Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her hard work on this bill, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and many others. As the mother of two young women, I urge my colleagues to pass this important bipartisan bill, to prevent future tragedies like the one that took the life of Hillory J. Farias. After an innocent evening at a teenage dance hall, Hillory died, never knowing what hit her, never knowing that someone had slipped a lethal dose of GHB into her Sprite. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about protecting children and young women. It is about regulating access to dangerous, unpredictable substances like GHB, which is known as a date-rape drug. GHB may not always be harmful. It may, indeed, have an appropriate medical use. But I say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, it should not be in the hands of partying teenagers, of preying sex offenders, of uninformed consumers. I believe that this drug belongs in the hands of professionals, of pharmacists, of health care providers who know the legitimate uses as well as the risks of GHB. Only then will young women and children be safe from the crime and tragic death to which GHB is an accomplice. I urge passage of this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the new millennium, the American family has taken a new shape. Our children are now reared not only by two working parents, sometimes by single parents, grandmothers, guardians. Many Americans say that finding safe, affordable child care is one of their most important concerns. We have not been able to finance a sufficient number of needed child care centers. Parents who can afford to pay for modest child care, many spend more on yearly quality child care tuition than on public college tuition. As one step in addressing this crisis, I have introduced bipartisan legislation with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) called Kiddie Mac. Kiddie Mac is designed to build a partnership between the Federal Government and private lending institutions to finance safe and affordable child care. Unless we act to pass Kiddie Mac, the new American family of the new millennium may collide head-on with the unmet needs for safe and affordable child care.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, and commend my friends the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and many others for their work in bringing this important issue to the floor today. This is an important bill in the fight to end the cycle of violence in America's homes. In my State of New York, my home State of New York, a child is reported abused or neglected every 2 minutes. Two thousand children die each year as a result of abuse or neglect. To make matters even worse, many of these young people will grow up to abuse their children and the cycle will continue. That is why this bill is so important. It will put needed resources in places to help those children who need help the most. It will stress prevention which is very, very important in breaking the cycle of violence. It will double the funding used to train child protective service workers and court-appointed special advocates. A very important component of this bill allows grant money to be used to purchase equipment, allowing abused children to testify in court through closed circuit television. This creates the least intimidating situation for children who are already under enormous pressure to tell their stories. We currently have a network of one-stop, child-friendly places where all services are housed under one roof. These Child Advocacy Centers perform life-saving work, but they need more money. According to Christine Crowder of the Child Advocacy Center in Manhattan, in the district that I represent, this bill helps children on a very basic level. It will provide a coordination of services, which is key to helping victims of child abuse. When a child abuse case is being assessed, it is important for the social workers and other advocates, police officers, to know about all protective orders, restraining orders, visitation orders, and guardianship orders. That is why this one-stop Child Advocacy Center is so important and the funding is so desperately needed. I congratulate all the Members of Congress who have been working on this legislation, and I congratulate them for focusing our efforts to prevent and combat child abuse.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I rise on the rule, and I am speaking in opposition to the outrageous underlying bill, although there are many positive initiatives, like increasing funding for security at our embassies abroad. There is zero funding for the important Wye agreement, the Middle East peace agreement. I must say that I applaud the conferees for their bipartisan agreement to restore funding for the United Nations Family Planning Assistance and for the bipartisan agreement to strip out any antichoice riders. These are two important policy initiatives that are precedent setting that will be part of the underlying bill that returns to this House. Mr. Speaker, next week, our world reaches 6 billion in population and the decisions that we make on UNFPA and on other policy decisions will determine whether this number quickly doubles or whether we move more slowly. Funding UNFPA will save lives, maternal health, child health, and I applaud the conferees for their bipartisan support of putting UNFPA in and taking Mexico City out.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion, and I applaud the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for offering it and for his successful efforts here in the House and then keeping the anti-environmental riders out of the House version of this bill. I would like to speak about one specific rider that would prohibit the past in the Senate, that would prohibit the Department of Interior from implementing new rules to require oil companies to pay market price royalties to the American taxpayer on oil they drill on publicly owned Federal lands. Now they keep two sets of books, one that they pay each other market price, but when it comes to paying the Nation's school teachers, Indian tribes, Land and Water Conservation Fund, they want to pay less. Interior says this costs the American public $66 million a year, and I say let us let the money that is rightfully due America's schoolchildren and the public school system, let us let them pay the market price and not hurt the schoolchildren and pay themselves more. It is unfair; it is wrong. Vote against the oil companies and for schoolchildren.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill and in support of the Democratic Lofgren substitute. It sounds reasonable to punish someone for harming a pregnant woman. There are many things that we could do to protect women from violence, but it is quite clear that that is not the intent of this bill at all. This bill is not about protecting women. It is about granting legal status to a fetus and undermining Roe v. Wade. I would like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 129th vote against choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of these votes in a choice report, which is available on my Web site or by contacting my office. Congress has acted again and again to eliminate a woman's right to choose procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction. And, unfortunately, in some cases they are succeeding. This time they found a brand new way of chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Violence against women is a very real problem, a problem that needs action. But this bill is not about protecting women from violence. This bill is about advancing the political agenda of the anti-choice movement. It is a tragedy when a pregnant woman is victimized and her pregnancy ends. No one could disagree with that. But why cannot my colleagues in this Congress focus on preventing women from being victimized in the first place? This bill, however, does not focus on the women victimized by violence. Instead, the legislation draws our attention away from the woman and focuses only on her pregnancy. I intend to vote for the Lofgren substitute, which will establish additional punishments for assaulting a pregnant woman while committing a crime. Granting legal status to a fetus is not necessary to accomplish this goal. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do something that would actually help pregnant women. If we want to help pregnant women, let us ensure direct access to OB-GYNs, let us fund the WIC program, let us support and strengthen the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or enact a folic acid campaign. If we want to help pregnant women, let us ensure comprehensive prenatal care for all pregnant women. If we want to help pregnant women, let us make sure every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy by supplying a full range of contraceptive options for women. We could also strengthen the day-care system. This does not help. And we can pass the Violence Against Women Act. Please vote no.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as cochair of the Women's Caucus, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), together we are hosting a bipartisan meeting with Queen Noor of Jordan, who is making her first official visit to Capitol Hill today, to bring awareness to the devastation caused by land mines around the globe. More than 60 countries are infested with land mines, 60 countries that have the potential of killing or maiming innocent civilians, claiming 26,000 new victims every year. Land mines cannot tell the difference between the footfall of a soldier or a child at play. Every 20 minutes someone steps on a land mine, killing or leaving them maimed. Fewer than 10 percent of the survivors have access to proper medical treatment. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts of Queen Noor and the Land Mine Survivors Network to bring awareness to this important issue and to provide a voice to those survivors who do not have the opportunity or ability to speak for themselves.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support increased investment in assistance to persons affected by land mines. As many of my colleagues are aware, Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan will be making her first official visit to Capitol Hill tomorrow in her capacity as International Patron of the Land Mine Survivors Network to bring awareness to the devastation caused by land mines around the world. More than 60 countries are infested with land mines and have the potential of killing or maiming innocent civilians, male and female, adult and child. Every 20 minutes, another life is devastated by a anti-personnel Land Mine. Designed to maximize suffering and terrorize populations, land mines are truly indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction in slow motion. They cannot tell the difference between the footfall of a soldier or a child at play. Although the cost of producing a Land Mine is as little as $3, the injuries suffered by innocent civilians cannot be cured with a price tag. More than 80 percent of Land Mine victims are civilians who must deal with the physical, psychological, and social ramifications of being prey to the damage of a Land Mine. The proliferation of mines is a global and man-made epidemic. It is also an American problem, having affected more than 100,000 Americans. One such American is Jerry White, co-founder of the Land Mine Survivors Network. While traveling as a college student in Israel, Jerry stepped on a Land Mine, lost his leg, and joined the ranks of the more than 300,000 and growing Land Mine survivors. Unlike Jerry, however, fewer than 10 percent of Land Mine victims have access to proper medical treatment and rehabilitation. Even fewer have the necessary support to effectively return to the social and economic mainstream. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts of Queen Noor, Jerry White, and the Land Mine Survivors Network to bring awareness to this important issue and to provide a voice to those survivors who do not have the opportunity or ability to speak for themselves. Let us walk into the next century, Mr. Speaker, with honor and hope for a Land Mine-free world. Let us work together to ensure that all countries offer the support and tools needed for persons injured by antipersonnel mines to reclaim their lives and become productive and contributing members of our society.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, while this Congress delays, while this Congress continues to look the other way, America's children are falling victim to gun violence at an alarming rate. The American people are demanding that this House take action to protect our young people from gun violence. That is why I am so proud to stand here with my colleagues in reading the rollcall of children who have been victims of gun violence since Columbine. The child safety locks could have prevented many of these accidental deaths. This Congress should pass this legislation and stop delaying, delaying, delaying. Richard Stanley, age 15, killed by gunfire on August 6, 1999, West Palm Beach, Florida; Erik Kraemer, age 17, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Turtle Lake, Wisconsin; Halley Finch and many more that I will place in the Record.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner-Obey amendment and in opposition to H.R. 1402. I do agree with many supporters of 1402 that we must do everything in our power to help small farmers who are suffering. The dairy industry is vitally important to my home State of New York, and I would be proud to support 1402 if it represented targeted relief that would help New York's small family dairy farms. But we should not preserve an antiquated milk pricing system that punishes consumers throughout New York, both upstate and downstate, while doing little to help the farmers who need the help most. Mr. Chairman, most of the debate today has focused on the impact of this legislation on farmers, but let us not forget how this legislation will affect consumers, including the families in my district and throughout this country. According to even the most conservative estimates, consumers will pay at least $200 million more each year under this bill. Now, I know some of my colleagues may say that the price increases brought about by this bill may be small, but small increases in price can make a big difference to a working family struggling to get by, or to a struggling mother trying to make ends meet, or to programs such as WIC, food stamps, and the school lunch programs which are impacted tremendously by the price of milk. Mr. Chairman, if we pass H.R. 1402, we are undoing USDA's very modest reforms and preserving a depression-era system that benefits no one. Over 300 Members of this body voted for the Freedom to Farm Bill that was based on the principle that we should have a free market for agriculture. But that bill exempted dairy and, instead, required USDA to implement the new milk marketing orders that we are here discussing today. This bill today threatens to undo even those modest reforms. Rather than preserving this outdated system, we should continue to move to a free market for milk that is fair to both farmers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehner-Obey amendment and to oppose 1402. It has been noted that this will result in an increase of 22 cents a gallon by the change in the differential. That is a lot of money to a lot of people, and that will increase the price of milk. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to continue speaking up for consumers across this country. We should not make it harder on consumers and help big, large farmers.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I applaud her for her consistent leadership on this issue. With approximately 13 young people dying each day since the Columbine massacre, almost 2,000 young people have been victims of gun violence, and yet as more and more children become statistics, this Congress continues to look the other way. Since the beginning of this debate, opponents of tough gun safety measures have relied on the strategy of delay, delay, delay. This motion to instruct is a signal to the conference committee that delay is no longer acceptable. It tells the conferees that we cannot wait until another child falls victim to gun violence before we act. This motion does three things. First, it says that the bill should ensure that no criminals are able to purchase guns at gun shows; second, it says that a conference report should not weaken current law; and third, it says that we should work to strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws. I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would oppose this motion to instruct. Please vote for the motion to instruct.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of bipartisan leadership at its best. And I want to commend Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Hoyer for their tireless work on this bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes strong language dealing with the Federal Election Commission. Not only does this bill give the FEC its full funding request, but it also includes three sensible provisions that will help the FEC operate more efficiently. Last night, I was proud to stand with my good friend and colleague from Maryland in supporting the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. By passing this bill today, we will help the FEC--the agency that is charged with enforcing our campaign finance laws--operate in a more efficient manner and better enforce the law. It is also worth noting that the FEC provisions in this bill are very similar to language that was included in the Thomas substitute debated last night. At that time, the gentleman from Maryland very wisely suggested that we should pass the Thomas substitute tomorrow. In this bill, he seems to be getting at least part of his wish. So I applaud the gentleman from Maryland, and the gentleman from Arizona for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. I am also happy to note that an expanded version of my Right to Breastfeed amendment was accepted by the Conference Committee. This landmark bill will ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her child on any federal property. For too long, new mothers have been shooed away from federal buildings, national parks, national museums, and federal agencies simply because they were feeding a child. Until now, they have had little recourse. Now, the law of the land will be clear: The federal government supports a woman's decision to breastfeed her child. I want to thank my colleagues Lucille Roybal-Allard, Christopher Shays, and Connie Morella, who worked closely with me on this bill. I am pleased to see that the conference committee retained contraceptive coverage for federal employees provision from last year. This is a victory for women of reproductive age, who routinely pay 68% more than men in out of pocket health care costs. This will also go a long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce abortions. I would also like to commend my good friend and colleague Connie Morella of Maryland, who has been a leader on child care issues, got a version of her bill, H.R. 206, included in this conference report. I was very pleased to support this provision allowing executive branch agencies to use their existing funds to help provide child care service for their employees. I congratulate her for that, and I applaud the conference committee for treating child care issues with such importance. This bill shows how much we can accomplish for the American people when we work together on a bipartisan basis. I congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Sweeney amendment. We have an opportunity today to pass real campaign finance reform, but instead we are wasting our time on a mean-spirited, petty, politically partisan charged amendment that has nothing to do with real campaign finance reform. The goal of this amendment is to target the First Lady by forcing her to pay for the full costs of her travel when she flies on government planes. Mrs. Clinton is already following the same FEC rules as all other candidates, rules that require her to reimburse the government for the fair value of the travel. If this amendment were to pass, the First Lady may be forced to abandon the security the Secret Service says she needs or face tremendous costs that no candidate could afford. We should not compromise her security for political, partisan purposes. The gentleman from New York's amendment would apply to all candidates, and I quote, other than a candidate who currently holds Federal office. So the gentleman from New York would exempt himself. He says that it is okay to have two sets of rules, one for the current officeholders, himself, and another one for everyone else. It is a double standard. It is a glaring loophole. I have a letter here from the chair of the Federal Election Commission which I would like to place in the Record at the appropriate time which states clearly that no provision of current law covers incumbent travel, that only FEC regulations apply. The gentleman from New York would like to undermine these regulations by passing a law that specifically exempts himself, other incumbents and creates an enormous loophole. If the gentleman from New York's amendment is such a good idea for Mrs. Clinton, then why do we not apply it to candidates who rely on State and city transportation and State and city security when they run for Federal office? Or better yet, why do we not apply it to the gentleman from New York and Members of this body who may fly on corporate or commercial planes but are not required to reimburse the company or the government for the full cost of the plane? We should not open up a huge loophole in election law by punishing challengers and giving the gentleman from New York and incumbents a free ride. Campaign finance reform is supposed to be about leveling the playing field, but here he is creating one standard for everyone else and Mrs. Clinton and a very different standard for incumbents. It is petty, it is partisan, it is just plain mean. I urge my colleagues to reject the Sweeney amendment. Federal Election Commission, Office of the Chairman, Washington, DC, May 14, 1991. Hon. Robert E. Wise, Jr., Chairman, Government Information, Justice and Agriculture Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: this responds to your April 25, 1991, letter requesting information concerning the application of Federal election law to the use of Government-owned aircraft for political purposes. Your letter cites 24 flights taken by the White House Chief of Staff on aircraft owned by the Federal government that are listed as ``political'' in nature. You state that the chief of Staff or a campaign or political organization reimbursed the Department of Defense for these flights in the amount of ``coach fare plus one dollar.'' You request a summary of the law pertaining to political travel on Government aircraft and also ask how the pertinent laws ``would apply to the Chief of Staff's travel as listed'' in the enclosure submitted with your letter. In addition, you are ``interested in how Federal election law applies to the President's use of military aircraft for political purposes,'' and whether the law applies differently when the aircraft is used for political purposes ``by other personnel.'' You further ask whether the ``rules change'' when Government aircraft is used ``in support'' of a Presidential candidate after he or she qualifies for Federal matching funds. In view of the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (``the Act''), it is not appropriate for me or the Commission to issue a ruling or opinion of an advisory nature in response to your inquiry. The advisory opinion procedure, as set forth in the Act, authorizes the Commission to give such an opinion only in response to the written request of any person who describes his or her own prospective or ongoing activity, not that of another person. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437f, 11 CFR 112.1(b). Any person who believes that someone else may have violated the Act may file a sworn complaint with the Commission presenting the alleged facts and related violations. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, 11 CFR 111.4. Notwithstanding the inability to give such official advice, we can respond to your request for general information as to those provisions of the Act and Commission regulations that govern campaign travel on Government-owned aircraft for the purpose of influencing Federal elections, since the Commission has no jurisdiction over State election law. First, the Act and the presidential public funding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 9001-9042) are silent with respect to any use of Government-owned aircraft by any person in connection with any election for Federal office. the 1979 amendments to the Act did make clear that the use of appropriated funds of the Federal government would not result in a ``contribution' to influence a Federal election because the Federal government is not a ``person''; only persons are deemed to have the capacity to make contributions under the Act. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 431(8)(A), 431(11). The legislative history further indicates that misuse of appropriated funds is a violation of Federal law and subject to enforcement by other agencies, not the Federal Election Commission. (report of Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, H. Rep. No. 96-422, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 6, 7, 11 (1979).) Several Commission regulations govern expenditures for campaign travel in connection with Federal elections and include provisions pertaining to campaign travel via Government-owned conveyance, which would include Government- owned aircraft. those cited herein are most pertinent in your inquiry and copies are enclosed for your reference. 11 CFR 106.3 pertains to allocation of campaign travel expenditures with respect to campaigns for Federal office,other than presidential candidates who receive Federal matching funds or grants for their campaign expenses. See, in particular, 11 CFR 106.3(e). 11 CFR 114.9(e) applies to the use of non-commercial corporate (or labor organization) aircraft for campaign travel in connection with a Federal election. It does not apply to the campaign use of aircraft owned by the Federal government. 11 CFR 9004.7 governs the allocation and payment of campaign travel expenditures by presidential and vice presidential candidates who accept Federal funding for their general election campaigns. See, in particular, 11 CFR 9004.7(b)(4) and (b)(5) with respect to use of Government- owned aircraft. 11 CFR 9034.7 governs the allocation and payment of campaign travel expenditures by a presidential candidate seeking nomination by a political party who has accepted Federal matching funds for his or her primary election campaign. See, in particular, 11 CFR 9034.7(b)(4) and (b)(5) regarding use of Government-owned aircraft. I hope you will find this letter and the enclosed materials helpful for purposes of your inquiry. If you have any other questions, please contact me or John Surina, our Staff Director. Sincerely yours, John Warren McGarry, Chairman for the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the leader of the Democratic party.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is so certain that current officeholders are already covered, I would ask him to cite the specific provisions of election law that applies. Just tell me where in the Federal Election Act, and I will not yield, the gentleman may talk on his own time. It says that current officeholders are blocked from using Government travel for political purposes, but the challengers are not. I have a letter from the Chair of the FEC which says that no provision of current law covers it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support this rule because it remains the only way that we will get real campaign finance reform on the floor for a vote. The underlying Shays- Meehan bill is strong, bipartisan legislation that deserves the support of every Member of this House. It is the only bill that shuts down the soft money system and reins in the phony issue ads; but in order to get to Shays-Meehan, this rules forces us to navigate a minefield of poison pills, killer amendments and substitutes introduced by many Members who have absolutely no intention of voting for the underlying bill. The most dangerous of these is the Thomas substitute. It would strengthen the FEC, a cause I have long championed. Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), we introduced an amendment that would incorporate the Thomas substitute as a perfecting amendment, as many of us did with the commission bill of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and others last year. But, Mr. Speaker, this was rejected. I urge my colleagues, vote for the rule, against all substitutes, all killer amendments, and for campaign finance reform.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill. I would first like to commend the authors of the bill, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for their extraordinary consistent leadership. They have worked selflessly along with a bipartisan coalition. The American people strongly believe that money should play less of a role in American politics, that candidates should be elected on the strength of their ideas and not the depths of their war chests. Campaign finance reform is not just about one issue. It is about every issue that Congress considers: gun safety, patients' bill of rights, minimum wage. And the American people know it. Shays-Meehan will significantly reduce the role of special interests and money in American politics. Let us show the American people that our Government is not for sale, that our elections are not auctions to the highest spender. Vote for Shays-Meehan and campaign finance reform.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment providing $305 million for 50,000 Section 8 housing vouchers for low- and moderate-income families. Just last year Congress recognized the critical need for housing by passing the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which authorized 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers. The Majority's appropriation provides zero funding for these vouchers--essentially turning our work of last year into an empty promise. In my district in New York City alone, the Majority's appropriation would support housing for 375 fewer lower-income families than in FY 1999. HUD recently reported that the wait for public housing has increased by 50 percent over the past 2\1/2\ years. Before we race ahead with budget-busting tax cuts, we must assist families living in substandard housing. Join me in supporting the Nadler amendment and build on our work of last year.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadley/Crowley/Shays amendment to restore HOPWA funding to its FY99 level--so that AIDS patients are not forced to choose between having a home and having their medication. In my district alone, 130 fewer homeless and people with AIDS will be served without the amendment. HOPWA allows communities to design local-based, cost-effective housing programs for people living with AIDS. It supports patients with rent and mortgage assistance and provides information on low-income housing opportunities. While basic housing is a necessity for everyone, it is even more critical for people living with AIDS. Many AIDS patients rely on complex medical regimens and have special dietary needs. Lack of a stable housing situation can greatly complicate their treatment. We must not forget that while medical science has made important advances in treating AIDS, a cure remains elusive. Projections of the number of new cases during FY00 indicate that seven additional jurisdictions may become eligible for HOPWA funding next year. Without the funds in the Nadler/Crowley/Shays amendment, jurisdictions already participating in the program will face even greater cuts in order to accommodate the newly eligible participants. I urge you to vote for this bipartisan amendment in support of the 75,000 people across the country, in 100 communities, who currently benefit from HOPWA.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hall amendment for the reasons he outlined. As the gentleman pointed out, it leaves alone the reforms in the bill. We all support the reforms of the United Nations. It would allow the U.S. to make a long overdue $244 million downpayment on the $1 billion that we already owe. We should pay our dues, our arrears, because it is in America's national interest. If we do not pay our dues without restrictions, without conditions, without riders that are totally unrelated, we could lose our vote in the U.N. General Assembly. I am very, very privileged to have the U.N. in my district, a body that serves America's interests every single day. It serves to end conflicts by negotiating peace agreements. It serves to prevent nuclear proliferation. It serves to make our children around the world have immunizations against deadly diseases. It serves to alleviate hunger, which the gentleman has been a great leader on in this body by providing relief to some of the world's most desperate areas. It is just plain good policy to pay what we owe, to strengthen our voice in this important body. And we should not link our dues, our arrears, to foreign policy riders that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue that is before us. I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the United States has become the deadbeat of the world in its failure to pay its U.N. dues and arrears. I rise in strong support of the Hall amendment, and would like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) to respond to the gentleman's presentation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows better than most people, the tight time frame that the Census Bureau is on, all that needs to be done, and it is very strictly marked down on a tight time frame.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, what bothers me is if the bill is vetoed, as the President has said he will do, then that will put in jeopardy the time frame of getting the money to the Census Bureau on time.