology, it was ``atypical'' or ``anomalous.'' Change occurred in the early 1990s to address the dearth of knowledge about female biology caused by the lack of inclusion of women in clinical research studies due to policies and practices seeking to protect the fetus from harm should a study participant become pregnant. Now that women are included in clinical research, much has been discovered about how different women are from men. Research on women's health can both improve and save lives. As a result of such research, death rates have decreased for women with tumors of the cervix, breast, uterus, and ovary due to advances in detection and treatment, such as the development of a cervical cancer vaccine. Quality of life has also improved for cancer patients through the development of less invasive surgical techniques, organ-sparing treatments, and better control of pain and nausea related to chemotherapy. Additionally, research on women's health can lead to less expensive treatments and cost-saving prevention strategies. For example, the total economic value to Americans from reductions in mortality from cardiovascular disease, which strikes 50,000 more women than men each year, averaged $1.5 trillion annually between 1970 and 1990. Most recently, scientists have discovered significant information with respect to the leading role the X chromosome plays in the lives of both women and men. Therefore, women's health research is critical to all of us. While progress has been made in recent years, there is still much more that Congress can do to improve women's health. The Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH, in the Office of the Director at NIH must be fully funded so that it can continue supporting the expansion and funding of peer-reviewed Specialized Centers of Research on Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Women's Health, SCOR, and the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health, BIRCWH, programs. ORWH has taken the critical long-term lead in partnering with various NIH institutes and centers to advance research on women's health and on sex and gender factors, resulting in the following developments: the prevention of cervical cancer with an HPV vaccine; decreasing cardiovascular disease in middle-aged women by preventing recurrent episodes of depression; basic science advances in systemic Lupus Erythematosis research; and discovery of bone loss acceleration before the final menstrual period leading to an important finding related to osteosporosis-related fractures. In addition, I urge Congress to pass legislation that I have introduced with Representative Pryce, H.R. 949, the Women's Health Office Act, a bill to provide permanent authorization for existing offices of women's health in five federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Food and Drug Administration. This will allow these offices to carry out their important work without facing underfunding, understaffing, or elimination in the future. Congress should further encourage NIH to update and modify its guidelines to actively promote sex differences research at all levels, including basic research in cell and tissue culture, development and study of appropriate animal models, and in early stage clinical research. I would like to commend the Society for Women's Health Research for its research about the differences between men's and women's health needs.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Breastfeeding Promotion Act with my colleagues Chris Shays of Connecticut, Robert Wexler of Florida, Adam Schiff, Lynn Woolsey and Lucille Roybal-Allard of California, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, Brad Miller of North Carolina, Donald Payne of New Jersey, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, John Conyers and Dale Kildee from Michigan and Major Owens and Joseph Crowley from New York. Mr. Speaker, statistical surveys of families show that over 50 percent of mothers with children less than one year of age are in the labor force. Whereas women with infants and toddlers are a rapidly growing segment of the labor force today, arrangements must be made to allow a mother's expressing of milk if mother and child must separate. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers breastfeed exclusively for six months but continuing for at least the first year of a child's life. Research studies show that children who are not breastfed have higher rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal diseases, ear infections, allergies, and obesity. To encourage and promote breastfeeding we are introducing the Breastfeeding Promotion Act. Specifically, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act includes four provisions: Protects Breastfeeding Under Civil Rights Law: The bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 to protect breastfeeding under civil rights law. This will ensure that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing milk or breastfeeding during lunch or breaks. Provides Tax Incentives for Employers: With more than half of mothers with infants (less than one year of age) in the work force, it is important to promote a mother-friendly work environment. The bill encourages employers to set up a safe, private, and sanitary environment for women to express (or pump) breast milk by providing a tax credit for employers who set up a lactation location, purchase or rent lactation- related equipment, hire a lactation consultant or otherwise promote a lactation-friendly work environment. Many companies would be able to receive a tax credit of up to fifty percent of their related expenses. Seeks Minimum Safety Standards for Breast Pumps: The bill requires the Food and Drug Administration to develop minimum quality standards for breast pumps to ensure that products on the market are safe and effective based on efficiency, effectiveness, and sanitation factors (in addition to providing full and complete information concerning breast pump equipment). Allows Breastfeeding Equipment to Be Tax Deductible: The bill amends the tax laws to include breastfeeding equipment and services as deductible medical care expenses. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I and several other New York Lawmakers introduced legislation to protect lower Manhattan businesses and residents from having to pay any taxes on 9/11 recovery assistance. Despite a prior announcement by the IRS they were planning to exempt Lower Manhattan residents from most, if not all taxes, on Federal Grants given to them to recover from 9/11 or grants given as incentive to move to or stay in the area, the IRS has made a determination to tax aid received. A February 5, 2003 letter received by the Acting Commissioner, Bob Wenzel, stated the following: The legislation enacted in 2001 and 2002 that appropriated $2.7 billion of CDBG funds to aid in the recovery of New York City did not provide that the grants made from those funds were exempt from income tax. In addition, neither the Victims of Terrorist Attacks Relief Act of 2001 nor the Liberty Zone Benefits provision of the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 specifically exempted the grant payments from income tax. Therefore, we have had to apply existing general federal tax law principles to determine the tax status of the grants. As incredible as it sounds, the IRS will tax this assistance unless we act. It was never the intention of this Congress to tax any of this money and it is time to pass this legislation to prevent this unfair and unjust tax.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker I rise to join people around the world who are commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Ha-Shoah, and mourning the six million people who were murdered simply because they happened to be Jewish. It is important that we take time each year to remind ourselves of the devastating horror of a world in which insanity ruled and it was possible for the Nazis to try to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth. The horror of the Holocaust comes not merely from the fact that massive numbers of people were murdered--in truth the total civilian body count in World War II was enormous, including roughly 20 million Russians and 10 million Chinese. There have been other conflicts in which vast numbers of civilians have died. The true horror of the Holocaust is that a modern nation used organized, efficient, systematic, scientific methods to try to wipe out a minority population. What compounds the horror is that the Nazis brought their peculiar brand of death with them as they swept through Europe and rounded up Jews in occupied countries. We must not forget that the world watched silently and allowed the Holocaust to happen. The Nazis could never have been as effective at targeting Jews if it were not for the collaboration of local populations. Tens of thousands of people assisted the Nazis in identifying Jews and herding them to the concentration camps and gas chambers. The Nazis succeeded in large part because hatred of Jews was already well entrenched throughout the countries they conquered. There were always people of good heart who were willing to risk their lives to save Jews. Their bravery and selflessness must also be remembered on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. Jews were hidden in basements and attics. Jewish children were taken into friendly homes or transported to safety elsewhere. Diplomats issued visas, sometimes in violation of their country's policies. Most famous among them is Raoul Wallenberg who saved 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Few nations protected their Jewish populations as effectively as Denmark. The Danes saved virtually all of their Jewish population first by refusing to join the Nazis in singling out the Jewish minority and later by uniting to smuggle them to safety in Sweden. One of the principal reasons we remember the Holocaust is to ensure that it never happens again. Anti-Semitism is an old hatred, and every generation seems to have a new version. Television and the internet provide new avenues for spreading hatred. Recently, Middle Eastern citizens' nations such as Egypt have been able to watch ``Horsemen Without A Horse,'' a television serialization of the vicious czarist hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Attacks on Jews and Jewish targets around the world are rising. The U.S. Department of State recently released a report on anti-Semitism around the world that found: ``Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death . . . Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.'' Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust could not have occurred without the complicity of governments and individuals who tolerated stark hatred of Jews. I am hopeful that by reminding ourselves of the horrors of that time, we will remain vigilant about preventing a recurrence of the widespread anti-Semitism that helped the Nazis rise to power.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, based in my congressional district, on their 40th anniversary. I believe the work of these organizations is invaluable in educating all of us about matters related to the Western Hemisphere. The Americas Society promotes cultural understanding through an exchange of ideas among writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and the general public. The Council of the Americas promotes open markets, democracy and the rule of law, through active engagement with U.S. and hemispheric governments. Founded by David Rockefeller in 1965 as a private sector parallel to President Kennedy's Alliance for the Americas initiative, the Council of the Americas/Americas Society is now in its 40th anniversary year. During the past 40 years, the Americas Society has promoted many of the great cultural achievements of the Western Hemisphere by showcasing Latin artists, musicians, and authors and contributing to the vibrant cultural diversity of New York City and especially my district. I am also pleased to note the organization's commitment to arts education, which I believe is a crucial component of school curricula not only in New York, but across the country. By exposing New York City's underprivileged children to the music of the Americas, the Americas Society helps to instill a lifelong appreciation of music. We must continue to strengthen relations among the nations in the Western Hemisphere. Like the Council of the Americas, I strongly support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and I commend the Council for its promotion of these ideals in U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. Under the leadership of Chairman William Rhodes and President and CEO Susan Segal in New York, the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society have raised their profile significantly, adding new value to members while becoming even more active in the hemispheric policy debate. As consistent advocates for constructive engagement of the Western Hemisphere countries, the Americas Society and the Council of the Americas are contributing to peace, democratic stability, and shared prosperity in the Americas. Today, Hispanic Americans are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. They are making dynamic contributions to the U.S. economy and culture. As the U.S. population becomes more and more diverse, it will be even more important to foster deeper cultural understandings and cross-border cooperation. I congratulate the Council of the Americas and Americas Society on their 40th anniversary.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) our ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), our chairman, for working in a bipartisan way for truly the grand goal of safety and soundness in our financial systems and keeping them competitive in the world financial market. My amendment is one that I am going to offer and withdraw, because the chairman has generously offered to work with me in committee under a separate introduced bill to pass the intent of this. And what my amendment would do is that it would prevent banks from charging customers bounced check fees when the money is already there in the bank, and when it is simply a matter of which journal entry the bank makes first. We did have a hearing on this earlier in the Committee on Financial Services. And some of the banks' representatives testified that many banks do this already. So this amendment would simply require all banks to do so consistently and prevent abuses. In other words, if money is there, but it has been deposited, then you cannot withdraw that money, the deposited money should be credited before the money is withdrawn from the bank. My amendment would also prevent banks from charging customers for overdraft protection when the customer has not requested this service. Again, this is simple and fair and straightforward. And sometimes, in some cases in some banks, the overdraft protection costs more than the overdraft penalty. So it would really prevent hidden charges and fees for services customers have not even asked for, in this case, financial institutions. So I have been assured that by the parliamentarian that my amendment would be immune from a point of order. The Committee on Rules accepted it. But I will be withdrawing it with the consideration of the chairman to fully discuss this in committee, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) our chairman, and I thank you for working in a bipartisan way on this and so many other issues.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and for his leadership as a whole. Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of this outstanding bipartisan bill. I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of the provisions in it. It is long past due to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds, and additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point clip, and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward. The bill includes a mechanism for determining credits for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment that I cosponsored with former Representative Bereuter. This is a very, very important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank very much the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced and important amendment in the base legislation. Despite the many very positive parts of this bill, I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. This coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by many Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan. I would like to place in the Record his comments in opposition, and state that I support the bill overwhelming, but this provision I am opposed to. I thank the leadership and the ranking member for working in a balanced way to move this important legislation forward.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. The coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by most of the Federal financial service regulators. Proponents of the increased coverage argue that it poses no risk to the insurance system, but the regulators who oppose this increase are the very officials whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. The almost unanimous opposition to increased coverage by the regulators is a very powerful message. I would like to really quote some of these regulators. Alan Greenspan has come out very strongly opposed to it. He said, ``It is unlikely that increased coverage, even by indexing, would add to the stability of the banking system today.'' The Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Monetary Policy, Peter Fisher, said, ``Increasing the overall coverage limit would weaken market discipline and further increase the level of risk to the FDIC and to taxpayers.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the Record quotes from the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Congressional Budget Office, all raising questions and in opposition to this raise. Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe that this argument matches the actual situation of the banking industry. The fact is that only 2 percent of insured accounts have more than $100,000 according to the Federal Reserve. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I would like to place this study into the Record. The same Federal Reserve study put the average account balance at $6,000 across America. Any way you look at it, the increase in coverage will benefit very few depositors. Proponents of increasing coverage also contend that because insurance premiums are paid by banks, increasing coverage does not cost taxpayers. While I concede the point, I think we also have to remember that behind the Federal deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services in 1993 at the close of the S&L crisis, I have been committed as all of my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle to protecting the safety and soundness of the banking system. While I concede and agree with my colleagues that the causes of the S&L failures were many, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayers. The bailout we voted for was constituent taxpayer dollars to bail out the S&L. No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or a string of failures, there could be many reasons for them, by raising the insurance coverage, we increase the potential liability of the government and, thereby, the American taxpayer. I also believe that raising the coverage may encourage the concept of moral hazard. Institutions will be encouraged to engage in riskier behavior to boost earnings if they know that failure is ensured by the Federal Government. I would also like to place in the Record a letter to Members of Congress from The Financial Services Roundtable, which very strongly supports the underlying bill, which is a fine piece of work that has passed this body two times previously, but also raises many concerns about raising the limit to $130,000. The material that I referred to previously I will insert into the Record at this point. The Financial Services Roundtable, Washington, DC, April 22, 2005. Hon. Barney Frank, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Barney: I would like to commend you on your leadership and continued efforts on deposit insurance reform. An effective deposit insurance system is critical to the economy and maintaining public confidence in the U.S. banking system. The Roundtable is committed to working with the Financial Services Committee to develop reasonable, responsible deposit insurance reform legislation that the Roundtable and the industry can support. The Roundtable supports the passage of H.R. 1185, the ``Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005.'' We also support the adoption of the ``Managers Amendment.'' The Financial Services Roundtable, a national association representing 100 of the largest integrated financial services companies that together constitute nearly 70 percent of the deposit insurance assessment base, believe that H.R. 1185 will help assure a sound deposit insurance system. In particular, we believe a major improvement to the bill was a provision that stated no insured depository institution shall be barred from the lowest-risk category solely because of size. Further, the Roundtable supports: Merging the Bank Insurance Fund (``BIF'') and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (``SAIF''). A combined BIF/SAIF would be stronger and more resilient. The provision in your bill that caps the FDIC's assessment authority at 1 basis point for those institutions in the lowest-risk category. The bill's study of the effectiveness of the prompt corrective action program, and a strong system of credits and rebates such as you have in your legislation. We remain concerned about provisions in the bill that would increase deposit insurance coverage limits. Our members believe that raising coverage limits could weaken market discipline and increase risk to the FDIC, all insured institutions, and ultimately American taxpayers. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated there is no evidence that an increase in coverage levels would promote competition or materially improve the ability of financial institutions to obtain funds. As Chairman Greenspan noted, the evidence in recent years shows that financial institutions of all sizes have not experienced difficulty in obtaining funding from insured or uninsured deposits. For those customers with substantial deposits, ample opportunities exist to obtain FDIC coverage equal to several multiples of $100,000. Since the FDIC is in good shape financially, there is no need to grant the FDIC additional authority to levy deposit insurance premiums. Thank you again for your leadership on deposit insurance reform and your consideration of the Roundtable's views on this important matter. We look forward to working with you as this legislation moves through the legislative process. If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further, please call Irving Daniels or me at (202) 289-4322. Best regards, Steve Bartlett, President and CEO.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005. This is a strong bipartisan effort. I commend the leadership of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, as well as Subcommittee Chair Bachus and Ranking Member Sanders. This will be, hopefully, the third time that this Congress has passed this legislation. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Federal deposit insurance, established during the Great Depression to restore confidence in the Nation's troubled banking system, has served our country well; but no system is perfect, and Congress has periodically revised our deposit insurance laws in response to changing economic and industry conditions. There is a growing consensus triggered in part by recommendations by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, that deposit insurance is overdue for needed structural reform. H.R. 1185 would merge the Bank Insurance Fund, BIF, and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, SAIF, into a single fund covering all banks and thrifts; increase per-account coverage levels from $100,000 to $130,000; and adjust that coverage for inflation every 5 years beginning in 2007; and double the $130,000 coverage amount in the case of certain retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k)s. Providing $260,000 in deposit insurance coverage for retirement accounts is critically important in an era when many Americans have accumulated retirement nest eggs that far exceed $100,000, and when, according to FDIC estimates, there is more than $200 billion in IRA accounts alone in this Nation's banking system. Several high-profile bank failures in recent years have given many Americans a rude awakening as they discover that amounts in their retirement accounts above the $100,000 coverage limit are uninsured. The bill also raises coverage levels on in-state, municipal or public deposits. This will have the effect of encouraging local government agencies to keep more of their deposits in the local communities where the funds were generated, thus promoting economic growth in those areas. Finally, the bill fully implements a provision enacted more than a decade ago to give banks a discount on their deposit insurance premiums for deposits attributable to so-called basic banking accounts which provide a financial lifeline for low-income families that are currently without bank coverage. This has strong bipartisan support. This legislation passed this body last year with a vote of 411 to 11, and this year's effort likewise enjoys very strong bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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