Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, three decades ago the Democrats gave American seniors peace of mind when they created Medicare. Medicare led to a 50-percent drop in the number of seniors living at the poverty level. It led to a 50-percent increase in the number of seniors that have health care. While in control of Congress for 30 years, the Democrats gave life and protection to Medicare. Yesterday the Republicans arrested seniors that wanted to listen and learn more about Medicare at some of the hearings and meetings that are taking place here. The Democrats giveth, and the Republicans taketh away. The new majority is ramming through a plan that needlessly slashes $270 billion and doubles Medicare premiums, and those additional premiums are not even going into the Medicare trust fund. The Republicans say they are saving Medicare because it is in a crisis. I say, the only crisis to Medicare is that the Republicans are in power.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the achievements of Fanny Holliday, a very special constituent and friend of mine who has given so much back to her community, her country, and the worldwide cause of human rights. Fanny Alexander was born Fanny Christopher in Kerenia, Cyprus. She emigrated to the United States at the age of 11. Her success in this country has truly been a great example of fulfilling the American Dream. After completing her education, Fanny joined Audio Vox in 1970 and advanced to the position of vice president. However, in 1977, she began a new career as the publisher of Proini, a Greek language paper dedicated to truth and human rights. By 1980, she had left Audio Vox to devote all her time to the increasing demands of a growing newspaper. In 1985, she built on Proini's success by publishing the Greek American. The Greek American is an English language newspaper which keeps the non-Greek speaking population in the United States well informed. Among its subscribers, I know Proini and the Greek American can boast many of my colleagues here in Congress. As a champion of human rights, Fanny has provided an avenue for all issues which face Greece and Greek-Americans to be discussed. She is also a leader in the fight to liberate Cyprus. As we know, her childhood home is presently occupied by Turkish invaders. Sadly, she, and other Cypriot-Americans, cannot freely visit their place of birth. Fanny cannot share her heritage fully with her daughter Nicole Petallides and her husband Morton Holliday. But she fights on for justice and peace to return to Cyprus. And, although she is now leaving the newspaper, I know she will always be a leader for human rights. So I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Fanny on her extraordinary achievements and in wishing her well in her new endeavors.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as a Representative from New York's 14th District, which includes the vibrant Polish-American community of Greenpoint, I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the participants in the Pulaski Day Parade. This year's Pulaski Day Parade honors Gen. Casimir Pulaski and pays special homage to Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his visit to New York next month. The Pulaski Day Parade is a shining example of the active and dedicated Polish-American community in Brooklyn and the New York metropolitan area. Mr. Speaker, the Pulaski Day Parade commemorates that great son of Poland, Gen. Casimir Pulaski, the ``Father of the American Calvary.'' At the age of 30, General Pulaski came to America on July 23, 1777, to help our struggling Nation in its fight for independence against British tyranny. This heroic son of Poland organized the calvary forces of our infant republic and died of a wound received at the Battle of Savannah on October 11, 1779. The October 1, 1995, Pulaski Day Parade carriers the sub-theme, ``A Tribute to His Holiness Pope John Paul II.'' The consensus of the members of the General Pulaski Memorial Parade Committee, Inc., chose to give tribute to His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the first Pole to attain the highest ecclesiastic office of the Catholic Church. The grant marshal of the 1995 Pulaski Day Parade, Alexandria E. Patras deserves special recognition. In 1985, Mrs. Patras, with the help of her husband, Stephen, and many others, organized the Polish Children's Heartline. Mrs. Patras's contributions to New York City and to the New York Polish community are remarkable and deserve the recognition of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Pulaski Day Parade provides well-deserved recognition of General Pulaski, the New York Polish community, Mrs. Patras, and His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to the participants in the 1995 Pulaski Day Parade. By continuing to highlight the contributions of General Pulaski and the entire Polish-American community, events like this one ensure that the strength of our Nation continues to be the diversity of our people.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion strikes a mortal blow to health security for all senior citizens. Their plan to hold just 1 day of hearings is an insult to democracy. We had 28 days of hearings for Whitewater, 10 days for Waco, 8 days for Ruby Ridge, and we are having 1 day only, only 1 day, for Medicare. I defy anyone to find an American anywhere in this country outside of Washington, DC, who agrees with that legislative agenda. They are cutting $270 billion to preserve corporate welfare, extravagant defense spending, and tax cuts. The result for senior citizens is higher premiums, less access, low-quality health care, and, in many cases, poverty. The $270 billion cut is far in excess of what is needed to keep Medicare solvent, yet Republicans have the gall to say they are saving Medicare. They will save Medicare, all right. It will be a classic case of the operation was a success, but the patient died. Let us have real hearings. Medicare is the real contract with the American people.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the most outstanding religious leaders in the world, Archbishop Geron Iakovos. Head of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos is retiring after 36 years of distinguished service as a spiritual leader and fighter for worldwide justice. Archbishop Iakovos, born Geron Iakovos in Istanbul, Turkey, was ordained a priest in Lowell, MA, in 1940. He is a graduate of the Harvard University Divinity School. In 1959 he ascended to the leadership of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Western Hemisphere. He has been at the forefront of the worldwide ecumenical as well as the civil rights movement. In 1959 he met with Pope John XXIII, thus becoming the first Greek Orthodox Leader in almost 400 years to meet with a Roman Catholic Pope. He also served as copresident of the World Council of Churches for 9 years. As an outspoken religious leader against segregation in the United States, he marched with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in [[Page E 1826]] Selma, AL. He has continually fought for the independence of Cyprus, preservation of Greece, and enhanced United States-Greek relations. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. He is a magnificent and stalwart friend of American Jewry, voiced support for Soviet Jews, and has been a strong advocate for Israel. This extraordinary spiritual and religious leader has been a very sensitive pastor at every level. His warm pastoral dimension expresses itself to not only his own people, but to people of all religions, cultures, and nationalities. Beyond fulfilling his duties to the Church, he has been a leader in the cause of justice in America and all over the world. I know all of my colleagues join with me in wishing this extraordinary individual the very best in his retirement.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. The gentleman from New York and I represent several neighborhoods in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn that bear the brunt of the current wrong- headed toll policy on the Verrazano Bridge. First of all, our colleagues from around the country should rightly ask why is Congress becoming involved in what is a local traffic dispute. That is a very good question, especially when we consider that year after year the mandate of the one-way toll from Brooklyn to Staten Island was put into place over the objections of our city and State governments and all but one of our city congressional representatives. Here is why the one-way toll continues to be a terrible idea. First, it wastes money. Toll evaders are ducking out of $7 million in lost revenue. This funding could improve New York's roads so that fewer tax dollars are needed for these roads in New York. [[Page H 9298]] Second, it is an environmental disaster. The diverted traffic into my district has caused air pollution hot spots at which dangerous carbon monoxide exceed national standards. All this because residents of one particular section of our city and others from another State can save a few dollars a week by evading a toll. The one-way toll over the Verrazano has caused a great deal of damage that can never be undone, but let us end this folly and pass the Nadler amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues one of New York City's great centers of Jewish religion and culture. Founded 156 years ago, the Central Synagogue in Manhattan has played an important role in the development and growth of New York's secular and religious life. In addition to serving as a pillar of New York's Jewish community, the Central Synagogue plays an active role in the community at-large. The Synagogue, through its wonderful members and staff, provides one- on-one English lessons for recent immigrants, food for 350 homeless persons per week, and a city-wide AIDS service. Completed in 1872, the Syngogue itself is one of New York's greatest landmarks. The imposing moorish sanctuary was designed by Henry Fernbach, the first Jewish American architect, and was subsequently designated as a National Landmark. Two years ago, the Synagogue embarked one of the most ambitious capital revitalization projects in the congregation's history. On September 28, 1995, the first step in this revitalization program will be completed when the sanctuary is finally rededicated. Having meticulously restored the stain glass window and facade, the Central Synagogue will once again assume its position as one of the most beautiful and striking sights in New York. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to be proud of in New York City. The majesty, history and vitality of the Central Synagogue is something that we can all take pride in. I congratulate the Synagogue on the restoration of its sanctuary and wish the entire congregation luck as it continues with its capital improvement campaign.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today as an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 42. I would also like to commend Representative Engel for his diligence and leadership on this issue. He is a true champion of the Greek-American community. Over 21 years ago, the world witnessed a brutal and blatantly illegal act of ethnic cleansing. In 1974 hundreds of thousands of Turkish troops invaded the island of Cyprus. In a gross violation of human rights and international law, 200,000 people were expelled from their homes and forced from the land which had been theirs for generations. Tragically, this island remains divided by the continuing shackles of occupation and oppression--35,000 troops continue to occupy 37 percent of the island. This resolution will put the House of Representatives on record supporting a number of actions which will help solve the continuing problem of Cyprus. The status quo on Cyprus is clearly unacceptable, a fact long accepted by the international community. The framework for a solution to the situation have also long been recognized, and are enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 939, which reaffirms that a solution must be based on a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. Perhaps most importantly, this resolution calls for the demilitarization of Cyprus. This step would help dramatically to lessen the tensions in the region. This fact has been recognized by Cypriot President Clerides, who has been calling for demilitarization since 1993. Demilitarization would meet the security concerns of all the parties involved. By doing so, demilitarization would enhance the prospects for peaceful and lasting resolution of the Cyprus problem. It would benefit all the people of Cyprus and merits international support. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the Clinton administration for all of its hard work on resolving the problem of Cyprus and other important concerns of the Greek-American community. The President has helped to focus international attention on Cyprus with the appointment of Mr. Richard Beattie as his Special Emissary for Cyprus. The resolution of the Cyprus problem is clearly a high priority for the Clinton administration. As the proud representative of the large and vibrant community of Cypriot-Americans in Astoria, Queens, it is a high priority for me as well. With this vote, the whole House is making clear that it regards the resolution of this problem as a critical foreign policy objective.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, printed as No. 3 in the Record. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems, when we say that it does not make us as competitive, No. 1, we dominate the world market with over 70 percent of sales. We have to remember that it is American tax dollars that create the research and development that makes our companies so successful in the world market. We allocate well over $30 billion a year to research and development. The moneys that come back to the Department of Defense then go back into research and development. I must tell the gentleman that the offset would come out of a mandatory spending in the Defense Department, which would be military pensions.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the offset must come out of mandatory spending. Mandatory spending in the Defense Department is overwhelming, all mandatory spending is the quality of living.

Mrs. MALONEY. This comes from the staff of the Department of Defense. [[Page H 8928]]

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense Deputy Inspector General, when he testified before the Committee on Small Business, stated that it could be waived on a case-by-case basis, and invariably it is always waived when you can show there is some detriment to achieving the sale.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with what sometimes lies within so-called procurement reform legislation. My amendment deals with a corporate subsidy in this bill that has nothing to do with procurement reform. The subsidy in question is the elimination of a program that requires defense contractors to repay the Government for some of the $30 billion annually taxpayers invest in research and development for private military contractors. The recoupment fee is intended to recoup some of the billions the taxpayers have paid to develop major military systems when the defense contractor sells this technology to a foreign nation. The fee averages just 3 to 5 percent of the gross price of the contract. The authors of this bill are eliminating the recoupment program calling it a tax on American defense contractors. I say recoupment gives a fair return for the American taxpayer's investment in the research and development of new weapons and technology. Taxpayer dollars help fund the research and development in the first place. There wouldn't be these new weapons systems if it wasn't for the american taxpayer. This public-private partnership is one of the reasons the United States is the world's leading arms exporter, dominating the market with 70 percent of the world's share. We sell more arms than all the other nations of the world combined. Some people are saying recoupment makes the U.S. military less competitive in the international market. My colleagues, over the last 4 years, sales of United States military equipment totaled more than the sales of all the most aggressive arms exporters--Russia, China, France, and Britain combined. In fact, our share is still rising. Between 1991 and 1994, our share of the world market increased 62 percent. If the recoupment requirement is making American military equipment less competitive in the world market--as the authors of this bill are stating--why is our share growing, not shrinking? And in cases where the contractor can demonstrate that an individual sale is jeopardized, the DOD will grant a waiver. In fact, there is already a blanket waiver for all nonmajor items, as well as all NATO participants. For all these reasons, the deputy inspector general of the Defense Department says, and I quote, and ask to place this letter in the Record: Since the U.S. sales of military hardware exceed all other countries combined, there is in my mind a great deal of doubt about the need to eliminate the recovery requirement when it can be done through waivers, on a case-by-case basis.'' There's still more. The bill before us requires these recoupment losses of more than $1 billion to be offset from savings in the mandatory spending account at the Department of Defense. What's in that account? The pensions of our veterans and military retirees. So the bill before us has the American taxpayer funding research and development for private defense contractors, who can turn around and make a profit overseas, without returning a penny to the Treasury. And--we'll pay for the lost revenue by cutting the pension benefits of our military retirees. It's wrong. It's unwise. My amendment saves recoupment and the pensions of our veterans. I ask for Members' support of the Maloney amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers- Collins amendment. The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to the concerns of the small-business community and saves taxpayers' dollars by preserving the current standard and practice of full and open competition in Federal contracting. The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to concerns of the small- business community and saves taxpayers' dollars by rejecting the bill's grant of sweeping authority for contracting officers to limit competition, such as when they believe that competition is not appropriate or feasible. Where are they going to make this decision? Behind locked doors? Who is going to oversee their decision process? The Meyers-Collins amendment helps small businesses and saves taxpayers' dollars by maintaining statutory standards that help protect businesses from arbitrary treatment by contracting bureaucratic officers. The Meyers- Collins amendment saves taxpayers' dollars and helps small businesses by rejecting the bill's issuance of multiple blank checks to career regulation writers to shape the Federal contracting process to their convenience. Mr. Chairman, full and open competition is the heart of the free market system. In the Federal procurement process, it guarantees that the Government gets the best value for the goods and services it purchases. The full and open competition standard has been in law for over a decade. It was enacted as part of the Competition and Contracting Act of 1984, a bill that responded to the fraud, waste and abuse characterizing Federal procurement at that time. We all remember the DOD spare parts horror stories and the investigation of influence peddling, the Ill Winds scandal. H.R. 1670 weakens full and open competition and could return us to those days of scandals. The simple fact is this: The case for changing the full and open competition standard has not been made in any credible or coherent fashion. The issue was not even raised at the February hearing of the committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The DOD inspector general and the IG of Veterans' Affairs agree completely with this point, and I quote from the DOD inspector general's testimony: It is not clear what statutory shortcomings the proposed changes are intended to fix. We have not seen any analysis or demonstration of a problem that supports moving away from full and open competition. This is the IG saying, Don't, do not do it. The so-called section 800 panel, which provided the analytical basis for last year's FASA bill, considered and explicitly rejected moving away from full and open competition. They said do not do it, it will cause problems, it will waste taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Chairman, competition in Federal contracting dates back to the revolutionary war. Competition in contracting has been around that long for one simple reason: It is fair, it is honest, and it works well. Full and open competition saves 25 percent, according to GAO in our contracting pursuits in their recent report. Maybe even more importantly competition maintains Federal procurement integrity and guarantees fair play by guaranteeing that contracts are awarded on merit; that they are awarded on merit, not favoritism and backroom decisions. It is easy, very easy, to understand why government bureaucrats would support a retreat from full and open competition. Deciding who can compete on any given contract is a very powerful position. Deciding who can compete on over $200 billion in taxpayers' funds in Federal contracts is a very powerful person. Doing business with a few well-known businesses is easier than considering qualified bidders. That is why the small business community is so opposed to this bill. Small businesses make up the heart of our economy, generating 85 percent of all new jobs and providing extraordinary technological innovations. Barring small businesses from the Federal acquisition system is unfair and it makes absolutely no economic sense.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. [[Page H 8872]] (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by saying the other side of the aisle has spent a great deal of time in this Congress debating the necessity of having risk assessment placed on our bureaucrats, of overseeing them and limiting what they are doing in health and safety, on food inspection, on the environment. We have to have risk assessment, we have to have standards, yet in this bill they hand the bureaucrats a completely blank slate to determine what the standards are. There is no legislative authority. There are no clear guidelines. I tell Members it is a disaster, and we will be back here changing it after dollars are wasted in fraud, waste and abuse. Full and open guarantees competition and the best price for government goods, saving taxpayers' dollars. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] on their joint bipartisan effort on this bill and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield in order to respond, I am not questioning whether it is an authentic statement or not. I am saying that it does not address what we are debating now, which is the Meyers-Collins amendment, which goes to the heart of procurement reform, the procurement debate, which the Small Business Administration and so many other small businesses have reached out to us, and that is preserving full and open competition. It talks about a lot of other things and a lot of other concerns, but it does not directly address the concerns that are before us in this particular amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, offered by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger. I share the chairman's goal to shake up the system, streamline it, and cut the red tape. I thank the chairman for his genuine hard work on this issue, and I thank him for his sincere efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus on this bill. We are very close to that consensus. Unfortunately, there are several unaddressed fundamental problems with the substance of this bill. This bill alters the longstanding principle of full and open competition for Federal contracts. Members will hear that it retains the words ``full and open competition,'' true. But the problem is, it adds new words, loopholes, blank checks, and qualifiers. The new language does not preserve the old standard, which is the best standard for saving taxpayers' dollars and allowing small businesses to compete in the procurement process. Under this bill, contracting personnel are authorized to use other than competitive procedures under two new and excessively broad exceptions to competition; namely, when the use of competitive procedure is not, and I quote, ``feasible or appropriate,'' under regulation to be prescribed, another blank check for agency contracting personnel. Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand the other party's support for this part of the bill. I join the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] in lauding, really, the chairman of the committee on many fine parts of the bill. But Members of that party are regularly pressing in this body for cost and risk assessment to control the bureaucrats in the area of health, security, and environment. But in this bill, they give blank checks to these bureaucrats for the procurement of over $200 billion of taxpayers' money in Federal procurement. The case to replace full and open competition has not been made. In the hearings that were held, no one testified in support of removing full and open competition. In fact, many people, particularly small business, testified in support of it. I would like submit into the Record a letter from the deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] that very clearly states his belief that this fully and open standard must be maintained to protect taxpayers' dollars and to allow small businesses to compete in the process. Also the bill robs money from American taxpayers. Existing law says that, when a defense contractor sells weapons and technology to a foreign government, research and development funded by taxpayers, then the defense contractor must pay a portion of profit back to the Government to pay for that research and development The recovery of funds is called recoupment. The authors of this bill are eliminating recoupment, calling it a tax on American defense contractors. I say recoupment gives a fair return for the American taxpayers' investment in the research and development of new weapons and technology. I intend to offer an amendment to restore it, and it would mean well over a billion dollars to our Treasury over 5 years. Finally, the Clinger bill allows simplified acquisition procedures for the purchase of all so-called commercial products, no matter what the dollar value. Last year we passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, a landmark bill that raised the threshold for simplified procedures to $100,000 and $250,000 after the implementation of electronic bulletin boards and Federal procurement. This provision allows officials to purchase basic goods like salad dressing and small items without undue red tape. It is a good bill and I support it. However, this bill, H.R. 1670, would entirely eliminate any threshold. It would not cut red tape, since 90 percent of all purchases are under $100,000. In the name of simplifying the procurement statutes, this bill grants regulation writers sweeping authority to establish procedures and guidelines. That seems to me completely contrary to the professed Republican view that these regulators need to be restrained. With a few changes, H.R. 1670 could represent an excellent second step to follow the changes made last year and those made by Vice President Gore. Until those changes are made, I must oppose this bill.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to some of the prior speakers on the administration policy statement, which just arrived at the last minute. I might note that it does not address what the Meyers-Collins amendment is addressing, which is full and open competition. When it does, it waffles, and I quote title I: ``* * * has raised concern about the government's commitment to vigorous competition.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore and highlight my support of the statement made by the gentlewoman from Kansas, in that when it does go into detail it talks about items that were in her amendment that are not in the amendment that is before the body now.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the achievements of Neighbors R Us, an extraordinary community group which has won a great battle for preserving a great neighborhood. Last year, when Toys R Us announced its intention to open a superstore on the corner of 80th and Third Avenue, it was greeted with dismay by those of us who live in the neighborhood. We feared that this store would negatively impact the residential character of the community. We feared that it would endanger access to the nursing home across the street. We feared that it would cause severe traffic problems throughout the whole neighborhood. Mr. Speaker, the difference between a good neighborhood and a great neighborhood is that when a great neighborhood is threatened, it draws together and rises to the challenge. And that is just what happened. Hundreds of residents from all walks of life gave selflessly of their time and created one extraordinary community group--Neighbors R Us. Neighbors R Us spent countless hours gathering the information to show that Toys R Us was exploiting a local loophole in its efforts to open a store tens of thousands of square feet larger than the zoning restrictions would have allowed. But despite having justice on their side, there were many who felt that Neighbors R Us' efforts were doomed from the beginning. They were fighting the system; they were Davids battling a corporate Toys R Us Goliath. But Neighbors R Us refused to listen to these naysayers. United, they continued to lobby the board of standards and appeals to do the right thing and preserve the community. They organized meetings; they held vigils; they wrote letters and made phone calls; in short, they gave new meaning to the words ``community activism.'' And they won. Mr. Speaker, many individuals played critical roles in Neighbors R Us' well-deserved victory, so to single anyone out would be wrong. Because this was a victory that was truly shared by every member of the community. Certainly, the residents surrounding 80th Street have much reason to celebrate. But I believe that this issue has broader implications. It is a victory for the entire community and for every community in New York because it sends a message that residents' voices deserve to be heard. It is true that Toys R Us may appeal the board of standards and appeals decision in court. But having worked with Neighbors R Us for well over a year on this issue, I am confident that they will ultimately prevail. Because they have proven that when a community is unified, there is no limit to what it can achieve. So I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Neighbors R Us for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of a truly great community.