Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to underscore the importance of this amendment. The beetle has struck two parks in the district that I represent. Once they infest the trees, they have to all be chopped down. They have been found three blocks from Central Park in New York, and we are trying mightily to keep it out of Central Park and from moving to the upstate forested area of New York State and moving to other States. We have to stop the beetle and spend as much money as it takes. Because once they infest a tree, the only alternative is to chop the tree down and all the trees in the surrounding area. It is a tremendous crisis of the environment in our neighborhood, and I strongly support the ranking member's statements and the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY

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

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it does not hurt to remind Americans to be vigilant against terrorist attacks, but yesterday's infomercial from the Department of Homeland Security was similar to warnings in April and May that did not tell the American people what to do and glossed over serious gaps in the administration's effort to protect our rail and transit systems. One-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide target transit systems, and public transit is the most frequent target. What happened in Madrid could easily happen in New York. And we know for sure that the al Qaeda had plans to attack Washington D.C.'s Metro system last year. We know that public transit carries 16 times more passengers than the airlines, but the Federal Government provides 90 times more funding for airline security. Something is very wrong with this security funding formula, and yesterday's press conference did nothing to fix it.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sherman amendment that would limit the use of the enemy combatant doctrine to detain persons indefinitely. While this amendment would only apply to those apprehended on U.S. soil, the government has detained American citizens, individuals whose rights are without a doubt protected by the U.S. Constitution, without charging them or allowing their case to be brought before our judicial system. This is simply wrong. How can we expect the rest of the world to respect our way of life if we do not even adhere to the principles we claim to hold dear? How can we expect our own constituents to believe in the protection of their rights if the rights of others are trampled on? The Supreme Court recently determined that foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay and American citizens detained in military brigs are entitled to their day in court. Clearly, it's time that this Administration begin to respect the rights of the people it claims are criminals. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for due process of law, and it's time we remembered that. I thank my friend Representative Sherman for offering this amendment today, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the freedom to read amendment. It is imperative that we do all we can to protect our country against terrorism, but reinstating laws that allow the FBI to conduct searches on libraries with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize national security. It would merely protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free once again. But under the PATRIOT Act, the use of our local library is no longer free. It can cost us our civil liberties. And in the U.S. that makes it very expensive. We are talking about the basic right to inform oneself without the threat of the Federal Government looking over their shoulder for whatever reason it likes or analyzing their intellectual curiosity for whatever reason they want. This is a chilling thought in a country that calls itself the land of the free. The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We should not need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to inform ourselves, but section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes us think it should be removed. I support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Freedom to Read amendment. This amendment would abolish section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Section 215 gives the FBI unlimited power to examine our library records and book-store purchases--without providing any evidence that one is under suspicion of terrorism. The free library is one of America's great educational and cultural traditions, and a cornerstone of our communities. But under the PATRIOT Act, use of the local library is no longer free. It can cost you your civil liberties, and in the United States of America, that makes it very expensive. We aren't talking about flag burning here. We're talking about the basic right to inform yourself without the threat of the Federal Government looking over your shoulder for whatever reason it likes. When you are doing research in a library or browsing the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble, you shouldn't have to think twice about how your intellectual curiosity might be analyzed in a Federal investigation. This is a chilling thought in a country that calls itself the Land of the Free. The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to inform ourselves. But section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes you wonder. It's imperative that we do all we can to protect our country against terrorism. Reinstating laws that allow the FBI to conduct searches on library and bookstore records with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize national security. It would merely protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free again. Support the Freedom to Read amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I feel that we need to fund the census. We have to get ready for the census that is to come, and if we do not fund it now, then the census will not be accurate when the time comes to go forward and get an accurate accounting of Americans. Mr. Chairman, if the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), would allow me to ask a question about the funding for research on migration into and out of the United States, I understand the committee did not fund a new initiative proposed by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau was going to spend $1.23 million in fiscal year 2005 to improve the migration estimates and demographic analysis. As my colleague from New York will remember, the Census Bureau estimates failed to capture the dramatic increase in the migration of Hispanics during the 1990s, and as a result, those estimates were seriously flawed. Is it correct that the committee has eliminated funding to improve those estimates?

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the committee has reduced the funding for the American Community Survey by $19 million. I was concerned about that cut, but I have been told that the Census Bureau has assured the committee that these cuts will have no effect on the quality of the survey; is that correct?

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the Chairman. Currently, this bill does not include group quarters in the American Community Survey for fiscal year 2005. My understanding is that the Census Bureau agrees that students in dorms, inmates in prisons, seniors in nursing homes, some assisted living facilities, and those on military bases in the United States do not need to be included in the survey this fiscal year, and this will not impact accuracy for 2010. Is that also correct?

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in order to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member, would the chairman allow me to ask a question about the funding for the American Community Survey?

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate his efforts to assure funding not only for the 2010 census, but for the many other important programs at the Census Bureau. I believe this small amount of research funding now will pay great dividends down the road, and that the failure to fund this research will have serious consequences for the accuracy of a great many census programs besides the 2010 census.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for many of the reasons that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I gave earlier in support of having an accurate census. It takes years of planning for a census, and the funds people would cut today are the funds that pay for that planning. These cuts will result in a more costly or less accurate census or both. We need to put this funding forward now; and if we do not do it now, we will have to pay for twice the work next year, and that really does not save money. A lot of the questions that are on the American Community Survey and on the census forms are questions that are required by law and are required by a legislative-mandated program. For example, we collect information on income to determine the number of children in poverty, and this data is used to distribute the title I education funds, and that pays for reading teachers and other specialists. I know that every one of my colleagues has heard from their local communities when these funds are cut, and all of these funding formulas are tied to census numbers. The more accurate the numbers are, the fairer our democracy is. So those who would cut the funding for this census and offer no replacement for the functions that the census serves, they would have us do without accurate numbers; and in the absence of accurate information, funds get distributed by those who control the purse strings, not based on the merit of the programs or the merit of the numbers. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment in favor of directing Federal funds to where they can do the most good based on accurate census numbers. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, while I am extremely sympathetic to the cause my good friend from New York supports, I cannot support this amendment. Taking money from the census planning will cripple that effort and have consequences that will damage the census throughout this decade. All of our representation in this Congress and our local and State bodies is based on census numbers. The funding that we receive in localities across this Nation are based on census numbers. Working to make it as accurate as possible is absolutely fundamental to the fairness of our democracy. The 2000 census was the most expensive in history and was not very much more accurate than the 1990 census. Demographic analysis failed to capture the growth in Hispanic migration and, as a result, was of little use in measuring the accuracy of the census. The census annual estimates of the population were off by almost 8 million in 2000. These and many other errors were the result of a failure of Congress to adequately fund the planning for the 2000 census. The census is an enormous management undertaking. It is the largest peacetime mobilization the government undertakes. The census requires planning to mobilize hundreds of thousands of workers for a few weeks. In 2000, it took 500 offices and 500,000 workers. The Census Bureau opens those offices, hires a staff, and closes those offices all in a few weeks. Over 100 million forms have to be printed, labeled, and mailed. Those forms have to be returned by mail and the information on them tabulated, and all of this must be done in the 9 months between April 1 and December 31, when the director must submit to the President the State numbers for apportionment. The budget for 2005 is essential for a fair and accurate census in 2010. The cut called for in this amendment will result in a poorly executed 2010 census. That, in turn, will result in millions of errors that will distort the apportionment of the seats in this House. These cuts will result in a more costly or less accurate census or both. In this Information Age, we need reliable information in order to make good decisions for this Nation. Without good data, we cannot administer the laws of this country fairly, and I, for one, will continue to do all I can to make sure that the Census Bureau has the capabilities to provide the Congress and the Nation with the ability to provide all of us with high-quality data needed by the public and the private sector and its elected representatives to make informed public policy decisions. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I will be supporting the Sanders Freedom to Read amendment which would curb the FBI's unlimited power to examine library records without providing evidence that one is under reasonable suspicion of terrorism. The free library is a great American institution. But under the PATRIOT Act, your local library is no longer free. It can cost you your civil liberties, and in America that makes it very expensive. We should not have to think twice about how our intellectual curiosity might be analyzed by a Federal investigation. This is a chilling thought in the land of the free. We must protect our country against terrorism. Reinstating laws allowing the FBI to conduct searches on library and bookstore records with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize our national security; it would protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free again.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the achievements of Mary E. Leishman, a longtime resident and champion of New York City. Ms. Leishman, who passed away on June 12, 2004, leaves behind a large and caring family, devoted friends, loyal colleagues and an incredible record of community service. Mary worked every day to promote the interests of her community and to better the lives of New York City residents. The city and people of New York will miss her dearly. Ms. Leishman was known as the ``Godmother of Yorkville''--the area of Manhattan she called home for the majority of her life. Yorkville lies between the Upper East Side and East Harlem neighborhoods of Manhattan, which are traditionally regarded as the borough's wealthiest and poorest areas. The great diversity of Ms. Leishman's neighborhood fueled her many accomplishments, and provided the setting for her significant contributions to the public good. Mary was truly a servant of the people, devoting much of her time and energy to New York City politics and public policy. Ms. Leishman served for more than fifteen years as a District Leader of the Eastside Democratic Club and was a longtime delegate to the Democratic County Convention. Mary worked tirelessly for the causes in which she believed, and showed a particular affinity for ``grassroots'' campaigning. Mary was always available to work at polling locations, collect signatures and perform other administrative tasks--duties that are essential to the functioning of our democracy, but that are often overlooked. Mary was always attentive to the adage that ``all politics is local.'' Ms. Leishman was a devoted member of Manhattan Community Board Eight, serving in both professional and volunteer capacities. Ms. Leishman was the Chairwoman of Board Eight's Roosevelt Island Committee and for decades visited the island at least twice a week to assess neighborhood concerns and needs. Mary is perhaps best remembered, however, for her efforts to help a great many New Yorkers, particularly veterans and the disabled, find affordable places to live. Indeed, Ms. Leishman led Board Eight's efforts to preserve the Upper East Side's stock of moderate-income housing. In recent days, many of Ms. Leishman's friends have contacted me to relate stories of Mary's great kindness to individuals in her community. I understand that not too long ago, Ms. Leishman and a friend were walking along 34th Street in Manhattan when a man stopped to ask them for money. Noticing that the man was barefoot, Mary led him to a nearby store and bought him socks and a new pair of shoes. Similarly, Mary was known to regularly provide hot meals to homeless persons she encountered in her travels around the city. These are only a few examples of Mary's generous spirit, but they underscore the fact that Ms. Leishman never ignored the most vulnerable members of her community. Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in honoring the late Mary Leishman, whose lifetime of community service exemplifies the tradition of civic involvement that makes America the greatest nation in the world. To Ms. Leishman's friends, family members and colleagues, I offer my continuing respect, admiration and support.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this excerpt from ``Whatever Happened to Lori Berenson, President Toledo's Trophy Prisoner?'' This analysis was prepared by Abigail Jones, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and presents factual documentation about the recent developments in the case of my constituent, Lori Berenson, who has been imprisoned for eight and a half years in Peru. During her imprisonment, she has never received a fair trial. I remain hopeful that the Peruvian government will release Lori from prison. It is time for her to come home. (Excerpt): ``Lori Berenson, a 34-year-old New York native, has spent eight-and-a-half years incarcerated in Peru without the benefit of a fair and impartial trial--until now. Berenson's most recent trial was heard on May 7, 2004, in San Jose, Costa Rica before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the OAS's highest judicial body for the regional organization's member states. The CIDH exerts jurisdiction over OAS members who have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, which Peru has endorsed. It is of note that this Court does not adjudicate the innocence or guilt of a defendant, but rather evaluates a state's compliance to the tenets of the Convention. The Court consented to hear Berenson's case upon the request of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), after the Peruvian government failed to comply with the Commission's 2002 recommendations calling for the restoration of Berenson's rights, monetary compensation for damages incurred while in prison and a general overhaul of the anti-terrorism laws that have condemned hundreds if not thousands of Peruvian nationals under the Alberto Fujimori regime (1990-2000), to a parody of properly administered justice. ``If Berenson were to be exonerated of her alleged offense, the Peruvian government would be obliged to comply with the Court's judgment, based on Article 68 of the American Convention on Human Rights; this clause asserts that, `The States party to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.' Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark represented Berenson throughout the Court proceedings and was assisted by noted criminal and international lawyer Thomas H. Nooter as well as Peruvian lawyer Jose Luis Sandoval Quesada. The Court's ruling will likely be handed down later this year. . . ``In December of 1994, Berenson allegedly arrived in Peru as a journalist to work for two small American publications, Modern Times and Third World Viewpoint. On Nov. 30, 1995, the Peruvian police arrested her aboard a public bus on charges of `treason against the fatherland.' After being illegally interrogated by the police without the benefit of a defense counsel, Berenson appeared before a `faceless' military court that had a 97 percent conviction rate. In a grossly contrived trial before a hooded military judge who most likely hadn't attended a day of law school, this court sentenced her to life in prison for her suspected leadership position in the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) and for the role she purportedly played in plotting a foiled attempt to abduct members of Peru's Congress. However, after years of outraged international protest over her patently inequitable trial, she continues to serve a 20-year sentence, after a civilian court overturned the '96 supreme military court's decision on the basis of newly obtained evidence that proved she was not a leader of the MRTA. She was then convicted on a lesser offense of abetting a terrorist organization. The civilian court acquitted Berenson of both membership in and militancy with a subversive organization.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2004, I missed rollcall Vote No. 275. Rollcall Vote No. 275 was on final passage of a bill Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 275.

Mrs. MALONEY

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their hard work on this truly important bill. The Maloney-Rangel-Weiner amendment would limit the number of grants made under the Urban Area Security Initiative to 80 total grants. This is the same number of grants that were distributed by the Department of Homeland Security this year. Since the Sweeney amendment was not adopted that would increase funding to the high-threat level the President requested, capping the number of grants to this year's number is the best way to ensure that the same places that are targeted by terrorists are targeted by the aid. This amendment will ensure that high-threat money goes to high- threat communities. As every terrorist expert will tell us, we need to secure the high- profile areas targeted by terrorists. Yet, it seems that since the program started, we are more concerned with expanding the number of grants than securing the most vulnerable areas. We first started with 7 grants to cities. We then grew to 30. Now we are at 80 total grants, 50 to cities and 30 to transit authorities. We are in danger of losing our focus on the core mission of most effectively protecting ourselves with the limited resources we have. Over the first 2 years of the program, we have seen an increase in the number of grants, but we have cut the funding levels from $800 million in 2003 to $725 million in 2004. The result of the rapidly expanding list of entities eligible for high-threat monies was a dramatic cut for some of the highest threat cities. For example, last year, New York got $150 million of Federal high- threat aid. This year, it shrunk by 69 percent to $47 million. The DC area suffered a reduction of 52 percent of high-threat money. Chicago was cut by 17 percent of their funding. But believe me, DC, Chicago, New York, Houston, Seattle, they have not seen a decrease in their threat levels or a decrease in the amount of money that their local governments are forced to spend on the protection of their people. One positive step that this bill takes today is a general increase in high-threat money, from $725 million this year to $1 billion. But I am concerned that if this trend continues, the number of grants will continue to increase, and the aid to the areas under the greatest threat will continue to see their aid decrease. At a time when the administration tells us terrorists are eager to attack, we need to make sure that high-threat grants actually go to where the high threat is. That is what this amendment attempts to do. This high-threat grant program and list cannot become another pipeline for general spending for other needs. We have to uphold it as one way to actually give the cities at risk the help that they need. Targeting money to these high-threat areas is not sending money to prevent some hypothetical threat. The cities on the high-threat list either have been the victim of a terrorist attack or, at the very least, have been talked about by the terrorists as a target area. We know how the al Qaeda thinks: If at first you do not succeed, try, try again. They viewed their first attack on the World Trade Center as a disaster, as a failure, so they came back with a vengeance on September 11. There have been several other planned attacks in New York City that have been foiled. If we take a look at terrorist attacks or known plots over the last number of years, there is one thing in common: they are all on the list of high-threat cities. We can point to the millennium plot in Seattle, Washington. Plans to attack the Los Angeles International Airport, the September 11 attacks against New York and Washington, DC, and just this week, the Attorney General told us that there was a plot on a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio. Seattle, Columbus, LA, New York, DC, they are all on the current list of 80 high-threat entities. By including 80 entities, we allow the Department of Homeland Security to cast a pretty wide net, while making sure it is not too wide to be effective. We need to target the aid to the terrorist targets in our country. That is the purpose of the high-threat aid formula, and that is what my amendment does.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sweeney amendment and in appreciation to the New York and New Jersey delegations and many from Chicago and other areas that are supporting this important amendment. Mayor Bloomberg is watching this debate, and his office just sent me a note and asked me to clarify on the floor today that New York City got $90 million last year out of the $3 billion given out for homeland security to State and local governments; $35 million in high-threat money, and $53 million from the State grant program, bringing the total to $90 million out of $3 billion for New York City. His office asked me to note to this body that last year New York City spent well over $1 billion on homeland security, and I really am urging my colleagues to do the right thing for the security of our Nation and support the Sweeney amendment. It has been 2\1/2\ years since 9/11, and we have heard numerous reports, intelligence reports, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, and I support his comments completely; and numerous warnings about terrorist plans for more strikes on America. Alert after alert, Code Orange after Code Orange, we hear that the terrorists have their sights on high-impact targets. In other words, the terrorists continue to want to strike centers of power and population, just as they did on 9/11. Their goal is to kill as many as possible, send as big a message as possible, and disrupt American institutions as much as possible. Mr. Chairman, despite that knowledge, our homeland security funding since 9/11 has been, in large part, misguided. We continue to push limited resources through a bad formula that sends a disproportionate amount of money to prairies and pastures rather than population centers. We cannot wait out the game being played with that formula, because the terrorists do not plan on waiting for us to be ready. Mr. Chairman, the Sweeney amendment will bring one measure of immediate assistance to the cities and communities that are squarely in the terrorists' bull's eye. All we are asking is that we do what President Bush wants. After 2 years of misguided homeland security budgets, the President finally called for a doubling of the Urban Area Security Initiative funds in his budget proposal. Sending more assistance to the communities most at risk is the best way to get the money where the threat is, right now. New York is terrorist target number 1. Everyone says that. And I repeat, we have spent over $1 billion out of our own pocket for security, but we have gotten a mere fraction of that back from the Federal Government. There is no reason that New Yorkers should have to watch New York City close down over six firehouses. We have fewer police and fire today than we had on 9/11. The radios that did not work on 9/11 still do not work. The HAZMAT suits destroyed on 9/11 have not been replaced. Yet, there are press reports across this country about many communities getting money, and they even say to the press we do not know what to do with it. We should not be sending more gas masks to certain areas than there are even police officers, sending more homeland assistance to low-threat communities than they know what to do with while our high-threat communities struggle to keep their heads above water. It is not fair, it is not smart, and it certainly is not secure. At the very least, this amendment sends the message to the American people that we do, in fact, understand the need to base assistance on where the threat is and, more importantly, it finally sends more assistance to the communities that desperately need it. The Sweeney amendment does exactly what the President's budget requested. So I request my colleagues to join us in supporting this.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. There is no question that Congress must act promptly to repeal the tax breaks for U.S. exporters. The EU sanctions are increasing and are unfairly hurting sectors of the economy that do not benefit from the tax advantage. But this is the wrong way to do it. This bill--with all the special interest tax breaks that have been loaded onto it--would hurt the economy more than doing nothing. It abolishes the tax subsidies for exporters but replaces them with an array of special interest tax breaks. We have an opportunity here for reform that would help our manufacturing sector while responding to the UE sanctions. We should not affirmatively do harm by passing this bill instead. I am particularly concerned that this bill substantially increases incentives to move American jobs offshore--by 40 million dollars, according to one estimate. How can we encourage companies to move jobs offshore at a time when the unemployment rate in New York City is at 8.1 percent and the national rate is 5.6 percent? Who are we helping here? Certainly not the American worker. Unfortunately, the Majority has denied us the opportunity to vote on the Rangel substitute to this misguided legislation. The Rangel alternative would strike provisions that promote shipping jobs overseas, add provisions to create more jobs in the United States by giving tax relief to American manufacturing including small business and farmers, strike narrow special interest provisions, and is fully paid for. And the Rangel substitute would close tax loopholes for corporations and individuals that move abroad to avoid paying taxes. By limiting debate on these critical issues, the Republicans do a disservice to the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.