Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representatives Charles Rangel, Charles Gonzalez, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and Robert Wexler, introduce legislation, the ``Prevention of Trafficking of Tsunami Orphans Act,'' which would authorize critical assistance to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development to support programs that are being carried out by nongovernmental organizations to protect children who are homeless or orphaned as a result of the Indian Ocean tsunamis in December 2004. According to the June 2004 Trafficking in Persons Report released by the Department of State, approximately 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders each year. Instead of dreams of better jobs and better lives, they are trapped into a nightmare of coercion, violence, and disease. This legislation will help to prevent the children left orphaned or homeless by the Indian Ocean tsunamis from suffering a similar fate.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, and the representative of a large and vibrant community of Armenian Americans, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the people of Nagorno Karabakh (Artsakh) on the 17th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Freedom Movement. On February 20, 1988, the people of Nagorno Karabakh officially petitioned the Soviet government to correct the historical injustices of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin by reuniting the area with Armenia. Six days later, one million people demonstrated in Yerevan's Opera Square. Unfortunately, the central Soviet and Azerbaijani leadership violently reacted to this peaceful and legal request by engaging in full military aggression against Nagorno Karabakh. The people of Nagorno Karabakh courageously defended their right to live freely on their ancestral land. Today, Nagorno Karabakh continues to strengthen its statehood with a democratically elected government, a court system, an independent foreign policy, and a commitment to educating its citizens. I will continue to join with my colleagues in supporting assistance to Nagorno Karabakh, which has a vital role in achieving a peaceful and stable South Caucasus region. On this anniversary, I reiterate my unwavering support to Nagorno Karabakh's freedom, democracy, and economic development.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleague Representative Deborah Pryce, I have introduced a bill that makes women's health a priority. On September 17, 2002, the House passed the Women's Health Office Act, legislation that would provide statutory authority to five federal women's health offices. Unfortunately, the other body did not consider this legislation before the end of the 107th Congress so it was never signed into law. Currently, only two women's health offices are federally authorized and protected by law: the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health, and the Office for Women's Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These offices provide critical health research services to the women of this country. Statutory authorization is not provided for the federal offices and positions residing in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I believe it is important to give statutory authority to these offices. Enactment of the Women's Health Office Act will ensure that the needs and gaps in research, policy, programs, and education and training in women's health will continue to receive the attention they require in the 21st century.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation, along with Representative Peter King (R-NY), which would ensure that members of the National Guard who served in the counties declared federal disaster areas because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks receive military retirement credit for that service. Many of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Division of the New York Army National Guard, which is located in my district, served at Ground Zero and in the surrounding counties after the terrorist attacks for almost a year to assist with security, reconstruction, and recovery efforts. These soldiers were serving under state active duty rather than federal active duty. As a result, those days of service currently are not being counted toward their military retirement credit. However, other Companies in the 1st Battalion were activated under federal duty and served at West Point for a similar length of time to help with its security. This legislation will correct this inequity. Because all of these National Guard members clearly aided in the federal response to the 9/ 11 attacks, I strongly believe that they should have those days counted toward their military retirement credit. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an unprecedented event in American history. We should show our gratitude to these brave men and women by giving them the retirement benefits to which they are entitled.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this administration has repeatedly set records for debts and deficits and the latest is for our enormous trade deficit. We have raised the debt ceiling three times to cover their deficit spending, over $470 billion. That comes out to over $26,000 owed by every man, woman, and child in America. Their newest record is an all-time high in a trade deficit, nearly $618 billion, the highest in our history. This is a huge burden for our economy because we are borrowing from foreign countries to pay for our imports. We should never build our economic system on a foundation of debts, deficit, and foreign loans. Any day that foundation could become a house of cards.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with 12 of my bipartisan colleagues, including Chairmen Davis and Hoekstra and Ranking Members Waxman, Harman, and Conyers, introduce a bill that will extend the term of the Nazi War Crimes Interagency Working Group by 2 years. This is the companion bill of S. 384, a bill introduced by Senator DeWine and passed in the Senate today. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the history and the impact of this legislation. I would like to thank Senator DeWine and his staff for their tireless work and for the energy they have put forth to ensure that we know as much as we can about our Government's past involvement with Nazi War criminals. In 1998, Congress passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, a law that was enacted to explain the relationship between the U.S. Government and former Nazis. The act required the release of all previously classified information on the topic to the Interagency Working Group on Nazi War Crimes, IWG. The documents provided thus far to the IWG have revealed that there was a closer relationship between the U.S. Government and Nazi war criminals than previously known, a revelation that is crucial to the understanding of history. This significant knowledge would not have been possible without the cooperation of many agencies including the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Until recently, the CIA had not complied with the law and did not release the documents needed to complete the IWG's task, as defined by law. Fortunately, after discussions with Senator DeWine and myself and under the leadership of Director Porter Goss, the CIA agreed to release the requisite documents. With the term of the IWG set to expire at the end of March 2005, we are now at a critical juncture. This bill is simple. It extends the term of the IWG so that it can complete its work, write a comprehensive report, and send it to Congress. We hope to move this quickly in the House, as they did in the Senate, to avoid a lapse in this important work. History, and the memory of the millions who perished in the Holocaust, deserve nothing less than full disclosure.

Ms. MALONEY

Ms. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Consumer Checking Account Fairness Act. This bill solves a pressing consumer banking problem. Under the Check 21 Act that we passed last year, money will leave consumers' accounts faster, but become available at the same old pace. Current check hold times, combined with the speeding up of check processing, create real problems for consumers. The new Check 21 law facilitates the electronic clearing of checks, which means that checks consumers write will clear sooner. However, banks are still allowed to place the same long check holds on consumers' deposits. For example: Jane Doe gets paid on Friday, deposits her paycheck Friday evening, and writes a check at the grocery store the next day. The check to the grocery store on Saturday clears on Sunday or Monday, but because Jane's bank puts a hold on her deposit, her paycheck funds cannot be used to cover her checks until the next Wednesday--even if the paycheck has in fact already cleared. If Jane's employer uses a non-local bank to issue her paycheck, Jane's bank can make her wait till the next Monday--ten calendar days--before her pay is available to cover the checks she writes. Even if Jane's paycheck actually clears within a day or two, her bank does not have to lift the hold. Instead, Jane's bank can: bounce her check and charge her a ``non-sufficient funds'', NSF fee of$20 to $35. The grocery store may also charge a returned check fee or clear the check but charge a $20 to $35 ``bounce protection'' fee, and possibly a per day fee as well for each day before deposited funds are available to cover the check. Bounce protection may be a service she has never requested--and it may be invoked by the bank even though Jane had made a deposit to cover the check before writing the check. This is patently unfair to consumers. Check hold times should be shortened, so consumers can use their deposits to cover the checks they write after making a deposit. Check 21 only required that the Federal Reserve Board study check hold times, and gave the Federal Reserve Board until March 2007 to finish that study. The ``Consumer Checking Account Fairness Act'' solves this problem. The bill: Reduces check hold times by a day for deposits up to $7,500. Counts Saturday as a business day toward the check hold period if the bank takes money out of consumer accounts on Saturdays. Requires banks to process credits before debits: i.e. add deposits before deducting checks. Prevents banks from charging bounced check fees when the deposit to cover the check has actually cleared but the hold period has not yet been completed. Increases the ``small check'' amount, for which there is faster funds availability, from $100 to $500. Requires banks that wish to charge for so-called ``bounce protection'' to get the consumer to request this feature before charging fees to the consumer for it. Clarifies that deposits at proprietary ATMS are cleared as fast as deposits at a teller. Requires that banks who charge a fee for a ``substitute check'' under Check 21 cannot insist that the consumer get a substitute check in order to have the bank put funds missing due to a processing error back into the consumer's account within ten business days. The Consumer Checking Account Fairness Act is balanced and sensible. It preserves the ability of banks to prevent fraud. For example, it leaves in place the ability of a bank to impose a longer hold period for special circumstances, such as a new account or a recent history of bounced checks on an account. Also, the bill does not require banks to issue ``substitute checks'' under the Check 21 law without any fee; instead it simply says that if the bank decides to charge for the substitute check, then the bank cannot insist that the consumer get that document in order to exercise the consumer's right to a ten business day timeframe to get back funds lost due to a check processing problem, such as a check being paid twice. Banks benefit from faster check-processing facilitated by Check 21. They should also have to give their customers faster credit for deposits.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO), introduce legislation that requires the annual poverty estimate and the National Assessment of Educational Progress to be subject to certain guidelines on the release of the information to the public. I am deeply concerned at what appears to be the politicization of data by the Bush Administration on important issues ranging from worker safety to the dangers of lead paint to emergency contraceptives. Because data regarding poverty and educational progress are essential to lawmakers at all levels of government to implement policies addressing these issues, it is critical that this information is disseminated in an open and timely process. Two years ago, the Census Bureau decided to break with tradition by releasing its annual poverty estimates on a Friday in Suitland, Maryland, rather than during the middle of the week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Because that report was expected to announce the loss of millions of jobs, the questionable circumstances regarding the release of those statistics led myself and Representative Clay to seek an investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as to why the Census Bureau made its decision. We should not be playing politics with science, which is why I believe this legislation is so important.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill of great public importance to women in the workforce across the United States. The U.S. Justice Department estimated that from 2000 to 2002, the percentage of rapes and sexual assaults occurring at the workplace jumped from 2 percent to 10 percent of the total number of rapes and sexual assaults occurring in the United States yearly. Yet, many of these victims are told their only remedy is workers' compensation. When rape occurs on the job, employers should not be able to hide behind a system designed to compensate for job-related accidents. My bill sends a clear message: Rape is not all in a day's work. This bill gives victims of workplace violence across the Nation a remedy outside the workers' compensation system. It does this by creating a Federal civil rights cause of action, under certain conditions, for employees who have been the victims of gender-motivated violence at work. This bill will not result in numerous and unwarranted lawsuits against small businesses. In fact, the legislation outlines very strict requirements regarding whether a case would fall under the purview of this bill. Workers' compensation is a great system--it has created an American workplace safe from industrial accidents. But the job isn't done. This bill will encourage employers to create a job environment free of violent sexual assault and rape, because it is a terribly sad day in America when rape is considered all in a day's work.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Remember 9/11 Health Act'' with Representatives Shays, Nadler, Owens, Ron Kind, McDermott, McCarthy, and Hinchey. During the days following September 11, 2001, tens of thousands of people rushed to the World Trade Center to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. Their mission was clear--to help the people suffering from the attack. Now, more than 3 years after the attacks, rescue and recovery workers remain sick and out of work as a direct result of their exposure to Ground Zero. To make matters worse, many sick rescue and recovery workers no longer have health care insurance due to their long-term unemployment. Despite this public health emergency, there is still no one in charge, there is no money for treatment, there is no research into its cause, the monitoring program established by Congress can only screen a fraction of those exposed to Ground Zero and it only has been funded for a 5-year period, not the 20 years suggested by the medical community. To remedy this problem we are reintroducing the ``Remember 9/11 Health Act'' (H.R. 4059 in the 108th Congress). The ``Remember 9/11 Health Act'' contains four main points: Treatment, Expanded Monitoring, Research and Coordination. I. Providing Treatment.--Modeled after a program that provides health insurance for injured volunteer forest firefighters, this bill provides federal health insurance to individuals suffering injuries and/or health problem as a result of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Recipients do not pay for any health care expenses, including prescription drugs and co-payments. This program also includes mental health coverage. II. Expanding Health Monitoring.--Maintains current monitoring program that is screening a limited number of rescue and recovery workers, including the separate program for the Fire Department, while expanding it to a level recommended by the public health community. III. Research.--Directs the National Institutes of Health to conduct or support diagnostic and treatment research for health conditions that are associated with the exposure to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. IV. Coordination.--Establishes the 9/11 Health Emergency Coordinating Council under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of discussing, examining, and formulating recommendations for the adequacy and coordination of the Federal Government, State government and local governments response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Providing a coordinated federal response that includes not only monitoring, but treatment and research is the right thing to do. We need to send a message to rescue and recovery workers everywhere that if you are there for us when we need you, we will also be there when you need us. Anything short of that is unfair and could jeopardize the rescue and recovery response to future national emergency.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that will ensure that future censuses truly reflect the demographic makeup of this Nation. This bill would clarify Section 195 of Title 13 U.S.C. to allow the most accurate numbers to be used for apportionment and all other purposes.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I along with Representatives Nadler, Bishop, Owens, McCarthy and Serrano are introducing the ``Victims Compensation Fund Extension Act.'' In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks the Congress created the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) to provide compensation for victims of 9/11. This fund provided aid to the families of 9/11 victims and to individuals who suffered personal injury. Among other things, aid from the fund pays for medical expenses and lost wages. In return for accepting these funds, recipients relinquished rights to any future litigation. The fund had a deadline for applicants of December 22, 2003. At the deadline, close to 100 percent of the families who lost a loved one had filed with the fund, but many individuals who were injured as a direct result of 9/11 had not. After the filing, many of the injured were denied benefits, despite a clear need. The main reasons for not filing applications included people who did not know they were eligible as well as others whose injuries were late- onset. There are literally hundreds of individuals who are now just developing career-ending injuries--such as pulmonary and respiratory ailments--but are not eligible to receive assistance because they developed their symptoms after the deadline. Largely as a result of the VCF's restrictions on applicants, 1,755 of the 4,430 personal injury claims considered were denied. While there was some leeway, the rules required workers to have arrived at Ground Zero within 96 hours of the attack and would have needed to seek medical treatment within 72 hours. This is reasonable for rescue workers who suffered immediate injuries, but leaves no recourse for individuals with late-onset injuries or who arrived after September 15, 2001 to assist in the recovery effort and are now suffering from injuries. In order to care for the individuals who are now just developing physical injuries and to provide an opportunity for injured individuals who did not know they were eligible, we are re-introducing the Victims Compensation Fund Extension Act (H.R. 5076 in the 108th Congress). This bill would: Amend eligibility rules so that responders to the 9/11 attacks who arrived later than the first 96 hours could be eligible if they experienced illness or injury from their work at the site. Amend eligibility rules so that those who did not seek immediate medical verification for their illness or injury from the disaster, but who have since obtained medical evidence, would be eligible. Extend the deadline for applications to allow those with either late- onset illness from the disaster or those who were never informed of their eligibility for the Victim Compensation Fund to consider applying.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his truly moving presentation today. I had very much the same reaction he did. I was home during the snowstorm watching Meet the Press, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), suggested that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than men. I truly almost fell out of my chair. I could not believe it. And many of the sentiments that the gentleman has expressed on the floor were in Paul Krugman's op-ed piece on January 28 that showed how the program is particularly harmful to minorities. One of the things we need to work on is improved health care and medicine and hospital care for minorities so they live longer, not manipulating the Social Security System in a way that does not help minorities, women or men or anyone.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. I was not aware of Wisconsin's important role in the development of this program. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Owens), and to thank him for speaking out and being with us here tonight. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman. I yield to one of the organizers, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I thank him for his leadership on putting together this Special Order and his leadership on so many important issues before this body.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for helping to organize this Special Order with me. I would like to thank and recognize my colleagues who have agreed to participate in this Democratic hour of discussion. Those who are here tonight to speak are from the Democratic Women's Caucus, from the Congressional Black Caucus, from the Hispanic Caucus, and we have many other like-minded Members here tonight to speak. Tomorrow night, we will listen to the President describe his domestic agenda for the next 4 years. He has already told us what he will spend most of his time talking about. He will not be talking about paying down the staggering national deficit or addressing the international crisis over the falling American dollar or getting Americans back to work after we have lost over 2 million jobs. He will be talking about Social Security. He is going to spend his first annual address to the Nation trying to sell us on his plan to cut Social Security in half. Of course, that is not what he is going to call it, but that is exactly what it is. I suggest that we listen carefully tomorrow night not to what the President says as much to what he does not say. In fact, the White House admitted today to the Washington Post that the President will not talk about the size of the benefit cuts his plan requires or about how the size of the proposed private accounts compare to the benefits retirees are now getting. Let us see tomorrow night if the President tells the public that his plan will raise the deficit by over $2 trillion or put in jeopardy the trust fund that guarantees retired American workers financial dignity in their old age. Let us call it like it is. The President wants to privatize Social Security, although I am sure he will not use that word, because they know that Americans do not like gambling in the stock market with the Social Security Trust Fund. Democrats will make clear that his plan means putting at risk the Social Security Trust Fund that guarantees working Americans an old age with financial dignity. The President wants to cut benefits drastically. He has to make his plan work, but he will not say that. Democrats will tell Americans the Bush plan means each of you will get less than you get now and less than you would get if you did nothing at all. The President wants to increase the deficit by $2 trillion to pay for his plan, additional debt that would most likely be held by a foreign country such as China or Japan, but he will not mention that his reckless deficit increase lets other nations control America's economy and perhaps even our future. Democrats are standing up for our economic security and for that of our children. Enough American debt is already in the hands of other countries. If that is not bad enough, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) wants to calculate monthly benefits based on race and gender. For example, women get less each month in his proposal than men because they tend to live longer. Democrats are saying we will not accept a Social Security formula based on race or gender. It raises serious constitutional questions and is just plain wrong and unfair. Let us just call this plan what it is. It is a bad plan with bad results for American workers, especially women and minorities, and here are the facts: The White House is pushing a proposal that would cut in half the amount of income replaced by Social Security for the average retired American worker. Unlike the present system which allows benefits to grow with the economy and wages, the Bush plan would fix benefits to current living standards. That means that retirees would have to live on an amount that is not keeping pace with the cost of living but effectively shrinking each year. An average worker retiring today would have 42 percent of his or her lifetime average income replaced by Social Security, and that is the green line right here. Under the current system, the workers would get 40 percent of it and the lower income workers on this side would get more than the higher income workers. Under the Bush plan, in 70 years this benefit would fall to 18 percent. That is a dramatic fall. In other words, workers are denied roughly half of the benefits they have earned over a lifetime of work. As my colleagues can see from this chart, and this chart was prepared by the nonpartisan, independent Economic Policy Institute, the President's plan is particularly bad for lower-income workers, those who earn less than the average; and this includes many women and minorities, lower income here. So we can tell that there is more of an impact on lower- income workers. Everybody loses but the lower-income earners. The people who need it most lose the most. To add insult to injury, under the President's plan, at retirement, workers would effectively lose about half of their so-called private account, since about 50 cents on the dollar is deducted from their guaranteed benefits that they would otherwise get. Even a good investor loses half of what he or she made. So far, the White House has been silent on that feature, but they need it in order to make their plan add up; and we will not be able to avoid that by opting out of the private account system. The President has been calling the plan, quote, voluntary; but under his plan, workers who do not want to gamble with part of their Social Security money lose the corresponding portion of their guaranteed benefits anyway. So how voluntary is that? We have not even mentioned the risk to the trust fund, to the taxpayers and to individual retirees that comes from letting individuals play the stock market with Social Security money. What about those who take money out of the trust fund under the President's plan to invest in stocks that go belly up? Who takes care of them? The taxpayers, of course. So the system really ends up paying twice. Today, in contrast, the trust fund provides guaranteed benefits for older Americans, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. That is a better investment for Social Security and for the American people. If the President told the whole truth to the Nation, Americans would see clearly that his plan is a lousy deal for the American people. Women and minorities are particularly hurt by the Bush plan. Let me spend a moment on just how bad the plan is for women. Women still earn less than men on average, about 79 cents to the dollar; and that wage differential translates to an even greater pension disparity. In addition, many Social Security recipients are not retired workers but receive benefit as the spouse, child, or widowed spouse of a worker or a disabled worker. Most of these recipients are women and children. So women depend on Social Security more than men do. Women are 70 percent of Social Security recipients at age 65 and over 75 percent at age 85 and above. Social Security benefits are particularly important to keeping women and minorities out of poverty. This chart that was prepared from the Joint Economic Committee shows that for nonmarried women over 65 Social Security cuts the poverty rate from almost 60 percent to 16 percent, and we can see that the figures for African Americans and Hispanics are comparable. It is 21 percent for blacks and 15 percent for Hispanics. In New York, for example, my home State, 55 percent of elderly women would live in poverty without Social Security. The President's plan affects women and minorities even worse than men. Women and minorities tend to be at the lower end of the income area, whereas, as we saw in the first chart, benefits drop even more under the Bush plan than on average. Also, the fact that the Bush plan fixes benefits to current living standards cuts benefits to spouses, children, and surviving spouses even more drastically than it does to retirees. Once again, the administration is hurting those who are most vulnerable. This effect is so obvious that even the White House suddenly feels it has to have some sort of Band-Aid to paste over it; but since the cuts under the Republican plan become larger over time, the temporary increase in benefits the President is rumored to favor will not make up for the cuts for a very long period. On top of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) suggests that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than men. This proposal is just absolutely wrong. It is at odds with the moral values of our society. Since the chairman seems to be taking it seriously, let me note that it also raises serious constitutional and legal issues. Under well-established Supreme Court decisions, city and State pension plans are barred by title VII from using the fact that women live longer as a reason to pay them less each year. Surely, the Federal Government should hold itself to the same standard. This proposal should be off the table. Together with 40 of my colleagues we have asked the President to make it clear that he rejects the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) proposal, and we will be listening to his comments tomorrow night. Let me add that I have a great deal more to say, but I have many distinguished colleagues with me; and I would like to call upon the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) who is one of the representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus. Before that, I would like to place in the Record at this point an article by Paul Krugman which points out that his plan is particularly harmful to minorities. Social Security privatization really is like tax cuts, or the Iraq war: the administration keeps on coming up with new rationales, but the plan remains the same. President Bush's claim that we must privatize Social Security to avert an imminent crisis has evidently fallen flat. So now he's playing the race card. This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating his earlier claim that ``African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people.'' In other words, blacks don't live long enough to collect their fair share of benefits. This isn't a new argument; privatizers have been making it for years. But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false. And Mr. Bush's use of that false argument is doubly shameful, because he's exploiting the tragedy of high mortality for political gain instead of treating it as a problem we should solve. Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation--a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out ``major errors in the methodology.'' That's actuary-speak for ``damned lies.'' In fact, the actuary said, ``careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security'' as whites. Here's why. First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years--but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Black's low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years--not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men. Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage. Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits. Put it all together, and the deal African-Americans get from Social Security turns out, according to various calculations, to be either about the same as that for whites or somewhat better. Hispanics, by the way, clearly do better than either. So the claim that Social Security is unfair to blacks is just false. And the fact that privatizers keep making that claim, after their calculations have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, is yet another indicator of the fundamental dishonesty of their sales pitch. What's really shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of the black death rate, however, is what it takes for granted. The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society--including highly unequal access to good-quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants are two and a half times as likely as white babies to die in their first year. Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health inequalities. But the benefits of Social Security privatization, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time. Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called ``the soft bigotry of low expectations?'' Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry--yes, that sounds like the right word.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her wonderful presentation. She raised a very important point. Democrats wants to preserve the safety net of Social Security, but we also support any plan that encourages savings for individuals. But let us not undermine this whole system. I believe the gentlewoman pointed that out very well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and an important leader on this issue and many others.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement. She made many strong points, particularly on health disparities. The gentlewoman pointed out that health disparities are not caused by Social Security. There are health disparities in our country, and we should address that with better health care. The fact that some people do not have good health care is no reason to undermine the entire system of Social Security, but we should focus on that area of need to help people in this country. I thank the gentlewoman for her time. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has worked very hard on many equality issues and, in fact, used to run the office of economic equality in the Carter administration, I believe.

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on so many constitutional issues and equality issues. She has always been out there really leading the way. We thank her for being with us tonight. I yield to the gentleman from the Show-me State of Missouri (Mr. Carnahan). I thank him for being here. Welcome.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would place in the Record at this point a letter that was signed by 40 of my colleagues asking him to make it absolutely clear that he rejects the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) notion, and I hope that we hear that tomorrow night. Hon. George W. Bush, President, Washington, DC Dear Mr. President, We were appalled to hear Ways & Means Chairman Bill Thomas propose Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that Social Security benefits should be based on race and gender. Chairman Thomas said that Congress ``needs to consider how many years of retirement you get based on your race'' and that women should receive fewer benefits each year because they tend to live longer than men. Asked if Congress would accept such an idea, Chairman Thomas didn't seem to know the answer. The answer is ``No,'' Mr. President. We, the undersigned members of Congress, will not accept a Social Security formula that is based on race or gender. This idea is unfair, it is unjust, it is profoundly anti-American. We call on you to repudiate it. We request a meeting with you to give you our views in person and receive your response. Cutting benefits to those who need them most is counter to the core principles on which Social Security was founded. That great program is the financial safety net for all working Americans in their old age. All workers have earned their benefits and are entitled to them regardless of gender or race. Social Security's formulas are race and gender neutral and must remain so. To propose that women should receive fewer benefits because they tend to live longer denies benefits to retired women workers who depend on them to survive and is fundamentally wrong. To advocate that minorities should receive different benefits on the basis of their race is repugnant in a society that has renounced racial discrimination and where all persons are equal before the law. Chairman Thomas' proposal attacks the most vulnerable among us. Retired women workers are twice as likely as men to live below the poverty line and to depend on Social Security as their sole means of support. For African-Americans, Social Security cuts the poverty rate from 59 percent to 21 percent. Sunday was not the first time Chairman Thomas has proposed basing Social Security on race and gender, but it was the first he made clear on national TV that he will advance this outrageous agenda in the Congress. It is time to make clear that Congress will not accept it. Nor should you or your administration. Chairman Thomas' proposal goes against everything for this great nation stands, and it is counter to our deepest moral values. We call on you to renounce clearly and unambiguously any change to Social Security benefits premised on race or gender. Sincerely, Carolyn Maloney; Frank Pallone, Jr.;Nancy Pelosi; Tammy Baldwin;William Jefferson; Alcee Hastings; Dale Kildee; Diane Watson; Michael Michaud; Gene Green; Steve Israel; Maxine Waters; Lynn Woolsey; Joe Baca; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Chris Van Hollen; Jerrold Nadler; Gary Ackerman; Raul Grijalva; Barbara Lee; Gwen Moore; Luis Gutierrez; Sam Farr; Bobby Rush; Marty Meehan; Mike Honda; Ed Markey; Tim Bishop; Robert Menendez; Donald M. Payne; Tom Lantos; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Al Green; Loretta Sanchez; Henry Waxman; Julia Carson; Maurice Hinchey; Elijah Cummings; Linda Sanchez; Artur Davis; and Major R. Owens; Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly a letter that came into my office on this issue from one of my constituents, and she wrote: ``I want to thank you for standing up on the Congress floor and speaking out against the appalling recommendation made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) on Meet the Press. No decisions regarding Social Security should be based on a recipient's gender or race. To this day, women and often minorities still earn less on average than men. This has placed an unfair burden on women who often are the sole providers for their children to have the means in which to save for their retirement. Shall we further ensure their poverty in their final years? Please do not allow the gender gap to become acceptable and government-controlled.'' Another person who has spoken out strongly on this issue is the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), and I thank her for joining us.

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I would suggest that the gentleman from New Jersey and others listen very carefully to the State of the Union tomorrow night, ask some serious questions and demand some answers. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2005] Bush May Back Curbs on Accounts--President Courts Critics of Social Security Plan (By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman) President Bush is privately expressing support for limits on the cost and risk of partially privatizing Social Security, in an effort to mollify nervous Republicans and win over dubious Democrats, according to White House aides and congressional Republicans. Bush, who plans to make Social Security the centerpiece of tomorrow's State of the Union address, has privately told GOP lawmakers and aides that he would support phasing in changes to the system to keep deficits under control over the next several years and push individuals who opt for private accounts into more conservative investments, such as bonds, as they near retirement to mitigate long-term risks, the sources said. In addition, Bush has expressed strong support for protecting lower-income workers from the brunt of any future reductions in benefits, a chief concern of Democrats. The Treasury Department is doing a budget analysis to determine how many lower-income Americans could be shielded from benefit cuts necessary to offset the overall cost of creating private accounts, the officials said. ``The administration as a whole is committed to an unprecedented effort to better communicate the proposal,'' especially its limits on cost and risk, said Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a top White House adviser. The president wants to allow younger Americans to divert a third or more of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts, which would take billions of dollars from the trust fund that finances the nearly 70-year- old retirement and disability program. In order to close that funding gap between benefits promised future retirees and taxes expected to be collected, the president would reduce future Social Security benefits, at least for those who choose to set up private investment accounts. As a result, the president is scrambling to assure lawmakers--and voters--that private accounts can be created without putting the federal budget and people's retirement nest eggs at risk. With most Democrats opposed to the president's proposal, Bush intends to use the State of the Union speech to begin to detail these ideas, and to argue that new Social Security accounts will be highly regulated and voluntary--and necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt decades from now. In his speech, the president will not detail the size of new private accounts or the benefit cuts needed to help offset the revenue losses, according to an administration official briefed on the speech. But Bush will talk more specifically about how the proposed accounts would offer only a few, regulated investments options, much like the Thrift Savings Plan for government employees. The speech will focus on the policy, but its aim is highly political, Republicans say. After surveying roughly half a dozen Senate Democrats whom the White House considers potential converts to Bush's plan, the president and his congressional allies realize they must limit the budget impact of creating a new system and protect lower-income workers, who rely heavily on Social Security for their retirement income. One way of holding down short-term costs would be to allow Americans to shift gradually part of their payroll taxes into private accounts. Critics say this would do little to reduce the overall transition cost, which experts say could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next two decades. Bush plans to target Senate Democrats facing reelection with speeches and town hall meetings on Thursday and Friday. He suffered a minor political blow yesterday, when the Congressional Budget Office released new projections for Social Security's financial health, pushing forward the year when Social Security benefits begin to exceed Social Security taxes. The CBO now projects that date for 2020, a year later than its earlier assessment and two years earlier than the Social Security Administration's projection. The new forecast, by Congress's nonpartisan, official budget scorekeeper, highlights the uncertainty about the system's future. CBO officials attributed the slight improvement to small economic revisions, but CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin was quick to say the changes are economically insignificant. ``Anyone who's making policy based on what they think is a change in these numbers would be making a mistake,'' he said. But what is economically significant and what is politically significant are two very different things. Democrats who contend that Bush is exaggerating the need to act and the benefits of his plan pounced on the latest report. ``Today's numbers from the Congressional Budget Office provide further confirmation that Social Security is on solid financial footing for decades to come,'' said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). ``While we do face a long-term challenge that should be addressed, there is no reason to rush to privatize Social Security while making deep cuts in benefits and exploding our national debt.'' Indeed, the politics of Social Security are playing a prominent role in shaping the debate. Even before Bush has detailed his plan, almost every Democrat has vowed to oppose it, and a large number of Republicans have expressed deep concerns. This has forced Bush to rethink his strategy and rework his proposal. MoveOn.org, a liberal group that was highly critical of Bush throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, today will begin airing television ads warning three House members not to ``privatize'' Social Security: Reps. Allen Boyd Jr. (D- Fla.), Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), and Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.). The 2006 elections are nearly two years away, and Chocola is already facing MoveOn.org's ads and a flurry of automated phone calls to his constituents from an unidentified group condemning plans to change the system. Chocola, a second-term lawmaker likely to face a tough reelection in 2006, said the offensive will prove futile. At the same time, Republican-leaning groups are readying their own ad campaigns. The Business Roundtable, which represents large corporations, is planning to spend $15 million to $20 million on ads and other lobbying efforts in support of Bush's plan, according to spokeswoman Johanna Schneider. And Progress for America, a group with close ties to the White House, will spend $250,000 next week on national cable ads to support the president's efforts.

Mrs. MALONEY. It was astonishing, absolutely astonishing. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to one of the organizers of this Special Order, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). I thank her very much for her hard work on putting this together and for her leadership on Social Security and so many other issues.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, February marks the twelfth anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3), allows employees to take time off from work to care for a new baby or sick family member. It has allowed more than 35 million Americans to be able to take unpaid leave without the risk of losing their jobs in its twelve years since becoming law. Today, I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Imagine if your adult child, your parent-in-law, domestic partner or grandparent was involved in a serious car accident and had no one to take care of him or her. Then imagine your employer telling you that you can't take a few days off work to care for your loved one because you are not covered by FMLA. This situation sounds preposterous, but there is no protection for you in current law. That is why I am introducing the FMLA Inclusion and the FMLA Enhancement Acts. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (H.R. 1430 in the 108th Congress) amends the FMLA to permit leave to care for a domestic partner, same-sex spouse, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent if that person has a serious health condition. Currently, the FMLA allows qualified workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborns, seek emergency medical care for himself/ herself, parents, children under 18 or a legal spouse. The Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act (H.R. 956 in the 108th Congress). Building on the success of the FMLA, this legislation would allow more people to benefit from Family and Medical Leave by allowing employees in companies with more than 25 employees to take Family and Medical Leave and would extend employee leave for workers to go to parent-teacher conferences or to take their children, grandchildren or other family members to the doctor for regular medical appointments.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with my distinguished colleagues an article in the January 27, 2005 issue of the New York Sun regarding the recent announcement by the American Red Cross in Greater New York that it intends to forge a partnership with the Jerusalem Magen David Adom, a branch of Israel's emergency medical, ambulance, blood and disaster services. The article, by Meghan Clyne, a Staff Reporter for the Sun, is as follows: Entering where the international community fears to tread, the Greater New York chapter of the American Red Cross has signed a friendship pact with the Jerusalem Magen David Adom, Israel's Red Cross society. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies recognizes as full members 181 national Red Cross organizations--including those from Iran, Cuba and North Korea--but not Israel's. On February 9, a delegation from the Jerusalem MDA--Magen David Adom means Red Star of David--is scheduled to visit New York as part of a continuing exchange between the societies, to learn from the work undertaken by the New York Red Cross, according to officials from the New York chapter. In late November the New Yorkers journeyed to Israel, where they met with MDA officials in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and visited a settlement to observe how the MDA responds to, and prepares for, emergency situations. At the end of the trip, members of the New York and Jerusalem groups signed a memorandum of understanding making the cooperation official. One of the benefits of that cooperation is increased training in responding to terrorist attacks, the CEO of the American Red Cross in Greater New York, Terry Bischoff, said. ``Certainly we believe that given issues Israel has unfortunately had to deal with around disasters and terrorism responses, there are things we can learn from them to enhance our response capability,'' she said. In exchange, Ms. Bischoff said, the Americans are more experienced in providing mental-health and other support services to victims of terrorist attacks and other disasters, an expertise the Israelis hoped to learn from in dealing with the aftermath of suicide bombings and other attacks. The New York-Jerusalem cooperation ``really builds on a 50- year history . . . the American Red Cross has always been supportive of bringing the MDA into the Red Cross movement,'' Ms. Bischoff said. While the MDA is not an official voting member of the international federation, Israel's national Red Cross organization enjoys bilateral friendship agreements with several other countries, including France and Bulgaria in addition to America. Ms. Bischoff said those agreements-- and greater working relationships between the MDA and other nations' Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations--are helpful to the cause of getting Israel fully recognized by the international Red Cross apparatus. For its part, Ms. Bischoff added, the American Red Cross signed a friendship agreement with the MDA in 2002 and has withheld $25 million in dues from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies since 2000. It has continued, however, to make contributions to the field work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The director of the international department of Magen David Adom, Yonatan Yagodovsky, said he did not see the lack of formal international recognition as a major stumbling block to the MDA's work. ``This is a political obstacle that will be overcome,'' Mr. Yagodovsky said. He said that while the MDA still hopes to receive official recognition, ``there aren't any clouds above the relationship between Magen David Adom and the international movement.'' Mr. Yagodovsky cited the MDA's recent tsunami-relief work alongside other Red Cross societies as an example. Magen David Adom was established in 1930 and was denied admission to the international Red Cross community by one vote in 1949, a year after Israel declared statehood. Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in recognizing the American Red Cross in Greater New York for its forward-thinking agreement with Jerusalem Magen David Adom. It is my hope that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies will soon join its New York chapter and officially recognize Magen David Adom as a full member of the organization.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues were watching Meet the Press on Sunday, they may have seen a truly remarkable thing. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) proposed that Social Security benefits should be based on race and gender. If we take the distinguished chairman at his word, he is proposing overt race and gender discrimination by the government. Apart from raising serious constitutional questions, this shocks the conscience. My colleagues can read excerpts from the transcript of his statement on Meet the Press in press clippings across the country and in Tuesday's Roll Call. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said, Congress ``needs to examine how many years of retirement you get based on your race and you ought not to leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.'' Tim Russert, who seemed a bit taken aback by this, asked Thomas, ``So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year?'' The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) confirmed that is what he wants Congress to consider. Then Russert asked, ``Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people should be treated differently because of their gender or race?'' I can answer that question and I believe that I speak for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the answer is a very strong no. We will never accept a Social Security formula based on race or gender. I am confident that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue find this idea as repulsive as I do. This idea is unfair, it is unjust, it is profoundly anti-American. It goes against fundamental constitutional principles of equal protection. Congress must, and I believe will, repudiate it. Social Security is the financial safety net for all working Americans in their old age; and all workers are entitled to its benefits, regardless of gender or race. Its formulas currently are race and gender neutral and must remain so for all time, I believe. Regardless of what projections we each believe in for the long-term outlook of the trust fund, we must surely agree on the basic proposition that all retired workers are entitled to this essential government safety net without regard to gender or race. The chairman's proposal attacks the most vulnerable among us, those who need Social Security most, and that is wrong. He proposes to cut every woman's annual Social Security benefits because statistically women live longer than men, and that is just plain backwards. What are retired women supposed to do, live at a lower level of income payments than men? On the contrary, women need Social Security even more than men do. We are a long way from closing the wage gap. We are currently 79 cents to the dollar, and that translates into an even wider pension gap. Retired women workers are twice as likely as men to depend on Social Security as their sole means of support and to depend on Social Security benefits to keep them out of poverty. According to Joint Economic Committee figures and the National Women's Law Center, women are 60 percent of Social Security recipients at age 67 and three-quarters of the recipients at age 85 or older. Hispanic women, for example, live the longest of all as a group. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) logic would cut their benefits most. Yet more than half of retired Hispanic women depend on Social Security for 90 percent of their income and without it would live in poverty. The chairman also proposed to adjust benefits based on race, and this is mindboggling. I am at a loss of words to explain how outrageous it is to propose basing any government benefit based on race. Let me just remind the distinguished gentleman from California that the Constitution requires the Federal Government to treat persons of all races equally. His proposal raises very serious constitutional questions and undermines our moral commitment to our society in which all are treated equally, regardless of race. I wish I could call the chairman's statements on Sunday ill considered and not serious, but that was not the first time the chairman has proposed such a policy, and I call on my colleagues to not accept it. I am circulating a letter to the President of the United States. I will place it into the Record. I urge my colleagues to support it and to send a strong message that basing any type of Social Security benefits on race and gender is unfair and just plain wrong. I will also add in the Record additional statements and some comments from around the country that have been in major papers. January 26, 2005. No, Mr. President, Congress Will Not Accept a Social Security Formula Based on Race or Gender Dear Colleague: We expect you were as shocked as we were to hear Ways & Means Chairman Thomas again propose on ``Meet the Press'' Sunday that Social Security benefits should be allocated based on race and gender. Cutting Social Security benefits to women and minorities--the retirees who need them the most--is wrong, unfair, unjust and fundamentally anti- American. We will not accept a formula that has such unfairness as its centerpiece. We will be sending the attached letter to the president asking him to repudiate Thomas' proposal by taking his outrageous proposal to base Social Security benefits on race and gender off the table. Please contact Eleni Constantine with Rep. Maloney at 5-7944 by 6 p.m. today if you would like to sign the letter. Sincerely, Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress. Frank Pallone, Jr., Member of Congress.