Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that will ensure that future censuses truly reflect the demographic makeup of this Nation. This bill would clarify Section 195 of Title 13 U.S.C. to allow the most accurate numbers to be used for apportionment and all other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with my distinguished colleagues an article in the January 27, 2005 issue of the New York Sun regarding the recent announcement by the American Red Cross in Greater New York that it intends to forge a partnership with the Jerusalem Magen David Adom, a branch of Israel's emergency medical, ambulance, blood and disaster services.

The article, by Meghan Clyne, a Staff Reporter for the Sun, is as follows:

Entering where the international community fears to tread,

the Greater New York chapter of the American Red Cross has

signed a friendship pact with the Jerusalem Magen David Adom,

Israel's Red Cross society. The International Federation of

Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies recognizes as full

members 181 national Red Cross organizations--including those

from Iran, Cuba and North Korea--but not Israel's.

On February 9, a delegation from the Jerusalem MDA--Magen

David Adom means Red Star of David--is scheduled to visit New

York as part of a continuing exchange between the societies,

to learn from the work undertaken by the New York Red Cross,

according to officials from the New York chapter. In late

November the New Yorkers journeyed to Israel, where they met

with MDA officials in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and visited a

settlement to observe how the MDA responds to, and prepares

for, emergency situations. At the end of the trip, members of

the New York and Jerusalem groups signed a memorandum of

understanding making the cooperation official.

One of the benefits of that cooperation is increased

training in responding to terrorist attacks, the CEO of the

American Red Cross in Greater New York, Terry Bischoff, said.

``Certainly we believe that given issues Israel has

unfortunately had to deal with around disasters and terrorism

responses, there are things we can learn from them to enhance

our response capability,'' she said. In exchange, Ms.

Bischoff said, the Americans are more experienced in

providing mental-health and other support services to victims

of terrorist attacks and other disasters, an expertise the

Israelis hoped to learn from in dealing with the aftermath of

suicide bombings and other attacks.

The New York-Jerusalem cooperation ``really builds on a 50-

year history . . . the American Red Cross has always been

supportive of bringing the MDA into the Red Cross movement,''

Ms. Bischoff said. While the MDA is not an official voting

member of the international federation, Israel's national Red

Cross organization enjoys bilateral friendship agreements

with several other countries, including France and Bulgaria

in addition to America. Ms. Bischoff said those agreements--

and greater working relationships between the MDA and other

nations' Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations--are

helpful to the cause of getting Israel fully recognized by

the international Red Cross apparatus.

For its part, Ms. Bischoff added, the American Red Cross

signed a friendship agreement with the MDA in 2002 and has

withheld $25 million in dues from the International

Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

societies since 2000. It has continued, however, to make

contributions to the field work of the International

Committee of the Red Cross.

The director of the international department of Magen David

Adom, Yonatan Yagodovsky, said he did not see the lack of

formal international recognition as a major stumbling block

to the MDA's work. ``This is a political obstacle that will

be overcome,'' Mr. Yagodovsky said.

He said that while the MDA still hopes to receive official

recognition, ``there aren't any clouds above the relationship

between Magen David Adom and the international movement.''

Mr. Yagodovsky cited the MDA's recent tsunami-relief work

alongside other Red Cross societies as an example.

Magen David Adom was established in 1930 and was denied

admission to the international Red Cross community by one

vote in 1949, a year after Israel declared statehood.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in recognizing the American Red Cross in Greater New York for its forward-thinking agreement with Jerusalem Magen David Adom. It is my hope that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies will soon join its New York chapter and officially recognize Magen David Adom as a full member of the organization.

Mr. Speaker, February marks the twelfth anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3), allows employees to take time off from work to care for a new baby or sick family member. It has allowed more than 35 million Americans to be able to take unpaid leave without the risk of losing their jobs in its twelve years since becoming law. Today, I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Imagine if your adult child, your parent-in-law, domestic partner or grandparent was involved in a serious car accident and had no one to take care of him or her. Then imagine your employer telling you that you can't take a few days off work to care for your loved one because you are not covered by FMLA. This situation sounds preposterous, but there is no protection for you in current law. That is why I am introducing the FMLA Inclusion and the FMLA Enhancement Acts.

The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (H.R. 1430 in the 108th Congress) amends the FMLA to permit leave to care for a domestic partner, same-sex spouse, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent if that person has a serious health condition. Currently, the FMLA allows qualified workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborns, seek emergency medical care for himself/ herself, parents, children under 18 or a legal spouse.

The Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act (H.R. 956 in the 108th Congress). Building on the success of the FMLA, this legislation would allow more people to benefit from Family and Medical Leave by allowing employees in companies with more than 25 employees to take Family and Medical Leave and would extend employee leave for workers to go to parent-teacher conferences or to take their children, grandchildren or other family members to the doctor for regular medical appointments.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for helping to organize this Special Order with me.

I would like to thank and recognize my colleagues who have agreed to participate in this Democratic hour of discussion. Those who are here tonight to speak are from the Democratic Women's Caucus, from the Congressional Black Caucus, from the Hispanic Caucus, and we have many other like-minded Members here tonight to speak.

Tomorrow night, we will listen to the President describe his domestic agenda for the next 4 years. He has already told us what he will spend most of his time talking about. He will not be talking about paying down the staggering national deficit or addressing the international crisis over the falling American dollar or getting Americans back to work after we have lost over 2 million jobs.

He will be talking about Social Security. He is going to spend his first annual address to the Nation trying to sell us on his plan to cut Social Security in half. Of course, that is not what he is going to call it, but that is exactly what it is.

I suggest that we listen carefully tomorrow night not to what the President says as much to what he does not say. In fact, the White House admitted today to the Washington Post that the President will not talk about the size of the benefit cuts his plan requires or about how the size of the proposed private accounts compare to the benefits retirees are now getting.

Let us see tomorrow night if the President tells the public that his plan will raise the deficit by over $2 trillion or put in jeopardy the trust fund that guarantees retired American workers financial dignity in their old age.

Let us call it like it is. The President wants to privatize Social Security, although I am sure he will not use that word, because they know that Americans do not like gambling in the stock market with the Social Security Trust Fund. Democrats will make clear that his plan means putting at risk the Social Security Trust Fund that guarantees working Americans an old age with financial dignity.

The President wants to cut benefits drastically. He has to make his plan work, but he will not say that. Democrats will tell Americans the Bush plan means each of you will get less than you get now and less than you would get if you did nothing at all.

The President wants to increase the deficit by $2 trillion to pay for his plan, additional debt that would most likely be held by a foreign country such as China or Japan, but he will not mention that his reckless deficit increase lets other nations control America's economy and perhaps even our future.

Democrats are standing up for our economic security and for that of our children. Enough American debt is already in the hands of other countries.

If that is not bad enough, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) wants to calculate monthly benefits based on race and gender. For example, women get less each month in his proposal than men because they tend to live longer.

Democrats are saying we will not accept a Social Security formula based on race or gender. It raises serious constitutional questions and is just plain wrong and unfair.

Let us just call this plan what it is. It is a bad plan with bad results for American workers, especially women and minorities, and here are the facts: The White House is pushing a proposal that would cut in half the amount of income replaced by Social Security for the average retired American worker. Unlike the present system which allows benefits to grow with the economy and wages, the Bush plan would fix benefits to current living standards. That means that retirees would have to live on an amount that is not keeping pace with the cost of living but effectively shrinking each year. An average worker retiring today would have 42 percent of his or her lifetime average income replaced by Social Security, and that is the green line right here.

Under the current system, the workers would get 40 percent of it and the lower income workers on this side would get more than the higher income workers.

Under the Bush plan, in 70 years this benefit would fall to 18 percent. That is a dramatic fall. In other words, workers are denied roughly half of the benefits they have earned over a lifetime of work.

As my colleagues can see from this chart, and this chart was prepared by the nonpartisan, independent Economic Policy Institute, the President's

plan is particularly bad for lower-income workers, those who earn less than the average; and this includes many women and minorities, lower income here. So we can tell that there is more of an impact on lower- income workers. Everybody loses but the lower-income earners. The people who need it most lose the most.

To add insult to injury, under the President's plan, at retirement, workers would effectively lose about half of their so-called private account, since about 50 cents on the dollar is deducted from their guaranteed benefits that they would otherwise get. Even a good investor loses half of what he or she made.

So far, the White House has been silent on that feature, but they need it in order to make their plan add up; and we will not be able to avoid that by opting out of the private account system. The President has been calling the plan, quote, voluntary; but under his plan, workers who do not want to gamble with part of their Social Security money lose the corresponding portion of their guaranteed benefits anyway. So how voluntary is that?

We have not even mentioned the risk to the trust fund, to the taxpayers and to individual retirees that comes from letting individuals play the stock market with Social Security money. What about those who take money out of the trust fund under the President's plan to invest in stocks that go belly up? Who takes care of them? The taxpayers, of course. So the system really ends up paying twice.

Today, in contrast, the trust fund provides guaranteed benefits for older Americans, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. That is a better investment for Social Security and for the American people.

If the President told the whole truth to the Nation, Americans would see clearly that his plan is a lousy deal for the American people. Women and minorities are particularly hurt by the Bush plan.

Let me spend a moment on just how bad the plan is for women. Women still earn less than men on average, about 79 cents to the dollar; and that wage differential translates to an even greater pension disparity. In addition, many Social Security recipients are not retired workers but receive benefit as the spouse, child, or widowed spouse of a worker or a disabled worker. Most of these recipients are women and children. So women depend on Social Security more than men do. Women are 70 percent of Social Security recipients at age 65 and over 75 percent at age 85 and above. Social Security benefits are particularly important to keeping women and minorities out of poverty.

This chart that was prepared from the Joint Economic Committee shows that for nonmarried women over 65 Social Security cuts the poverty rate from almost 60 percent to 16 percent, and we can see that the figures for African Americans and Hispanics are comparable. It is 21 percent for blacks and 15 percent for Hispanics. In New York, for example, my home State, 55 percent of elderly women would live in poverty without Social Security.

The President's plan affects women and minorities even worse than men. Women and minorities tend to be at the lower end of the income area, whereas, as we saw in the first chart, benefits drop even more under the Bush plan than on average. Also, the fact that the Bush plan fixes benefits to current living standards cuts benefits to spouses, children, and surviving spouses even more drastically than it does to retirees. Once again, the administration is hurting those who are most vulnerable.

This effect is so obvious that even the White House suddenly feels it has to have some sort of Band-Aid to paste over it; but since the cuts under the Republican plan become larger over time, the temporary increase in benefits the President is rumored to favor will not make up for the cuts for a very long period.

On top of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) suggests that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than men. This proposal is just absolutely wrong. It is at odds with the moral values of our society. Since the chairman seems to be taking it seriously, let me note that it also raises serious constitutional and legal issues.

Under well-established Supreme Court decisions, city and State pension plans are barred by title VII from using the fact that women live longer as a reason to pay them less each year. Surely, the Federal Government should hold itself to the same standard.

This proposal should be off the table. Together with 40 of my colleagues we have asked the President to make it clear that he rejects the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) proposal, and we will be listening to his comments tomorrow night.

Let me add that I have a great deal more to say, but I have many distinguished colleagues with me; and I would like to call upon the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) who is one of the representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Before that, I would like to place in the Record at this point an article by Paul Krugman which points out that his plan is particularly harmful to minorities.

Social Security privatization really is like tax cuts, or the Iraq war: the administration keeps on coming up with new rationales, but the plan remains the same. President Bush's claim that we must privatize Social Security to avert an imminent crisis has evidently fallen flat. So now he's playing the race card.

This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating his earlier claim that ``African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people.'' In other words, blacks don't live long enough to collect their fair share of benefits.

This isn't a new argument; privatizers have been making it for years. But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false. And Mr. Bush's use of that false argument is doubly shameful, because he's exploiting the tragedy of high mortality for political gain instead of treating it as a problem we should solve.

Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation--a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out ``major errors in the methodology.'' That's actuary-speak for ``damned lies.''

In fact, the actuary said, ``careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security'' as whites.

Here's why. First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years--but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Black's low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years--not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.

Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits.

Put it all together, and the deal African-Americans get from Social Security turns out, according to various calculations, to be either about the same as that for whites or somewhat better. Hispanics, by the way, clearly do better than either.

So the claim that Social Security is unfair to blacks is just false. And the fact that privatizers keep making that claim, after their calculations have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, is yet another indicator of the fundamental dishonesty of their sales pitch.

What's really shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of the black death

rate, however, is what it takes for granted.

The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society--including highly unequal access to good-quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants are two and a half times as likely as white babies to die in their first year.

Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health inequalities. But the benefits of Social Security privatization, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time.

Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called ``the soft bigotry of low expectations?'' Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry--yes, that sounds like the right word.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would place in the Record at this point a letter that was signed by 40 of my colleagues asking him to make it absolutely clear that he rejects the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) notion, and I hope that we hear that tomorrow night.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President,

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President, We were appalled to hear Ways & Means

Chairman Bill Thomas propose Sunday on ``Meet the Press''

that Social Security benefits should be based on race and

gender. Chairman Thomas said that Congress ``needs to

consider how many years of retirement you get based on your

race'' and that women should receive fewer benefits each year

because they tend to live longer than men. Asked if Congress

would accept such an idea, Chairman Thomas didn't seem to

know the answer.

The answer is ``No,'' Mr. President. We, the undersigned

members of Congress, will not accept a Social Security

formula that is based on race or gender. This idea is unfair,

it is unjust, it is profoundly anti-American. We call on you

to repudiate it. We request a meeting with you to give you

our views in person and receive your response.

Cutting benefits to those who need them most is counter to

the core principles on which Social Security was founded.

That great program is the financial safety net for all

working Americans in their old age. All workers have earned

their benefits and are entitled to them regardless of gender

or race. Social Security's formulas are race and gender

neutral and must remain so. To propose that women should

receive fewer benefits because they tend to live longer

denies benefits to retired women workers who depend on them

to survive and is fundamentally wrong. To advocate that

minorities should receive different benefits on the basis of

their race is repugnant in a society that has renounced

racial discrimination and where all persons are equal before

the law.

Chairman Thomas' proposal attacks the most vulnerable among

us. Retired women workers are twice as likely as men to live

below the poverty line and to depend on Social Security as

their sole means of support. For African-Americans, Social

Security cuts the poverty rate from 59 percent to 21 percent.

Sunday was not the first time Chairman Thomas has proposed

basing Social Security on race and gender, but it was the

first he made clear on national TV that he will advance this

outrageous agenda in the Congress. It is time to make clear

that Congress will not accept it. Nor should you or your

administration. Chairman Thomas' proposal goes against

everything for this great nation stands, and it is counter to

our deepest moral values. We call on you to renounce clearly

and unambiguously any change to Social Security benefits

premised on race or gender.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Maloney; Frank Pallone, Jr.;Nancy Pelosi; Tammy

Baldwin;William Jefferson; Alcee Hastings; Dale Kildee;

Diane Watson; Michael Michaud; Gene Green; Steve

Israel; Maxine Waters; Lynn Woolsey; Joe Baca; Sheila

Jackson-Lee; Chris Van Hollen; Jerrold Nadler; Gary

Ackerman; Raul Grijalva; Barbara Lee; Gwen Moore; Luis

Gutierrez; Sam Farr; Bobby Rush; Marty Meehan; Mike

Honda; Ed Markey; Tim Bishop; Robert Menendez; Donald

M. Payne; Tom Lantos; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Al Green;

Loretta Sanchez; Henry Waxman; Julia Carson; Maurice

Hinchey; Elijah Cummings; Linda Sanchez; Artur Davis;

and Major R. Owens; Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly a letter that came into my office on this issue from one of my constituents, and she wrote:

``I want to thank you for standing up on the Congress floor and speaking out against the appalling recommendation made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) on Meet the Press. No decisions regarding Social Security should be based on a recipient's gender or race. To this day, women and often minorities still earn less on average

than men. This has placed an unfair burden on women who often are the sole providers for their children to have the means in which to save for their retirement. Shall we further ensure their poverty in their final years? Please do not allow the gender gap to become acceptable and government-controlled.''

Another person who has spoken out strongly on this issue is the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), and I thank her for joining us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. I was not aware of Wisconsin's important role in the development of this program.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Owens), and to thank him for speaking out and being with us here tonight.

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his truly moving presentation today.

I had very much the same reaction he did. I was home during the snowstorm watching Meet the Press, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), suggested that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than men. I truly almost fell out of my chair. I could not believe it.

And many of the sentiments that the gentleman has expressed on the floor were in Paul Krugman's op-ed piece on January 28 that showed how the program is particularly harmful to minorities. One of the things we need to work on is improved health care and medicine and hospital care for minorities so they live longer, not manipulating the Social Security System in a way that does not help minorities, women or men or anyone.

It was astonishing, absolutely astonishing.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to one of the organizers of this Special Order, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). I thank her very much for her hard work on putting this together and for her leadership on Social Security and so many other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her wonderful presentation. She raised a very important point. Democrats wants to preserve the safety net of Social Security, but we also support any plan that encourages savings for individuals. But let us not undermine this whole system. I believe the gentlewoman pointed that out very well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and an important leader on this issue and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement. She made many strong points, particularly on health disparities. The gentlewoman pointed out that health disparities are not caused by Social Security. There are health disparities in our country, and we should address that with better health care. The fact that some people do not have good health care is no reason to undermine the entire system of Social Security, but we should focus on that area of need to help people in this country. I thank the gentlewoman for her time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has worked very hard on many equality issues and, in fact, used to run the office of economic equality in the Carter administration, I believe.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on so many constitutional issues and equality issues. She has always been out there really leading the way. We thank her for being with us tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from the Show-me State of Missouri (Mr. Carnahan). I thank him for being here. Welcome.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield to one of the organizers, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I thank him for his leadership on putting together this Special

Order and his leadership on so many important issues before this body.

I thank the gentleman for his statement. I would suggest that the gentleman from New Jersey and others listen very carefully to the State of the Union tomorrow night, ask some serious questions and demand some answers.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2005]

Bush May Back Curbs on Accounts--President Courts Critics of Social

Security Plan

(By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman)

President Bush is privately expressing support for limits

on the cost and risk of partially privatizing Social

Security, in an effort to mollify nervous Republicans and win

over dubious Democrats, according to White House aides and

congressional Republicans.

Bush, who plans to make Social Security the centerpiece of

tomorrow's State of the Union address, has privately told GOP

lawmakers and aides that he would support phasing in changes

to the system to keep deficits under control over the next

several years and push individuals who opt for private

accounts into more conservative investments, such as bonds,

as they near retirement to mitigate long-term risks, the

sources said.

In addition, Bush has expressed strong support for

protecting lower-income workers from the brunt of any future

reductions in benefits, a chief concern of Democrats. The

Treasury Department is doing a budget analysis to determine

how many lower-income Americans could be shielded from

benefit cuts necessary to offset the overall cost of creating

private accounts, the officials said.

``The administration as a whole is committed to an

unprecedented effort to better communicate the proposal,''

especially its limits on cost and risk, said Rep. Rob Portman

(R-Ohio), a top White House adviser.

The president wants to allow younger Americans to divert a

third or more of their Social Security payroll taxes into

private investment accounts, which would take billions of

dollars from the trust fund that finances the nearly 70-year-

old retirement and disability program. In order to close that

funding gap between benefits promised future retirees and

taxes expected to be collected, the president would reduce

future Social Security benefits, at least for those who

choose to set up private investment accounts.

As a result, the president is scrambling to assure

lawmakers--and voters--that private accounts can be created

without putting the federal budget and people's retirement

nest eggs at risk.

With most Democrats opposed to the president's proposal,

Bush intends to use the State of the Union speech to begin to

detail these ideas, and to argue that new Social Security

accounts will be highly regulated and voluntary--and

necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt decades from

now.

In his speech, the president will not detail the size of

new private accounts or the benefit cuts needed to help

offset the revenue losses, according to an administration

official briefed on the speech. But Bush will talk more

specifically about how the proposed accounts would offer only

a few, regulated investments options, much like the Thrift

Savings Plan for government employees.

The speech will focus on the policy, but its aim is highly

political, Republicans say. After surveying roughly half a

dozen Senate Democrats whom the White House considers

potential converts to Bush's plan, the president and his

congressional allies realize they must limit the budget

impact of creating a new system and protect lower-income

workers, who rely heavily on Social Security for their

retirement income.

One way of holding down short-term costs would be to allow

Americans to shift gradually part of their payroll taxes into

private accounts. Critics say this would do little to reduce

the overall transition cost, which experts say could cost $1

trillion to $2 trillion over the next two decades.

Bush plans to target Senate Democrats facing reelection

with speeches and town hall meetings on Thursday and Friday.

He suffered a minor political blow yesterday, when the

Congressional Budget Office released new projections for

Social Security's financial health, pushing forward the year

when Social Security benefits begin to exceed Social Security

taxes. The CBO now projects that date for 2020, a year later

than its earlier assessment and two years earlier than the

Social Security Administration's projection.

The new forecast, by Congress's nonpartisan, official

budget scorekeeper, highlights the uncertainty about the

system's future.

CBO officials attributed the slight improvement to small

economic revisions, but CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin was

quick to say the changes are economically insignificant.

``Anyone who's making policy based on what they think is a

change in these numbers would be making a mistake,'' he said.

But what is economically significant and what is

politically significant are two very different things.

Democrats who contend that Bush is exaggerating the need to

act and the benefits of his plan pounced on the latest

report.

``Today's numbers from the Congressional Budget Office

provide further confirmation that Social Security is on solid

financial footing for decades to come,'' said Senate Minority

Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). ``While we do face a long-term

challenge that should be addressed, there is no reason to

rush to privatize Social Security while making deep cuts in

benefits and exploding our national debt.''

Indeed, the politics of Social Security are playing a

prominent role in shaping the debate. Even before Bush has

detailed his plan, almost every Democrat has vowed to oppose

it, and a large number of Republicans have expressed deep

concerns. This has forced Bush to rethink his strategy and

rework his proposal.

MoveOn.org, a liberal group that was highly critical of

Bush throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, today will

begin airing television ads warning three House members not

to ``privatize'' Social Security: Reps. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-

Fla.), Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), and Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.).

The 2006 elections are nearly two years away, and Chocola

is already facing MoveOn.org's ads and a flurry of automated

phone calls to his constituents from an unidentified group

condemning plans to change the system. Chocola, a second-term

lawmaker likely to face a tough reelection in 2006, said the

offensive will prove futile.

At the same time, Republican-leaning groups are readying

their own ad campaigns. The Business Roundtable, which

represents large corporations, is planning to spend $15

million to $20 million on ads and other lobbying efforts in

support of Bush's plan, according to spokeswoman Johanna

Schneider.

And Progress for America, a group with close ties to the

White House, will spend $250,000 next week on national cable

ads to support the president's efforts.

Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues were watching Meet the Press on Sunday, they may have seen a truly remarkable thing. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) proposed that Social Security benefits should be based on race and gender. If we take the distinguished chairman at his word, he is proposing overt race and gender discrimination by the government.

Apart from raising serious constitutional questions, this shocks the conscience. My colleagues can read excerpts from the transcript of his statement on Meet the Press in press clippings across the country and in Tuesday's Roll Call.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said, Congress ``needs to examine how many years of retirement you get based on your race and you ought not to leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.''

Tim Russert, who seemed a bit taken aback by this, asked Thomas, ``So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year?''

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) confirmed that is what he wants Congress to consider.

Then Russert asked, ``Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people should be treated differently because of their gender or race?''

I can answer that question and I believe that I speak for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the answer is a very strong no. We will never accept a Social Security formula based on race or gender.

I am confident that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue find this idea as repulsive as I do. This idea is unfair, it is unjust, it is profoundly anti-American. It goes against fundamental constitutional principles of equal protection. Congress must, and I believe will, repudiate it.

Social Security is the financial safety net for all working Americans in their old age; and all workers are entitled to its benefits, regardless of gender or race. Its formulas currently are race and gender neutral and must remain so for all time, I believe.

Regardless of what projections we each believe in for the long-term outlook of the trust fund, we must surely agree on the basic proposition that all retired workers are entitled to this essential government safety net without regard to gender or race. The chairman's proposal attacks the most vulnerable among us, those who need Social Security most, and that is wrong.

He proposes to cut every woman's annual Social Security benefits because statistically women live longer than men, and that is just plain backwards. What are retired women supposed to do, live at a lower level of income payments than men?

On the contrary, women need Social Security even more than men do. We are a long way from closing the wage gap. We are currently 79 cents to the dollar, and that translates into an even wider pension gap. Retired women workers are twice as likely as men to depend on Social Security as their sole means of support and to depend on Social Security benefits to keep them out of poverty.

According to Joint Economic Committee figures and the National Women's Law Center, women are 60 percent of Social Security recipients at age 67 and three-quarters of the recipients at age 85 or older.

Hispanic women, for example, live the longest of all as a group. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) logic would cut their benefits most. Yet more than half of retired Hispanic women depend on Social Security for 90 percent of their income and without it would live in poverty.

The chairman also proposed to adjust benefits based on race, and this is mindboggling. I am at a loss of words to explain how outrageous it is to propose basing any government benefit based on race.

Let me just remind the distinguished gentleman from California that the Constitution requires the Federal Government to treat persons of all races equally. His proposal raises very serious constitutional questions and undermines our moral commitment to our society in which all are treated equally, regardless of race.

I wish I could call the chairman's statements on Sunday ill considered and not serious, but that was not the first time the chairman has proposed such a policy, and I call on my colleagues to not accept it.

I am circulating a letter to the President of the United States. I will place it into the Record. I urge my colleagues to support it and to send a strong message that basing any type of Social Security benefits on race and gender is unfair and just plain wrong. I will also add in the Record additional statements and some comments from around the country that have been in major papers.

January 26, 2005.

No, Mr. President, Congress Will Not Accept a Social Security Formula

Based on Race or Gender

Dear Colleague: We expect you were as shocked as we were to

hear Ways & Means Chairman Thomas again propose on ``Meet the

Press'' Sunday that Social Security benefits should be

allocated based on race and gender. Cutting Social Security

benefits to women and minorities--the retirees who need them

the most--is wrong, unfair, unjust and fundamentally anti-

American. We will not accept a formula that has such

unfairness as its centerpiece.

We will be sending the attached letter to the president

asking him to repudiate Thomas' proposal by taking his

outrageous proposal to base Social Security benefits on

race and gender off the table. Please contact Eleni

Constantine with Rep. Maloney at 5-7944 by 6 p.m. today if

you would like to sign the letter.

Sincerely,

Carolyn B. Maloney,

Member of Congress.

Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to subject operators of push polls or phone banks to the same disclosure requirements as other types of political communication. It will not ban push polls or phone banking--it will simply create a level playing field for all types of political communication. Under this bill, any person conducting these types of calls would be required to disclose to each recipient of a call the identity of the organization paying for the call. In addition, the bill would require that campaigns and other organizations that conduct advocacy phone calls report to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, the number of households they have contacted and the script they used in making the calls. The bill would not interfere with legitimate polling, conducted either by candidates or independent organizations, as it would only apply to phone banks in which more than 1,500 households are contacted within the 25 days preceding a federal election.

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

Madam Speaker, 60 years ago, allied forces entered the scene of the greatest mass murder in history--the concentration camp known as Auschwitz. Auschwitz has become recognized around the world as a symbol of genocide, terror and brutality. The liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army became a turning point in our understanding of the world and of inhumanity. Auschwitz showed us the face of evil incarnate and to our horror, it was an ordinary face.

Auschwitz did not start out as an experiment in death. Established by the Nazis in 1940, it was initially a camp for individuals deemed problematic by the Third Reich--Polish dissidents and Soviet prisoners of war. Soon after its creation, the Germans decided to use prisoners as slave laborers for their large industrial complex.

Once Auschwitz became a work camp, the Germans found themselves faced with the question of what to do with prisoners who could not work. At first, they simply shot them. Eventually they began looking for ways to kill prisoners without unduly discomfitting the killers--ultimately discovering the effectiveness of crystallized prussic acid, a pesticide mass produced under the trade name Zyklon B. When the crystals dissolved in air, they created a lethal gas. The Germans first used this deadly gas to kill Soviet POWs.

In 1942, the Germans drew up plans for the so-called ``Final Solution,'' which contemplated the murder of every Jew under their control. Auschwitz, which had already proved itself to be effective at killing large numbers of people, was perfectly situated to carry out the deadly plan. It was located on major railroad lines and it was easy to move large numbers of people there. Auschwitz became a crucial part of the Germans' effort to eradicate an entire people.

The majority of the Jewish men, women and children deported to Auschwitz were sent to their deaths in the Birkenau gas chambers immediately after arrival. As Germany conquered new territory, the SS gathered and sent the Jewish populations to Auschwitz and other death camps. Meanwhile, other atrocities were also being committed at Auschwitz. In May 1943 Dr. Josef Mengele, an SS physician, and his colleagues began conducting experiments on thousands of human guinea pigs.

By January 1945 the SS knew that the Red Army was approaching Auschwitz. In an effort to eliminate evidence of the crimes they had committed, the SS blew up the gas chambers, crematoria, and other buildings, and burned documents. On January 18 and 19, 1945, more than 60,000 Auschwitz inmates deemed capable of walking were forced by the SS to march through freezing weather into German-occupied territory. Lacking proper food, clothing and medical attention, thousands died during the death march. Many were shot. Those who made it to the rail stations were put in open wagons and sent west to become slave laborers. Some prisoners, many of them too weak or ill to travel, were left behind. Those who remained behind in the camp were liberated by Red Army soldiers on January 27, 1945.

Perhaps the most eloquent survivor of Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel, commemorated the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the camps with these words, ``In this place of darkness and malediction we can but stand in awe and remember its stateless, faceless and nameless victims. Close your eyes and look: endless nocturnal processions are converging here, and here it is always night. Here heaven and earth are on fire. Close your eyes and listen. Listen to the silent screams of terrified mothers, the prayers of anguished old men and women. Listen to the tears of children, Jewish children, a beautiful little girl among them, with golden hair, whose vulnerable tenderness has never left me. Look and listen as they quietly walk towards dark flames so gigantic that the planet itself seemed in danger. All these men and women and children came from everywhere, a gathering of exiles drawn by death.''

From 1940 to 1945, the Nazis deported over a million Jews, almost 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Roma, 15,000 Soviet POWs, and over 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities to Auschwitz. The overwhelming majority of them died in the camp.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. May we forever remember those who perished there, and may their deaths remind us how our own humanity suffers when we serve as silent witnesses to genocide.

Bob Matsui was a dear friend. His long and distinguished public service on behalf of the people of California and all Americans was a tremendous benefit to his State and our Nation.

As a Member of Congress, he was a respected leader, an effective lawmaker, and a tireless leader of his party. With a major debate on Social Security looming, we will sorely

miss his unparalleled expertise and foresight on that issue.

Most of all--in that fight and in many to come--we will miss his compassion and his dedication to serving the most needy among us.

Throughout his career, Bob Matsui was a champion of the vulnerable, leading the fight for civil rights. He said that he was inspired to go to law school by Clarence Darrow and to go into politics by John F. Kennedy. And he never stopped advancing those ideals.

Imprisoned as a young child in the Japanese-American internment camps of World War II, he authored the landmark bill that provided restitution to Japanese Americans held in those camps and, more important, tendered an official apology on behalf of the government.

Never one to shirk the tough jobs, he worked over decades on the thankless but essential task of improving flood protection for the Sacramento region, and recently reached an historic agreement on that critical issue.

Bob Matsui was a thoughtful and prescient legislator. An early advocate of free trade, in the early 90s, he provided critical assistance to President Clinton in getting NAFTA through the House-- despite opposition from labor groups that traditionally support Democrats. In 2000, he played a key role in obtaining permanent normalized trade relations with China, again at Clinton's behest. And he was a strong backer of giving the President fast track trade authority. At the same time, he was increasingly concerned over how little was being done to help Americans who had lost jobs.

Even those who fought the hardest with Bob over policy issues admired his intelligence and dedication and enjoyed his humor and warmth. He was a truly kind person and we will all miss his friendship.

My thoughts and prayers are with Bob Matsui's family.

May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Lifetime Television on its 20th anniversary and honor not only the outstanding work of the network in raising awareness about the issues affecting women, but for their efforts to pass critical legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of women.

I have been fortunate to work with Lifetime Television to end violence against women and families by pushing Congress to pass landmark legislation that I introduced, ``The Debbie Smith Act,'' that will put rapists behind bars by reducing the number of unprocessed rape kits. In March 2002, Lifetime sponsored several events on Capitol Hill to educate Congress about the violence that many women face daily and what was being done to stop it. It was then that I introduced Debbie Smith, a courageous rape survivor whose assailant had been identified through the use of DNA technology, to Lifetime. This occasion marked the beginning of a collaborative effort to move ``The Debbie Smith Act'' through Congress and signed into law.

Lifetime initiated a petition drive, and 120,000 signatures were sent to Congress expressing outrage that rapists were walking the streets when the evidence that could put them behind bars was collecting dust. By holding numerous educational briefings and receptions over the course of 2\1/2\ years, Lifetime continued the momentum to pass this legislation. Through their relentless work, Lifetime was instrumental in ensuring that ``The Debbie Smith Act'' became law in October.

Lifetime also has committed itself to providing valuable information to its viewers about women's healthcare, childcare, voting and running for elected office, and women who are making the world a better place. The network was one of the earliest leaders of efforts to raise awareness of breast cancer and refuses to back down until this deadly disease is eradicated. Lifetime, along with more than 10 million of its viewers, also continue to urge Congress to pass critical legislation to end the disgraceful practice of drive-through mastectomies, when women are forced out of the hospital only hours after surgery. In addition, one of Lifetime's original movies, ``Video Voyeur: The Susan Wilson Story,'' helped to inspire recently passed legislation that will make video voyeurism a serious, punishable crime.

I believe that with its ability to reach millions of people everyday, Lifetime will continue to educate and enlighten. Although Lifetime's commitment is company-wide, I want to specifically acknowledge its outgoing president and CEO Carole Black and its executive vice president of public affairs Meredith Wagner, who initiated the network's advocacy efforts. Thanks to their passion and dedication, Lifetime truly has become an example of the power of the media to cause positive change, and I hope that others will follow its lead.

Once again, I commend Lifetime Television for its dedication to improve the lives of women and families, and I look forward to working with them again in the future. Lifetime will once again be bringing its campaign to Stop Violence Against Women to Washington in March 2005, and I hope all of my colleagues will get involved.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I had an opportunity to praise the work of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and of the ``leaders in Congress that has allowed the Congress to vote on and pass the Conference Report to S. 2845, which is the legislation that will enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. While it would be nearly impossible to thank and recognize everyone that played a part in its passing, I would like to recognize the hard work of two 9/11 Pentagon family members, Abraham Scott and Rosemary Dillard.

Over the last several months these two individuals have been a constant presence on the Hill fighting for the implementation of intelligence reform. During this time I have had a chance to get to know these two remarkable individuals and I would like to share with you a little bit about them.

Abraham Scott, lost his wife of 24 years, Janice Marie, who was working in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Everyday that Abe has traveled to the Hill, I have always been touched by the pictures of his family and his wife. He speaks fondly of his children and he speaks lovingly of his wife.

Rosemary Dillard lost her husband, Eddie A. Dillard, who was on flight 77 that struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Ms. Dillard, as a retired flight attendant manager for American Airlines also lost a crew of flight attendants that she managed.

I cannot imagine the grief and loss that these two individuals have had to endure, but I am honored to have had the opportunity to know them and work with them in fighting for the passage of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Both of them know that we still have work to do to ensure that our Nation will be safe from future terrorist attacks and I look forward to the opportunity to working with them again.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the Republican majority pushed through Congress a $388 billion omnibus spending bill that very few people had a chance to read.

The Weldon provision was slipped into this enormous bill which severely alters the state of reproductive healthcare in this country. It gags America's doctor's and it jeopardize's women's health.

Without education and without knowledge and information, women are being forced to make life-changing decisions about their reproductive health.

This is not only wrong, it's un-American. The Weldon provision is nothing but another attack on a woman's right to choose in an effort to dismantle Roe v. Wade. After all, why is it necessary?

Federal law already protects medical professionals who refuse to take abortion training.

Is this what American women can look forward to under the new Republican ``mandate?''

The rolling back of their fundamental rights, an elimination of their healthcare options, and an undermining of their representation in Congress.

I, for one, certainly hope not, but this action does not look good and should put us all on alert.

I urge my colleagues to remove the Weldon provision from the FY05 Omnibus spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the 18th Annual

Exceptional Merit in Media Awards (EMMAs) which were presented by the National Women's Political Caucus earlier this year. This prestigious honor is given for excellence in media coverage of women's issues.

The 2004 EMMA honorees include:

The Liz Claiborne Award for Outstanding Reporting on Violence Against Women: Marie Claire, Lesley Jane Seymour, Editor-in-Chief.

Magazine Story, Winner: ``Code of Dishonor'', Clara Bingham, Vanity Fair Magazine.

Television, Exceptional Feature Story: ``He Said, She Said'', Melissa Cornick, ABC News.

Magazine Story, Runner-up: ``Your Body is a Battle Ground'', Kimberly Sevcik, Self Magazine.

Television, Exceptional Documentary: ``Our Lifetime Commitment: Stop Violence Against Women'', Denise Young Farrell, Lifetime Television.

Magazine Story, Runner-up: ``Are You Ready to Really Understand Abortion'', Allison Brower, Glamour.

Radio Segment: ``Shoshone Sisters Fight for Land'', Susan Shepard, Living on Earth, NPR.

Television, Special Topics: ``Final Justice with Erin Brockovich, #315'', LMNO Productions, Larry Goldman, VP Corporate Communications.

Special, Print: ``Violently III'', Jennifer Wolff, Self Magazine.

Television, News Story: ``Women and the Media'', PBS to the Contrary Television, Cari Stein, VP Corporate Communications.

Newspaper, Exceptional Feature Story: ``The Complete Anita Hill'', Florence Graves, freelance writer, 1994 EMMAs winner, The Boston Globe.

I was thrilled to have been a part of this special event by paying tribute to journalists who write meaningful and groundbreaking articles about issues affecting women. I believe that they should be commended for their talents, and I look forward to reading more of their work in the future.

Mr. Speaker, last month Congress passed the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The version that passed the House included a provision that would allow Appropriations Chairmen access to IRS tax returns. Once this provision was noticed, the Senate passed a resolution to strip it and the House was forced to go back into a pro forma session to adopt the Senate language. Two years ago, outrage followed the passage of an omnibus bill that included indemnification language for vaccine makers against autism lawsuits.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4971, the Restoring Democracy to the United States Congress Act. This legislation sought to enact a series of reforms that I believe would have prevented this from happening. If the bill was law, among other things, it would have required the legislation to be online in a searchable form for a minimum of 24 hours before we voted on it.

As an opportunity for Members to clearly state that the current manner in which we often consider legislation is not good for the institution, I am introducing legislation that would require all legislation be available to the public on the Internet and in a searchable form for a minimum of 24 hours before a vote could be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership.

Right after 9/11, the Congress had never been more united and determined to work together in a bipartisan way to keep America safe from further attacks. We got a great deal done in a short period of time. It was a proud moment in this body's history. Unfortunately, it did not last long enough. But today, the last act of this session of Congress, passing this intelligence reform and anti-terrorism bill, will be a heartening reminder to the American people that the two parties can work together and live up to the ideal that was so often repeated after 9/11: united we stand.

Mr. Speaker, 9/11 made the Cold War politics of containment obsolete. We all knew we had to change and modernize our intelligence network to be more agile, more proactive, to connect the dots across the agencies in order to protect and anticipate attacks. That is the kind of network that our new intelligence director will be able to lead. This is a true anti-terrorism bill that will harden our borders, tighten our visa restrictions, and strengthen our first responders: air, cargo, and transport security.

The next Congress still needs to pass key recommendations to strengthen our security, but this is a big step forward. I want to thank the President, the minority leader, the Speaker and his Chief of Staff, Scott Palmer, for their dogged efforts to give this country this wonderful holiday gift.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for his willingness to find a middle ground, and I want to thank my colleagues in the House and Senate who played critical roles in this passage: the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Ultimately, however, this is not our moment. This moment belongs to the family members of the 9/11 victims, many of whom are with us tonight in this Chamber. For more than 3 years they fought to turn personal tragedy into public service. By sheer force of will they made today's results inevitable by persevering when it seemed impossible. They held vigils in the rain, they bowled over bureaucracies, they courageously channeled their pain. Without them, there would have been no 9/11 Commission and probably no major intelligence reform bill.

I saw a number of 9/11 families last night alone at a White House vigil, their loved ones claimed by al Qaeda. As I stood there with my husband, it drove home the fact that they did not do this for themselves, but to ensure that all of us will never lose loved ones to terrorism. I would like to recognize their ultimate act of service and to thank them, especially Carol Ashley, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Beverly Ecckert, Mary Fetchet, Monica Gabrielle, Bill Harvey, Mindy Kleinberg, Carie Lemack, Sally Regenhard, Lori Van Auken and Robin Wiener. Today, their words are much more important than mine.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record their personal statements, in their own words, in support of this legislation.

An Open Letter to Members of the 108th Congress on the 9/11 Bill

Conference Report

December 7, 2004.

Dear Members of Congress: You have at last reached

consensus on a bill that will implement the 9/11 Commission's

recommendations. A vote on the Conference Report appears

imminent. We believe this conference report accomplishes our

main goal, which was to fix our nation's broken intelligence

system.

The passage of these reforms marks a critical point in a

long, three-year journey. We started as a diverse group of 12

individuals representing a number of 9/11 family groups who

shared a common loss. Our goals was to make our country

safer. Although at times our resolve was sorely tested, the

12 of us have remained steadfast refusing to ever give up.

Having reached this critical junction, we want to

acknowledge the many individuals who have helped us. We thank

all of the Members of Congress who voted for the

establishment of an independent 9/11 Commission. We thank the

ten 9/11 Commissioners who acted in a truly bipartisan manner

and produced a report whose 41 recommendations became a

roadmap for today's Conference Report.

We would also like to thank the individuals who have made

today's votes possible. In particular, we want to acknowledge

the leadership of President Bush, Speaker Hastert, Leader

Pelosi, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle. We

would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Conference

Chairman, Pete Hoekstra as well as the other principal

conferees Susan Collins, Jane Harman and Joseph Lieberman.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the hard work of the 9/

11 Commission Caucus led by Congressman Christopher Shays and

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

While we thank you for your work on this historic

legislation, we must keep in mind that more work needs to be

done. One critical issue is reorganizing Congress so our

intelligence agencies will have the oversight required to

ensure it is doing its job. We look forward to working with

you in the 109th Congress, to help enact the remaining

recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, and to make

our country as safe as possible for this generation and

generations to come.

Signed,

Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25; Kristen

Breitweiser, wife of Ronald Breitweiser, 39; Patty

Casazza, wife of John F. Casazza, 38; Beverly Eckert,

wife of Sean Rooney; Mary Fetchet, mother of Bradley

James Fetchet, 24; Monica Gabrielle, wife of Richard

Gabrielle; Bill Harvey, husband of Sara Manley Harvey,

31; Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg, 39; Carie

Lemack, daughter of Judy Larocque; Sally Regenhard,

mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28; Lorie

Van Auken, wife of Kenneth Van Auken, 47; Robin Wiener,

sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33.

Mr. Speaker, while I rise in support of this conference report, I would like to go on record with a concern that the New York City Mayor's office has brought to my attention. Mr. Speaker it is my hope that we can work to make sure that New York City's concerns are addressed as we implement this legislation.

New York City had attempted to address concerns regarding vital statistics earlier this year in this bill but it appears that in conference some matters of importance to New York City have been dropped.

First of all, New York City maintains vital statistical data on its own much like Washington, DC and therefore there is a need to treat New York City and Washington, DC as States relative to minimum standards for birth certificates. While the bill calls for there being grants to States, for assistance in meeting federal standard allocation of grants, this program is estimated to cost in excess of $400 million nationwide, of which New York City needs--which would be dependent on many factors, including the costs of modifying legacy computer systems, converting birth and death records that may be decades old, and the number of records--will be more than $7 million. This funding need is not reflected in the bill which calls for these grants to be based on a proportion of the birth and death records created by the State. These number of records are only a small factor in the formula that needs to be developed and should not be the sole factor in funding allotments. The formula for such should be developed after consultation with State vital statistic offices.

Furthermore, the section Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards--Standards for Acceptance by Federal Agencies-- Minimum Standards will likely require the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE). However, the bill does not provide for consultation with State vital statistics offices, or for funding the vital statistics systems needed for EVVE.

Similarly, the section on Social Security Cards and Numbers: Security Enhancements requires independent verification of any birth record submitted by an individual to SSA for purposes other than enumeration at birth. However, it does not provide for systems or funding to vital statistics offices. And while this

section requires the Commissioner of Social Security to undertake improvements to the Enumeration At Birth (EAB) program. The Commissioner of Social Security should do this in consultation with State vital statistics offices as should the Commissioner of Social Security's study to determine the most efficient options for ensuring the integrity of the process for enumeration at birth.