Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The sole intent of this bill is to divert the responsibility of gun manufacturers in ensuring the safe distribution of firearms in our society. Passage of this legislation would cripple the public's ability to seek justice in instances of negligence by these manufacturers.

Why are we exempting the gun industry from liability provisions that we apply to other manufacturers, even the makers of toy guns?

It is in the timing of this bill that the true intent of the Majority becomes evident. This bill was conveniently taken off the schedule during the sniper shootings in the Washington metropolitan area last fall, but now been brought back just in time for the NRA's annual conference.

Every step must be taken to keep these deadly weapons out of criminal hands. We must look past the interests of lobbyists and look deeply at the interests of the American public. If gun manufacturers and dealers are involved with the illegal and irresponsible sales of firearms, then it is essential that those who violate the law are held responsible.

A study conducted by The Department of Justice revealed that 12.7 percent of students age 12 to 19 reported knowing a student who brought a firearm to school. This statistic speaks directly to the need for providing additional safeguards to keep firearms away from children.

We should not be taking up legislation that prevents gun manufacturers from being held accountable. Instead, we should be voting on legislation that will help to prevent gun violence from even occurring.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 165 and thank my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), for their work on this important resolution.

However, I do have some reservations. As Democratic cochair of the Hellenic Caucus, along with my Republican colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), we have been working with the U.N. and the State Department on the reunification of Cyprus, which has been divided since 1974. The peaceful, lasting and just settlement of Cyprus has been a priority of the United Nations and the caucus.

The Republic of Cyprus will sign the EU treaty in Athens on April 16. We had all hoped a united Cyprus would enter the European Union. Unfortunately, the latest round of talks ended without an agreement. According to the report of the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, released on April 7, and I would like to put his testimony into the record, ``In the case

of the failure of this latest effort, I believe that Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, bears prime responsibility.''

Despite my concerns and disappointment, I appreciate the comments of President Papadopoulos, who has stated that the Greek Cypriot side will ``continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the EU.''

I am pleased that this resolution addresses these issues and appreciate the work the subcommittee has done.

One area that concerns me about this amended resolution is that it has deleted references to the people of Cyprus and, instead, only refers to Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There are Armenians, Maronites and Latins in addition to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, living in Cyprus. I believe the new references that identify only Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is inaccurate and works to divide the people of Cyprus into two main groups. For this reason, the use of the term ``people of Cyprus'' is much more preferable and accurate, reflecting the unity of the country and the people.

Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for their work on this very important resolution. I am hopeful that there will be new initiatives and new opportunities to work toward solving the problem as all sides will benefit. I am hopeful that even between now and April 16 there is an opportunity for them to get back on board, and I am hopeful that Cyprus will go to the EU as a united country.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Bereuter) leadership. He has really worked to bring both sides together. It has been very helpful. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many others, and, of course, thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and subcommittee minority member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for their work on this important bill.

I rise in strong support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Program. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and a cosponsor of H.R. 735, the House companion, I am very pleased that the House is taking up this very important legislation today that is important to the postal service and important to the American consumer.

With the postal service facing $11 billion in debt over the next few years and the General Accounting Office listing the postal service on their high-risk list, S. 380 and its stabilizing effects on the postal service is very good news for our country.

S. 380 corrects the formula used to determine the amount of annual lump-sum payments the postal service makes to the Civil Service Retirement System. If current law remains unchanged, the postal service-required share of this Federal Government retirement fund will result in a very significant long-term overpayment of more than $70 billion.

S. 380 will credit the postal service for its past payments, which is only fair, to seed SRS, and change how contributions will be made in the future. The bottom line is that the postal service will get some very needed fiscal relief, a cash inflow of money, and the American people get a promise of stable postal rates until 2006. The American public and all postal customers will enjoy a 3-year rate freeze on the cost of postage because of this fix.

I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), along with others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and, of course, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the postal service and the very diverse coalition of postal, labor unions, management groups, business and industry and other postal consumers, all of whom support this legislation.

The mailing industry is tremendously important to the economy of our Nation. The United States Postal Service is the second largest civilian employer in the Nation, employing over 770,000 talented and dedicated workers, workers who lately have had to do their job under tremendous pressure with the threat of anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks.

The mail industry is 8 percent of our GNP, a $900 billion industry that includes not only the Postal Service, but also 9 million Americans in the private sector who work in this industry. I represent many businesses that rely greatly on the Postal Service, and this bill will not only benefit the Postal Service directly, but because this will stabilize the rates, and this is very important, because it will help struggling and ailing businesses like the magazine industry, which happens to be headquartered in the district that I represent. And they have seen many longtime popular magazines fail, like Mademoiselle, Mode, and Brill's Content shut down operations because of the tough economy and also because of the escalating postal rates. All USPS customers need the best service possible from the Postal Service, and certainly a healthy Postal Service is vital to a healthy economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is taking action today to help strengthen the Postal Service.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that would require a test census of Americans abroad in 2004. There are approximately 3 million to 6 million private American citizens living and working overseas, and many of them continue to vote and pay taxes in the United States. These citizens help increase exports of American goods, because they traditionally buy American, sell American, and create business opportunities for American companies and workers. Their role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating jobs in the United States, and extending U.S. influence around the globe is vital to the well-being of our Nation. From a test census, we will learn methods and ways to count Americans abroad accurately. The legislation's goal is to include, if possible, all of these missed citizens in the 2010 decennial census.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership, and I rise in support of the Ose- Maloney amendment, a compromise approach to deposit insurance coverage that holds standard account coverage at $100,000 while offering increased protection for retirees.

Mr. Chairman, as a whole, this is an outstanding bill. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 522, I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of provisions in the legislation. It is long past time to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds. Additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point cliff 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 credit for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment I cosponsored along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) last session. This is a critically important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced amendment in the legislation.

Despite these many positives, 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 all the Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Peter Fischer, OCC Comptroller John Hawke and OTS Director James Gilleran.

Proponents of increased coverage argue that it poses no new 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 unanimity of regulator opposition to increased coverage is an extremely powerful message.

Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe 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 a study by the Federal Reserve. The same Fed study put the average account balance at merely $6,000. Any way you look at it the increase in coverage will benefit very, 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 this point, I think we have to remember that behind the deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services at the close of the savings and loan crisis, I have been committed to protecting the safety and soundness of the financial service system. While the causes of the S&L failures were many, as my friend from Alabama pointed out, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayer dollars. No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or string of failures, by raising insurance coverage we increase the potential liability of the government. Additionally, raising 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 insured by the Federal Government.

Finally, I urge support for this amendment because it strikes a compromise. It holds the line on coverage for standard accounts while offering retirees additional insurance. I believe that there are many valid policy arguments for offering additional coverage and additional insurance for this special class of banking account. At its core this amendment represents a compromise. It allows Members the opportunity to support the concerns of the regulatory community on standard accounts while offering increased insurance on retirement accounts.

This is a good bill and I will support its passage. I simply think it would be much improved with the adoption of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for his leadership and I thank also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for crafting a fine underlying bill, along with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following testimony from our committee hearing:

Prepared Testimony of the Honorable Peter R. Fischer, Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, Department of the Treasury, 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,

February 26, 2003--Dirksen 538

Mr. Chairman, Senator Sarbanes, and Members of the

Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the

Administration's views on deposit insurance reform. I also

want to commend Chairman Powell and the FDIC staff for their

valuable contributions to the discussion of this important

issue.

The Administration strongly supports reforms to our deposit

insurance system that would, first, merge the bank and thrift

insurance funds, second, allow more flexibility in the

management of fund reserves while maintaining adequate

reserve levels and, third, ensure that all participating

institutions fairly share in the maintenance of FDIC

resources in accordance with the insurance fund's loss

exposure from each institution. The Administration strongly

opposes any increases in deposit insurance coverage limits.

Our current deposit insurance system managed by the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) serves to protect

insured depositors from exposure to bank losses and, as a

result, helps to promote public confidence in the U.S.

banking system. I am concerned today that our deposit

insurance system has structural weaknesses that, in the

absence of reform, could deepen over time. I want to

emphasize that there is no crisis in the FDIC; both of its

funds are strong, well managed, with adequate reserves. This

is the right time to act--when we do not face a crisis--and

the Administration supports legislation focused on the repair

of these structural weaknesses.

Increases in FDIC benefits, however, including any increase

in the level of insurance coverage, are not part of the

solution to these problems and should be avoided. When I

testified before this Committee last April, I argued that an

increase in deposit insurance coverage limits would serve no

sound public policy purpose. Nothing has occurred since then

to change that view. The Administration continues to oppose

higher coverage limit in any form. Indeed, we feel that the

entire issue of coverage limits regrettably diverts attention

from the important reforms that are needed.

merging the bank and thrift insurance funds

We support a merger of the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and

Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) as soon as

practicable. A larger, combined insurance fund would be

better able to diversify risks, and thus withstand losses,

than would either fund separately. Merging the funds while

the industry is strong and both funds are adequately

capitalized would not burden either BIF or SAIF members. A

merged fund would also end the possibility that similar

institutions could pay significantly different premiums for

the same product, as was the case in the recent past and

could occur again in the near future without this change. A

merger would also recognize changes in the industry. As a

result of mergers and consolidations, each fund now insures

deposits of both commercial banks and thrifts. Indeed,

commercial banks now account for 45 percent of all SAIF-

insured deposits.

Flexibility in the Management of FDIC Reserves

Current law generally requires each insurance fund to

maintain reserves equal to 1.25 percent of estimated insured

deposits, the ``designated reserve ratio.'' When the reserve

ratio falls below this threshold, the FDIC must charge either

a premium sufficient to restore the reserve ratio to 1.25

percent within one year, or a minimum of 23 basis points if

the reserve ratio would remain below 1.25 percent for a

longer period. Since the latter would be expected when the

banking system, and probably the economy as well, were under

stress, such a sharp increase in industry assessments could

have an undesirable pro-cyclical effect, further reducing

liquidity precisely when liquidity is needed. Were FDIC fund

contributions to come from resources that otherwise might be

part of capital, every dollar paid would mean a potential

reduction of 10 or 12 dollars in lending, or as much as $12

billion in reduced lending for a $1 billion FDIC

replenishment.

Reserves should be allowed to grow when conditions are

good. This would enable the fund to better absorb losses

under adverse conditions without sharp increases in premiums.

In order to achieve this objective and also to account for

changing risks to the insurance fund over time, we support

greater latitude for the FDIC to alter the designated reserve

ratio within statutorily prescribed upper and lower bounds.

Within these bounds, the FDIC should provide for public

notice and comment concerning any proposed change to the

designated reserve ratio. The FDIC should also have

discretion in determining how quickly the fund meets the

designated reserve ratio as long as the actual reserve ratio

is within these bounds. If the reserve ratio were to fall

below the lower bound, the FDIC should restore it to within

the statutory range promptly, over a reasonable but limited

timeframe. We would also support some reduction in the

prescribed minimum premium rate--currently 23 basis points--

that would be in effect if more than one year were required

to restore the fund's reserves.

Nevertheless, as we learned from the deposit insurance

experience of the 1980s, flexibility must be tempered by a

clear requirement for prudent and timely fund replenishment.

The statutory range for the designated reserve ratio should

strike an appropriate balance between the burden of pre-

funding future loses and the pro-cyclical costs of

replenishing the insurance fund in a downturn. A key benefit

to giving the FDIC greater flexibility in managing the

reserve ratio within statutorily prescribed bounds is the

ability to achieve low, stable premiums over time, adequate

to meet FDIC needs in bad times, with the least burden on

financial institutions and on the economy. We also believe

that with this reform, the possibility of recourse to

taxpayer resources is even further removed.

Full Risk-Based Shared Funding

Every day that they operate, banks and thrifts benefit from

their access to federal deposit insurance. For several years,

however, the FDIC has been allowed to obtain premiums for

deposit insurance from only a few insured institutions.

Currently, over 90 percent of banks and thrifts pay nothing

to the FDIC. This is an untenable formula for the long-term

stability of the FDIC.

Moreover, current law frustrates one of the most important

reforms enacted in the wake of the collapse of the Federal

Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the

depletion of FDIC reserves: the requirement for risk-based

premiums. When 90 percent of the industry pays no premiums,

there is little opportunity to do what any prudent insurer

would do: adjust premiums for risk. Nearly all banks are

treated the same, and lately they have been treated to free

service.

For example, today a bank can rapidly increase its insured

deposits without paying anything into the insurance fund. As

is now well known, some large financial companies have

greatly augmented their insured deposits in the past few

years by sweeping uninsured funds into their affiliated

depository institutions--without compensating the FDIC at

all. Other major financial companies might be expected to do

the same in the future. In addition, most of the over 1,100

banks and thrifts chartered after 1996 have never paid a

penny in deposit insurance premiums. Yet if insured deposit

growth by a relatively few institutions were to cause the

reserve ratio to decline below the designated reserve ratio,

all banks would be required to pay premiums to raise

reserves.

To rectify this ``free rider'' problem and ensure that

institutions appropriately compensate the FDIC commensurate

with their risk, Congress should remove the current

restrictions on FDIC premium-setting. In order to recognize

past payments to build up current reserves, we support the

proposal to apply temporary transition credits against future

premiums that would be distributed based on a measure of each

institution's contribution to the build-up of insurance fund

reserves in the early-to-mid 1990s. In addition to transition

credits, allowing the FDIC to provide assessment credits on

an on-going basis would permit the FDIC to collect payments

from institutions more closely in relation to their deposit

growth.

We strongly oppose rebates, which would drain the insurance

fund of cash. Over much of its history, the FDIC insurance

fund reserve ratio remained well above the current target,

only to drop into deficit conditions by the beginning of the

1990s. Therefore, it is vital that funds collected in good

times, and the earnings on those collections, be available

for times when they will be needed.

There are other important structural issues that need to be

addressed sooner than later. It would be appropriate to

evaluate whether there are changes to the National Credit

Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) that would be suitable in

light of the proposed reforms made of FDIC insurance so as to

avoid unintended disparities between the two programs.

Perhaps even more important is the need to address the long-

term funding of supervision by the National Credit Union

Administration, particularly in view of recent trends toward

conversions from federal to state charters and growing

consolidation of credit unions. Similarly, there are

structural problems in the funding of the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift

Supervision, the resolution of which should not be delayed.

Deposit Insurance Coverage Limits

The improvements to the deposit insurance system that I

have just outlined are vital to the system's long-term

health. Other proposals, however, would not contribute to the

strength of the taxpayer-backed deposit insurance system and

may actually weaken it.

Increasing the general coverage limit up front or through

indexation, or raising coverage limits for particular

categories of deposits, is unnecessary. Savers do not need an

increase in coverage limits and would receive no real

financial benefit. Unlike other government benefit programs,

there is no need for indexation of deposit insurance coverage

because savers can now obtain all the coverage that they

desire by using multiple banks and through other means.

Higher coverage limits would not predictably advantage any

particular size of banks, would increase all banks' insurance

premium costs, and would mean greater taxpayer exposure by

adding to the contingent liabilities of the government and

weakening market discipline. An increase in coverage limits

would reduce--not enhance--competition among banks in general

as the efficient and inefficient offer the same investment

risk to depositors; in fact, perversely, investors would be

drawn at no risk to the worst banks, which usually offer the

highest interest rates.

Higher Coverage Limits Not Sought by Savers

First of all, the clamor for raising coverage limits does

not come from savers. The evidence that current coverage

limits constitute a burden to savers is scant; there has been

little demand from depositors for higher maximum levels. The

recent consumer finance survey data released by the Federal

Reserve confirm what we found in the previous survey, namely

that raising the coverage limit would do little, if anything,

for most savers. Median family deposit balances are only

$4,000 for transaction account deposits and $15,000 for

certificates of deposit, far below the current $100,000

ceiling. The same holds true even when considering only older

Americans, a segment of the population with higher bank

account usage: median transaction account balances and

certificates of deposit total $8,000 and $20,000,

respectively, for those households headed by individuals

between the ages of 65 and 74.

Examining the Federal Reserve data for retirement accounts

shows present maximum deposit insurance coverage to be more

than adequate. The median balance across age groups held in

IRA/Keogh accounts at insured depository institutions is only

$15,000. For the 65 to 69 age group, median household IRA/

Keogh deposits total $30,000.

A small group of relatively affluent savers might find

greater convenience from increased maximum coverage levels.

But it is a tiny group. Only 3.4 percent of households with

bank accounts held any uninsured deposits, and the median

income of these households was more than double the median

income of all depositors in the survey.

Under current rules, these savers have plenty of options,

with the market place presenting new options for unlimited

deposit insurance coverage without changing federal coverage

limits. At little inconvenience, savers with substantial bank

deposits--including retirees and those with large bank

savings for retirement--may place deposits at any number of

banks to obtain as much FDIC coverage as desired. They may

also establish accounts within the same bank under different

legal capacities, qualifying for several multiples of current

maximum coverage limits. Firms are now developing programs

for exchanging depositor accounts that could offer seamless

means of providing unlimited coverage for depositors without

any change in current limits.

One of the fundamental rules of prudent retirement planning

is to diversify investment vehicles. Many individuals,

including those who are retired or planning for retirement,

feel comfortable putting substantial amounts into uninsured

mutual funds, money market accounts, and a variety of other

investment instruments. Just 21 percent of all IRA/Keogh

funds are in insured depository institutions. There is simply

no widespread consumer concern about existing coverage limits

that would justify extending taxpayer exposure by creating a

new government-insured retirement program under the FDIC.

Coverage Limits and Bank Competition

Banks, regardless of size, continue to have little trouble

attracting deposits under the existing coverage limits.

Federal Reserve data have shown that smaller banks have grown

more rapidly and experienced higher rates of growth in both

insured and uninsured deposits than have larger banks over

the past several years. After adjusting for the effects of

mergers, domestic assets of the largest 1,000 commercial

banks grew 5.5 percent per year on average from 1994 to 2002;

all other banks grew 13.8 percent per year on average. Nor

are smaller banks losing the competition for uninsured

deposits. Uninsured deposits of the top 1,000 banks grew 9.9

percent annually on average over this period, while such

deposits at smaller banks grew on average by 21.4 percent

annually.

Higher Coverage Limits for Municipal Funds Erode Discipline

Proposals for substantially higher levels of protection of

municipal deposits than of other classes of deposits would

exacerbate the inherent moral hazard problems of deposit

insurance. Rather than keep funds in local institutions,

state and municipal treasurers would have powerful incentives

to seek out not the safest institutions in which to place

taxpayer funds but rather those offering the highest interest

rates. Since these are usually riskier institutions, state

and municipal treasurers would be drawn into funding the more

trouble banks. Local, well run, healthy banks might have to

pay a premium in increased deposit rates to retain municipal

business. Today there are incentives for state and local

government treasurers to monitor risks taken with large

volumes of public sector deposits. Should the FDIC largely

protect these funds, an important source of credit judgment

on the lending and investment decisions of local banks would

be lost.

conclusion

In conclusion, I reaffirm the Administration's support for

the three-part general framework that I have outlined to

correct the structural flaws in the deposit insurance system.

I encourage Congress to pursue these improvements with a

steady focus on the important work that needs to be done. The

Administration does not support legislation that raises

deposit insurance coverage limits in any form, and we urge

that Congress avoid such an unneeded and counterproductive

diversion from real and necessary reform.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that will ensure that future Censuses truly reflect the demograph 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 thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act, which the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) introduced and which I am pleased to cosponsor. My friend and colleague from New York was a former small business owner, and she has been a great advocate for small businesses and has worked through several Congresses and several twists and turns on this legislation. I congratulate her on her hard work.

While other speakers have described the bill, I will simply add that this legislation builds on the important modernization of financial services that Congress has worked on in recent years. This legislation lifts the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts after a 2-year phase-in. During the phase-in, banks may increase sweeps to interest paying accounts to four intervals per month.

The prohibition on interest on both consumer and business accounts was enacted during the Great Depression. At the time, it was enacted to limit competitive pressures to pay higher interests that were feared would lead to bank failures. Today, given the global nature of financial services, interstate banking, and advances in technology, interest payment limits only distort competition and force businesses to seek out alternative interest-bearing opportunities.

The prohibition on paying interest on consumer checking accounts was repealed by Congress more than 20 years ago and has not increased concern about safety and soundness. Today, the House takes an important step forward in offering this same benefit to the business community.

Importantly, this legislation will disproportionately benefit small businesses. Small businesses must keep money in checking accounts to meet payrolls and pay expenses. They are less likely to have complex financial arrangements that allow them to get around interest restrictions. From restaurants in Astoria, Queens, to high-tech startups in Manhattan, this legislation will benefit small businesses across New York City, State, and the Nation.

The legislation also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on sterile reserves. These are reserves private banks hold at the Federal Reserve which the Fed can use as a tool of monetary policy. This provision is endorsed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his leadership on these issues.

Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation passed the House by a voice vote in two different forms last Congress, and it is my hope that this legislation is enacted this year and we continue the important work of modernizing financial services.

Mr. Speaker, with the Nation at war, our first thoughts today are with American servicemen and women . . . that they get home quickly and safely, and that Iraq is liberated with as little tragedy as possible.

This week the President asked Congress to authorize $75 billion mostly to cover war operations, with reports that he will request an additional $70 billion more to help Iraq rebuild. I am supporting these funds and understand the President's commitment to rebuild Iraq.

We are here today with a similar message about New York. Mr. President, New York's recovery is not yet complete. Billion dollar losses from the attacks remain unaddressed. Like our commitment to rebuild Iraq, we should also commit to New York's full recovery. To be sure, New York is grateful for the initial aid received.

Those funds--part of the $16 to $20 billion in initial federal aid-- helped tremendously with the material recovery efforts, costs for overtime to rescue workers, and additional costs of the emergency response.

But the wider economic impacts of 9/11 were not small ripples, they were crushing aftershocks.

Total costs from the disaster are estimated as high as $95 billion, with only about $40 billion in estimated insurance payments, and

under $20 billion in federal aid. That leaves a big gap of remaining needs.

The largest losses still unaddressed are direct tax revenue losses to New York City and State estimated at $8.8 billion for just 2 years.

And we are not alone in making this point . . . The non-partisan investigative branch of Congress--the General Accounting Office--has confirmed that this estimate from New York budget offices is reasonably approximate.

New York shared the pain of the national recession, but in all reality, the Nation never experienced the full magnitude of 9/11's economic impacts.

If some people think we're asking too much, just think what New York has already suffered: Fully Half of almost 200,000 jobs lost in the last two years can be traced to 9/11's impacts, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.

Largely because of the massive budget shortfalls from 9/11, the city has already cut more than $71 million in child care aid programs, and over $25 million for HIV prevention programs, infant mortality reduction programs, libraries, and other community needs.

$2.7 billion in service cuts are planned for 2003, with multiple firehouse closures and thousand person headcount reductions projected for police and fire departments in 2004.

Now, because New York is almost universally recognized as target #1 for future terrorist attempts, the Mayor and Police Commissioner have implemented Operation Atlas at a cost of $5 million per WEEK.

While Mayor Bloomberg asks the President for $900 million to help, he's slated to get only about $30 million.

New York's fighting the front lines of terrorism, but its hands are tied by limited federal support and billions lost from 9/11's economic impacts.

That's why we are announcing the introduction today the `Whatever It Takes' To Rebuild Act of 2003' named after the President's decisive pledge after 9/11 to do ``whatever it takes'' to help New York recover.

The bill would authorize the President to provide $8.8 billion to New York City and State for lost tax revenues or an amount that he determines is needed to fill the gap created by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It would also remove the $5 million cap on federal aid for lost tax revenues following major disasters. This arbitrary cap was added by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

Additionally, the bill makes State Governments eligible for this assistance.

And finally it authorizes grants for lost tax revenues following a future terrorist attack.

There may be no precedent for the scale of aid we're requesting, but there was no precedent for 9/11, or its vast economic impacts.

There is, however, plenty of precedent for federal assistance with lost tax revenues after other national disasters.

For instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands received $90 million dollars after Hurricane Hugo for losses to its revenue base. This may be smaller in scale than aid for 9/11, but so too were the economic impacts from that hurricane.

This is an issue vital to New York's future. We need the Governor to speak up in support of this bill, and to call on the President for the administration's support as well.

The Governor finally recognized that the Bush plan for homeland security funds would hurt New York, now we need him to stand up for New York on the issue of full recovery from 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership on this important bill that I am supporting. But I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and, on behalf of my colleagues and constituents, to join with them in mourning his passing today.

Senator Moynihan was one of our truly inspiring legislators. He was a scholar, a legislator, an ambassador, a cabinet officer, a Presidential adviser in four administrations, the only person in history to serve four consecutive administrations. He was a teacher, a writer, and one of the best Senators

ever to grace the halls of this institution.

He was unmatched in his ability to craft innovative solutions to society's most pressing problems, from welfare to Social Security, to transportation, to taxes. His legislative stamp is everywhere.

Known as, and I quote from the Almanac of American Politics, ``the Nation's best thinker among politicians since Lincoln, and its best politician among thinkers since Jefferson,'' Senator Moynihan moved people through the power of his ideas. He was a unique figure in public life, a man of pure intellect, who was unafraid of speaking inconvenient truths.

Senator Moynihan's life exemplified the American dream. He grew up in a slum known as Hell's Kitchen. Abandoned by his father, his mother became the sole supporter of the family during the Depression. Small wonder that Senator Moynihan grew up to be a strong voice on welfare issues. He recognized the danger of fostering a culture of dependency, while understanding the importance of maintaining a strong safety net.

He proved to be one of the most accurate prophets of our era. Time and time again he correctly predicted future consequences, even though many refused to believe him when his prediction ran counter to conventional wisdom. In the 1980s, he predicted the coming collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, he expressed concern about the tendency of our society to define deviancy down.

For New Yorkers, Senator Moynihan has and always will be one of our own homegrown heroes, our proud gift to the Nation. Despite his reputation for attention to the more scholarly pursuits, he authored 18 books, Senator Moynihan never forgot those of us who elected him.

He was a hero to landmark preservationists for his effort to preserve the Custom House and the Farley Post Office, the new train station on the Farley site, which he helped plan and which he helped to fund, but it does not yet have a name. I believe that it should be named for Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

When the Coast Guard left Governors Island, he persuaded President Clinton to agree to give the island to New York for $1, and it was this Congress that was able to make that pledge a reality. As ambassador to the United Nations, he denounced the resolution equating Zionism with racism. Seventeen years later, the U.N. reversed itself, revoking this shameful resolution.

Senator Moynihan was a prime mover behind ISTEA, which changed the way highway and transportation funds are distributed. He was widely credited with shifting transportation priorities and making it possible for us to invest in alternatives, like high-speed rail.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he was a guardian of Social Security; and he focused his attention on the importance of opening up government filings and reducing secrecy in government. I was proud to have worked with him on the passage of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure bill. After 50 years, Americans finally are beginning to get a glimpse of the things that our government knew.

Senator Moynihan was also a tireless worker on getting an accurate census for our country.

Senator Moynihan's passing will make this country a poorer place. I join my constituents and my colleagues in paying tribute to the great Senator from the Great State of New York.

Senator Moynihan was truly an American treasure. He was a great friend and mentor to me, and we will miss him greatly. My colleagues and I send to Elizabeth and their family our deep concern and condolences.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a biography of this remarkable man.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the senior United States Senator from New York. First elected in 1976, Senator Moynihan was re-elected in 1982, 1988, and 1994.

Senator Moynihan was the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance. He served on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. He also was a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.

A member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, Senator Moynihan was the only person in American history to serve in four successive administrations. He was U.S. Ambassador to India from 1973 to 1975 and U.S. Representative to the United Nations from 1975 to 1976. In February 1976 he represented the United States as President of the United Nations Security Council.

Senator Moynihan was born on March 17, 1927. He attended public and parochial schools in New York City and graduated from Benjamin Franklin High School in East Harlem. He went on to attend the City College of New York for one year before enlisting in the United States Navy. He served on active duty from 1944 to 1947. In 1966, he completed twenty years in the Naval Reserve and was retired. Senator Moynihan earned his bachelor's degree (cum laude) from Tufts University, studied at the London School of Economics as a Fulbright Scholar, and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

Senator Moynihan was a member of Averell Harriman's gubernatorial campaign staff in 1954 and then served on Gov. Harriman's staff in Albany until 1958. He was an alternate Kennedy delegate at the 1960 Democratic Convention. Beginning in 1961, he served in the U.S. Department of Labor as an assistant to the Secretary, and later as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and Research.

In 1966, Senator Moynihan became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been a Professor of Government at Harvard University, Assistant Professor of Government at Syracuse University, a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Wesleyan University, and has taught in the extension programs of Russell Sage College and the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Senator Moynihan is the recipient of 62 honorary degrees.

Senator Moynihan was the author or editor of 18 books. His most recent work is Secrecy: The American Experience, published in the fall of 1998, an expansion of the report by the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Senator Moynihan, as Chairman of the Commission, led the first comprehensive review in forty years of the Federal Government's system of classifying and declassifying information and granting clearances.

Since 1976 Senator Moynihan has published an analysis of the flow of funds between the Federal Government and New York State. In 1992 the analysis became a joint publication with the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard University, and includes all fifty states.

Senator Moynihan was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He was Chairman of the AAAS's section on Social, Economic and Political Science (1971-72) and a member of the Board of Directors (1972-73). He also served as a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee (1971-73). Senator Moynihan was Vice Chairman (1971-76) of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He served on the National Commission on Social Security Reform (1982-83) whose recommendations formed the basis of legislation to assure the system's fiscal stability.

He was the founding Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (1971-85) and served as Regent of the Smithsonian Institution, having been appointed in 1987 and again in 1995. In 1985, the Smithsonian awarded him its Joseph Henry Medal.

In 1965, Senator Moynihan received the Arthur S. Flemming Awards, which recognizes outstanding young Federal employees, for his work as ``an architect of the Nation's program to eradicate poverty.'' He has also received the International League of Human Rights Award (1975) and the John LaFarge Award for Interracial Justice (1980). In 1983, he was the first recipient of the American Political Science Association's Hubert H. Humphrey Award for ``notable public service by a political scientist.'' In 1984, Senator Moynihan received the State University of New York at Albany's Medallion of the University in recognition of his ``extraordinary public service and leadership in the field for education.'' In 1986, he received the Seal Medallion of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Britannica Medal for the Dissemination of Learning.

He has also received the Laetare Medal of the University of Notre Dame (1992), the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture from the American Institute of Architects (1992), and the Thomas Jefferson Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Arts or Humanities from the American Philosophical Society (1993). In 1994, he received the Gold Medal Award ``honoring services to humanity'' from the National Institute of Social Sciences.

In 1997, the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University awarded Senator Moynihan the Cartwright Prize. He was the 1998 recipient of the Heinz Award in Public Policy ``for having been a distinct and unique voice in the century--independent in his convictions, a scholar, teacher, statesman and politician, skilled in the art of the possible.''

Elizabeth Brennan Moynihan, his wife of 44 years, is an architectural historian with a special interest in 16th century Mughal architecture in India. She is the author of Paradise as a Garden: In Persia and Mughal India (1979) and numerous articles. Mrs. Moynihan is a former Chairman of the Board of the American Schools of Oriental Research. She serves as a member of the Indo-U.S. Subcommission on Education and Culture, and the visiting committee of the Freer Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian Institution. She is Vice Chair of the Board of the National Building Museum, and on the Trustees Council of the Preservation League of New York State.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), with whom we founded and co-chair the Hellenic Caucus here in Congress; and I rise with him today to celebrate the 182nd anniversary of Greece's declaration of independence from the Ottoman Empire.

As many of my colleagues may know, New York City is the home of the largest Hellenic population outside of Greece and Cyprus; and historic Queens, which I have the honor of representing, is often called Little Athens because of the large influence from Greece and Cyprus in that neighborhood.

I rise today to pay tribute along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to the Hellenic American community, not only in the 14th Congressional District but in the entire country, for their many contributions to America; and also I rise to honor the Federation of Hellenic Societies, which will lead the Greek Independence Day Parade in Manhattan, again in my district, that pays tribute to the Olympic spirit.

The grand marshal this year is Senator Schumer, who will be accompanied by the Federation president, Apostolos Tomopoulos, and officers Petros Galatoulas, Takis Vassos, Sotirios Vahaviolos, Demetrios Kachulis, Kleanthis Meimaroglou, Stylianos Manis, Elias Tsekerides, Anastasios Stasinos, George Georgopoulos, Nikos Alegkakis, Gregory Demetroulakos, Nikos Diamantides, Vasilios Petratos, Demetrius Kalamaras, George Kaloudis, Nikos Kouzilos, along with other major leaders from Astoria and Manhattan, Konstantis Lambrakis, Elena Maroulleti, Andreas Savva, John Zapantis, Bill Stathakoss who is the honorary president, and John Spyridakis and George Razis.

Democracy traces its earliest roots back to ancient Greece and the Greeks of 1821 fought for independence from Turkey; and when they fought, they truly drew inspiration in turn from the ideals and institutions of the fledgling United States as they waged their own struggle for independence.

In the year 2003, a vibrant Greek democracy serves once again as an inspiration to its neighbors and the free world.

The recent apprehension of one of the 19 members of the November 17 terror group provides reassurance that Greece deals sternly and effectively with terrorists. That is one reason that in Greece this is considered as the trial of all trials. Certainly, there is every reason to welcome the fact that the group responsible for killing many people, including four American officials and a British general, is finally being brought to justice.

This significant contribution to the prevention of terrorism and Greece's membership to the EU will provide Hellenes with even greater stature.

The Hellenic American community shares a love of freedom, liberty, and individual rights. The friendship between our two nations is based on mutual respect, a commitment to common goals, and a sharing of fundamental values. Ties of blood and kinship also unite us. The modern community of approximately 3 million Greek Americans has established a natural and enduring bridge between our two nations.

Today, we take special note of these citizens and thank them for their many contributions to our Nation's cultural, economic, and political heritage. In the coming year we look forward to the preparations for the 2004 Olympics, which will take place in their birthplace of Greece. We also look forward to progress in the reunification of Cyprus.

The EU council said, ``The EU strongly supports the continuation of the Secretary General's mission of good offices and of negotiations on the basis of his proposals.'' They continued that ``it urges all parties concerned to spare no effort toward a just, viable and functional settlement and, in particular, the Turkish-Cypriot leadership to reconsider its position.''

My desire is that this Greek Independence Day be the symbol of independence for all enslaved people. Zeto e eleftheria.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I come to the floor in opposition to this bankruptcy bill, H.R. 975.

Last year, I voted for this legislation when it came to the House floor when we had reached a deal with strong legislators on the other side of the aisle, Representative Hyde and Senator Hatch.

Unfortunately, the bill that we are voting on today lacks a critically important provision which would prevent perpetrators of abortion clinic violence from filing for bankruptcy and then avoid paying the fines and penalties assessed against them as a result of their illegal activity.

The Bankruptcy Code's central purpose is to provide a fresh start to the ``honest but unfortunate debtor.'' These debtors are not honest, unfortunate, innocent, or peaceful protestors: They owe fines because of their threats and acts of violence against doctors, clinic staff, and women.

The problem is widespread. Since 1977, there have been over 75,000 acts of violence and/or disruption at the Nation's clinics.

This includes: 7 murders; 17 attempted murders; 41 bombings; 165 arsons; 82 additional failed bombing and arson attempts; 370 physical invasions of personal and business properties; 942 acts of vandalism; 100 butyric acid attacks; 557 anthrax threats, of which 480 happened since September 11, 2001; 122 assaults; 343 death threats; and 3 kidnappings.

Bankruptcy reform is critically important, but without this provision, we will be sending a message to perpetrators of health clinic violence that they can continue to trample on the rights of American women and use violence to do so.

Without this provision, if someone injures or kills someone outside an abortion clinic, they can file for bankruptcy and avoid paying any judgements made against them.

In other words, they are not held financially responsible for violating the law. We must stop these people from violating the law and we must stop them from finding shelter in bankruptcy.

It is for this reason that I cannot vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time and for his leadership.

Today is a solemn day, but as Americans focus on our Armed Forces abroad, here at home we face an unprecedented moment in our budget history. Never before has Congress tried to pay for a war and at the same time pass a massive tax cut. This budget also compromises future economic stability because it is so demographically blind.

If we cannot plan to address the debt now, how are we going to keep our promises to the elderly when the baby-boom generation retires? The fiscal policies of the President enacted by the Republican Congress will impose a massive deficit burden on our children and our grandchildren.

In 2000 we had not only eliminated the deficit, President Bush inherited a surplus of over $230 billion a year, but now the projected deficit is over $300 billion for this year alone, and at the close of fiscal year 2002, the government debt stood at $6.2 trillion.

The President's own numbers show that were we to enact his programs as proposed, we would grow this debt by $2.1 trillion from 2002 to 2011, and that is before we begin to account for the war. And we know that former economic adviser to the President, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated the war would cost over $100 billion.

We have learned that we cannot have guns and butter without negatively affecting the economy, yet the Republican budget pushes ahead with a massive long-term tax cut before we finance the war.

At the same time, they grow the deficit, the Republican budget manages to cut vital programs, including health care, Medicare, Medicaid, housing, school lunches and veterans' benefits. The impact of these Federal cuts will be magnified by the States where budgets are unbalanced, forcing additional reductions in services and local tax increases.

The Republican budget does absolutely nothing to help the States. The Democratic budget does. This irresponsible budget has long-term consequences. I disagree with the administration. Deficits do matter. Over time, the debt will lower economic growth and increase interest rates. The effect will be a hidden tax increase on our constituents in the form of higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards and car loans.

I urge a no vote on the Republican budget and a yes vote on the responsible Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in honoring Congressman Ted Weiss and encouraging them to support H.R. 145 to name a federal building in his honor.

Ted Weiss was often referred to as the conscience of the House for his idealism, independence and unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life for all Americans.

He exemplified all the attributes of a great member of Congress--he championed the disadvantaged, stood up for his principles and used the oversight power of Congress to effect real improvement in health care and food safety.

By naming a building in his honor, we will be recognizing his legacy.

Congressman Weiss relished his position as a member of Congress, saying after his election that at last, he was ``where the clout is.''

Even his strongest critics were impressed by his appetite for hard work, his intellectual honesty and his zest for thorough research.

He was a staunch supporter of civil rights, criticizing the Reagan Administration for its handling of civil rights complaints against schools and colleges.

An unrepentant liberal, Congressman Weiss was best known for his advocacy on health care issues and food safety.

Millions of Americans benefitted from his dedication and keen desire to investigate problems presented to him.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources, Congress Weiss had jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services.

He used his position to advocate tougher testing of food additives, stricter government oversight of Federally financed scientific research and new regulations to allow AIDS medication to reach the marketplace quickly.

He was the first to hold Congressional hearings to seriously question the safety of breast implants.

Following the appearance of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the early 1980s, he became one of the most active members of Congress in seeking a strong federal response.

His committee was the first to hold hearings on AIDS in 1983.

Eventually he held more than 20 hearings to push the federal government to dedicate more funding and staff to combat the epidemic.

Congressman Ted Weiss brought real humanity and a sense of decency to public office.

He was a dedicated New Yorker who truly cared about the people he served.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I am hopeful that we will recognize the achievements of Congressman Ted Weiss by naming 290 Broadway in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by the failure of the recent talks between the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopolous and Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, which ended yesterday without an agreement due to the intransigence of Mr. Denktash.

We have observed years of intense negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities and were hopeful that this round would end in success. As you know, in 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus, and to this day continues to maintain an estimated 35,000 heavily armed troops in Cyprus. Nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots, who fell victim to a policy of ethnic cleansing, were forcibly evicted from their homes and became refugees in their own country.

Despite the hardships and trauma caused by the ongoing Turkish occupation, Cyprus has registered remarkable economic growth, and the people living in the Government-controlled areas enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living. The latest success is the European Council's invitation to Cyprus to become one of the ten new Member States of the European Union. Sadly, the people living in the occupied area continue to be mired in poverty. We had hoped that a united Cyrus would join EU.

Instead, we are faced with failure. Failure because Mr. Rauf Denktash has denied Turkish Cypriots the opportunity to determine their own future and to vote in a referendum which would have likely lead to a solution of the Cyprus problem.

Despite my concerns and disappointment, I appreciate the comments of President Papadopolus who has stated that the Greek Cypriot side will ``continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the EU.''

I urge the government of Turkey to take constructive steps for resolving the Cyprus problem. And I urge the Administration to continue with its efforts to persuade Turkey and the Turkish-Cypriot leader to work within the UN process to end the division of Cyprus.

At a time when tensions are rising around the world, we must seize every opportunity to achieve peace and stability.