Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Breastfeeding Promotion Act with my colleagues Chris Shays of Connecticut, Robert Wexler of Florida, Adam Schiff, Lynn Woolsey and Lucille Roybal-Allard of California, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, Brad Miller of North Carolina, Donald Payne of New Jersey, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, John Conyers and Dale Kildee from Michigan and Major Owens and Joseph Crowley from New York.

Mr. Speaker, statistical surveys of families show that over 50 percent of mothers with children less than one year of age are in the labor force. Whereas women with infants and toddlers are a rapidly growing segment of the labor force today, arrangements must be made to allow a mother's expressing of milk if mother and child must separate.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers breastfeed exclusively for six months but continuing for at least the first year of a child's life. Research studies show that children who are not breastfed have higher rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal diseases, ear infections, allergies, and obesity. To encourage and promote breastfeeding we are introducing the Breastfeeding Promotion Act.

Specifically, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act includes four provisions:

Protects Breastfeeding Under Civil Rights Law: The bill

clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 to protect

breastfeeding under civil rights law. This will ensure that

women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the

workplace for expressing milk or breastfeeding during lunch

or breaks.

Provides Tax Incentives for Employers: With more than half

of mothers with infants (less than one year of age) in the

work force, it is important to promote a mother-friendly work

environment. The bill encourages employers to set up a safe,

private, and sanitary environment for women to express (or

pump) breast milk by providing a tax credit for employers who

set up a lactation location, purchase or rent lactation-

related equipment, hire a lactation consultant or otherwise

promote a lactation-friendly work environment. Many companies

would be able to receive a tax credit of up to fifty percent

of their related expenses.

Seeks Minimum Safety Standards for Breast Pumps: The bill

requires the Food and Drug Administration to develop minimum

quality standards for breast pumps to ensure that products on

the market are safe and effective based on efficiency,

effectiveness, and sanitation factors (in addition to

providing full and complete information concerning breast

pump equipment).

Allows Breastfeeding Equipment to Be Tax Deductible: The

bill amends the tax laws to include breastfeeding equipment

and services as deductible medical care expenses.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I and several other New York Lawmakers introduced legislation to protect lower Manhattan businesses and residents from having to pay any taxes on 9/11 recovery assistance.

Despite a prior announcement by the IRS they were planning to exempt Lower Manhattan residents from most, if not all taxes, on Federal Grants given to them to recover from 9/11 or grants given as incentive to move to or stay in the area, the IRS has made a determination to tax aid received. A February 5, 2003 letter received by the Acting Commissioner, Bob Wenzel, stated the following:

The legislation enacted in 2001 and 2002 that appropriated

$2.7 billion of CDBG funds to aid in the recovery of New York

City did not provide that the grants made from those funds

were exempt from income tax. In addition, neither the Victims

of Terrorist Attacks Relief Act of 2001 nor the Liberty Zone

Benefits provision of the Job Creation and Workers Assistance

Act of 2002 specifically exempted the grant payments from

income tax. Therefore, we have had to apply existing general

federal tax law principles to determine the tax status of the

grants.

As incredible as it sounds, the IRS will tax this assistance unless we act. It was never the intention of this Congress to tax any of this money and it is time to pass this legislation to prevent this unfair and unjust tax.

Mr. Speaker I rise to join people around the world who are commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Ha-Shoah, and mourning the six million people who were murdered simply because they happened to be Jewish. It is important that we take time each year to remind ourselves of the devastating horror of a world in which insanity ruled and it was possible for the Nazis to try to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth.

The horror of the Holocaust comes not merely from the fact that massive numbers of people were murdered--in truth the total civilian body count in World War II was enormous, including roughly 20 million Russians and 10 million Chinese. There have been other conflicts in which vast numbers of civilians have died. The true horror of the Holocaust is that a modern nation used organized, efficient, systematic, scientific methods to try to wipe out a minority population. What compounds the horror is that the Nazis brought their peculiar brand of death with them as they swept through Europe and rounded up Jews in occupied countries. We must not forget that the world watched silently and allowed the Holocaust to happen.

The Nazis could never have been as effective at targeting Jews if it were not for the collaboration of local populations. Tens of thousands of people assisted the Nazis in identifying Jews and herding them to the concentration camps and gas chambers. The Nazis succeeded in large part because hatred of Jews was already well entrenched throughout the countries they conquered.

There were always people of good heart who were willing to risk their lives to save Jews. Their bravery and selflessness must also be remembered on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. Jews were hidden in basements and attics. Jewish children were taken into friendly homes or transported to safety elsewhere. Diplomats issued visas, sometimes in violation of their country's policies. Most famous among them is Raoul Wallenberg who saved 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Few nations protected their Jewish populations as effectively as Denmark. The Danes saved virtually all of their Jewish population first by refusing to join the Nazis in singling out the Jewish minority and later by uniting to smuggle them to safety in Sweden.

One of the principal reasons we remember the Holocaust is to ensure that it never happens again. Anti-Semitism is an old hatred, and every generation seems to have a new version. Television and the internet provide new avenues for spreading hatred. Recently, Middle Eastern citizens' nations such as Egypt have been able to watch ``Horsemen Without A Horse,'' a television serialization of the vicious czarist hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Attacks on Jews and Jewish targets around the world are rising. The U.S. Department of State recently released a report on anti-Semitism around the world that found: ``Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death . . . Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.''

Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust could not have occurred without the complicity of governments and individuals who tolerated stark hatred of Jews. I am hopeful that by reminding ourselves of the horrors of that time, we will remain vigilant about preventing a recurrence of the widespread anti-Semitism that helped the Nazis rise to power.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005. This is a strong bipartisan effort. I commend the leadership of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, as well as Subcommittee Chair Bachus and Ranking Member Sanders. This will be, hopefully, the third time that this Congress has passed this legislation. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

Federal deposit insurance, established during the Great Depression to restore confidence in the Nation's troubled banking system, has served our country well; but no system is perfect, and Congress has periodically revised our deposit insurance laws in response to changing economic and industry conditions. There is a growing consensus triggered in part by recommendations by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, that deposit insurance is overdue for needed structural reform.

H.R. 1185 would merge the Bank Insurance Fund, BIF, and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, SAIF, into a single fund covering all banks and thrifts; increase per-account coverage levels from $100,000 to $130,000; and adjust that coverage for inflation every 5 years beginning in 2007; and double the $130,000 coverage amount in the case of certain retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k)s. Providing $260,000 in deposit insurance coverage for retirement accounts is critically important in an era when many Americans have accumulated retirement nest eggs that far exceed $100,000, and when, according to FDIC estimates, there is more than $200 billion in IRA accounts alone in this Nation's banking system.

Several high-profile bank failures in recent years have given many Americans a rude awakening as they discover that amounts in their retirement accounts above the $100,000 coverage limit are uninsured.

The bill also raises coverage levels on in-state, municipal or public deposits. This will have the effect of encouraging local government agencies to keep more of their deposits in the local communities where the funds were generated, thus promoting economic growth in those areas.

Finally, the bill fully implements a provision enacted more than a decade ago to give banks a discount on their deposit insurance premiums for deposits attributable to so-called basic banking accounts which provide a financial lifeline for low-income families that are currently without bank coverage.

This has strong bipartisan support. This legislation passed this body last year with a vote of 411 to 11, and this year's effort likewise enjoys very strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and for his leadership as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of this outstanding bipartisan bill. I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of the provisions in it. It is long past due to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds, and additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point clip, and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward.

The bill includes a mechanism for determining credits for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment that I cosponsored with former Representative Bereuter. This is a very, very important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank very much the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced and important amendment in the base legislation.

Despite the many very positive parts of this bill, I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. This coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by many Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan. I would like to place in the Record his comments in opposition, and state that I support the bill overwhelming, but this provision I am opposed to.

I thank the leadership and the ranking member for working in a balanced way to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) our ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), our chairman, for working in a bipartisan way for truly the grand goal of safety and soundness in our financial systems and keeping them competitive in the world financial market.

My amendment is one that I am going to offer and withdraw, because the chairman has generously offered to work with me in committee under a separate introduced bill to pass the intent of this. And what my amendment would do is that it would prevent banks from charging customers bounced check fees when the money is already there in the bank, and when it is simply a matter of which journal entry the bank makes first.

We did have a hearing on this earlier in the Committee on Financial Services. And some of the banks' representatives testified that many banks do this already. So this amendment would simply require all banks to do so consistently and prevent abuses.

In other words, if money is there, but it has been deposited, then you cannot withdraw that money, the deposited money should be credited before the money is withdrawn from the bank.

My amendment would also prevent banks from charging customers for overdraft protection when the customer has not requested this service. Again, this is simple and fair and straightforward. And sometimes, in some cases in some banks, the overdraft protection costs more than the overdraft penalty.

So it would really prevent hidden charges and fees for services customers have not even asked for, in this case, financial institutions. So I have been assured that by the parliamentarian that my amendment would be immune from a point of order. The Committee on Rules accepted it.

But I will be withdrawing it with the consideration of the chairman to fully discuss this in committee, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) our chairman, and I thank you for working in a bipartisan way on this and so many other issues.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. The coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by most of the Federal financial service regulators.

Proponents of the increased coverage argue that it poses no risk to the insurance system, but the regulators who oppose this increase are the very officials whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. The almost unanimous opposition to increased coverage by the regulators is a very powerful message.

I would like to really quote some of these regulators. Alan Greenspan has come out very strongly opposed to it. He said, ``It is unlikely that increased coverage, even by indexing, would add to the stability of the banking system today.''

The Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Monetary Policy, Peter Fisher, said, ``Increasing the overall coverage limit would weaken market discipline and further increase the level of risk to the FDIC and to taxpayers.''

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the Record quotes from the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Congressional Budget Office, all raising questions and in opposition to this raise.

Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe that this argument matches the actual situation of the banking industry. The fact is that only 2 percent of insured accounts have more than $100,000 according to the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I would like to place this study into the Record.

The same Federal Reserve study put the average account balance at $6,000 across America. Any way you look at it, the increase in coverage will benefit very few depositors.

Proponents of increasing coverage also contend that because insurance premiums are paid by banks, increasing coverage does not cost taxpayers. While I concede the point, I think we also have to remember that behind the Federal deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services in 1993 at the close of the S&L crisis, I have been committed as all of my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle to protecting the safety and soundness of the banking system.

While I concede and agree with my colleagues that the causes of the S&L failures were many, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayers. The bailout we voted for was constituent taxpayer dollars to bail out the S&L.

No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or a string of failures, there could be many reasons for them, by raising the insurance coverage, we increase the potential liability of the government and, thereby, the American taxpayer.

I also believe that raising the coverage may encourage the concept of moral hazard. Institutions will be encouraged to engage in riskier behavior to boost earnings if they know that failure is ensured by the Federal Government.

I would also like to place in the Record a letter to Members of Congress from The Financial Services Roundtable, which very strongly supports the underlying bill, which is a

fine piece of work that has passed this body two times previously, but also raises many concerns about raising the limit to $130,000.

The material that I referred to previously I will insert into the Record at this point.

The Financial Services Roundtable,

Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Barney: I would like to commend you on your leadership

and continued efforts on deposit insurance reform. An

effective deposit insurance system is critical to the economy

and maintaining public confidence in the U.S. banking system.

The Roundtable is committed to working with the Financial

Services Committee to develop reasonable, responsible deposit

insurance reform legislation that the Roundtable and the

industry can support.

The Roundtable supports the passage of H.R. 1185, the

``Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005.'' We also

support the adoption of the ``Managers Amendment.''

The Financial Services Roundtable, a national association

representing 100 of the largest integrated financial services

companies that together constitute nearly 70 percent of the

deposit insurance assessment base, believe that H.R. 1185

will help assure a sound deposit insurance system. In

particular, we believe a major improvement to the bill was a

provision that stated no insured depository institution shall

be barred from the lowest-risk category solely because of

size.

Further, the Roundtable supports: Merging the Bank

Insurance Fund (``BIF'') and the Savings Association

Insurance Fund (``SAIF''). A combined BIF/SAIF would be

stronger and more resilient. The provision in your bill that

caps the FDIC's assessment authority at 1 basis point for

those institutions in the lowest-risk category. The bill's

study of the effectiveness of the prompt corrective action

program, and a strong system of credits and rebates such as

you have in your legislation.

We remain concerned about provisions in the bill that would

increase deposit insurance coverage limits. Our members

believe that raising coverage limits could weaken market

discipline and increase risk to the FDIC, all insured

institutions, and ultimately American taxpayers. Federal

Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated there is no

evidence that an increase in coverage levels would promote

competition or materially improve the ability of financial

institutions to obtain funds. As Chairman Greenspan noted,

the evidence in recent years shows that financial

institutions of all sizes have not experienced difficulty

in obtaining funding from insured or uninsured deposits.

For those customers with substantial deposits, ample

opportunities exist to obtain FDIC coverage equal to

several multiples of $100,000. Since the FDIC is in good

shape financially, there is no need to grant the FDIC

additional authority to levy deposit insurance premiums.

Thank you again for your leadership on deposit insurance

reform and your consideration of the Roundtable's views on

this important matter. We look forward to working with you as

this legislation moves through the legislative process. If

you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss

these issues further, please call Irving Daniels or me at

(202) 289-4322.

Best regards,

Steve Bartlett,

President and CEO.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I applaud his leadership.

And I would like to be associated with the comments of the Members of minority in their comments strongly against this bill. It is not about protecting children. It is merely a part of the majority's agenda to please anti-choice extremists. If the majority were truly concerned about children, then this bill would not be so extreme, so complex, and so unconstitutional. It provides no exception for the health of the mother, as required by the Supreme Court. It does not always provide an option for judicial bypass, which is also required by the Supreme Court. And it violates States rights by forcing the laws of one State on to another.

What this bill is really about is the majority war with our courts. The majority knows that this bill is unconstitutional, but they do not care. And when the first court determines that it is unconstitutional, the majority will blame the judges, just as they labeled them judicial activists, as they did in the Terri Schiavo case, and just as they did in the partial birth abortion case. Believe me, when the judges make their decision, it will be based on volumes and volumes of case precedent that sets the standard of constitutionality and not on a political agenda.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I have offered that is a win-win for taxpayers and the economy.

The Presidential Dollar Coin Act builds on the remarkable success of the 50 State Quarter Act of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), which is well into its 10-year run and has earned

praise from educators and coin collectors and benefited the Treasury. My daughters, like many young people across America, enjoy collecting this popular coin.

Like the State quarter bill, the Presidential dollar coin will educate Americans about our Presidents and our first ladies while making money for the taxpayers. In addition, this bill will encourage use of the Sacagawea dollar coin, which will continue to be issued throughout the program and will be the sole U.S. dollar coin after the program ends. Thanks to discussions with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), Indian tribal chiefs and women's groups, the provisions of the bill relating to the Sacagawea dollar coin have been clarified and strengthened to assure that Sacagawea, the only woman on our currency at this present moment, will continue to be honored on the dollar coin.

In a similar vein, the bill also provides for commemorative coins honoring each first lady to be issued during the period that their husbands were President. These will be issued both as gold bullion collectors' items and also in a bronze version, making them more accessible to school children and the public.

I am particularly pleased that the bill provides for a coin to be issued in honor of the noted suffragette Alice Paul at the same time as the coin commemorating President Chester Arthur, who served without a spouse. As a New Yorker, I am particularly pleased that Lady Liberty, the international symbol of the United States, will be on the back of the coin.

The General Accounting Office has estimated that general use of dollar coins could save the government as much as $500 million per year because they last longer than the dollar bill. Boosting usage of the dollar coin in everyday commerce also helps small businesses and provides consumers with faster and better service.

At the halfway point of issuance, the 50-State Quarter program had made the government over $4 billion primarily from collectors taking the coins out of circulation so that the Federal Reserve then buys more from the Mint. We have similar expectations for the effect of individuals collecting the dollar coins.

This bill earns money for the government, benefits small businesses and consumers, educates all users of American currency about their Presidents and first ladies, and encourages wider use of the Sacagawea dollar coin. I would call that a bill that deserves our full support.

I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work, not only on the quarter coin, which has been a huge success for our school children and our Nation and helped our economy, but his leadership and constant work on this bill, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I particularly thank Joe Pinder of the committee staff, who is really an expert on coins and has put a great deal of time and effort on this, along with Emily Pfeiffer from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and Eleni Constantin, my financial services counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this will pass overwhelmingly and be circulating soon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his constant work on this bill and his support. We are very grateful. I believe the gentleman's input has made it a stronger bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, and the representative of a large and vibrant community of Armenian Americans, I rise to join my colleagues in the sad commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

Today we declare to people living in every comer of our globe that the Turkish and American governments must finally acknowledge what we have long understood: that the unimaginable horror committed on Turkish soil in the aftermath of World War I was, and is, an act of genocide.

I strongly believe that the tragic events that began on April 24, 1915, which are well known to all of us, should be part of the history curriculum in every Turkish and American school. On that dark April day, more than 200 of Armenia's religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and killed. Ultimately, more than 1.5 million Armenians were systematically murdered at the hands of the Young Turks, and more than 500,000 more were exiled from their native land.

On this 90th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide, we lend our voices to a chorus that grows louder with each passing year. We simply will not allow the planned elimination of an entire people to remain in the shadows of history. The Armenian Genocide must be acknowledged, studied and never, ever allowed to happen again.

The parliaments of Canada, France and Switzerland have all passed resolutions affirming that the Armenian people were indeed subjected to genocide. The United States must do the same. I will not stop fighting until long overdue legislation acknowledging the Armenian Genocide finally passes.

Of course, an acknowledgment of the genocide is not our only objective. I remain committed to ensuring that the U.S. government continues to provide direct financial assistance to Armenia. Over the years, this aid has played a critical role in the economic and political advancement of the Armenian people.

Additionally, it is clearly in our national interest to foster peace and stability in the South Caucasus region. We in Congress need to renew our commitment to Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which denies assistance to Azerbaijan until it ends its stranglehold on the embattled region of Nagorno-Karabagh. We will not stand by as the Armenian people are threatened yet again.

On this solemn day, our message is clear: the world remembers the Armenian genocide, and the governments of Turkey and the United States must declare--once and for all--that they do, too.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Whatever It Takes To Build Act'' with Representatives Owens, Israel and Serrano of New York.

This legislation would remove a $5 million cap placed on the Community Disaster Loan program that provides communities with lost tax revenues following disasters. This cap was added in 2000. Prior to 2000, no cap was in place and several communities received in excess of $5 million from the Federal Government for lost tax revenues, to recover from disasters.

Right after 9/11, the President promised New York City that he would do whatever it takes to rebuild. While he and the Congress has provided billions in relief, much more still needs to be done to make New York City whole. The new GAO report shows that we are still suffering significant tax losses. Lack of this revenue forces New Yorkers to payout of their pockets again and again for the attacks of 9/11 or suffer the loss of essential services. New Yorkers should not be forced to bear this burden alone. That is why I am introducing the Whatever It Takes to Rebuild Act and I implore the Congress and the President to support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the 9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act with Representatives Chris Shays of Connecticut, Anthony Weiner, Major Owens, and Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

The attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on September 11, 2001, exposed serious communication problems for the New York City Fire Department, FDNY. Since these attacks, there have been major efforts to improve the FDNY's communication system, but much more needs to be done.

As we all know New York City is repeatedly mentioned as a top terrorist target and the lack of a fully-functional communications system is a threat not only to FDNY and New York residents lives, but also to all those who visit there.

The terrorist attacks were not just attacks on New York City, but on the Nation. With New York as a continuing top terrorist target, the protection of New York City is becoming a national responsibility. Other cities with tall buildings throughout the country face the same challenges with their communication systems and will need the same upgrades. Improvements in New York will lay the groundwork for improvements to communications systems across the country.

Recognizing this need, the 9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act instructs the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to provide the FDNY with a communication system that must be capable of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to an emergency in New York City.

This bill would require a communication system that includes three components--radios,

dispatch system and a supplemental communication device. It would require it to work in all buildings and in all parts of the city, something that the radios, unbelievably, do not now do. The supplemental communication device would allow firefighters to transmit an audible emergency distress signal when a firefighter is in need of immediate assistance, and DHS would work with the city of New York in their planned upgrades of the emergency 911 system and any interoperability initiatives with other public safety communication systems.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6.

The people of our nation need an energy policy. We need to pass an energy policy that actually brings down record high gas prices, protects our environment, and truly reduces our dependence on foreign oil by encouraging energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources of energy.

Instead, at a time of record gas prices, this special-interest, anti- consumer energy bill would actually increase gas prices. The national average price for gasoline remains at a record level of $2.24 per gallon. And yet, according to the Bush Administration's own Energy Department, the Republican bill will actually increase gas prices by 3 cents and will have almost no effect on production, consumption, or prices,

As if raising gas prices were not bad enough, H.R. 6 also harms our environment. It rolls back important safeguards in the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, which are critical in keeping our waterways clean and safe. Protecting the producers of MTBE from paying for polluting our drinking water, H.R. 6 actually passes the cost of cleaning up the industry's mess to taxpayers. Finally, it opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of our nation's greatest natural treasures, to drilling by the oil and gas industries.

At this time in history, it is crucial that we work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by prioritizing energy efficiency and renewable energy. Of all the tax incentives in H.R. 6, only 7 percent are designated to encourage renewable energy and conservation, while billions of dollars in tax breaks are funneled to the oil and gas industries. On top of these tax breaks, provisions in this bill would provide as much as $2 billion over ten years to companies who drill in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of increasing corporate giveaways at a time when oil and gas companies are raking in record profits, we must redouble our efforts to support renewable energy and conservation.

Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 6 would increase gas prices, harm our environment, and do so little to encourage renewable energy sources, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce legislation, the Revitalizing Cities Through Parks Enhancement Act, that would establish a $10 million grant program for qualified, non-profit, community groups, allowing them to lease municipally-owned vacant lots and transform these areas into parks. These vacant lots often are areas of heavy drug-trafficking. Parks and gardens created with the grants will not only provide safe places to gather, but will increase property values as well. The grants will be available from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to groups who have met standards of financial security, and who have histories of serving their communities. To further ensure that these grants are used to make lasting positive changes, land improved and made into open community space under this legislation must be available for use as open space from the local government for at least seven years.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with my Republican colleague, Christopher Shays, and my Democratic colleagues, Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the House and Senator Lautenberg in the Senate, I am introducing the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, which will ensure that a woman's access to birth control cannot be denied by pharmacists who have personal objections to certain legal prescriptions.

A disturbing trend has recently erupted in drug stores across the nation: some pharmacists are refusing to fill women's prescriptions for legal contraception. It's happening everywhere: in small towns and large cities, in the north and the south. And it's happening to all women, whether they are young or old, married or single, with children or without. In some cases, the pharmacists are refusing to tell women where they can fill the prescription; in others, they are refusing to return the prescription paper back to the women. These women are frequently ridiculed and lectured by these pharmacists about their choice to use birth control pills.

It is incomprehensible that in the 21st century, we are living in a time where women are having to fight for their right to obtain birth control pills. Something must be done so that this assault on privacy does not continue to invade the bedrooms of American women. The Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, ALPhA, protects an individual's access to legal contraception. It requires a pharmacy to ensure that if a pharmacist has a personal objection to filling a legal prescription for a drug or device, the pharmacy will ensure that the prescription is filled without delay by another pharmacist who does not have a personal objection. This act also ensures that if a prescription drug is not in stock, and it is a type of drug that the pharmacy routinely carries, such a drug will be ordered without delay.

A November 2004 poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times indicated that 8 out of 10 Americans believe that pharmacists should not be permitted to refuse to dispense birth control pills. This opinion was strong despite party affiliation--85 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans polled squarely opposed pharmacist refusals. The Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act reiterates the beliefs of the majority of Americans and the principles of our Constitution: that women have a fundamental right of access to birth control.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 10, the world lost one its foremost religious leaders. It was with tremendous sadness that I learned of the death of His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, who for 37 years was the Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America. As the Hellenic-American community mourns the passing of this great leader, I hope that we can all pause to reflect upon the Archbishop's greatest legacies: his profound love of God and his lifetime of work to promote freedom, human rights and religious tolerance. He will be greatly missed.

I had the honor and pleasure of meeting Archbishop Iakovos in 1992, shortly after my election to Congress, and I will never forget his kind words of encouragement and advice. As the representative of Astoria, New York, home to the largest Hellenic population outside of Greece, the Archbishop's wise counsel was truly invaluable to me. The Archbishop once said that although the Orthodox Church is rooted in Greece, ``America is the place God intended it to grow.'' Throughout his life, His Eminence helped millions to explore their lives in the Americas without losing touch with their religious and ethnic heritage.

In addition to his role as the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Americas, Archbishop Iakovos was a staunch defender of human rights, both here in America and in his Greek homeland. Whether he was marching hand-in-hand with the Rev. Martin Luther King in support of civil rights or demanding an end to the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, His Eminence was a tireless champion of peace and freedom for all mankind.

I join with all New Yorkers and all Americans in extending my deepest sympathies to the Hellenic-American community on this solemn occasion. May Archbishop Iakovos rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, irresponsible budget and tax policies have squandered the budget surpluses that President Bush inherited and turned them into a legacy of debt and deficits. Now he is trying to do the same thing to Social Security with a private accounts plan that would add trillions to our national debt.

This plan is exactly backwards. Instead of thinking up ways to weaken the Social Security Trust Fund, we should be taking steps to guarantee that the assets in the trust fund are truly there to pay future benefits. We cannot do that if we run up large deficits outside Social Security that weaken our economy and increase our foreign debt.

Anyone looking for a plan to address the Social Security problem can begin with two basic steps. First, take private accounts, privatization off the table; and, second, worry about the real crisis, which is the current budget deficit outside Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. There is much that should be law in this bill; but as written, it should not pass. If this bill becomes law, children will have to compete for the first time with credit card companies in State court for the limited assets of debtors emerging from the bankruptcy process.

I believe that there are many good parts of this bill; but as a mother I came to Congress to protect the rights of children, not to make their interests second to those of credit card companies. Congress has always insisted that debtors should take care of their children before their credit cards, and we

should not undermine this important family value.

I am a strong supporter of the netting provisions of the bill. These provisions provide for the orderly unwinding of complex financial transactions when one participant becomes insolvent. Alan Greenspan has said these provisions reduce uncertainty for market participants and reduce risk by making it less likely that the default of one financial institution would have a domino effect on others. I support this; and as a New Yorker, I am really concerned that these provisions go into effect to protect the financial sector in the event of another terrorist attack. And I agree we need to build savings.

But these positive aspects of the bill are outweighed by an unacceptable feature that the majority has refused to address, the fact that the bill pits child support claimants against credit card companies in State court for the assets that the debtor has when she or he goes into bankruptcy. In other words, kids will lose.

I offered an amendment to address this, but the Committee on Rules did not make it in order. They did not make other important amendments that would protect victims of medical catastrophes, of identity theft and many others. This is very, very important. The sponsors say that they take care of this, but none of their steps address the new threat created by the bill to protect children from having to fight credit card companies in State court. We have never done this before. We should not leave this as a legacy of this Congress. We can get this right. We should have put children first. We must vote against this rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I request permission to place in the Record, in response to this statement, statements by Bar Associations across this country, women's organizations, women's legal defense, asserting what I have said that children are put second to credit card companies.

And this is wrong. Where are the family values in this Congress?

Is it just rhetoric or do you really care about children?