Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member and the Chair for working with me on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in an attempt to stop giving corporate welfare to America's oil companies. This amendment simply clarifies that royalty-in-kind must earn at least as much money for the Federal Government as a royalty-in-value program operating under the new rules put in effect last year. For too long, major oil companies were paying fees to the Federal Government based on prices that were lower than market value. Basically the oil companies kept two sets of books; one which they paid each other based on market value, and one which was much lower that they paid to the Federal Government and the American taxpayers. Now, it is one thing for oil to be slick; it is quite another for oil companies to be slick at the expense of the American taxpayer. In a bipartisan way, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I held hearings to investigate money that major oil companies owed the Federal Government. Our hearings showed that many of these companies were underpaying fees, costing the American taxpayer nearly $100 million a year. Many companies were sued by the Federal Government for deliberate underpayment of fees. Most have elected to settle, and to date over $425 million has been collected. Combined with State and private lawsuits, the oil industry has reluctantly paid to the government close to $5 billion to settle these underpayment claims. The Interior Department's new oil valuation rule, which was announced last year, will save taxpayers at least $67 million each year by ensuring that oil companies pay the fair market value for the oil that is taken from Federal lands. Now that we have finally put a stop to the industry's secret scheme and are collecting a fair amount for fees for the American taxpayer, we are now being asked to examine an entirely new system of fee collection. Now the oil industry is telling us that they do not want to pay in money, they want to pay in oil. The last I heard, money was still the currency of the United States, and the American taxpayer should demand no less. The oil companies call it a new way to pay; I call it a new way to stiff America's taxpayers. Today I offer an amendment to guarantee that the industry fees, the so-called royalty-in-kind program, earns at least fair market value or more. Why the need for this amendment? Independent analysis shows that in almost all cases, the government, under the oil industry plan, would have lost revenue compared to actual market prices. In fact, the government actually lost almost $3 million when you compare what was received via royalty-in-kind with what would have been collected with fair market value. Mr. Chairman, the royalty-in-kind program puts the Federal Government into the oil business; not because it will save taxpayers money. It will actually cost them more. Not because it is more efficient; that has not been shown. No, we are asking the Federal Government to enter into the oil business because big oil can no longer get away with cheating taxpayers out of their fair share of royalties received for value. That is the only reason that I have seen to support this particular program. Today, all we are asking is that if you are going to move ahead with this program, we should make sure that it is not costing taxpayers money, that it in fact is tied to fair market value. I hope that my colleagues will support in a bipartisan way this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my strong support for this amendment which will add additional funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Mr. Chairman, the NEA serves a vital role in benefitting our communities, our children, and our economy. By providing grants to local communities, millions of children are exposed to the rich rewards of the arts. Studies have shown that children who experience the arts develop improved reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills, and are more likely to stay out of trouble. Aside from the benefits to young people, we cannot overlook the tremendous economic value that the arts provide. The creative industries reap more than $60 billion annually in overseas sales, and represent our nation's leading export. Additionally, the arts employ millions of Americans who depend upon this critical federal funding for their livelihoods. The Congress took an important step last year in approving a $7 million increase for the NEA, the first increase since 1992. We must continue this trend, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, in New York City there are two crucial transportation projects: the East Side Access and the Second Avenue Subway. These two projects would provide the New York region with the first significant expansion of transit capacity in over half a century. The MTA is moving forward with both projects on a fast track. Because they will be intersecting benefits and impacts, they need to advance together. The New York delegation is united in wanting to provide support to these projects in this year's title III appropriations bill. We have joined the MTA in requesting $149 million for the East Side Access and $20.5 million for the Second Avenue Subway. The Committee on Appropriations had made a very serious mistake by providing only $10 million for the East Side Access and absolutely no funding for the Second Avenue Subway. This is a terrible decision that seriously undermines New York's ability to meet its transportation needs for the 21st century. The New York City region is the largest transit market in the United States with nearly 8 million daily trips. Our subways and railroads have twice the ridership of the rest of the Nation's rail system combined. At the same time, the MTA is the most efficient transit system in the country, covering over 60 percent of its operating cost from the fare box. New York City is serious about the need to continue investment in our transit system. The MTA expects to fund over 70 percent of its 2000-2004 capital program with city, State and internal resources, a commitment of over $12 billion. New York State has included $1.05 billion for the Second Avenue Subway and its MTA 5-year capital plan and $1.5 billion for the East Side Access. The MTA is committed to funding 50 percent of the cost for the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access. The Second Avenue Subway, which will run from East Harlem to the tip of Manhattan and provide for eventual extensions into the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, is the most important project to the MTA's agenda. It will bring subway service to underserved areas of Manhattan, enable East Side Access passengers to travel to their jobs, and provide relief to passengers on the Lexington Avenue Subway, which is the most overcrowded subway in the entire country. The east side of Manhattan is one of the most densely populated areas in the country. We are continuing to grow in population, but our communities are served by only one subway line. We have neighborhoods with over 200,000 residents per square mile, and many must walk 15 or 20 minutes to reach the nearest subway. The project is vitally important to the economic health of the New York region. The East Side Access will connect the Long Island Railroad to Manhattan's East Side, enabling over 70,000 Long Island and Queens residents to reach their jobs in the Grand Central terminal area, the most densely populated business district in the United States. 70,000 East Side Access riders cannot fit on the Lexington Avenue line, which already carries thousands of riders more than it was designed for. They need the Second Avenue line. Unless these new riders have another transportation option, they will overwhelm the Lex, and reduce the capacity with disastrous results for people who live in my district and Manhattan and Queens, as well as those who live in the Bronx and Brooklyn. The Second Avenue Subway, which will provide an alternative route to hundreds of thousands of riders, is the only solution to this problem. The Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access have the support of the New York delegation, the MTA, the governor, and the mayor. What is more, the Second Avenue Subway has had the financial support, serious support from the City, the State, and the Federal Government. It makes absolutely no sense for Congress to stop funding the Second Avenue Subway now that it is underway by providing only $10 million for the East Side Access and no money for the Second Avenue Subway. This transportation appropriations bill gravely shortchanges the New York metropolitan region and undermines our financial future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and particularly the New York delegation to vote against the transportation bill when it comes to the floor because the Second Avenue Subway was not continued in its funding. It is a safety hazard, a transportation hazard and it is just plain wrong, particularly when the State has committed over $1 billion to fund this project. Mr. Speaker, in New York City there are two crucial transportation projects--East Side Access and Second Avenue Subway. These two projects would provide the New York Region with the first significant expansion of transit capacity in over half a century. The MTA is moving both projects forward on a fast track. Because they will have intersecting benefits and impacts, they need to advance together. The New York delegation is united in wanting to provide support to these projects in this year's Title III appropriation. We have joined the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in requesting $149.5 million for East Side Access and $20.5 million for the Second Avenue subway. The Appropriations Committee has made a serious mistake by providing only $10 million for East Side Access and no funding for the Second Avenue Subway. This is a terrible decision that seriously undermines New York's ability to meet its transportation needs for the 21st Century. The New York City Region is the largest transit market in the United States; with nearly 8 million daily trips. Our subways and railroads have twice the ridership of the rest of the nation's rail systems combined. At the same time the MTA is the most efficient transit system in the country, covering over 60 percent of its operating costs from the farebox. New York is serious about the need to continue investment in our transit system. The MTA expects to fund over 70 percent of its 2000-2004 Capital program with City, State, and internal resources, a commitment of over $12 billion dollars. It has included $1.05 billion dollars for the Second Avenue Subway and $1.5 billion dollars for East Side Access in its Capital Plan. The MTA is committed to funding 50 percent of the cost for the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access. The Second Avenue subway, which will run from East Harlem to the tip of Lower Manhattan, and provide for eventual extensions into The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, is the most important project on the MTA's agenda. It will bring subway service to underserved areas of Manhattan, enable East Side Access passengers to travel to their jobs and provide relief to passengers on the Lexington Avenue line, which is the most overcrowded subway line in the country. The East Side of Manhattan is one of the most densely populated areas of the country. We are continuing to grow in population, but our communities are served by only one subway line. We have neighborhoods with over 200,000 residents per square mile, where many must walk 15 or 20 minutes to reach the nearest subway. This project is vitally important to the economic health of the New York region. The MTA is moving forward quickly with its plans to build the subway. It has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the upper portion of the line and is working on a Supplemental DEIS for the remainder of the project. Additionally, the MTA has completed a screening of qualifications and developed a short list of three consultant teams for the engineering and design consultant for this project. It is currently preparing a request for proposals and it will award a contract and begin work on preliminary engineering this year. East Side Access will connect the Long Island Rail Road to Manhattan's East Side, enabling over 70,000 Long Island and Queens residents to reach their jobs in the Grand Central Terminal area, the most densely developed business district in the United States. Each of these riders will see their daily journey to work reduced by over 30 minutes. The Final DEIS has been completed. East Side Access received $8 million from Congress last year and $370.6 million from the State under the MTA Capital Plan. The MTA has awarded contracts for engineering for tunnels in November 1998 and for the rest of the project in February 1999. They are awaiting a record of decision from the FTA. It is the consensus opinion of most elected leaders in New York that these two projects must be completed together. Seventy thousand East Side Access riders cannot fit onto the Lexington Avenue line which already carries thousands of riders more than it is designed for--they need the Second Avenue Subway. Unless these new riders have another transportation option, they will overwhelm the Lex and actually reduce its capacity, with disastrous results for people who live in my district in Manhattan and Queens, as well as those who live in The Bronx and Brooklyn. The Second Avenue subway, which will provide an alternative route to hundreds of thousands of riders, is the only solution to this problem. The Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access have the support of the New York delegation, the MTA, the Governor and the Mayor. What's more, the Second Avenue Subway has had the financial support of the City, the State and the Federal government. The Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, held up the MTA Capital Plan until he received a commitment for a full-length Second Avenue Subway. As a result $1.05 billion is budgeted for the Subway in the MTA's five year. The Manhattan Borough President, C. Virginia Fields, committed $1 million from her budget for the Subway. The Second Avenue Subway was authorized under TEA-21 and last year, Congress provided $3 million in new start funds. It makes no sense for Congress to stop funding the Second Avenue Subway now that it is underway. By providing only $10 million for East Side Access and no money for the Second Avenue Subway, this Transportation Appropriations bill gravely short-changes the New York Metropolitan region and undermines our financial future. I urge my colleagues, and particularly the New York delegation, to vote against this Transportation Appropriations bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Hon. Sheldon Silver. Mr. Silver is one of New York's greatest public servants, representing Manhattan's Lower East Side in the New York State Assembly for 25 years where he currently serves as Speaker. Speaker Silver has worked diligently to improve the lives of his constituents, as well as the lives of all New Yorkers. His outstanding legislative achievements will serve as a model for future members of the New York State Assembly for years to come. In 1976, Speaker Silver was first elected to the Assembly. In 1985, Speaker Silver was named chair of the Assembly Election Law Committee and served as co-chair of the Temporary State Commission on Voting Machine Equipment and Voter Registration Systems. In 1987 he became chair of the prestigious Assembly Committee on Codes. In 1992 Speaker Silver was appointed chair of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and on February 11, 1994 he was elected Speaker of the New York State Assembly. Speaker Silver is dedicated to re-establishing the Assembly as the guardian of New York's middle-class and working families. During his tenure in office, Speaker Silver has had many significant legislative achievements. He has always made education a priority, and his education initiative, LADDER (Learning, Achievement, Development by Directing Educational Resources), led to the enactment of the first statewide prekindergarten program for all 4-year old children in the nation. In addition, LADDER emphasized educational standards to ensure that all students received proper and complete education. It also focused on reducing class sizes to improve teacher to student ratios and reduces overcrowding. Many of us in Congress continue to advocate for these educational policies, Mr. Speaker, but Sheldon Silver of New York implemented them for our state years ahead of the curve. Additionally, Speaker Silver has made a strong effort to curb drug usage in New York. Under his leadership, the Safe Streets-Safe Cities Program was enacted, which established harsher penalties for drug- related crimes. It also declared money laundering illegal in order to assist law enforcement in their battle against organized crime. Speaker Silver has also been a vocal supporter of women's health issues, as well as reducing energy costs. He has also been a national leader in ensuring religious freedom for all people. These are just a few examples of literally hundreds of positive legislative actions that Speaker Silver has taken to improve the lives of all New Yorkers. Mr. Speaker, I salute the life and work of Speaker Silver, and I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in recognizing his extraordinary contributions to the State of New York and to our great nation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment. I also rise today with strong concerns about the supplemental appropriations bill. While I agree there are a number of items on the bill that need increased funding, I am disturbed that this funding is at the expense of a very important program, the Workforce Investment Act, which was cut, and that there are other important items that need to be funded, such as education. We all know that nothing is more important to our children's future than education. This amendment would strike $25 million from the operations and maintenance, and transfer these very much needed funds to the Department of Education for the Magnet School Assistance Program. Many of the students in my district in Astoria, Queens, attend magnet schools, specifically School District 30 which serves a very diverse school body in Queens, had received a magnet grant several years ago; and they were in fact in competition for yet another magnet grant this year. Because of their high performance, their increased scores in math and English, I am certain that they would have received the grant; yet the Board of Education ran out of money. So this funding, this $25 million, is needed tremendously. I am also very concerned that this bill cuts the Workforce Investment Act, which provides job training, related services to low-income persons, dislocated workers and other unemployed or underemployed individuals. This program had trained and helped many of the young people in the district that I have the honor of representing, specifically the Stanley Isaac Neighborhood Center, the Boys and Girls Club of Queens. Both of these programs were funded by WIA, and now I wonder whether or not they will be funded in the future because this very important program trains our young people for jobs. I speak very strongly in support of the $25 million for education, my colleague's amendment. Point of Order

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, but not in opposition to the substitute's sponsors. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the subcommittee chairman; and I disagree on the extent to which SEC fees should be reduced. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that all of my colleagues are aware of the tremendous hard work that they have done in ensuring that the pay parity provisions for SEC employees were included in the process. There are no two Members who have been more committed to making sure that the professionals who regulate our capital markets are the most qualified in the world than the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). Mr. Speaker, while their substitute includes the pay parity provisions that are in the underlying bill, I will oppose it because I believe SEC fee reduction should be more expansive than proposed. I believe cutting section 31 fees, merger and transaction fees, and fees on new issues is the fairest way to provide fee relief. Under the formula in the underlying bill, all users of the capital markets will be given fee relief, avoiding a situation where one group of users of the capital market overly subsidizes the cost of market regulation for others. Regardless of our disagreement on this issue, the gentleman from New York has been a leader on pay parity; and I praise his efforts and his principled leadership on the Committee on Financial Services. The substitute proposal, while well intended, does not significantly reform the current fee structure. The underlying bill has strong union support, industry support, and agency support. It is incredibly rare to have all three parties supporting a bill, yet the underlying bill has their support. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFALCE), the ranking member, for yielding me the time and for his incredible leadership in so many areas. Mr. Speaker, American investors have been overcharged. Over the last 10 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has collected $9.2 billion more than it has needed for its operations. This money comes directly from capital markets participants, including individual investors and new issuers. This legislation is proconsumer, proinvestor legislation that cuts these fees down to a level that provides the SEC with the resources it needs to do its job while saving investors over $14 billion over the next 10 years. These fees were intended to merely cover the operating costs of the SEC. They were never intended to multiply so dramatically. I can remember when stock ownership was reserved for a select few. Today, 52 percent of American households own stock or mutual funds. Former SEC Chairman Levitt has stated that 87 percent of the New York Stock Exchange fees and 82 percent of NASDAQ fees are paid by investors. The New York State Public Pension Plan estimated recently that they will pay $13.5 million in fees over 5 years. These fees are also paid by the holders of retirement accounts, including 401(k) accounts. This is the investors' money. We should let them keep it. The bill also included much needed pay parity for the SEC. At the very least, SEC employees should be paid the same as banking regulators. We are in a staffing crisis. At the SEC regional office, at 7 World Trade Center in New York, 19 percent of the staff left during fiscal year 2000. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and oppose the substitute. H.R. 1088 is supported by labor, the National Treasury Union, the industry, and the SEC. This bill will send a strong message to the Senate that they should take up our version of the bill and get relief to investors as quick as possible. Finally, let me thank all that have worked on this bill in a bipartisan way, particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley); the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Fossella); and I must thank very much the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). While we disagree on the extent to which SEC fees should be cut, no one has worked harder to secure parity for the SEC employees, and I thank them greatly for their work in this area. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this Resolution which condemns the treatment of Hindus by the Taliban government. The Taliban government has once again crossed the line, this time by forcing Hindus to wear identifying markers on their clothing. This latest oppressive act is eerily reminiscent of Nazi-era Germany when Jews were forced to wear the yellow Star of David in order to identify themselves. Singling out one group serves only one purpose: fostering discrimination and potential persecution. The world stood silently by when the Nazis started targeting Jews. We will not be silent this time. We must remember the cautious maxim that reminds us that those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The Taliban are slowly attacking all groups who they perceive as different. Since 1996, the Taliban, an extremist militia, has seized control of 90% of Afghanistan and then unilaterally declared an end to women's basic human rights. Women are banished from working. Girls are not allowed to attend school beyond the eighth grade. Women are being beaten for not fully covering themselves, including their eyes and ankles. Women and girls are not allowed to go out into public without being covered from head to toe with a heavy and cumbersome garment and escorted by a close male relative. Women are not allowed to seek health care, even in emergency situations, from male doctors. The Taliban has allowed some women to practice medicine, but women must do so fully covered and in sectioned off, special wards. And even these services are only available in very few select locations, leaving women to die from otherwise treatable diseases. A sixteen-year-old girl was stoned to death because she went out in public with a man who was not her family member. A woman who was teaching girls in her home, was also stoned to death in front of her husband, her children and her students. An elderly woman was beaten, breaking her leg, because she exposed her ankle in public. These atrocities are real. They are happening now, and will continue tomorrow as long as the extremist Taliban government is still in control of Afghanistan. The restrictions on women's freedom in Afghanistan are unfathomable to most Americans. Women and girls cannot venture outside without a burqa--an expensive and restrictive garment that covers their entire bodies including a mesh panel covering their eyes. For some women, not having the means to afford and purchase this expensive garment will banish them to their homes for the rest of their lives. The effects of this decree have been severe. Many Afghan women are widows and have no means to income because they cannot work, and unless they have a close male family member, they have no access to society for food for their families and themselves. We must continue to speak out against the Taliban, on behalf of the women and girls that risk death for speaking out for themselves. We must not accept the Taliban as a legitimate government. We must send a strong and clear message that gender apartheid and religious discrimination is unacceptable and a gross violation of the most basic human rights. Afghanistan may be physically located on the other side of the world, but the voices of the women and girls suffering there are heard loud and clear here.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Investors and capital market participants were overcharged $9.2 billion over the last 10 years in fees that support the operations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These overcharges will grow to $14 billion over the next 10 years without fee relief now. For fiscal year 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is $423 million, but the agency is set to collect $2.5 billion in fees, over 6 times the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget. Congress created the fee structure so that the operating costs of the Securities and Exchange Commission would be funded by those benefiting from securities regulation. The fees have evolved into a tax on investors which was not the original intent of Congress. The Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act reduces the fees on stock transactions, mergers, tender offers and new issues that investors and market participants pay to support the Securities and Exchange Commission. These fees, many of which are paid by individual investors and pension funds, were never intended to grow so dramatically. At the same time, the legislation provides pay parity for Securities and Exchange Commission employees. Mr. Speaker, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act will save $14 billion that can potentially be reinvested in the capital markets. It allows fees to be readjusted if the Securities and Exchange Commission ever faces a funding shortage. It provides pay parity for Securities and Exchange Commission employees. The agency has lost one- third of its employees in the last 3 years, and is truly facing a staffing crisis. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill passed the Committee on Financial Services and the full Senate by unanimous consent. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, after eight years of hard work, we finally have our financial house in order. When I was elected in 1992, we had a $290 billion surplus. This year, CBO projects a non-Medicare, non-Social Security surplus of $92 billion and the combined surplus is projected at $275 billion; under the President's budget, the non-Medicare, non-Social Security surplus would never again be that large within the ten-year budget window. At a time of unprecedented surpluses, we should have tax cuts--but I believe in responsible tax cuts--tax cuts that allow us to pay down the debt and pay for domestic priorities such as prescription drug coverage for seniors and improvements in education. I favor the Democratic plan of dividing the surplus into thirds. One-third for tax cuts, One-third for debt reduction, and One-third for national priorities such as education and prescription drugs. I believe in fixing the marriage penalty, but not delaying its implementation for four years as the Bush plan proposes. I believe in relief from estate taxes, but not for billionaires, and not for a plan that hides its cost by not phasing in for 10 years. I believe in giving the relief now--not ten years from now in a move that will blow a hole in the budget and leave us with massive deficits. We need to be clear about one thing. The Bush tax cuts are based on 10-year budget projections that can vary greatly and potentially lead us back to deficits. Despite the current surplus the federal government is enjoying, danger lies just over the horizon. The uncertainty of the next ten years is trumped by the certainty of the second ten. Starting in the later half of this decade the baby boomers will begin to retire, drastically increasing our entitlement commitments. Should we find ourselves facing deficits in 2008 we will truly be in a dire predicament. Most misleading about this tax bill is that it treats taxpayers with similar incomes far differently based on the state in which they reside. This is because it greatly increases the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax which eliminates deductions for state taxes. While the tax cut itself is large, it is not so large that it provides relief to the lower income Americans who pay the majority of the taxes through payroll taxes rather than income taxes. I don't believe in selling a tax cut as an economic stimulus package when most of the relief will come years from now, long after this economic cycle has passed. The President says people should use the tax cut to pay their skyrocketing energy bills. However, without provided relief from payroll taxes the Bush plan does nothing for people who are most affected by energy costs. And I don't believe that we should cut taxes so far that we run the risk of going back into deficit spending.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Joan Rivers, a distinguished resident of the 14th Congressional District which I represent and an internationally renowned entertainer, who will be honored by the USO of Metropolitan New York tomorrow at its Women of the Year Luncheon. The USO is currently in its sixtieth year of existence, dedicated to improving the morale and welfare of our uniformed military personnel. For more than half a century, the USO has been providing a ``touch of home'' to our men and women in uniform overseas. The USO Woman of the Year award has been given to an impressive list of past honorees including such luminaries as Barbara Bush, Lady Bird Johnson, and Mamie Eisenhower. One of the greatest entertainers of our time, and a highly successful author and businesswoman, Ms. Rivers is a fitting choice for this distinguished honor. Joan Rivers is currently acclaimed for her witty and engaging commentary on E! Entertainment Television's Fashion Reviews and E!'s live pre-shows for the Academy Awards. Her signature question, ``Can we talk?'' has become so well known that the United States government agreed to register it as a federal trademark. An accomplished comedienne, Ms. Rivers worked her way up through small clubs and lounges, where she often relief on tips in lieu of a salary, to the international celebrity she has reached today. In 1983, ``The Tonight Show'' with Johnny Carson broke tradition to name Ms. Rivers its sole permanent guest hostess. A prolific writer, John Rivers has authored nine books, and for three years wrote a thrice-weekly syndicated column for the ``Chicago Tribune.'' Joan Rivers' volumes have been invariably successful; her first book alone sold over four million copies. Ms. Rivers' 1986 autobiography reached number four on the ``New York Times'' bestseller list in only two weeks. The sequel, Still Talking, published in 1991, was a Book-of-the-Month selection. Mindful of her incredible success, Joan Rivers has been a role model in her charitable deeds. Ms. Rivers played the voice of the Honest Boy's Mother for an audio version of The Emperor's New Clothes benefiting the Starbright Foundation. In 1982, Ms. Rivers was the first celebrity to call attention to the impending AIDS crisis when she hosted and headlined the first AIDS benefit. Along with many other contributions, Ms. Rivers has also participated in the ``Comic Relief'' fund-raiser to end homelessness. I am delighted that the USO has chosen to honor Joan Rivers. I ask my fellow members of Congress to do likewise by joining me in tribute to this truly outstanding woman.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my good friends Sherry Boehlert, Mike Capuano and many other of my distinguished colleagues to introduce the National Health Service Corps Reinvestment Act. Signed into law by President Nixon, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) has placed more than 22,000 health care professionals in rural and urban areas across the country. Launched in 1972 to combat the growing number of communities without a health care provider, the Service Corps is a critical element of our nation's health care safety net. The National Health Service Corps Reinvestment Act of 2001 will reauthorize the National Health Service Corps for five years and increases its funding by 50 percent. In addition, this legislation amends the tax code, making the loan repayment and the scholarship program tax exempt. Today, the scholarships and loan payments are considered taxable income. This measure would eliminate the federal tax requirement on both of these programs. By cutting taxes for students and practitioners, it removes the tax burden on these health care professionals and allows more money to be reinvested into the Service Corps. Adding needed flexibility, the National Health Service Corps Reinvestment Act of 2001 also establishes a demonstration project to allow the NHSC scholarship and loan repayment programs recipients to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Lastly, this legislation includes two additional measures to simplify the application process for both the National Health Service Corps and community health centers. Today, more than 2,400 Service Corps clinicians serve in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. In 1999, in my great state of New York, 240 National Health Service Corps practitioners provided essential health services to thousands of New Yorkers in need (specifically, 131 primary care physicians, 32 physician assistants, 27 nurse practitioners, 27 dentists and oral health clinicians, 13 certified nurse midwives, and 10 mental and behavioral health professionals served in the NHSC in New York). For many Americans, community health centers provide their only access to a doctor, a dentist, a nurse midwife, or a mental health professional. In many instances, the treatment offered in these health clinics is provided by a Service Corps clinician. The National Health Service Corps saves lives every day by providing early, preventive health care to those in poor, rural, urban, or otherwise medically underserved communities. Nearly two million individuals in over 4,000 health shortage areas receive their health care through the National Health Service Corps. Unfortunately, only about 12 percent of the overall need is being met by the program. In 1999, the Corps had to turn away one-half of the underserved communities that requested a provider, because of a lack of funds. Communities depend on these Service Corps clinicians, so we must strengthen the NHSC. Unfortunately, the authorization for this successful program expired in 2000. Illustrating the urgent need for congressional action, last year we were faced with press accounts such as ``Cuts in Loan Program Squeeze Doctors Who Work With Poor,'' [The New York Times, 7/30/00] and ``Shortchanging Young MDs'' [Boston Globe, 8/1/00]. M.J. Murphy, a nurse practitioner and constituent of mine, was included in the New York Times story. Ms. Murphy works at a health clinic which lost its eligibility last year due to a lack of Service Corps funding. As a representative of nearly a dozen teaching hospitals and several nursing, dental and medical schools, a modernized National Health Service Corps is important for the constituents of my district. Beyond my district, a healthy and strengthened National Health Service Corps will continue to meet the medical needs of underserved and vulnerable populations across the country, as it has for nearly thirty years. So, on behalf of the millions of Americans receiving quality health care from Service Corps clinicians, I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in support of the National Health Service Corps Reinvestment Act.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the survivors and dependents of the Battle of Crete, May 20th, 1941. On that morning sixty years ago, Nazi military forces invaded the island of Crete through air, land and sea. This would be one of the many times where the proud people of Crete have been called to defend their land and their strong belief in freedom. As waves of German paratroopers landed on the Cretan soil, men, women and children fought with what little they had to defend against advancing fascist oppressors. During the first day of the invasion the Nazi military suffered high losses. The German military encountered a vicious resistance that they had not expected. Hitler's elite 7th Parachute Division had suffered casualties from an opponent who was equipped with knives and homemade weapons. The bombings that occurred in the cities such as Chania, Rethimnon, and Herakleion did not lower the morale of the people but strengthened their will to defend the island. The Nazi forces took nine days to finally conquer the island and endured a heavy number of casualties. The Cretan people sought refuge in the mountains and staged a resistance that continued on until the final defeat of the Germans in 1945. The Battle of Crete is viewed by many as significant in delaying Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union and hastening the defeat of the Nazi regime of World War II. The achievements of Cretan soldiers were praised by the Allied Powers and gave hope to those who struggled against the Nazi oppressors. More than twenty-five thousand Cretans lost their lives in the battle and the Nazi occupation that followed. Their villages were burnt to the ground as reprisals for their continued resistance while mass executions of women, children, and the elderly became a daily event. The Nazis were forced to place a large number of troops in the region due to the continued resistance from the heroic Cretans. Their bravery and willingness to sacrifice their lives for the well being of future generations deserves to be honored by all defenders of freedom and democracy. This year, the 60th year anniversary of the Battle of Crete, President Nikolaos Kastrinkis and the members of the Cretan Association ``Omonoia'', President Voula Vomvolakis and the members of ``Pasiphae'', President George Motakis and the members of ``Labrys'' President Emmanuel Michelakis and the members of ``Minos'', President Emmanuel Polychronkis and the members of ``Idomeneas'', President Emmanuel Piperakis and the members of ``Brotherhood'', President Dinos Mastorakis and the members of ``Kazantzakis'' and President Evangelos Xenakis and the members of ``Philoxenia'' will honor these brave guardians of freedom. It is our duty to preserve and honor their memory and heroic actions that brought forth the defeat of oppression and fascism. The freedom that we now enjoy became possible in part by the blood shed by these heroes. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a small island with brave inhabitants that significantly contributed to the preservation of our freedom today.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues of the Women's Caucus to discuss the importance of women's health. It is an especially appropriate topic because this week is National Women's Health Week. As a Caucus, we are working hard to improve health for all women. From protecting Social Security and strengthening Medicare to working for equality for all women. And we are working to add a reliable, affordable prescription drug benefit. Today, there are 6 million more women in the United States than men. Women are 51 percent of the U.S. population. And the projected life expectancy for women in this country is 80 years. Therefore, we must ensure that the progress we have made to improve women's health continues. To this point, I urge my distinguished colleagues to join me in the following measures. I am working to improve the health and well-being of women--young and old. On May 2nd, I, joined with Mrs. Morella of Maryland, reintroduced the Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act, H.R. 1683. May marks Osteoporosis Prevention Month. Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by low bone mass or brittle bones. The statistics are startling. 71 percent of women with osteoporosis are not diagnosed, leaving them at increased risk for fractures. And osteoporosis causes 300,000 new hip fractures each year. My bill would require private insurers to reimburse for bone mass measurement. Prevention and early detection are critical in combating this disease. Last week, Congresswoman Kelly and I reintroduced the Cancer Screening Coverage Act, H.R. 1809, to give everyone a fighting chance in detecting cancer at its earliest stages. CASCA as we call this bill, applies to private health insurance plans and to the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan, requiring these plans to cover cancer screenings. Cancer screening allows for the detection of cancer in its earliest form, when the cost of treatment is the least. And more importantly, it is estimated that the rate of survival would increase from 80% to 95% if all Americans participated in regular cancer screenings. The legislation we introduced has the power to save thousands of lives. I am also working with my distinguished colleague, Connie Morella, to make women's health research a priority. We, joined by many members of the Women's Caucus, introduced the Women's Health Office Act, H.R. 1784, to make the women's health offices at the Department of Health and Human Services permanent. And for our littlest people and their moms, I have introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act, which supports and protects mothers who choose to breastfeed. Everyday, new medical studies are released highlighting the positive health effects of breastfeeding for both mother and child. Just today, a new study was released showing that breastfed babies are less likely to become overweight children. Again, let's celebrate National Women's Health Week. We must continue to work hard to ensure that the priorities of our nation include policies that protect and promote the health and well-being of women and their families. I urge my colleagues to join me on these measures.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Martin J. Barrett, the former Chairman of Manhattan Community Board Six. Mr. Barrett has for decades been involved in numerous civic associations within Manhattan, most notably with Community Board Six. Within my district in New York City, Community Boards serve a tremendously beneficial advisory role in ensuring that the opinions of members of the community are recognized by the city government when reviewing prospective neighborhood changes dealing with land use and zoning matters. Among other responsibilities, Community Boards have the important role of making recommendations to the city government in the allocation of the city budget. Before beginning his term as the Chairman of Community Board Six in 1998, Mr. Barrett served as the Chairman of the Community Board's Public Safety Committee, the Chairman of the Parks and Landmarks Committee, and as the Chairman of the Budget and Legislative Committee. Mr. Barrett has taken a leadership role in numerous important East Side organizations, including the Stuyvesant Cove Park Association, which he has served as president since 1998, the 14th Street Business Improvement District, of which he has been a member since 1998, and the Friends of the Bellevue Park Association, where he served as vice- president from 1993-1999. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barrett's extensive involvement in the Manhattan community should serve as an inspiration to us all. His dedication to ensuring that the needs and hopes of his fellow community members were addressed by Community Board Six will serve as an admirable legacy for many years to come. Although he may no longer be the Chairman of Community Board Six, I sincerely hope that Mr. Barrett continues his work in the community.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I am disappointed that the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment was not made in order. Our amendment would have provided much-needed Federal grants to organizations so that they can teach today's youth about the Holocaust. Unfortunately, many schools and communities around the country have not learned about the Holocaust because their schools do not have the funds or tools to each about this tragic event in world history. There is no question: teaching children about the horror and tragedy of the Holocaust will create a generation of youth in America who are less likely to commit hate crimes, and who are more likely to mature into adults who will envision and work toward peaceful world relations. This is exactly why the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment is so important. We need programs in our schools that teach the consequences of intolerance and hate. In denying the House a vote on our amendment, the majority is denying our children a chance to learn about one of the most tragic events in history.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and also the rule, and for the very strong pro-family, pro-adoption tax relief policy, Hope for Children Act. Children's issues, and specifically promoting adoption and improving foster care, have been important legislative goals in my career. I am proud to have worked with President Clinton and his staff in a bipartisan way in this Congress back in 1996 when we passed the original bill that helped break down the financial and bureaucratic barriers to adoption, giving every child what every child needs and deserves: loving parents and a strong, stable home. This legislation eases the cost of adoption by increasing the adoption tax credit that expired this year from $5,000 to $10,000 for all adoptions, and increases the employer adoption assistance exclusion to $10,000. Every child deserves a loving family. This legislation helps provide assistance to those families who wish to add a child to their lives. All parents today face the stark reality that raising children, although wonderful and a true joy, is also increasingly expensive. The simple cost of going through the adoption process can be very expensive. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this Congress will also be able to address the item that my colleague from Massachusetts raised, the needs of parents who wish to adopt special-needs children. And I am pleased that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), states a commitment from the Committee on Ways and Means to address this later in the session has been forthcoming. These children are often older and have handicaps and medical conditions, and I urge my colleagues to work with the gentlewoman and others in the future to make sure that this is also included. Again, I applaud the bipartisan leadership on this bill. With so many children in need of homes, it is morally right for Congress to relieve some of the financial burdens for these families. All Members of Congress know that our doors are continually beaten down by those seeking various tax benefits for specific special interests. Children's voices often fail to be heard today in Washington, and I am pleased to stand in support with my colleagues of our Nation's children. This will help thousands of children waiting for a family that wants them, and it will help thousands of middle-class parents adopt them. It is an important bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. First and foremost this is not about abortion. It is about women dying to the tune of 600,000 a year. That is equal to one or two jumbo jets crashing each day. And it is about saving women's lives. Since 1973, no U.S. Federal funds have been or are used for abortions around the world. During the time that we are debating this amendment, 65 women will die from pregnancy-related complications. The global gag rule restricts foreign NGOs from using their own funds. In America, this language would be unconstitutional. It is unconscionable that we would impose it on the world's poorest women. The global gag rule is enough to make you gag. The rule puts the U.S. in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what speech is unacceptable. Current Mexico City policy is not abortion neutral. Organizations receiving U.S. funds can use their own money to lobby against abortion but cannot use their own money to lobby to make abortion legal. Vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of family planning, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde-Smith amendment which reinstates the anti-woman antidemocratic Global Gag Rule. First and foremost, this is not about abortion. It's about women dying, to the tune of 600,000 a year. That is equal to one or two jumbo jets crashing every single day. And, it's about saving women's lives. Since 1973, no U.S. Federal funds have been or are used around the world for abortions. During the time we are debating the gag rule, 65 women will die from pregnancy related complications because they don't have access to the most basic health care. The Global Gag Rule restricts foreign NGO's from using their own funds. In America, this language is unconstitutional. It's unconscionable that we would impose it on the world's poorest women. The gag rule is enough to make you gag. It cripples foreign NGO's ability to practice democracy in their own countries. We can't afford to stifle the international debate on family planning by tying the hands of NGO's with an antiwoman gag rule. The gag rule forces NGO's to choose between their democratic rights to organize and determine what is best in their own countries and desperately needed resources of U.S. family planning dollars. We know that family planning reduces the need for abortions. We know that it saves lives. The gag rule reduces the effectiveness of family planning organizations and should be eliminated. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee language and oppose the Hyde- Smith amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hyde-Lantos- Sweeney amendment, which withholds U.S. payments to the United Nations in retaliation for the removal of the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. Although I share the displeasure of the chair and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations on the loss of the United States' seat, payment of arrears to the U.N. should not be jeopardized in retribution. This action would be unfairly punitive. The United Nations does not nominate nor elect members to the commission. The 54 members of the U.N. Economic and Social Council elect members of the commission in a secret ballot. Payment of our long-standing debt to the U.N. should not be jeopardized, particularly at a time when the United Nations has met nearly every condition of the Helms-Biden agreement. A deal is a deal. The U.S. agreed to pay nearly $1 billion in debt to the U.N. if the U.N. met certain conditions. The United Nations has kept their end of the deal. We demanded that the U.N. reduce the amount the U.S. pays to the U.N. regular budget, and the U.N. did. We demanded that they reduce the amount the U.S. pays to the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and the U.N. did. We demanded they form an Office of Inspector General, and they did. We demanded they maintain a zero growth budget, and they did. We demanded that they did not charge us interest on the delinquent bills, and they have not charged interest. Now, after the United Nations has met all of our demands and it is our time to honor our commitment, we have new demands. It is not even logical. The United Nations did not remove the United States from the Human Rights Commission. That action was by the 54 member states of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is not fair. To penalize the U.N. for the actions of individual member states violates every sense of fair play. It is like failing the whole class for the actions of one child. My opponents here today will say that the U.S. deserves a seat on the commission, and it does. But the U.N. cannot put us back on the commission any more than they could prevent us from being taken off. So why penalize the U.N.? Also, it is not productive. Requiring new conditions for payment of a longstanding debt when a deal has already been made will not only not win us back a seat, but could very well jeopardize our relations with the very nations who we need to vote in favor of us to put us back on the commission. Secretary of State Colin Powell does not want additional conditions. President Bush does not want additional conditions. These are the people charged with implementing our Nation's foreign policy. Just yesterday, the President spokesperson said, and I quote, ``The whole question of arrears and payment to the United Nations, that is separate and apart from this current matter.'' The Atlanta Constitution wrote a long statement, but I will just quote a short part: ``Unfortunately, Members of the House are threatening to `get back' by withholding U.N. dues. Seeking retribution against the world body is the wrong reaction from Congress or the administration. After all, it wasn't just U.S. detractors who participated in the coup, but also some of our allies: France, Sweden and Austria, who didn't cast enough votes to help the U.S. retain a seat.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote on May 10, and I quote: ``Members of the House, angry that the United States last night lost its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, want to withhold a further planned U.N. payment of $244 million unless the seat is restored next year. It's hard to conceive of anything more foolish than making payment of a legitimate debt conditional on an action by a subsidiary U.N. body that the U.N. doesn't even control.'' The New York Times wrote on May 5: ``Such a response would ignore the underlying issues that caused the revolt and only worsen American relations with the United Nations. Payment of Washington's back dues is vital to maintaining American influence in the U.N.'' And the San Francisco Chronicle's headline today says, ``U.S. Should Pay Its Dues.'' It sort of reminds me of the old book, everything I learned in kindergarten is all I need to conduct my life in a reasonable way. We made a deal. They have held up to their end of the deal. It is wrong for us to turn around and change the rules. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of the Bush administration urging that we live up to our end of the commitment and pay our dues at the United Nations. I oppose the Hyde-Lantos amendment and other conditions put on this requirement that we have agreed to.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill. I wish to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership. It has some important measures that will improve the United States' standing in the international community. The bill incorporates the Lee language, which successfully repeals the antiwoman, antidemocratic global gag rule. And the bill contains a provision which would urge the administration to continue negotiations on the Kyoto Treaty. Finally, the bill authorizes the release of the second and third installments of a 3-year $926 million schedule of back payment of U.S. dues to the United Nations. I am very concerned about the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, which will deny the U.N. its rightful U.S. dues. We made a deal with the U.N., and now we want to go back on our word because the U.N. voted us off the Human Rights Commission. This really is not logical. The U.N. did not remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission, the action was made by the 54 member states of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. And to quote the Los Angeles Times, ``It is hard to conceive of anything more foolish than making a payment of a legitimate debt conditional on action by a subsidiary of the U.N. body.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. I appreciate his great leadership in this body on so many issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule. The rule should be open and allow for debate of all the issues that could be brought to this floor, because it is extremely important. Later today I will be speaking about an issue that does not reflect the best of our decisions in the deals that we have made. I am referring to the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment. This amendment will hold hostage United States payments to the United Nations. In 1999, under the Helms-Biden agreement, we negotiated a deal with the United Nations. They have held up their end of the bargain. We have not. Because the U.N. has voted the U.S. off the Human Rights Commission, we are deciding that we can break our agreement, that we can break our contract. This is wrong, and I think we would be ashamed if our children acted in this manner. Today I am supporting the Bush administration, because they support the funding of the United Nations. If we pass the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, it will be the first loss of the Bush administration on Capitol Hill. I would like to quote from Ari Fleisher, representing the Bush administration. ``While the United States is disappointed with the results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President feels strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of our arrears to the United Nations and other international interests.'' If we pass this amendment, we will be sending a message to the world that our word cannot be trusted and that if we do not get what we want, we can break our deal. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, this is not the message we want to send to the world community.