Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 294, high speed rail, incredibly important in Amtrak. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. As a New Yorker, I strongly support making travel easier, safer, and more affordable for my constituents and for all Americans who choose this method of travel. This bill mandates that preference be given to rail projects that have high levels of projected ridership and punctuality which will include the development of a high speed rail project between Washington and New York City. S. 294 serves to improve not only the quality of service on the most popular rail line in the country, but also will increase the availability and accessibility of mass transit to individuals. In this era of skyrocketing energy costs and global warming, encouraging the development of efficient mass transit options is very important to improve our economy and protect our environment. As a frequent Amtrak user, I know how important it is for rail service in the Northeast Corridor to be in a constant state of ``good repair.'' I am sure that thousands of my fellow passengers, men and women traveling for business or personal reasons on this popular railway also will appreciate this requirement.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4049) to amend section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, to eliminate regulatory burdens imposed on insured depository institutions and money services businesses and enhance the availability of transaction accounts at depository institutions for such business, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4049, the Money Service Business Act, is bipartisan legislation that has been cosponsored by the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, as well as the ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, Congresswoman Biggert. This bill passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote. The Money Service Business Act addresses the critical problem of money service businesses, MSBs, being denied access to the banking system. MSBs have experienced blanket terminations of their commercial accounts over the past several years due, in part, to banks responding to unclear guidance from regulators. This bill establishes a mechanism that would allow MSBs to self- certify their compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements, while allowing banks to make risk-based decisions about banking particular MSBs. MSBs, which include check cashers, money transmitters and money order issuers, have served our Nation's community for years. If this issue is left unaddressed, the viability of MSBs will be compromised, potentially pushing many of these transactions underground and potentially untraceable to law enforcement. Banks, reacting to regulatory fears, have terminated MSBs accounts in a blanket fashion in an attempt to minimize exposure to ``high risk'' businesses. Without a banking relationship, MSBs are unable to provide financial services to communities, making it difficult for millions of Americans to pay bills, send money, or cash checks. Federal regulatory agencies, recognizing the problem facing MSBs, have sought to address this issue through agency guidance and regulatory changes, with little effect. This legislation addresses this problem by enabling MSBs to self-certify their compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. This approach is not novel. It is similar in principle to that used for international correspondent banking. It would not relieve banks of their due diligence responsibilities with regard to their MSB customers, rather, it would permit appropriate reliance on self- certification to relieve banks of being the de facto regulators only of MSBs' Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance. The mechanics of this self-certification will be handled by regulations set forth by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the certification will be filed with the financial institution where the MSB has a commercial account. To ensure that there is appropriate access to these self-certifications, it has been requested that the Secretary of the Treasury, while promulgating the regulations to implement this legislation, should require a duplicate copy of the self-certification to be filed with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, and that the Department of Justice have access to these files. I am fully in support of this suggestion and believe it will allow for even greater transparency in the self-certification process. I do want to mention that even with the implementation of the self- certification, MSBs would continue to be responsible for complying with all other existing provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and will continue to be the subject of rigorous on-site examinations by IRS examiners. MSBs are also State regulated in many jurisdictions. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia require MSBs to be licensed and/or regulated by State banking agencies. Both MSBs and the financial institutions banking them will still be required to fully comply with all other aspects of the Bank Secrecy Act, including the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports and Currency Transaction Reports. Any violation of their certification would render the same civil and criminal penalties provided for by the Bank Secrecy Act and the anti- money laundering provisions. This is a well-crafted bill that allows law enforcement to continue to track the transactions of money service businesses while allowing the MSBs to have access to the banking accounts they need to conduct business. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and Financial Institution Subcommittee Ranking Member Biggert for their cosponsorship and support in bringing this important bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. As cochair and cofounder of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I wish to extend my support to Cypriots of Hellenic descent here in our country, on Cyprus, and all around the world as we mark the tragic 34th anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I have commemorated this day each year since I became a Member of Congress. For the past several years, the Hellenic Caucus has been very engaged on the issues facing this divided island. Many members of the Caucus remain concerned about the continued occupation and division of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974. As a result of the Turkish invasion and occupation, 160,000 Greek Cypriots, amounting to 70 percent of the population of the occupied area and over a quarter of the total population, were forcibly expelled from their homes, and approximately 5,000 Cypriots were killed. More than 1,400 Greek Cypriots, including four Americans of Cypriot descent, remain missing and unaccounted for since the Turkish invasion. Famagusta was a thriving port city in Cyprus until 1974. Its industrial sector supplied vital jobs to the nearby population, and it was an important tourist destination. In 1973, 88 percent of all imports and 73 percent of all exports went through Famagusta. Tragically, a few short weeks after Turkey invaded Cyprus, Famagusta was bombed relentlessly by Turkish troops. I have many constituents that I represent who told me about that fateful day, how they had to crawl out on their hands and knees begging God for their life. They want desperately to return to their homes. Many Greek Cypriots fled, as my constituents did, in terror, and the city was sealed off with barbed wire fences by Turkish forces. I have been to and seen the 113 miles of barbed wire, and we hope that this barbed wire will finally be removed. Ultimately, 45,000 citizens of Famagusta became refugees in their own country, losing their land, businesses, homes and neighborhoods. Today, 34 years later, Turkey continues forcibly to occupy more than a third of Cyprus, with more than 43,000 illegal Turkish troops. The peaceful and cooperative spirit and the person-to-person, family- to-family interactions between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is an encouraging sign for the successful reunification of Cyprus. However, it is time for Turkey to remove its troops from the island so that Cyprus can move forward as one nation undivided. As a member of the European Union, Cyprus is playing a vital role in European affairs, while also strengthening relations with the United States. It has joined with us on issues important to our own security, including the fight against terrorism and other forms of international crimes. Cyprus was the very first EU member to join the ship boarding protocol of President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, particularly important because Cyprus has one of the world's largest commercial shipping registries. As Cyprus developed into a regional financial center, the government moved aggressively and put in place strong anti-money laundering legislation. On March 21, 2008, President Christofias and Turkish- Cypriot leader Talat agreed to establish working groups and technical committees as a stipulation in the July 8, 2006 agreement for which the House of Representatives expressed its full support by passing H.R. 405 last year. On April 3, 2008, the Ledra Street crossing point opened. I have introduced legislation which expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives for the positive actions by the Republic of Cyprus aimed at opening additional crossing points along the cease-fire line, thereby contributing to efforts for the reunification of the island. I strongly support legislation introduced by my colleagues, including H.R. 1456, introduced by Congressman Pallone, which would enable U.S. citizens who own property in the Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus to seek financial remedies with either the current inhabitants of their land or the Turkish Government. I strongly support H.R. 620, introduced by my good friend, Representative Sires, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Turkey should end its military occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. The U.S. must play an active role in the resolution of the serious issues facing Cyprus. And I hope that the process moves forward in preparation for new comprehensive negotiations leading to the unification of Cyprus within a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. In fact, in May, Representative Bilirakis and I sent a letter to Secretary Rice urging her to invite the Cypriot President to the U.S. for an official state visit. The people of Cyprus deserve a unified and democratic country, and I remain hopeful that a peaceful settlement will be found so that the division of Cyprus will come to an end. In recognition of the spirit of the people of Cyprus, I ask my colleagues to join me in solemnly commemorating the 34th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. Long Live Freedom. Long Live Cyprus. Long Live Greece.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, today, I proudly join in a bipartisan effort with Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro, Deborah Pryce, Marcy Kaptur, and Eleanor Holmes Norton in introducing the National Women's History Museum, NWHM. This bill directs the General Services Administration, GSA, to house a National Women's History Museum in one of their properties in Washington, DC. NWHM must pay fair market value for the property and reasonable timeframes are included for the transfer of the property and for construction to begin. NWHM will be built and maintained with private funds. Women's history is largely missing from textbooks, memorials, museum exhibits and many other venues. In contrast, men have hundreds of years of written and available history to reflect upon and use for inspiration. Of the 210 statues in the United States Capitol, only 9 are of female leaders. Less than 5 percent of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle women's achievement and according to a survey of 18 history textbooks, only 10 percent were dedicated to women. The museums and memorials in our Nation's Capital demonstrate what we value. We have museums dedicated to flight, postage stamps, law enforcement and many other important people and issues of interest, but not to women. This bill would provide women, comprising 53 percent of our population, a long overdue home on our National Mall to honor their many contributions that are the very fabric of our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in filling this void and honoring our Nation's foremothers by becoming cosponsors of the National Women's History Museum Act of 2008.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2008, I missed rollcall votes numbered 486, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the North Pole by the USS Nautilus (SSN 571); 487, a resolution honoring the extraordinary service and exceptional sacrifice of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), known as the Screaming Eagles; and 488, a resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the integration of the United States Armed Forces. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes numbered 486, 487, and 488.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the President's shortsighted veto of H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, and urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto. Medicare has been a true success story for seniors--but Medicare will continue to succeed only as long as doctors continue to participate. And no doctor can afford to take a 10 percent cut in payments. Last week, H.R. 6331 passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate because our Nation's health depends on it. The bill eliminates the Medicare-killing payment cut and provides a 1.1 percent increase for physicians for 2009. It provides mental health parity in the Medicare program--something I've been fighting for, because people suffering from mental illness are just as in need of treatment as people suffering physical illness. The bill also allows poor people to keep more of their assets and still qualify for help with Medicare costs. My district includes more hospitals than probably any other district in the country--and all the doctors affiliated with those hospitals have offices in my district. They have been clear--unless they receive fair payment for their work, they cannot afford to continue to treat Medicare patients. Without good doctors, seniors' health will suffer. Congress was right to pass this bill the first time, and I hope we stand strong to pass it again today. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5057, ``The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act,'' legislation that I introduced to ensure that the nationwide backlog of DNA evidence is processed. I was pleased to have been joined in introducing the legislation by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith, and I want to thank them for their support and commitment to this issue. I also want to commend Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert for their leadership in getting H.R. 5057 to the Floor today. I have been working on this issue since 2001 when I, along with former Representative Steve Horn, held a hearing in the Government Reform Committee where we heard from the courageous rape survivor, Debbie Smith. Debbie recounted her horrifying story . . . how an intruder broke into her home and raped her in the nearby woods. Six years later her assailant was charged with her rape because DNA processing techniques had produced a ``cold hit.'' Inspired by Debbie's story, I resolved to do something to combat the epidemic of violence against women in the United States, where a sexual assault occurs every two minutes. I knew that DNA processing techniques could serve as conclusive proof in countless other rape cases. But I was outraged that a backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits, with DNA evidence already collected, were gathering dust in police stations and crime labs all over the country . . . all because of inadequate government funding. It was for Debbie, and the thousands of rape survivors like her, that I authored ``The Debbie Smith Act'' to provide federal funding to process the unconscionable backlog of DNA evidence. I first introduced this legislation in 2001. In 2004, it was signed into law as part of the ``Justice For All Act,'' comprehensive DNA legislation that has helped bring justice to rape survivors and their families across the country. The ``Justice For All Act'' accomplished several critical objectives including authorizing the necessary funding, $151,000,000 in each fiscal year from FY2005 through FY2009, to start processing the backlog of DNA evidence through the creation of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. Since 2004, millions of dollars in funding have been appropriated under the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. Because this groundbreaking program's authorization expires at the end of FY2009, H.R. 5057 extends the program through FY2014. Estimates place the number of unprocessed rape kits nationwide in the tens and possibly hundreds of thousands. Each kit represents an innocent life and a rapist who may commit multiple rapes before he is caught. DNA is remarkable evidence. It doesn't forget, it can't be confused, it can't be intimidated and it doesn't lie. While an eyewitness can easily get mixed up about height, weight, hair color--DNA never changes its story. Debbie's bravery and dedication to working with me to pass ``The Debbie Smith Act,'' which was no small feat, has already made a tremendous impact on our justice system. I also want to acknowledge RAINN for its steadfast support of ``The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act'' and for its efforts on behalf of sexual assault victims and survivors. Tragically, only six percent of rapists will spend any time in jail. Congress must continue to support programs, like the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, that help to put rapists in prison and reduce violence against women. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President announced that he is lifting the executive order that prevents Big Oil from drilling off of the treasured coastline of America. What will this do to lower gas prices any time soon? Nothing. And nothing is exactly what the administration has been doing for the past 7 years as gas prices have nearly tripled. By contrast, Democrats in Congress have been working on bringing down prices at the pump. We passed the first fuel efficiency standards in 32 years, and are supporting the movement to alternative fuels. We want to help families now by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and forcing big oil companies to start drilling on the 311 acres that are open for development now, or the 68 million acres that are under lease now for development. Mr. Speaker, if domestic drilling can bring relief to American families, what are the big oil companies waiting for? Drill on those 311 acres and those 68 million acres under lease.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I wish to address the Chamber tonight on the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. In recent years, the playing field between credit card companies and credit cardholders has become very one-sided. It is no surprise that it is average American cardholders and not the credit card companies who are getting the short end of the stick. A credit card agreement is supposed to be a contract. But what good is a contract when only one party has any power to make decisions, and one party makes all the decisions? Cardholders deserve more bargaining power. The United States Congress can and should help level the playing field between card companies and cardholders. I introduced the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, H.R. 5244, to give American credit cardholders a fair deal. We now have over 155 cosponsors in this body. My comprehensive credit card reform bill takes a balanced approach to reforming major industry abuses and improving consumer protections for cardholders. Put simply, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights protects cardholders against arbitrary interest rate increases any time and for any reason; prevents cardholders from being unfairly penalized; protects cardholders from due date gimmicks; shields cardholders from misleading terms, and empowers them to set limits on their own credit and to better control their own credit; prevents card companies from giving subprime credit cards to people who cannot afford them; and requires Congress to provide much better oversight of the credit card industry in general. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights fosters fair competition and free market values. It sets no price controls, no rate caps, and no fees. It merely requires the card companies to let consumers know when they are jacking their fees up and increasing their rates. I believe the free market works best when consumers are empowered to make their own choices, and my bill would give cardholders the information and the rights they need to make choices about their own credit. The balanced provisions in my bill are the deliberative result of over a year of careful study and analysis. Over the last 2 years, I held numerous congressional hearings and meetings to determine how Congress, Federal regulators, and credit card companies could work together to help improve services and protections for cardholders. There is no doubt that credit cards are very important to our economy. They offer cardholders instant access to a convenient and flexible source of financing, and have enabled many people to start new businesses, pay for tuition, or make other major purchases. Credit cards also provide many people with a safety net to help solve cash flow problems or cover unexpected expenses. But cardholders are increasingly confronting problems with unfair industry practices embodied in one-sided contracts, and this must be changed. In recent months, the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, succeeded in passing major mortgage reform legislation and an economic stimulus plan. The Senate is now following suit. Both of these important steps will help get our economy back on track, but we cannot overlook credit card reform. It is a critical part of the equation, and one Congress will be turning its attention to. Over 155 of my colleagues have already signed on as cosponsors of this important legislation. In the coming months, I plan to continue to build on the support this bill has gained, and I plan to work with Barney Frank to get this marked up in committee so we can bring it to the floor for a vote. Consumers deserve to know where their elected officials stand on credit card reform that affects their lives. This is a critical issue of importance to my constituents, and we must show them that Congress is ready to restore some balance between consumers and credit card companies. When I started to work on this issue, one of the first things I did was hold a roundtable discussion with many of the stakeholders, major credit card issuers, as well as leading consumer advocates. From this discussion, I developed a series of principles that have guided the development of the legislation. I am going to take a few minutes to describe each of these principles, explain what the bill does to achieve them, and provide real-world examples of what this means to the average credit cardholder. The first principle is that cardholders deserve protection against arbitrary interest rates any time and for any reason. Right now, credit card companies have the right to raise a customer's interest rate for any reason. This has made it very difficult for many consumers to understand how and why they have had their interest rate changed and hiked up on their credit cards. Compounding this problem is that when a new higher interest rate is applied, it not only affects future purchases, it also raises the interest rate on existing balances. Consumers are often only made aware of these new higher interest rate increases only after they have gone into effect. To counter this problem, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights requires credit card companies to give a customer 45 days' notice of any and all interest rate hikes, and allows them the option to just say ``no,'' to opt out of the interest rate increase. In return, if the cardholder opts out of the new rate, they are required to close the card and pay off the existing balance at the payment schedule they agreed to. And here is a real-world example. A person has a $1,000 balance and a 9.9 percent APR interest rate. One month, she pays her utility bill one day late. The credit card company charges her a $35 late fee and raises her interest rate from 9.9 percent to over 29 percent, but does not tell her about the rate increase until she gets her next statement in the mail. The new rate is applied to the entire existing balance of $1,000. And the consumer can try and get a new card at a lower rate, but until then the $1,000 debt will be growing at a 29.99 percent rate of interest. Under the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, the customer would still be charged the late fee, but they would be notified that, in 45 days, their interest rate would be raised from 9.9 percent to over 29 percent. This would give them more time to try to apply for a new credit card with a lower interest rate; or, they could decline the higher interest rate on the card, close the account, and pay off the balance at the old 9.9 percent rate. I have got to say, under the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, the customer could still be assessed the higher interest rate for missing payments on other bills, but that new higher rate would only apply to purchases and balances going forward and not retroactive on their existing balances. They would also have the ability to opt out of the rate increase, close the account, and pay off their existing balances at the old rate. Another principle in the bill is that cardholders who pay on time and don't go over their limit should not be penalized. The so-called double cycle billing is a confusing practice that certain card companies employ to charge cardholders more interest. It affects cardholders who go from paying off their balances in full to carrying a balance. Here is how it works. Most card companies charge interest on the remaining unpaid balance from a cardholder's previous billing cycle. Card companies that use double cycle billing, however, charge cardholders interest on the entire balance from the previous cycle even if the cardholder paid part of it off. Card companies that use double cycle billing are effectively charging interest on balances that have already been paid. How fair is that? The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights bans this really unfair practice called double cycle billing. Here is a real-world example. A cardholder usually pays off her credit card in full every month, but one month she charged $100 and only paid $50 by the due date. If she had a credit card that calculated payments on a single cycle, she would have been given credit for paying that $50 and only charged interest in the next billing cycle on the remaining $50 that she owed. But since her card company uses double cycle billing, she was charged interest on the $100 from the previous billing cycle plus the remaining $50 that she still owes. Under my bill, card companies would be prohibited from billing on a double cycle and charging interest on debt that has already been paid. Another principle of this legislation is that cardholders should be protected from due date gimmicks. Currently, card companies are allowed to mail billing statements out as few as 14 days before the statement is due. Mail delays and a host of other problems mean that cardholders on that schedule find themselves with less than a week to get their payments back to their card company, increasing the likelihood that they will have a late payment. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights gives cardholders more time to pay their bills. It requires card companies to mail billing statements 25 calendar days before the statement's due date. It also requires that payments made before 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on the due date are considered timely. The bill also prohibits card companies from charging late fees when a cardholder presents proof of mailing his or her bill within 7 days of the due date. Another is that the bill and the cardholders should be protected from misleading terms and statements. Card companies can currently define the terms ``fixed rate'' and ``prime rate'' pretty much any way they want to. This can lead to obvious confusion among cardholders. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights prevents card companies from using these terms in a misleading or in a deceptive manner by establishing single set definitions that every company must use. For example, the term ``fixed rate'' must be a rate that will not change or vary for any reason over a defined period of time. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights also gives cardholders who get pre-approval for a card the right to reject that card up until the moment they are to use it or to activate it without having their credit adversely impacted. I would like to say that, also, another principle is that cardholders deserve the right to set limits, and card companies should not impose excessive fees on cardholders. Most card companies currently don't give cardholders the option of setting real limits on their own accounts. Instead, card companies allow the cardholder to exceed that amount and assess fees and/or a rate increase for doing so. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights would require card companies to offer consumers the option of having a fixed credit card limit that cannot be exceeded, and it would prevent card companies from charging over-the-limit fees on a cardholder with a fixed credit limit. The bill also limits the amount of consecutive over-the-limit fees card companies can charge to a more reasonable number of three. Here is a real-world example. A cardholder had a credit limit of $2,000 on her card. Things got a little tight around the holidays, and she used her card more than normal, accidentally going over her limit by $50. As a result, she was charged a $39 late fee. In the next billing cycle, she sent the card company a check for $60, but that still left her over her credit limit, so she was charged another $39 over-the-limit fee. Under the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, the cardholder would be able to set his or her credit limit and wouldn't be able to make any purchases that put him over his fixed limit. If a cardholder did not want to set a fixed limit and did so accidentally go over his limit, a card company would only be allowed to impose more reasonable three consecutive, over-the-limit fees upon the customer. Another principle of the bill is that card companies should fairly credit and allocate payments. When a credit card account has balances with different interest rates, a decision has to be made as to how to allocate payments. A cardholder pays the least amount of interest when any payment is allocated to the highest interest rate balance first, and a credit card company makes more in interest payments when the payment is allocated completely to the lowest rate balances. Currently, most credit card companies allocate payments to the lowest interest rate balance first while prohibiting payment on balances at higher interest rates until the lower rate balance is paid in full. This isn't very fair to the cardholder, however. In fact, many cardholders have no idea that their card companies are deciding to allocate their payments. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights directs card companies to fairly allocate payments on balances at different interest rates, making payments more equitable for both cardholders and card companies. Here is a real-life example of that principle. A cardholder has a new credit card given with an introductory zero percent interest rate on all balance transfers. So he transferred a $1,000 balance he had on another card. He then went out and bought $2,000 worth of new equipment. When he made a $250 payment on his new card that month, he noticed that his interest rate for new purchases was 24 percent, but all of his payment went to pay down the zero percent balance. He wanted to pay, obviously, on the $2,000 balance since it was at such a high interest rate, but he was told he could not start paying on that balance until the original zero balance was paid in full. Under my bill, the $250 payment would go towards paying off both the lower interest balance and the higher interest balance on a proportional basis. I want to say that this bill has gained not only 155 of my colleagues in a bipartisan sense, but it has also gained over 45 editorials from across this Nation in support of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. I would like to share some of the comments from these editorials. From the New York Times on May 3 of this year: `` . . . consumers are already losing as their interest rates on the cards suddenly skyrocket. Fees appear mysteriously on their bills, and even the billing cycles get shortened to make it harder to pay on time. Congress needs to take up the issue now rather than wait for the Federal Reserve to create rules that can be too easily changed. The banking industry likes to boast that more than 90 percent of credit card customers have no problems with their little plastic cards. Given that there are more than 1 billion credit cards believed to be in use, that leaves a lot of people swamped by what is now called the `tricks and traps' of the credit card business.'' The Boston Globe reports on May 31: ``Regulators and elected officials are starting to circle the credit card companies and not a moment too soon. The Federal Reserve reports that credit card debt rose more than 7 percent last month on top of the already burdensome average of $8,000 per American family. Credit and debit card delinquencies are at their highest levels in 18 years, and all the while, credit card companies are employing practices that only dig consumers deeper and deeper into debt.'' The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights is a modest reform to bar credit card companies from raising interest rates on outstanding balances because of some action or unpaid bill in another area. It deserves our support. On May 6, USA Today reported: ``For years, Congress ignored consumer outrage as the industry flooded the public with solicitations, then squeezed customers with escalating fees and high rates. Voters should pay close attention this year to who is trying to get the issuers to act more responsibly and who is defending some of their more outrageous practices.'' The Staten Island Advance on May 16 stated: ``In a sign that Americans are relying more on their credit cards, the total for revolving credit has grown in 2008 significantly faster than fixed-rate debt. During the past year, revolving debt has risen nearly $6 billion per month, or almost 8 percent, one of the fastest growth rates since 2001. In the past 12 years, penalty fees for late payments have more than doubled, from an average of $13 in 1995 to $28 now. Make just one late payment, and you can face a penalty interest rate of more than 30 percent. The fine print in most disclosure statements says that issuers can change the terms of the cardholder's agreement at any time, for any reason. There is no other contract in the world that can change its terms at any time.'' In Tennessee, the Knox News reports: ``The proposed regulations should curb some of the more unfair practices, and if effective, it may help consumers.'' The St. Petersburg Times in Florida reports: ``Americans owe more than $800 billion in credit card debt, and more than 1 in 3 cardholders are unable to make timely payment on accumulated balances. What is troublesome for banks can be tragic for families. With falling home values, stagnant wages and rising prices for basics such as food and fuel, Americans are relying more on credit cards to pay for necessities. Some lenders have taken advantage of that situation by bumping up fees and interest rates on credit cards, even for those who pay on time. Somebody needs to regulate a market that is out of control and takes advantage of the most naive and vulnerable consumers and is threatening an already fragile economy.'' Then in Pennsylvania, on May 10, the Daily and Sunday Review stated: ``Intervention is necessary if Americans under the thumb of the credit card industry are to have any hope of solvency, and even though the Feds' proposals are welcomed, they should not supplant far broader relief envisioned in the credit card bill of rights.'' The Charleston Gazette writes: ``Yes, too many accepted cards they could not afford, and charged more than they earned. As the old saying goes, `It's easier to sign a note than to pay for it.' However, tricking customers who carry a balance into paying dubious fees and penalties is unethical.'' The Dallas Morning News says: ``There's a huge difference between charging cardholders who have missed payments and willfully creating a system to generate unnecessary penalties. We deserve change. We should pass change.'' On May 6, the Baltimore Sun said: ``Amid a severe mortgage crisis and credit crunch, the rules should help prevent many cardholders from going under because of some of the industry's worst practices, including high interest rates and high fees. These proposals, which don't take effect until the end of the year, should not prevent Congress from acting on its own and passing needed credit card reform.'' I would like to say that credit cards are important. They benefit many families, and I would say that some industry groups and some banks have instituted best practices and have said that they voluntarily will no longer impose any time/any reason increases on customers who pay on time and who don't go over their limits. They say they will no longer practice double cycle billing, but many credit card companies still practice these really harmful and unfair policies, so we need to pass this legislation, and we need to give relief to consumers and level the playing field, not only between the consumer and the cardholder but between companies that are doing the right thing and those that are still abusing the consumers. I would like to say that I thank my colleagues. One hundred fifty- five of my colleagues have joined me on the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights and over 45 editorials from across this country. I hope that my colleagues will read the bill, those who are not on it, and will join us in this effort to bring relief to America's working families. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake, which next month will celebrate its 100th birthday. Throughout the past century, the Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake has continuously provided services in boating, canoeing, kayaking, fishing and other recreational activities to residents and visitors alike in the glorious Adirondacks region of New York State. I would like to join with my distinguished colleague from the New York State delegation, the Honorable John McHugh, who represents Blue Mountain Lake in Congress, in saluting the Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake on the occasion of its centennial anniversary. Blue Mountain Lake lies in the heart of New York's Adirondack Park. Inspired by the Reverend William Henry Harrison Murray's best-selling 1869 edition of ``Adventures in the Wilderness'' or ``Camp Life in the Adirondacks'', vacationers started to visit Blue Mountain Lake after the conclusion of the Civil War, and it became a tourist ``hot spot.'' As visitors arrived in droves, an entire industry developed in response, spawning stately inns and travel guides who offered boat tours and facilitated participation in outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, boating, hiking and camping. The Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake was founded on August 2, 1908 during the heyday of the great camps established by prominent Americans such as Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Dr. Thomas Durant, Coulis Huntington, Alfred Vanderbilt and the Hochschild family, many of whom resided in what is now the 14th Congressional district of New York. Since then, the Boat Livery has made available a wide array of rental pleasure craft to visitors to this uniquely beautiful part of our great Nation. It also has offered scenic boat cruises on original wooden launches. Blue Mountain rises to a majestic height of 3,759 feet, offering stunning views of the shimmering Blue Mountain Lake dotted with islands. With a year-round population of fewer than 200 people, the tiny town surrounding the mountain remains picturesque, preserving its rustic charm despite the presence of thousands of visitors who pass through each season. Blue Mountain Lake is one of the cleanest, clearest lakes in the 48 contiguous states. It continues to draw thousands of city dwellers who are seeking refuge from their muggy, urban homes. In 1933, Richard Collins and his wife Hectorine purchased the Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake and operated it until 1955. In 1955, Russ and Edna Barrowman purchased it and managed it until 1977 when it was bought by Robert and Judi Booth. Robert, Judi, Quin and Parker Booth currently operate the Livery's rowboats, canoes, steamboats, conduct tours and make available to tourists small and large pontoon boats, kayaks, canoes, paddleboats, windsurfers, day-sailers, sunfish, water skis, tubes, wakeboards, and many other vessels. In addition, they organize the special scenic trips in historic antique tour boats: the Towahloondah, dated 1920; the Osprey, dated 1916; and the Neenykin, dated 1916. These authentic vessels are inspected yearly by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and remain an integral part of the rich diversity of recreational activities at Blue Mountain Lake. On 2-hour tours across Blue Mountain on the old wooden launches, Eagle and Utowana Lakes, guides regale visitors with stories of the 19th century's great camps, recounting the history of the area's lumberjacks and celebrated fishing and hunting guides. Their stories feature the camps, hotels, steamboats, workers and players of the era. Madam Speaker, I rise to request that my distinguished colleagues join me in paying tribute to the tremendous contributions to the preservation and enjoyment of the Adirondacks region made by the Boat Livery of Blue Mountain Lake on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5811, the ``Electronic Message Preservation Act,'' introduced by my friend and colleague on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Waxman. With the advent and proliferation of electronic communication, the time has come for us to improve the methods for preserving records. Gone are the days when correspondence was sent solely using paper. E- mail has become the primary method of communication, and it is imperative that we develop procedures to stay current with the evolving technologies. The bill before us today would direct the Archivist to establish standards for the capture, management, and preservation of White House e-mails and other electronic messages and to certify that the system meets the requirements established by the Archivist. Additionally, H.R. 5811 directs the Archivist to issue regulations requiring agencies to preserve electronic messages that are records in an electronic format. These regulations must cover, at a minimum, the capture, management, preservation, and electronic retrieval of these electronic records. I believe that this legislation will help future administrations avoid the issues that seemed to plague this White House with reports that officials were using RNC e-mail accounts to conduct official business and then deleting those e-mails from servers. H.R. 5811 will enhance the transparency of government while ensuring an accurate historical record.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, New York lost an exceptional community leader this month when Irene Peveri passed away. Irene Peveri was not just a leader, but a mentor and innovator who helped change the very skyline of Manhattan by persuading the city to require livable streetscapes in our densely urban community. For nearly three decades, Irene Peveri passionately advocated both growth and preservation in New York City neighborhoods, and became a leading voice for ``contextual zoning''--the idea that taller buildings are appropriate for avenues with their wider boulevards and retail activity, while low scale buildings are a better fit for side streets. She worked tirelessly with community boards, grassroots organizations, neighbors, politicians, business leaders, and entrepreneurs to ensure that New York's neighborhoods retained a human scale. When she testified, her presentations were always thoughtful, factual, impressive and delivered with persuasive sincerity. In the early 1980s Irene joined with her neighbors in successfully challenging the construction of a ``sliver building.'' Sliver buildings are tall slender buildings constructed on lots that have a narrow frontage, typically 45 feet or less. The effort was successful when the city adopted a law banning sliver buildings in 1983. In 1985, local leaders in founded East Side Rezoning Alliance (ESRA), a coalition of community groups dedicated to advocating zoning changes that would scale down allowable heights for new buildings on side streets. Irene served as ESRA's co-chair for most of its existence. At every opportunity, Irene encouraged builders and community groups to work together to ensure that new developments would be compatible in scale with older buildings in the neighborhood. ESRA funded several planning studies to change the New York City Zoning Resolution, using the proceeds from an annual street fair along Third Avenue and grants from philanthropic organizations. These studies persuaded the Department of City Planning to support the rezoning of many areas between 14th and 59th streets, and led to a permanent change in city law. The new zoning text restricted large scale development to the avenues, and imposed stricter building heights on the side streets. This mix of development allows tall buildings to rise without overwhelming the neighborhood. The latest study funded by ESRA was the CB6 197-a Plan, a community-based plan covering the entire Community Board 6 area. It was adopted by the City Council on March 26, 2008. The model Irene and her allies developed was replicated elsewhere in the city. ESRA gave support and guidance to community groups that were trying to fend off overbuilding. With Irene's assistance, other neighborhood groups were able to persuade the city to adopt contextual zoning for their areas. As a result, most neighborhoods enjoy a mix of development, and Manhattan residents can still enjoy a glimpse of the sky. More recently, Irene worked with the Coalition for Community Facility Reform to oppose the proliferation of rear yard incursions. New York City's zoning resolution mandates rear yards, which were intended to provide residents with unbroken, block-long swaths of green. In 1961, the law was amended to allow community facilities (a term that includes everything from doctors' offices to monasteries, from day-care centers to various non-profits) to build extensions in the rear yards of residential buildings all the way to the property line, so long as the addition is no more than 23 feet high. These rear yard incursions reduce the availability of light, air and green space for residents of neighboring properties. Irene and other community leaders worked to persuade the city to change the zoning resolution to further restrict the types of entities that are eligible for the exemption to schools, houses of worship, colleges or universities, and hospitals and related facilities. Irene was a member of Community Board 6 and served on its Land Use Committee. During that time, Irene was a vital participant in every major zoning review and initiative of Community Board 6, from the rebuilding of Third Avenue, to, most recently, the development proposals for the Con Edison site on First Avenue. She remained active in the Community Board until her death and was Second-Vice Chair of the Board when she passed away. The Board recently celebrated her achievements at a ceremony held May 19, 2008. Irene Peveri had a genuine passion for and dedication to all of Manhattan's neighborhoods. She was a consensus builder who understood the importance of working in concert with her neighbors. Irene had a unique gift for empowering others and engaging them in the community. She possessed a talent for bringing people and ideas together, forging unlikely partnerships that helped achieve the goal of making sure New York remains a livable city. Madam Speaker, I ask that my distinguished colleagues join me in recognizing the enormous contributions to civic and political life made by Irene Peveri, a dedicated activist who made an extraordinary difference in the way New York City has developed.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the President can no longer deny that the labor market is in recession. June was the sixth straight month of job losses, and this year the economy has lost over half a million jobs in the private sector. We have 8.5 million unemployed Americans, more than at any other time since 2003. High prices for gasoline and food are squeezing workers' pay. Real wages were lower in June than they have been since September 2006. The recovery rebates have been boosting consumption, and millions will benefit from the extension of unemployment benefits signed into law last week. Clearly, we must stem the tide of rising job losses. We need a second stimulus package of infrastructure development and fiscal relief for our States.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6184) to provide for a program for circulating quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. If the gentleman feels so strongly about it, he has worked so hard on this bill, it's a successful bill, and we hope to have another successful bill, so I will allow the gentleman to reclaim his time. I would inquire how much time remains on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask for reciprocity. If he is reclaiming his time, then I would like to reclaim my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I do ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. The gentlewoman has no further speakers, but I wonder if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle yields back his time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert any extraneous material as they so wish.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6184, America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Congressman Castle. I have had the great pleasure to work with Mr. Castle on several coin bills of this nature in the past, the very successful State quarters and most recently the Presidential dollars. I am proud to be the Democratic lead sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to report that it has strong bipartisan support, as shown by the fact that it passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote in support. I want to thank Congressman Castle for all of his hard work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Frank for his support, and the support of the staff of the Financial Services Committee and our individual staffs for their hard work on this bill. Of course, all of us love our national parks, and especially those of our home State, which will be honored on each of these coins. Beginning in 2010, new quarters will bear a design representing a national park or site in each State and the District of Columbia at the rate of 5 new designs a year. The sites will be selected at the beginning of the process by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the States, and the coins will be minted in the order in which the sites selected were established as national sites, which I think is a very clever touch. As a former teacher and educator, I am always excited about the new designs on everyday coins because they encourage more Americans of all ages to pay attention to the coins in your pockets and learn a few facts about what is depicted. I can say of the very successful State quarter program, it became a very popular teaching tool. Many teachers devised lesson plans around the quarters, and many of my constituents collected these coins. My own daughter had a book with each of the quarters in it; and many people would ask me, when is the next quarter coming out? And because it was so successful, the 50 State quarter program raised $6.2 billion over the past 10 years of its life span which is just ending this year. And we can hope that we will have similar results from this series of coins. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It is an education tool. It also will generate needed revenues for our Treasury. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. The 14th Congressional District of New York, which I represent, is home to 18 hospitals--perhaps more than any other district in the nation. Of course, along with hospitals come physicians who regularly report to me about the crisis of healthcare in this country. I am grateful that H.R. 6331 helps America's doctors while also significantly helping Medicare beneficiaries and hope that the other body will act swiftly on this much needed legislation. H.R. 6331 eliminates the pending 10.6 percent cuts in the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) to physicians for the remainder of 2008 and provides a 1.1 percent update in payments for 2009. I have thousands of doctors in my district who tell me that the uncertainty of Medicare payments makes it increasingly difficult to plan for expenses. Unfortunately, we are seeing that for many doctors, the response to the uncertainty is to stop taking new patients, or even more dire, end their participation with the Medicare program. This is catastrophic for patient access and care. This bill is a positive first step toward eliminating that uncertainty and allowing time for Congress to develop reforms to the current system. I am proud that this bill strengthens Medicare for those beneficiaries who are in greatest need and ensures access to good quality care while remaining fiscally responsible. I thank Chairmen Dingell and Rangel for this important bill and urge my colleagues to support America's seniors by voting in favor of H.R. 6331.