Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote for the Sanchez amendment which will protect women's health and rights overseas. War has just ended in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we still have many servicewomen overseas who are risking their lives to protect our lives and our rights as U.S. citizens. One of those rights is a woman's right to choose, but women serving effectively lose this constitutional right at U.S. military bases where they literally cannot even pay for this medical procedure with their own money. A male member of the Armed Services needing medical attention receives the best, but a female member needing a specific medical procedure must return to the United States, often at great expense, or go to a foreign hospital which may be unsanitary and dangerous. This is absolutely wrong. After over 200 anti-choice votes, this is yet another one. Madam Chairman, I place in the Record a list of distinguished organizations that have come out in support of protecting women's rights overseas. College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The American Association of University Women; National Women's Law Center; American Medical Women's Association; Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health; The Bipartisan Pro-Choice Caucus; Planned Parenthood; and NARAL.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, traditionally, the Defense Authorization Act has been a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, this year the majority has added highly controversial provisions to the bill regarding civil services law, contracting, environmental exemptions, and nuclear weapons policy. As we all know, there has been significant controversy over the process of awarding contracts in Iraq, I would like to highlight one provision in the Defense authorization bill that adds much needed sunshine to the Iraq rebuilding effort (section 1456). I thank the Government Reform and Armed Services Committee members for including this section. In a markup of H.R. 1837, the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, I offered this public disclosure language in the form of an amendment. It was unanimously accepted by the House Government Reform Committee. H.R. 1837 was referred to House Armed Services and included in H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004. In the House Armed Services Committee, the Iraqi sunshine amendment was also offered by Mr. Snyder of Arkansas. I thank Mr. Snyder for his hard work. The amendment was accepted and included in an en bloc amendment to H.R. 1588. The amendment, now section 1456, will ensure that agencies entering into a contract for the repair, maintenance, or construction of the infrastructure in Iraq without full and open competition, publish details regarding the contract. This section is very simple. It merely requires the government to publish details regarding these noncompetitive contractors. It has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The public has a right to know how billions of dollars will be spent in Iraq. As the people's Representatives, we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that funding Congress has appropriated for the Iraqi reconstruction is spent in a fair and open manner. Given the recent controversy, the least we could do is ensure that there is full disclose to the American people. In recent weeks, we have seen several press reports that United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other Federal agencies have been awarding no-bid or invitation-only contracts to firms for the rebuilding of Iraq. For instance, one firm secured a $2 million Iraq school contract through an invitation-only process. USAID awarded an invitation-only contract for $680 million to rebuild Iraq's infrasture. A $50 million policing contract was awarded through a closed bidding process and so on. I acknowledge that in some instances, noncompetitive contract will be awarded. USAID and others have argued that because of the need to move quickly, they chose to use noncompetitive procedure. The law clearly allows for these procedures. However, if a noncompetitive process is used, the American people have a right to know that it is being used and why it is being used. Section 1456 requires the Federal agencies to make these details public. Section 1456 mirrors legislation offered in the Senate by Senators Wyden, Collins, and Clinton, S. 876, the ``Sunshine in Iraq Reconstruction Contracting Act of 2003.'' S. 876 is a bipartisan bill that sets out requirements for the government to publicly justify any closed bidding process used for Iraqi reconstruction work. I thank Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Hunter, and Ranking Member Skelton, and members of the Government Reform and Armed Services Committees, for their support of this straightforward, good- government provision. I wholeheartedly support its inclusion in H.R. 1588.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 62nd anniversary of the Battle of Crete by introducing this House Resolution which recognizes and appreciates the historical significance of the people of Crete during World War II. This is a historic event with direct significance to the allies' victory of World War II. On May 20, 1941, thousands of German paratroopers and gliders began landing on Crete. Both the allies and Nazis wanted Crete because of its strategic location. At that time the British controlled the island. It was a very strong point on the lifeline to India and protected both Palestine and Egypt. The Nazi invasion force included the elite German paratroopers and glider troops. Hitler felt this was to be an easy victory, yet he is quoted to have said shortly after the invasion, ``France fell in 8 days. Why is Crete free?'' The invasion of Crete took 11 days. It resulted in more than 6,000 German troopers listed as killed, wounded or missing in action. The losses to the elite 7th parachute division were felt so hard by the German Military it signified the end of large-scale airborne operations. This valiant fight by the Cretan people began in the first hour of the Nazi airborne invasion. In contrast of the European underground movements that took a year or more after being invaded to activate. Young boys, old men and women displayed breathtaking bravery in defending their Crete. German soldiers never got used to Cretan women fighting them. They would tear the dress from the shoulder of suspected women to find bruises from the recoil of the rifle. The penalty was death. The Times (London) July 28, 1941 report that ``five hundred Cretan women have been deported to Germany for taking part in the defense of their native island.'' Another surprise for the German soldiers who invaded Crete was the heroic resistance of the clergy. A priest leading his parishioners into battle was not what the Germans anticipated. At Paleochora, Father Stylianos Frantzeskis, hearing of the German airborne invasion, rushed to his church, sounded the bell, took his rifle and marched his volunteers toward Maleme to write history. This struggle became an example for all Europe to follow in defying German occupation and aggression. The price paid by the Cretans for their valiant resistance to Nazi forces was high. Thousands of civilians died from random executions, starvation, and imprisonment. Entire communities were burned and destroyed by the Germans as a reprisal for the Cretan resistance movement. Yet this resistance lasted for four years. The battle of Crete was to change the final outcome of World War II. The Battle of Crete significantly contributed in delaying Hitler's plan to invade Russia. The invasion was delayed from April to June of 1941. The 2-month delay in the invasion made Hitler's forces face the Russian winter. The Russian snow storms and the sub zero temperatures eventually stalled the Nazi invasion before they could take Moscow or Leningrad. This was the beginning of the downfall of the Nazi reign of terror. This significant battle and the heroic drive of the Cretan people must always be remembered and honored. Democracy came from Greece and the Cretan heroes exemplified the courage it takes to preserve it. Today, the courage and fortitude of the Cretan people is seen in the members of the United Cretan Associations of New York which is located in Astoria, Queens. I congratulate the newly elected officials and look forward to working with them. I request my colleagues to join me in honoring the Cretans in the United States, Greece, and the diaspora. H. Res.-- Whereas 2003 marks the 62nd anniversary of the heroic Battle of Crete, which took place on the Greek island of Crete during World War II between Nazi German forces and the people of Crete assisted by the Allied armies; Whereas the people of Crete fought tenaciously during the Battle of Crete, delaying for two months the Nazi German invasion of Russia; Whereas this delay forced Nazi German forces to invade Russia in the face of the brutal Russian winter, changing the final outcome of World War II and leading to the defeat of fascism; Whereas many historians agree that the Battle of Crete was one of the most significant battles of World War II; Whereas the Battle of Crete contributed to saving the free world from Nazi German occupation, thus preserving democracy, freedom, and human dignity; Whereas the Cretan Resistance Movement was organized to fight the Nazi German occupation of the island of Crete; Whereas for 4 years, the Cretan Resistance Movement inflicted heavy casualties up Nazi German forces, including kidnaping a heavily-guarded Nazi German General, setting an example for all of the people of Europe to follow; Whereas the people of Crete suffered savage reprisals for their heroic resistance when the Nazi German invaders randomly executed thousands of civilians and burned and destroyed entire communities; Whereas many participants in the Battle of Crete and the Cretan Resistance Movement later emigrated to the United States and became American citizens; and Whereas many of these citizens became members of the PanCretan Association of America, an organization comprised of Greek Americans with ancestry from the island of Crete and committed to preserving and promoting the rich culture and proud history of Crete: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) observes the memory of the fallen heroes of the Battle of Crete; (2) honors the living men and women of Crete who, during World War II, fought an oppressive invader to preserve the ideals of freedom, democracy, and the pursuit of happiness; and (3) commends the PanCretan Association of America or preserving and promoting the history of Crete and its people.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Village Reform Democratic Club on the occasion of their 20th annual dinner. For over 20 years, the Village Reform Democratic Club has led its neighborhood in addressing and resolving important political and community issues. As is their custom the Village Reform Democratic Club will honor community leaders at their dinner. This year the honorees will be the Caring Community for 30 years of service to the elderly, as well as Saul Fishman and Barry Benepe, two men who in their own ways have helped shape the cultural and social fabric of New York City. For more than 30 years, professionals and volunteers at the Caring Community have helped and empowered seniors within our community, offering a broad array of programs and services, including the home delivery of over 50,000 hot meals, assistance with shopping and home repairs and assistance to seniors who are crime victims. Most importantly Caring Community operates four centers for older adults. These four centers, at Our Lady of Pompeii Church, Independence Plaza, The First Presbyterian Church and Center on the Square, are open Monday to Friday from 9 to 5. These centers offer a wide variety of programs for seniors as well as a place where seniors can enjoy a hot meal. One center is located at Independence Plaza, a neighbor to the World Trade Center. The seniors in Independence Plaza were displaced from their homes for weeks or longer. Without the crucial assistance provided by the Caring Community, many of these seniors would have been unable to deal with the psychological impact of 9/11 and might never have returned to their homes. In this time, when government is reducing spending on all services, and charitable giving, especially by corporations has been severely curtailed, along with the Village Reform Democratic Club I am proud to recognize all those who contribute their time and resources to the work of the Caring Center. Saul Fishman is a pioneer in the fight for domestic partnership for gay and lesbian couples. Beginning in 1987, Saul served as spokesman for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gays Rights and later as the chair of the Family Diversity Coalition and as a member of the Mayor's Partner Task Force. As an activist in the Civil Service Bar Association, the union representing attorneys employed by New York City, Saul persuaded the union to become the first to offer domestic partner benefits to its members. Saul later convinced the municipal unions to demand that the City of New York grant bereavement leave to any City employee who lost a domestic partner. In a dramatic confrontation with then Mayor Koch, Saul got the mayor to accept the provision. Having secured significant protections for the domestic partners of New York City employees, Saul turned to the wider issue of domestic partnership law to protect all New Yorkers. After I agreed to sponsor the bill in the City Council, Saul lobbied other members to be cosponsors and supporters. Passage of that first domestic partnership bill was hailed as an unparalleled victory for the gay and lesbian community. It is a testament to Saul Fishman's unending energy and unwavering belief that all people should have equal protection under the law. In 1976 Barry Benepe had the idea of bringing fresh produce directly to the people of New York City, and with that the Green Market was born. Starting with three sites and few local farmers, over the past 2\1/2\ decades the Green Market has expanded to 18 locations bringing over 150 farmers from 4 states. Consumers appreciate the fresh alternatives offered by the Green Market, while many environmentalists commend the transportation and environmental benefits of locally grown foods. For this Barry was awarded a Special Citation by the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. He also received a Municipal Art Society's Certificate of Merit as well as a National Recognition Award from the America the Beautiful Fund. It is members like Saul Fishman and Barry Benepe that have made the Village Reform Democratic Club a force for social change in New York City. In recognition of these outstanding contributions, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Caring Community, Saul Fishman, Barry Benepe and Village Reform Democratic Club on the occasion of their 20th annual dinner.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep frustration with the Majority's refusal to bring legislation to the Floor that will extend unemployment benefits for the nation's unemployed workers. Two point seven million jobs have been lost in the first two years of this Administration. Millions of working men and women are facing difficult budget decisions in their own homes everyday. Parents are wondering if they will be able to send their children to college. They are wondering how they will pay their bills without spiraling further into debt. Yet the Republican Majority and this White House insist on more tax cuts. Mr. Chairman, our constituents have to balance their checkbooks each month. We could learn a lot from their example. New York City has faced especially difficult times during the past two years. I have heard countless stories from my constituents who cannot find jobs in this uncertain economy. The effects of 9/11, especially on New Yorkers, cannot be ignored. Why can't the House leadership bring to the Floor legislation that will actually help workers? It's time to help thousands of New York families and families across the country keep their homes, put food on the table, and avoid a devastating financial crisis. It's time for the leadership to get serious about unemployment relief and to give us the opportunity to vote for legislation that will make a difference in the lives of workers. I wholeheartedly support legislation introduced by Congressman Rangel which would extend Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation for an additional 6 months. We must provide this necessary relief to America's unemployed. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Samuel J. Tilden Democratic Club on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. In the past half-century, the organization has consistently led its community in discussing, addressing, and resolving important political issues. Since 1953, when a group of Democrats became fed up with Tammany Hall and turned to the notion of an open political forum for inspiration, Tilden has prided itself on its diverse membership and progressive views. Tilden members represent a cross-section of the constituency, and the diversity of opinion makes the club a driving force and leader of the community. Tilden embraces the philosophical principles of Eleanor Roosevelt and Herbert Lehman and has led the efforts to address and resolve community issues for over five decades. Tilden's contributions to the community include improvements in healthcare, housing, education, social services, senior citizen needs, crime prevention, transportation and landmark designation. The local reform Democratic club of the 74th Assembly District, the Tilden club is named after Samuel J. Tilden, Governor of New York from 1875-1876. During his ten years as state party chairman from 1865-1875, Mr. Tilden made history by successfully leading the overthrow of the Tammany Hall Boss Tweed. As the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States in 1876, he became the first candidate to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College vote, and the election. Mr. Tilden's legacy of community activism and reform is reflected in the Tilden club. Tilden serves its community and its members by facilitating open communication between constituents and their representatives in government. Tilden hosts forums where constituents meet and are able to speak with their elected officials and political candidates. As a result, the residents of the district are given an opportunity to directly voice their concerns about their state and government to those who serve it. In addition to these activities, Tilden spearheads community service projects including annual street fairs, the proceeds of which are donated to community groups, hospitals, hospices, senior support groups, charities and social service organizations. Their annual ``Toys for Tots'' drive provides needy children with toys throughout New York City. Further, Tilden hosts an annual celebration honoring community and political heroes, recognizing those men and women whose efforts have made a difference in the community. Through all its efforts, Tilden focuses on improving the quality of life in our community, just as Governor Tilden worked to accomplish over a century ago. The dedication and enthusiasm of the many members and friends of Tilden have made it an extraordinary and invaluable community organization. Over the last 50 years, Tilden has helped shape the development of the community, advocating for and preserving the quality of life for residents and families of the east side of Manhattan. In recognition of these outstanding contributions, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Samuel J. Tilden Democratic Club on the occasion of their 50th Anniversary.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Tony Siano, whose commitment to various organizations has helped make the local community a better place to live. In recognition of his many contributions to the community, Mr. Siano will be honored by the Astoria/Long Island City Kiwanis Club as ``Kiwanian of the Year.'' A lifetime New Yorker, Mr. Siano was born and raised in Brooklyn and attended New York University. As a young man, Mr. Siano joined the U.S. Navy and served as medic. After his honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy, Mr. Siano completed his education and received his degree in mortuary science. An enthusiastic and dedicated community advocate, Mr. Siano is an active member of many organizations. Past president of the Astoria/Long Island City Kiwanis, Mr. Siano is now board chairman. Mr. Siano was also a CCD instructor, board president of Trinity Players, and has received the Walter M. Mitchie Community Service Award from the 114th Civilian Observation Patrol, and is involved with many other church and civic organizations. Mr. Siano is also distinguished within his profession, having been honored with the Pursuit of Excellence Award since 1995 by the National Funeral Directors Association. Mr. Siano is presently vice president of Thomas Quinn and Son's Funeral Home, Inc. In addition, Mr. Siano is the vice president of the Broadway Merchants and Professionals Association. Mr. Siano is described by his peers as a man of boundless energy and commitment to the community he has been a part of for the past thirty years. In recognition of these outstanding achievements, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Tony Siano as ``Kiwanian of the Year.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me honoring Mr. William Mecklenburg Polk, who has made outstanding contributions to American society. William Polk has truly distinguished himself throughout an extraordinary career in which he has served as a leader in the field of secondary education or almost four decades. During this time he has been an educator, coach, and mentor to thousands of students and colleagues. For the last quarter century, William Polk has served with distinction as the headmaster of the Groton School in Groton, Massachusetts, one of the most rigorous and respected secondary schools anywhere in the world. This spring, he will preside over his final graduation ceremony before he and his wife, LuAnn, start their new life in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in what will no doubt be a very active retirement. William Polk led the Groton School--his alma mater as well as that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Governor and Ambassador Averell Harriman, countless leaders in every walk of American life, and several distinguished members of this body--with extraordinary wisdom and compassion throughout his tenure as Headmaster. His leadership helped assure that Groton's transition to a co-educational environment was successfully completed; helped usher the School through the onset of the digital age; and oversaw its entry into a new century. Fully half of the thousands of living Groton alumni know William Polk as their headmaster. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Trinity College, William Polk is an accomplished theologian who earned a Master of Divinity degree at Union theological Seminary after receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship. He has excelled in all the many roles in which he has served throughout his career--as a headmaster, teacher, theologian, coach, student, husband, father, athlete and role model for thousands of young men and women. William Polk truly embodies the Groton Scholl motto: ``To Serve Is to Reign.'' Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues will join me and two distinguished alumni of the Groton School, the Honorable Bobby Scott and the Honorable Jim Cooper, in recognizing the extraordinary achievements and contributions to American life made by Mr. William Mecklenburg Polk. He is indeed an American of whom all of our colleagues and all Americans should be very proud.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Louise Dankberg on the occasion of her retirement. Ms. Dankberg is an imcomparable leader who has consistently contributed to our community for over three decades in notable ways. After 34 years, serving in a variety of positions, Ms. Dankberg is retiring from the New York State Department of Labor. Among her many achievements during her tenure, Ms. Dankberg has served as Loaned Executive to State Employees Federated Appeal (SEFA) of United Way, where she raised over $750,000 in six campaigns in 51 state agencies. As Executive Administrative Assistant to the New York City Director, Ms. Dankberg was responsible for major decisions of staff changes and successfully developed communications between branch offices and district managers. She also supervised 125 professional and support staff while serving as Job Service Supervisor. In addition, Ms. Dankberg acted to resolve issues, train new staff, and corresponded on behalf of the Governor and Commissioner of Labor in her role as Unemployment Insurance Supervisor of Telephone Call Center. Through a variety of professional and civic activities, Ms. Dankberg has touched countless lives in the New York area. Ms. Dankberg has been very active within the New York State government. She has been the Female District Leader of the 74th Assembly District since 1993 and a New York State County Committee Member since 1973. She served as the Beth R. Cosnow Memorial Chairperson and as a New York State Commmitteewoman in 1993, and worked as a delegate to Supreme Court Judicial Conventions from 1971 to 1993. For over thirty years she has been a liaison with elected officials for the community and has served various positions in the Samuel J. Tilden Democratic Club, including president, vice president, treasurer, secretary, and membership and program committees chairperson. Ms. Dankberg has also been a campaign manager for various judicial campaigns for Supreme and Civil Courts, as well as a member for the 14th Congressional District Caucus and the Policy, Executive, and New York County Democratic Committees. Her contributions to the community include numerous community forums, street fairs, and political debates. An eminent civic leader, Ms. Louise Dankberg has held positions in many organizations, such as the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security, the Public Employees Federation, of which she was a founding member, the Organization of Management Confidential Employees, the Center for Women in Government, Mission Employment Jobathons, and the Job Service Improvement Program. Through these various associations, Ms. Dankberg has played a significant role in aiding the community with issues concerning employment. In addition to being a leader of organizations, Ms. Dankberg is a staunch community advocate, bringing local issues to surface. She is a founding member of the Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council and the East Side Rezoning Alliance. Ms. Dankberg is also an active member of Gramercy Neighborhood Associates, the Stuyvesant Park Neighborhood Association, the 22nd Street Block Association, and the Manhattan Neighborhood Council. She is a co-chairperson of the Neighborhood Advisory Board, which donates to target groups through the New York City Division of Youth and Community Development. Fortunately for all of us, Ms. Dankberg is merely retiring from the New York State Department of Labor and not from public life. In recognition of her outstanding accomplishments, I ask my collegues to join me in honoring Louise Dankberg on the occasion of her retirement.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and for his leadership. I rise in strong support of the bill and in opposition to the Pitts amendment. We must remember that HIV/AIDS is preventable. That is why I support the ABC approach to prevention, which encourages a balanced approach to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. While we all believe that abstinence and fidelity are important methods of prevention, a full, balanced, and comprehensive range of options, including condoms, is a more responsible plan of attack; and attack is what we must do. We must attack this rampant epidemic with full force, full funding, and full freedom of information. I remember when then Ambassador Richard Holbrooke first brought the issue of HIV/AIDS as a national security crisis to the U.N. Security Council. We quickly learned that HIV/AIDS is not only a public health crisis; it is an economic crisis, an international security crisis, and a moral crisis. In Africa the need and the will to combat the spread of AIDS is there. What is missing is the resources. That is what this bill brings in. No country should struggle to rise out of poverty while fighting a disease that can cut life expectancy by as much as 30 years. I strongly support this bill and commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their leadership.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that allows veterans to use their guaranteed VA loans to purchase co- operative housing units. FHA and other government agencies already have programs to give loans for co-operative residential units, and most banks accept co-operative shares as collateral. The Department of Veterans Affairs should do the same. For many veterans who live in communities where co-operative housing is common or where the cost of houses and condominiums can be high, a co-operative residential unit is an affordable alternative.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that would grant citizenship to the spouses and children of legal immigrants who were killed on September 11, 2001. Additionally, this legislation would grant honorary citizenship to those legal immigrants who were killed in the attacks. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, left approximately 100 surviving spouses and children of legal immigrants in jeopardy of being deported, because their immigration status was linked to a family member who was employed at the World Trade Center. While the USA PATRIOT Act allowed these individuals to stay in the United States until September 10, 2002, that reprieve has expired. These individuals should not be forced to leave the country because of the actions of the terrorists.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Women's Issues Network (WIN) of the Pancyprian Association of America on the occasion of their annual dinner dance. An outstanding community service organization in my district, WIN is dedicated to the education, health, and a better quality of life for the Astoria community. This year they will be honoring Kyriaki S. Christodoulou, for her invaluable service and commitment to the community. Kyriaki S. Christodoulou was born in Klirou and raised in the suburb of Agios Dometios, Nicosia, the second of four children of the Christodoulou family. Ms. Christodoulou's, parents instilled in her and her siblings the value of education and hard work. Ms. Christodoulou and her siblings attended the Grammar School (Gregoriou) in Nicosia, now under occupation. During her high school years, she was very active in the Debating and Literary Societies and was twice awarded for here creative writing by the Pancyprian Youth Artistic Group (KLON). Following the invasion in 1974, she came to the United States to further her education. Ms. Christodoulou attended Hunter College and earned a Bachelors degree in Sociology and a Master of Science in Social Research. During her studies, Ms. Christodoulou worked with a variety of international organizations including the Consulate General of Cyprus in New York, the Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the United Nations, the International Labor Organization Liaison Office in New York, the United Nations Division of Palestinian Rights, the Greek Tourism Organization and the National League for Nursing. Since 1993, she has directed the Cyprus Children's Fund, a not-for- profit organization established in 1974 following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to aid enclaved and needy Cypriot children. The Cyprus Children's Fund also administers annual scholarship awards. Ms. Christodoulou's spirit of volunteerism has led her to active participation in several community organizations. She has held the positions of General Secretary for the Pancyprian Association Dancing Division, the Pancyprian Association Women's Issues Network (WIN), and the Panpaphian Association of America. She served a 4-year term as the General Secretary of the Cyprus Federation of America, an umbrella organization representing Greek Cypriot associations and brotherhoods throughout the United States. In addition, Ms. Christodoulou, who has a 14-year-old son, was President of the Parent-Teacher Association of the Greek Afternoon School of St. Demetrios and is currently serving on the School Board of the St. Demetrios Greek American School. In recognition of these outstanding achievements, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Christodoulou and the Pancyprian Association's Women's Issues Network, for their passion and commitment to the betterment of the Astoria community.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor former prisoners of war, and to thank them for their bravery and dedication to our nation. The United States military has no equal. Our servicemen and women are the best-trained and are the best-prepared to accomplish successfully their missions. However, as the war in Iraq has reminded us, we cannot always prevent the worst from happening. The conditions for POWs, more often than not, are too difficult and too painful to imagine. I can only imagine the worry and the uncertainty that their families must feel each day until their loved one is brought home. The rescue of Jessica Lynch showed not only the commitment of our troops to finding their fellow servicemembers, but the bravery of Lynch herself, who stayed strong and focused. Throughout history, America's military men and women have traveled around the world to fight for the causes of freedom and democracy. In this selfless pursuit, they knew that the battle would not always be easy. We owe them all an enormous debt of gratitude. We cannot forget our veterans who helped to make this country what it is today and who have brought peace to other nations across the globe. Our nation's fighting men and women are currently engaged in a military conflict in Iraq. While they fight bravely for the principles upon which the United States was founded, we at home cannot turn our backs on veterans who deserve to have access to the benefits that they deserve. Today, we recognize National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day. I believe that each day we should remember these brave individuals, and the sacrifices that they made for all of us. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind amendment and in opposition to H.R. 6. We need an energy policy that takes us forwards, not backwards. The Republican bill is not an energy policy. It does little to reduce America's dependence on oil, it weakens consumer and environmental protections, and it fails to include renewable alternative energy sources and robs the American people and the Treasury of oil and gas royalties. The Kind amendment strikes the damaging oil and gas development programs which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. In particular, I support a provision that strikes section 30201, which I submitted as a separate, stand-alone amendment. Regrettably it was not put in order. The royalty-in-kind program, which requires the government to market and sell through an agent its percentage of oil and gas, is an anti- taxpayer, pro-industry provision that is a bad deal for taxpayers and a generous gift to the oil and gas industry. In an era of increasing budget deficits, we cannot afford to give away publicly owned resources to the oil and gas industry. Yet this section gives the Secretary of the Interior permanent ability to barter our oil and gas royalties instead of collecting cash that can go for programs in education and health care and to reduce our deficit. Most of the world, even the former Soviet Union, is moving toward a free market system. Yet with this program in this bill, we are moving to a government-controlled system. In this system, the GAO report is so startling, it says there is no oversight, it will cost us money, and it says in this, the government relies on the oil companies to tell them what the worth of their oil is coming from government-owned, taxpayer- owned land. They can set the price. So it is not surprising the industry supports this so much. It gives them free rein. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an editorial from the USA Today and the GAO report documenting the cost to the taxpayer for this program. [From USA Today, Apr. 6, 2001] More Public Drilling? Set Let's Collect Bills First Bush administration plans to drill for oil and gas on public lands will fuel environmental debate for months. But a related issue is being overlooked. Energy companies are cheating the public on the oil they pump now. Why give them new resources until they pay up? So far the administration hasn't addressed the issue, but by doing so it could burnish its quickly blackening image as a poor steward of public resources. USA TODAY disclosed Thursday an administration draft recommendation to open millions of acres of public land for drilling. That would add to existing drilling on federal, state and Indian-owned land that accounts for more than one- third of the USA's oil and gas operations. By assorted estimates, the industry has shorted the government on oil-royalty payments alone by about $100 million a year, through a variety of price-fixing and record- fiddling games. That's almost 10% of the government's $1.1 billion annual collections. What has made this possible is a system that allowed industry to decide on its own what it would pay the government for the oil it pumped. Imagine going to a filling station and being allowed to bring your own pump and gauge to figure what you've purchased--and how much it's worth. That's essentially how the industry has been allowed to account for oil and gas taken from public land. In case after case, sworn evidence shows companies falsifying prices, using phony bills of sale and deliberately misclassifying high-quality oil as low quality in order to pay less. After years of denials, stonewalling and evasion, more than a dozen companies have agreed in recent months to settlements totalling nearly a half-billion dollars in suits brought by whistle blowers and government attorneys. Thus they avoided defending themselves against daunting evidence of persistently cheating the public. Shell Oil alone is paying $110 million. In one case that did go to trial, an Alabama jury recently ordered Exxon Mobil to pay $87.7 million in overdue royalties on oil taken from state property. The jury added a whopping $3.42 billion in punitive damages. Still more claims are pending in other state courts. And similar questions are being raised about gas taken from public property. A new oil-royalty system adopted last summer is designed to force the industry's payments to reflect more closely true market prices. It is expected to boost revenues by $70 million a year or more. But now the industry is trying to force the government to accept payment in oil instead of cash. Its proposal would put extra costs on the taxpayer totaling more than $300 million a year, according to government estimates. There's good reason to think the industry will get its way. Oil and gas groups and individuals gave $9 million to the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee for the 2000 campaign, more than $20 million to GOP causes generally. Another $6 million went to Democrats. Additional drilling on public land may be useful to meet the country's long-term energy needs. But if the nation's mineral patrimony is to be sold off, the Bush administration and Congress need to make sure it's for full price: without private discounts for politicians' patrons in the oil business.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule for many reasons, but also because one of my amendments, an amendment that would have struck an anti-taxpayer, pro-industry provision that is a terrible idea, will cost more money and is a generous gift to the oil and gas industry, striking this provision was not permitted with my amendment. We should not be giving the Interior Secretary permanent ability to use a barter system to collect payment for oil and gas removed from public land instead of just collecting cash based on fair market value. The royalty-in-kind program, or this barter system, is a terrible idea, returning us to the murky days of industry dictating energy policy. The oil and gas industry has a long history of underpaying government and shortchanging the taxpayers; and in a bipartisan way, with former Member Steve Horn, we did a series of studies and reports that showed the industry was underpaying government. The Justice Department got in there and forced them to pay $425 million because they were underpaying the government. When we finally moved them to a rule that was fair-market value, the industry pushed for the barter idea, the royalty-in-kind program. We had a pilot program that the General Accounting Office says they cannot even figure out how it works. They say they cannot even figure out how the royalty-in-kind program works, and the CBO says that it costs more money. While the rest of the world is moving to the private sector managing resources under the direction of the oil and gas industry, the Federal Government, instead of taking cash or fair market dollars to the tune of $7 billion, now wants to manage these resources and resell them. It is a terrible idea. It costs money. It costs more money. It is a give- back to the oil and gas industry. It is outrageous. It should be struck from this bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 165 and thank my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), for their work on this important resolution. However, I do have some reservations. As Democratic cochair of the Hellenic Caucus, along with my Republican colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), we have been working with the U.N. and the State Department on the reunification of Cyprus, which has been divided since 1974. The peaceful, lasting and just settlement of Cyprus has been a priority of the United Nations and the caucus. The Republic of Cyprus will sign the EU treaty in Athens on April 16. We had all hoped a united Cyprus would enter the European Union. Unfortunately, the latest round of talks ended without an agreement. According to the report of the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, released on April 7, and I would like to put his testimony into the record, ``In the case of the failure of this latest effort, I believe that Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, bears prime responsibility.'' Despite my concerns and disappointment, I appreciate the comments of President Papadopoulos, who has stated that the Greek Cypriot side will ``continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the EU.'' I am pleased that this resolution addresses these issues and appreciate the work the subcommittee has done. One area that concerns me about this amended resolution is that it has deleted references to the people of Cyprus and, instead, only refers to Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There are Armenians, Maronites and Latins in addition to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, living in Cyprus. I believe the new references that identify only Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is inaccurate and works to divide the people of Cyprus into two main groups. For this reason, the use of the term ``people of Cyprus'' is much more preferable and accurate, reflecting the unity of the country and the people. Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for their work on this very important resolution. I am hopeful that there will be new initiatives and new opportunities to work toward solving the problem as all sides will benefit. I am hopeful that even between now and April 16 there is an opportunity for them to get back on board, and I am hopeful that Cyprus will go to the EU as a united country. I appreciate very much the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Bereuter) leadership. He has really worked to bring both sides together. It has been very helpful. I appreciate it very much.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The sole intent of this bill is to divert the responsibility of gun manufacturers in ensuring the safe distribution of firearms in our society. Passage of this legislation would cripple the public's ability to seek justice in instances of negligence by these manufacturers. Why are we exempting the gun industry from liability provisions that we apply to other manufacturers, even the makers of toy guns? It is in the timing of this bill that the true intent of the Majority becomes evident. This bill was conveniently taken off the schedule during the sniper shootings in the Washington metropolitan area last fall, but now been brought back just in time for the NRA's annual conference. Every step must be taken to keep these deadly weapons out of criminal hands. We must look past the interests of lobbyists and look deeply at the interests of the American public. If gun manufacturers and dealers are involved with the illegal and irresponsible sales of firearms, then it is essential that those who violate the law are held responsible. A study conducted by The Department of Justice revealed that 12.7 percent of students age 12 to 19 reported knowing a student who brought a firearm to school. This statistic speaks directly to the need for providing additional safeguards to keep firearms away from children. We should not be taking up legislation that prevents gun manufacturers from being held accountable. Instead, we should be voting on legislation that will help to prevent gun violence from even occurring. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many others, and, of course, thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and subcommittee minority member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for their work on this important bill. I rise in strong support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Program. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and a cosponsor of H.R. 735, the House companion, I am very pleased that the House is taking up this very important legislation today that is important to the postal service and important to the American consumer. With the postal service facing $11 billion in debt over the next few years and the General Accounting Office listing the postal service on their high-risk list, S. 380 and its stabilizing effects on the postal service is very good news for our country. S. 380 corrects the formula used to determine the amount of annual lump-sum payments the postal service makes to the Civil Service Retirement System. If current law remains unchanged, the postal service-required share of this Federal Government retirement fund will result in a very significant long-term overpayment of more than $70 billion. S. 380 will credit the postal service for its past payments, which is only fair, to seed SRS, and change how contributions will be made in the future. The bottom line is that the postal service will get some very needed fiscal relief, a cash inflow of money, and the American people get a promise of stable postal rates until 2006. The American public and all postal customers will enjoy a 3-year rate freeze on the cost of postage because of this fix. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), along with others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and, of course, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the postal service and the very diverse coalition of postal, labor unions, management groups, business and industry and other postal consumers, all of whom support this legislation. The mailing industry is tremendously important to the economy of our Nation. The United States Postal Service is the second largest civilian employer in the Nation, employing over 770,000 talented and dedicated workers, workers who lately have had to do their job under tremendous pressure with the threat of anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks. The mail industry is 8 percent of our GNP, a $900 billion industry that includes not only the Postal Service, but also 9 million Americans in the private sector who work in this industry. I represent many businesses that rely greatly on the Postal Service, and this bill will not only benefit the Postal Service directly, but because this will stabilize the rates, and this is very important, because it will help struggling and ailing businesses like the magazine industry, which happens to be headquartered in the district that I represent. And they have seen many longtime popular magazines fail, like Mademoiselle, Mode, and Brill's Content shut down operations because of the tough economy and also because of the escalating postal rates. All USPS customers need the best service possible from the Postal Service, and certainly a healthy Postal Service is vital to a healthy economy. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is taking action today to help strengthen the Postal Service.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that would require a test census of Americans abroad in 2004. There are approximately 3 million to 6 million private American citizens living and working overseas, and many of them continue to vote and pay taxes in the United States. These citizens help increase exports of American goods, because they traditionally buy American, sell American, and create business opportunities for American companies and workers. Their role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating jobs in the United States, and extending U.S. influence around the globe is vital to the well-being of our Nation. From a test census, we will learn methods and ways to count Americans abroad accurately. The legislation's goal is to include, if possible, all of these missed citizens in the 2010 decennial census.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership, and I rise in support of the Ose- Maloney amendment, a compromise approach to deposit insurance coverage that holds standard account coverage at $100,000 while offering increased protection for retirees. Mr. Chairman, as a whole, this is an outstanding bill. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 522, I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of provisions in the legislation. It is long past time to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds. Additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point cliff and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward. The bill includes a mechanism for determining credit for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment I cosponsored along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) last session. This is a critically important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced amendment in the legislation. Despite these many positives, I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. This coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by all the Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Peter Fischer, OCC Comptroller John Hawke and OTS Director James Gilleran. Proponents of increased coverage argue that it poses no new risk to the insurance system, but the regulators who oppose this increase are the very officials whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. The unanimity of regulator opposition to increased coverage is an extremely powerful message. Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe this argument matches the actual situation of the banking industry. The fact is that only 2 percent of insured accounts have more than $100,000 according to a study by the Federal Reserve. The same Fed study put the average account balance at merely $6,000. Any way you look at it the increase in coverage will benefit very, very few depositors. Proponents of increasing coverage also contend that because insurance premiums are paid by banks, increasing coverage does not cost taxpayers. While I concede this point, I think we have to remember that behind the deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services at the close of the savings and loan crisis, I have been committed to protecting the safety and soundness of the financial service system. While the causes of the S&L failures were many, as my friend from Alabama pointed out, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayer dollars. No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or string of failures, by raising insurance coverage we increase the potential liability of the government. Additionally, raising coverage may encourage the concept of moral hazard. Institutions will be encouraged to engage in riskier behavior to boost earnings if they know that failure is insured by the Federal Government. Finally, I urge support for this amendment because it strikes a compromise. It holds the line on coverage for standard accounts while offering retirees additional insurance. I believe that there are many valid policy arguments for offering additional coverage and additional insurance for this special class of banking account. At its core this amendment represents a compromise. It allows Members the opportunity to support the concerns of the regulatory community on standard accounts while offering increased insurance on retirement accounts. This is a good bill and I will support its passage. I simply think it would be much improved with the adoption of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for his leadership and I thank also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for crafting a fine underlying bill, along with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following testimony from our committee hearing: Prepared Testimony of the Honorable Peter R. Fischer, Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, Department of the Treasury, 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 26, 2003--Dirksen 538 Mr. Chairman, Senator Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Administration's views on deposit insurance reform. I also want to commend Chairman Powell and the FDIC staff for their valuable contributions to the discussion of this important issue. The Administration strongly supports reforms to our deposit insurance system that would, first, merge the bank and thrift insurance funds, second, allow more flexibility in the management of fund reserves while maintaining adequate reserve levels and, third, ensure that all participating institutions fairly share in the maintenance of FDIC resources in accordance with the insurance fund's loss exposure from each institution. The Administration strongly opposes any increases in deposit insurance coverage limits. Our current deposit insurance system managed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) serves to protect insured depositors from exposure to bank losses and, as a result, helps to promote public confidence in the U.S. banking system. I am concerned today that our deposit insurance system has structural weaknesses that, in the absence of reform, could deepen over time. I want to emphasize that there is no crisis in the FDIC; both of its funds are strong, well managed, with adequate reserves. This is the right time to act--when we do not face a crisis--and the Administration supports legislation focused on the repair of these structural weaknesses. Increases in FDIC benefits, however, including any increase in the level of insurance coverage, are not part of the solution to these problems and should be avoided. When I testified before this Committee last April, I argued that an increase in deposit insurance coverage limits would serve no sound public policy purpose. Nothing has occurred since then to change that view. The Administration continues to oppose higher coverage limit in any form. Indeed, we feel that the entire issue of coverage limits regrettably diverts attention from the important reforms that are needed. merging the bank and thrift insurance funds We support a merger of the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) as soon as practicable. A larger, combined insurance fund would be better able to diversify risks, and thus withstand losses, than would either fund separately. Merging the funds while the industry is strong and both funds are adequately capitalized would not burden either BIF or SAIF members. A merged fund would also end the possibility that similar institutions could pay significantly different premiums for the same product, as was the case in the recent past and could occur again in the near future without this change. A merger would also recognize changes in the industry. As a result of mergers and consolidations, each fund now insures deposits of both commercial banks and thrifts. Indeed, commercial banks now account for 45 percent of all SAIF- insured deposits. Flexibility in the Management of FDIC Reserves Current law generally requires each insurance fund to maintain reserves equal to 1.25 percent of estimated insured deposits, the ``designated reserve ratio.'' When the reserve ratio falls below this threshold, the FDIC must charge either a premium sufficient to restore the reserve ratio to 1.25 percent within one year, or a minimum of 23 basis points if the reserve ratio would remain below 1.25 percent for a longer period. Since the latter would be expected when the banking system, and probably the economy as well, were under stress, such a sharp increase in industry assessments could have an undesirable pro-cyclical effect, further reducing liquidity precisely when liquidity is needed. Were FDIC fund contributions to come from resources that otherwise might be part of capital, every dollar paid would mean a potential reduction of 10 or 12 dollars in lending, or as much as $12 billion in reduced lending for a $1 billion FDIC replenishment. Reserves should be allowed to grow when conditions are good. This would enable the fund to better absorb losses under adverse conditions without sharp increases in premiums. In order to achieve this objective and also to account for changing risks to the insurance fund over time, we support greater latitude for the FDIC to alter the designated reserve ratio within statutorily prescribed upper and lower bounds. Within these bounds, the FDIC should provide for public notice and comment concerning any proposed change to the designated reserve ratio. The FDIC should also have discretion in determining how quickly the fund meets the designated reserve ratio as long as the actual reserve ratio is within these bounds. If the reserve ratio were to fall below the lower bound, the FDIC should restore it to within the statutory range promptly, over a reasonable but limited timeframe. We would also support some reduction in the prescribed minimum premium rate--currently 23 basis points-- that would be in effect if more than one year were required to restore the fund's reserves. Nevertheless, as we learned from the deposit insurance experience of the 1980s, flexibility must be tempered by a clear requirement for prudent and timely fund replenishment. The statutory range for the designated reserve ratio should strike an appropriate balance between the burden of pre- funding future loses and the pro-cyclical costs of replenishing the insurance fund in a downturn. A key benefit to giving the FDIC greater flexibility in managing the reserve ratio within statutorily prescribed bounds is the ability to achieve low, stable premiums over time, adequate to meet FDIC needs in bad times, with the least burden on financial institutions and on the economy. We also believe that with this reform, the possibility of recourse to taxpayer resources is even further removed. Full Risk-Based Shared Funding Every day that they operate, banks and thrifts benefit from their access to federal deposit insurance. For several years, however, the FDIC has been allowed to obtain premiums for deposit insurance from only a few insured institutions. Currently, over 90 percent of banks and thrifts pay nothing to the FDIC. This is an untenable formula for the long-term stability of the FDIC. Moreover, current law frustrates one of the most important reforms enacted in the wake of the collapse of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the depletion of FDIC reserves: the requirement for risk-based premiums. When 90 percent of the industry pays no premiums, there is little opportunity to do what any prudent insurer would do: adjust premiums for risk. Nearly all banks are treated the same, and lately they have been treated to free service. For example, today a bank can rapidly increase its insured deposits without paying anything into the insurance fund. As is now well known, some large financial companies have greatly augmented their insured deposits in the past few years by sweeping uninsured funds into their affiliated depository institutions--without compensating the FDIC at all. Other major financial companies might be expected to do the same in the future. In addition, most of the over 1,100 banks and thrifts chartered after 1996 have never paid a penny in deposit insurance premiums. Yet if insured deposit growth by a relatively few institutions were to cause the reserve ratio to decline below the designated reserve ratio, all banks would be required to pay premiums to raise reserves. To rectify this ``free rider'' problem and ensure that institutions appropriately compensate the FDIC commensurate with their risk, Congress should remove the current restrictions on FDIC premium-setting. In order to recognize past payments to build up current reserves, we support the proposal to apply temporary transition credits against future premiums that would be distributed based on a measure of each institution's contribution to the build-up of insurance fund reserves in the early-to-mid 1990s. In addition to transition credits, allowing the FDIC to provide assessment credits on an on-going basis would permit the FDIC to collect payments from institutions more closely in relation to their deposit growth. We strongly oppose rebates, which would drain the insurance fund of cash. Over much of its history, the FDIC insurance fund reserve ratio remained well above the current target, only to drop into deficit conditions by the beginning of the 1990s. Therefore, it is vital that funds collected in good times, and the earnings on those collections, be available for times when they will be needed. There are other important structural issues that need to be addressed sooner than later. It would be appropriate to evaluate whether there are changes to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) that would be suitable in light of the proposed reforms made of FDIC insurance so as to avoid unintended disparities between the two programs. Perhaps even more important is the need to address the long- term funding of supervision by the National Credit Union Administration, particularly in view of recent trends toward conversions from federal to state charters and growing consolidation of credit unions. Similarly, there are structural problems in the funding of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, the resolution of which should not be delayed. Deposit Insurance Coverage Limits The improvements to the deposit insurance system that I have just outlined are vital to the system's long-term health. Other proposals, however, would not contribute to the strength of the taxpayer-backed deposit insurance system and may actually weaken it. Increasing the general coverage limit up front or through indexation, or raising coverage limits for particular categories of deposits, is unnecessary. Savers do not need an increase in coverage limits and would receive no real financial benefit. Unlike other government benefit programs, there is no need for indexation of deposit insurance coverage because savers can now obtain all the coverage that they desire by using multiple banks and through other means. Higher coverage limits would not predictably advantage any particular size of banks, would increase all banks' insurance premium costs, and would mean greater taxpayer exposure by adding to the contingent liabilities of the government and weakening market discipline. An increase in coverage limits would reduce--not enhance--competition among banks in general as the efficient and inefficient offer the same investment risk to depositors; in fact, perversely, investors would be drawn at no risk to the worst banks, which usually offer the highest interest rates. Higher Coverage Limits Not Sought by Savers First of all, the clamor for raising coverage limits does not come from savers. The evidence that current coverage limits constitute a burden to savers is scant; there has been little demand from depositors for higher maximum levels. The recent consumer finance survey data released by the Federal Reserve confirm what we found in the previous survey, namely that raising the coverage limit would do little, if anything, for most savers. Median family deposit balances are only $4,000 for transaction account deposits and $15,000 for certificates of deposit, far below the current $100,000 ceiling. The same holds true even when considering only older Americans, a segment of the population with higher bank account usage: median transaction account balances and certificates of deposit total $8,000 and $20,000, respectively, for those households headed by individuals between the ages of 65 and 74. Examining the Federal Reserve data for retirement accounts shows present maximum deposit insurance coverage to be more than adequate. The median balance across age groups held in IRA/Keogh accounts at insured depository institutions is only $15,000. For the 65 to 69 age group, median household IRA/ Keogh deposits total $30,000. A small group of relatively affluent savers might find greater convenience from increased maximum coverage levels. But it is a tiny group. Only 3.4 percent of households with bank accounts held any uninsured deposits, and the median income of these households was more than double the median income of all depositors in the survey. Under current rules, these savers have plenty of options, with the market place presenting new options for unlimited deposit insurance coverage without changing federal coverage limits. At little inconvenience, savers with substantial bank deposits--including retirees and those with large bank savings for retirement--may place deposits at any number of banks to obtain as much FDIC coverage as desired. They may also establish accounts within the same bank under different legal capacities, qualifying for several multiples of current maximum coverage limits. Firms are now developing programs for exchanging depositor accounts that could offer seamless means of providing unlimited coverage for depositors without any change in current limits. One of the fundamental rules of prudent retirement planning is to diversify investment vehicles. Many individuals, including those who are retired or planning for retirement, feel comfortable putting substantial amounts into uninsured mutual funds, money market accounts, and a variety of other investment instruments. Just 21 percent of all IRA/Keogh funds are in insured depository institutions. There is simply no widespread consumer concern about existing coverage limits that would justify extending taxpayer exposure by creating a new government-insured retirement program under the FDIC. Coverage Limits and Bank Competition Banks, regardless of size, continue to have little trouble attracting deposits under the existing coverage limits. Federal Reserve data have shown that smaller banks have grown more rapidly and experienced higher rates of growth in both insured and uninsured deposits than have larger banks over the past several years. After adjusting for the effects of mergers, domestic assets of the largest 1,000 commercial banks grew 5.5 percent per year on average from 1994 to 2002; all other banks grew 13.8 percent per year on average. Nor are smaller banks losing the competition for uninsured deposits. Uninsured deposits of the top 1,000 banks grew 9.9 percent annually on average over this period, while such deposits at smaller banks grew on average by 21.4 percent annually. Higher Coverage Limits for Municipal Funds Erode Discipline Proposals for substantially higher levels of protection of municipal deposits than of other classes of deposits would exacerbate the inherent moral hazard problems of deposit insurance. Rather than keep funds in local institutions, state and municipal treasurers would have powerful incentives to seek out not the safest institutions in which to place taxpayer funds but rather those offering the highest interest rates. Since these are usually riskier institutions, state and municipal treasurers would be drawn into funding the more trouble banks. Local, well run, healthy banks might have to pay a premium in increased deposit rates to retain municipal business. Today there are incentives for state and local government treasurers to monitor risks taken with large volumes of public sector deposits. Should the FDIC largely protect these funds, an important source of credit judgment on the lending and investment decisions of local banks would be lost. conclusion In conclusion, I reaffirm the Administration's support for the three-part general framework that I have outlined to correct the structural flaws in the deposit insurance system. I encourage Congress to pursue these improvements with a steady focus on the important work that needs to be done. The Administration does not support legislation that raises deposit insurance coverage limits in any form, and we urge that Congress avoid such an unneeded and counterproductive diversion from real and necessary reform.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that establishes a 5-year term of office for the Director of the Census Bureau. By establishing a fixed term of office, this legislation would lessen the role that politics plays at the Census Bureau, an agency which should be grounded in the science of counting our nation. Other agencies charged with developing critically important statistical information, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have a fixed term for their directors. This policy ensures the most accurate, non- partisan data possible.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that will ensure that future Censuses truly reflect the demograph 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, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act, which the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) introduced and which I am pleased to cosponsor. My friend and colleague from New York was a former small business owner, and she has been a great advocate for small businesses and has worked through several Congresses and several twists and turns on this legislation. I congratulate her on her hard work. While other speakers have described the bill, I will simply add that this legislation builds on the important modernization of financial services that Congress has worked on in recent years. This legislation lifts the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts after a 2-year phase-in. During the phase-in, banks may increase sweeps to interest paying accounts to four intervals per month. The prohibition on interest on both consumer and business accounts was enacted during the Great Depression. At the time, it was enacted to limit competitive pressures to pay higher interests that were feared would lead to bank failures. Today, given the global nature of financial services, interstate banking, and advances in technology, interest payment limits only distort competition and force businesses to seek out alternative interest-bearing opportunities. The prohibition on paying interest on consumer checking accounts was repealed by Congress more than 20 years ago and has not increased concern about safety and soundness. Today, the House takes an important step forward in offering this same benefit to the business community. Importantly, this legislation will disproportionately benefit small businesses. Small businesses must keep money in checking accounts to meet payrolls and pay expenses. They are less likely to have complex financial arrangements that allow them to get around interest restrictions. From restaurants in Astoria, Queens, to high-tech startups in Manhattan, this legislation will benefit small businesses across New York City, State, and the Nation. The legislation also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on sterile reserves. These are reserves private banks hold at the Federal Reserve which the Fed can use as a tool of monetary policy. This provision is endorsed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his leadership on these issues. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation passed the House by a voice vote in two different forms last Congress, and it is my hope that this legislation is enacted this year and we continue the important work of modernizing financial services.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, with the Nation at war, our first thoughts today are with American servicemen and women . . . that they get home quickly and safely, and that Iraq is liberated with as little tragedy as possible. This week the President asked Congress to authorize $75 billion mostly to cover war operations, with reports that he will request an additional $70 billion more to help Iraq rebuild. I am supporting these funds and understand the President's commitment to rebuild Iraq. We are here today with a similar message about New York. Mr. President, New York's recovery is not yet complete. Billion dollar losses from the attacks remain unaddressed. Like our commitment to rebuild Iraq, we should also commit to New York's full recovery. To be sure, New York is grateful for the initial aid received. Those funds--part of the $16 to $20 billion in initial federal aid-- helped tremendously with the material recovery efforts, costs for overtime to rescue workers, and additional costs of the emergency response. But the wider economic impacts of 9/11 were not small ripples, they were crushing aftershocks. Total costs from the disaster are estimated as high as $95 billion, with only about $40 billion in estimated insurance payments, and under $20 billion in federal aid. That leaves a big gap of remaining needs. The largest losses still unaddressed are direct tax revenue losses to New York City and State estimated at $8.8 billion for just 2 years. And we are not alone in making this point . . . The non-partisan investigative branch of Congress--the General Accounting Office--has confirmed that this estimate from New York budget offices is reasonably approximate. New York shared the pain of the national recession, but in all reality, the Nation never experienced the full magnitude of 9/11's economic impacts. If some people think we're asking too much, just think what New York has already suffered: Fully Half of almost 200,000 jobs lost in the last two years can be traced to 9/11's impacts, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. Largely because of the massive budget shortfalls from 9/11, the city has already cut more than $71 million in child care aid programs, and over $25 million for HIV prevention programs, infant mortality reduction programs, libraries, and other community needs. $2.7 billion in service cuts are planned for 2003, with multiple firehouse closures and thousand person headcount reductions projected for police and fire departments in 2004. Now, because New York is almost universally recognized as target #1 for future terrorist attempts, the Mayor and Police Commissioner have implemented Operation Atlas at a cost of $5 million per WEEK. While Mayor Bloomberg asks the President for $900 million to help, he's slated to get only about $30 million. New York's fighting the front lines of terrorism, but its hands are tied by limited federal support and billions lost from 9/11's economic impacts. That's why we are announcing the introduction today the `Whatever It Takes' To Rebuild Act of 2003' named after the President's decisive pledge after 9/11 to do ``whatever it takes'' to help New York recover. The bill would authorize the President to provide $8.8 billion to New York City and State for lost tax revenues or an amount that he determines is needed to fill the gap created by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It would also remove the $5 million cap on federal aid for lost tax revenues following major disasters. This arbitrary cap was added by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Additionally, the bill makes State Governments eligible for this assistance. And finally it authorizes grants for lost tax revenues following a future terrorist attack. There may be no precedent for the scale of aid we're requesting, but there was no precedent for 9/11, or its vast economic impacts. There is, however, plenty of precedent for federal assistance with lost tax revenues after other national disasters. For instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands received $90 million dollars after Hurricane Hugo for losses to its revenue base. This may be smaller in scale than aid for 9/11, but so too were the economic impacts from that hurricane. This is an issue vital to New York's future. We need the Governor to speak up in support of this bill, and to call on the President for the administration's support as well. The Governor finally recognized that the Bush plan for homeland security funds would hurt New York, now we need him to stand up for New York on the issue of full recovery from 9/11.