Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The Goode amendment repeals D.C. law 1-85, which prohibits D.C. residents from possessing a firearm. The Goode Amendment is paternalistic and is a slap in the face to the District of Columbia's right to self-governance. It strips away the District's comprehensive firearms and explosives regulation, adopted in 1976, by permitting the registration of firearms that are now prohibited. Violent crime in the District of Columbia is at a historic low, thanks to a combination of strong community policing, tough gun laws, and aggressive law enforcement and prosecution of those who violate the laws. D.C.'s homicide rate is the lowest it has been in over 10 years. Through aggressive gun prosecutions, assaults with a firearm in D.C. fell 41% from 1994-1998. The Goode amendment will seriously threaten public safety and undermine effective law enforcement in the District. The Goode amendment will make it legal to buy and sell all kinds of bomb-making materials in the District. The Goode amendment will make it much easier to obtain handguns in the District by allowing gun shops to open their doors for business. The only individuals who will benefit from this amendment are criminals in the District of Columbia. This is especially troubling when the D.C. Police Department reports that 84% of all homicides this year resulted from guns. There is no justification for this amendment. It will only put the lives of District residents--and especially children--at risk by tearing down the District's firearms and explosives laws and depriving District citizens of their ability to decide what kinds of firearms laws they want to have.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and for her leadership on this issue. I, too, support this amendment, but I rise to really express my disgust and disappointment that this body reversed gun safety in this country last night. Only in a Republican-controlled Congress, in the wake of tragedies like Littleton, Colorado, would they come to the floor and pass an amendment which makes it easier, makes it easier, for criminals to get their hands on guns. Under current law, licensed dealers must wait 3 business days for a Brady background check before giving a gun to a purchaser. But last night, last night, the majority voted to reduce this time to 24 hours. Well, guess who would have gotten a gun last year if this had been the law? I have a list here from the Department of Justice, and it talks about people who were stopped because of the Brady bill because of the background check. But if they had just the 24 hours, they would have gotten a gun. On February 6, 1999, a twice-convicted domestic violence batterer; on April 24, 1999, a person convicted of domestic assault and battery. It goes down. A person convicted of second degree murder, rape, crack cocaine. This is outrageous that when this country is experiencing youth violence in our schools, in our neighborhoods, children killing children, this body voted to turn back the clock and make it easier for people to get their hands on guns, felons. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Conyers substitute and to vote for this bill that turns back the clock and makes it easier for felons to get their hands on guns. It is outrageous and it is wrong.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment and in support of America's children and the victims of gun violence in America.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment and America's children and victims of gun violence.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute and commend an exceptional public school in New York City as it celebrates its 10th Anniversary. The New York City Laboratory School for Gifted Education is a prime example of public school education at its best. The school was founded in 1988 with the help of former Board of Education Chancellor Joseph Fernandez and the former District 2 Superintendent Anthony Alvarado. Since its inception, this school has continued to provide a nurturing, safe environment for gifted children, allowing them to the freedom to explore their interests and broaden their horizons while they are enrolled as students. The New York City Lab School strives to provide each child with an individualized and research-based curriculum where they are challenged to work both independently and collaboratively with their peers. The students also have the opportunity to take advantage of the school's excellent academic and extracurricular programs such as Spanish as a Foreign Language award winning Math and Chess Teams, and university partnerships with New York University and City College. State of the art facilities such as the new Media Center, libraries in every classroom and both IBM and Macintosh computers in every room all contribute to the vibrant and enriching environment of this school. All of these factors have proven successful with students. The New York City Lab School was the highest performer on the New York State Fourth grade English test. IN 1997 they were second in the city and in 1998 their scores had risen by 17%. Best of all might be the students, faculty and staff of the school itself. The children are not only gifted but they all possess a love of learning and are all curious and excited about the many experiences they have had and will have in the future at their school. The faculty are constantly challenged to take risks in the classroom and introduce students to new and interesting ways to respond to their ideas and questions. Faculty are also consistently questioning their own teaching styles and methods so that they may improve and continue to provide excellent interactions with the students. The leadership of the director, Ms. Elizabeth Marra Kasowitz, is an important guiding force behind this school. With her dedication and consistent role in the school, she is able to work alongside the entire school community to help continue the school's long standing reputation of excellence and dedication to a gifted education. Parents also play an important role in the community of the New York City Lab School. Parents of students contribute great amounts of time, energy and effort by volunteering in many ways. The entire community of the New York City Laboratory School for the Gifted is an example of how dedication, hard work and personalized relationships lead to positive and phenomenal results. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the entire community of the New York City Laboratory School.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional right, a right that is legal in the United States. You are depriving a woman who is defending her country, putting her life on the line to defend her country. You are taking away a right that men have. It is a right that she would have if she were in her own country. I think it is outrageous. It is wrong. Everyone should vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Only in a Republican Congress can a woman sign up to serve her country and have her rights denied in return. While a female soldier is busy defending her country overseas, her country in this Congress is working to take away her rights. If a male member of the armed services needs medical attention overseas, he receives the best. If a female member of the armed services needs a specific medical procedure, she is forced to either wait until she can travel to the United States or go to a foreign hospital, which may be unsanitary and dangerous. This bill will cost the American taxpayer nothing. Each woman will pick up her own tab. All she wants is the right to do it. Women have waited long enough to receive equal treatment in the military. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this amendment, and give these most deserving soldiers back what is rightfully theirs.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. This is an antichoice, an antiscience science amendment. It is not just about RU-486. It is about FDA's ability to test, research, and approve any drug based on sound scientific evidence which may have as a side effect a miscarriage. It could slow or stop research on a wide range of life-saving drugs. Science, not politics, should determine what drugs are approved. This is why the National Coalition for Cancer Research, the American Medical Assocation, the American Public Health Association, among others, oppose this amendment. Many drugs, including chemotherapy and antiulcer medication, have the side effects of inducing abortion. This is why pregnant women are advised against taking certain medications. One of the drugs targeted by this amendment, mefipristone, is not just a drug to make abortion safer. It has also shown to be useful in treating uterine fibrosis, endometriosis, glaucoma, and certain breast cancer tumors. Another drug targeted by this amendment, methotrexate, has also been used to treat a wide array of conditions including arthritis, lupus, and some forms of cancerous tumors. Blocking research and development of safe and effective drugs in the name of abortion politics is just plain wrong. Never before has Congress told the FDA to approve or disapprove of a particular drug. This vote is the 108th antichoice vote before this Congress since the new majority came to power. We should not be attempting to appeal or repeal a woman's right to choose procedure by procedure. This is antiscience, antichoice, antiwoman. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the modern gay rights movement. On Friday, June 27, 1969, the New York City Police Department raided and attempted to close the Stonewall Inn for the perceived crime of operating a dance bar that catered to homosexuals. Recall, that in 1969 New York it was illegal for men to dance with men, although, oddly, it was legal for women to dance with women. In New York City and almost everywhere, police raids on gay bars were routine. Usually, the patrons scurried, fearful of the repercussions of being caught in a gay bar. On this night, brave young men and women stood up to the police. They were no longer willing to accept daily harassment and the abridgement of their civil rights. The Police operated in their customary fashion, hurling a string of homophobic comments, as they evicted the bar patrons one by one. As patrons and onlookers gathered outside, the crowd grew. A parking meter was uprooted and used to barricade the door. Thirteen gay people were arrested that first night. This was the beginning of a number of nights of demonstrations that drew national attention. Moreover, it demonstrated to the gay community that there was an alternative to continued oppression. It also showed the community at large that gays were no longer willing to be silent in the face of injustice. After that night the movement to protect the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered gained strength and respectability. In the last thirty years, much has changed. Gay bars can be found in almost every town--from Anchorage, Alaska to Wheeling, West Virginia. More important, bookstores, hotlines and support groups have appeared in smaller communities to ease the isolation previously felt by many gays. The legacy of Stonewall can be seen in the lives of hundreds of thousands of men and women who are able to live their lives honestly and out of the closet. The Stonewall Revolution inspired men and women to ``come out'' and showed young gays and lesbians that they are not alone. Today, an openly gay person is no longer automatically disqualified from holding public office or other positions of trust. Now, numerous communities have embraced the post-Stonewall reality by passing laws specifically protecting against discrimination based on real or perceived sexual preference. I am proud to represent thousands of gay and lesbians, in Manhattan and Queens and I am proud of my close relationships with an support of the Stonewall Veterans Association, a group of those actually present on that fateful night. As we celebrate the anniversary of the modern gay rights movement, we recognize the expansion of freedom has not been uniform and much remains to be done. So we celebrate the important, but incomplete, steps toward equality for those previously banished to the closet. Much more remains to be done to eliminate irrational prejudice against those who are different. And we must recommit ourselves to the fight against all types of bigotry whether based on race, religion, national origin, sex or perceived sexual preference.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a group of remarkable students and educators. While we see many unfortunate examples of failing schools, it is refreshing to share good news about a public school that is succeeding. New York State public schools test all sixth-grade students for reading ability. Among all the schools in the State of New York, the sixth graders at P.S. 122 finished first in this reading test. Moreover, every sixth-grade student at P.S. 122 ranked at the highest level in reading. P.S. 122's outstanding accomplishment on this test is considered a citywide triumph because the students overcame competition from more affluent suburban schools. The school attributes this success to its emphasis on exposing children to art, music and theater. With a diverse student body, P.S. 122 is accomplishing an early goal of public education--preparing immigrants and their children with the necessary tools to build a new life in America. At P.S. 122, Hispanic students comprise almost a third of the student body with Asians making up additional 20%, and African Americans 10%. This School also serves numerous children from Italian, Greek, Indian, Native American, and other backgrounds. Forty percent of the students who succeeded so well in this standardized test began school with ``limited proficiency in English.'' Approximately 65% of the student at P.S. 122 meet the criterion for free school lunches. The educators at P.S. 122 are to be strongly commended for their success. I particularly want to recognize the principle of P.S. 122, Mary Kojes, whose leadership helped inspire the best from the students who took the test. This spirit no doubt inspired, and continues to inspire, her students to strive for excellence. Mary Kojes and the extraordinary teachers of P.S. 122 have provided that New York City School students can reach the highest levels of achievement when they are properly prepared. The Students of P.S. 122 have also benefited from the support of the School District 30 Superintendent, Dr. Angelo Gimondo and his staff. The real heroes of this story are the students of P.S. 122. This success demonstrates that hard work has clear and definite rewards. I asks my colleagues to join me in commending all those associated with P.S. 122.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats were accused of trying to place politics in the 2000 Census. A Dear Colleague letter was sent out which implied that the Democratic Party, organized labor, and the Census Bureau were involved in a conspiracy to somehow undermine Republicans through the partnership programs being organized to support the 2000 Census. This claim would be laughable if it were not so destructive. The decennial Census is a national civic ritual. In order to be successful, partnerships with literally thousands of organizations must be established. The Census Bureau is working hard to do that, regardless of the political leanings of any group. From Fortune 500 companies to the AARP to the NAACP to the National League of Cities, organizational support for the largest national peacetime mobilization in our Nation's history is essential to the success of the 2000 Census. The claim that it is Democrats who are politicizing the Census is also ironic, coming as it does almost 2 years to the day after the Republican memo which began the blatant politics in the Census. So I rise today first to set the record straight and share with the Members some of the history of the Republican attempts to place politics in the Census, but also to commend some recent moves by the Speaker which indicate that a more bipartisan spirit may be prevailing over this issue. On May 20, 1997, 2 years ago, the GOP sent a memo to Republican State chairs. In it, the Chair of the Republican National Committee said that the 2000 Census was, and I quote, ``an issue of unusual importance to the future of the Republican Party,'' and that at stake is ``our GOP majority in the House.'' In that memo was nothing about the importance of counting all Americans, regardless of race, age, or income; nothing about the impact of the Census on the lives of real people: about how State and local governments use Census information to plan schools and highways, about how the Federal government uses it to distribute funds for health care and other programs; and nothing about how businesses use it in making their economic and marketing plans. Instead, we find only cynical, partisan rhetoric about how to make sure the 2000 Census benefits Republicans. That was just the beginning. In June of 1997 Republicans tried to ban statistical methods for the Census on the disaster relief bill for the flood victims in the Midwest. Then in September of 1997 the majority put language in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill to ban the use of statistical methods. They tried again in 1998 to kill the use of statistical methods and failed. Then they turned to the courts. In January they lost that battle, too, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Census Bureau could not use modern scientific methods for apportionment, but they are required to use it for everything else, if feasible. The majority has done everything it can to prevent the most accurate Census possible in 2000. They have recently begun throwing up legislative obstacles to an accurate census here in the House and have also begun a campaign at the State level to prevent the use of accurate numbers. The 1990 census had an error rate of over 10 percent. There were 8.4 million missed and 4.4 million people that were counted twice. The 1990 census missed one in 10 African-American males, one in 20 Latinos, one in eight American Indians on reservations, and one in 16 rural non-Hispanic whites. Up until just recently, the sole focus of the majority's agenda has been to make sure that these people are left out of the 2000 census. But there are signs of hope. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I think the Republican leadership may be coming to its senses. They have finally agreed with us on one census problem and will not shut down the government this June 15 as they originally planned. The emergency supplemental appropriation which passed last night contained a provision eliminating that artificial deadline. It also included almost $45 million in additional money the Census Bureau will need to conduct the census using old methods. That, too, is a hopeful sign. I welcome these signals of a new spirit of bipartisanship on census issues. Let me just add that I hope it continues through the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process, as we are about to begin it. Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats were accused of trying to politicize the 2000 Census. A Dear Colleague letter was sent out which implied that the Democratic party, organized labor, and the Census Bureau were involved in a conspiracy to somehow undermine Republicans through the Partnership programs being organized to support the 2000 Census. This claim would be laughable if it weren't so destructive. The Decennial Census is a national civic ritual. In order to be successful, partnerships with literally thousands of organizations must be established, and the Census Bureau is working hard to do that-- regardless of the political leanings of any group. The Decennial Census is a national civic ritual. In order to be successful, partnerships with literally thousands of organizations must be established, and the Census Bureau is working hard to do that-- regardless of the political leanings of any group. From Fortune 500 companies, to the AARP, to the NAACP to the National League of Cities--organizational support for the largest national peace time mobilization in our nation's history is essential to the success of the 2000 Census. The claim that it is Democrats who are politicizing the census is also ironic, coming as it does almost two years to the day after the Republican memo which began the blatant politicization of the Census. And so I rise today first to set the record straight and share with you some of the history of the Republican attempts to politicize the Census, but also to commend some recent moves by the Speaker which indicate that a more bipartisan spirit may be prevailing over this issue. On May 20th 1997, two years ago, the GOP began their blatant attempts to politicize the 2000 Census with a memo to Republican State Chairs. In it, the Chair of the Republican National Committee said that the 2000 Census was ``an issue of unusual importance to the future of the Republican Party,'' and that ``At stake is our GOP majority in the House. . . .'' In that memo was nothing about the importance of counting all Americans, regardless of race, or age, or income. Nothing about impact of the census on the lives of real people--about how state and local governments use census information to plan schools and highways, about how the federal government uses it to distribute funds for health care and other programs, and nothing about how businesses use it in making their economic and marketing plans. Instead you find only cynical, partisan rhetoric about how to make sure the 2000 Census benefits Republicans. That was just the beginning. In June of 1997, Republicans tried to ban statistical methods for the Census on a disaster relief bill for the flood victims in the Midwest. Then in September of 1997 the majority put language in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to ban the use of statistical methods. They tried again in 1998 to kill the use of statistical methods and failed. Then they turned to the courts. In January, they lost that battle too when the Supreme Court ruled that the Census Bureau could not use statistical methods for apportionment, but that they are required to use it for everything else, if feasible. The majority has done everything it can to prevent the most accurate census possible in 2000. They have recently begun throwing up legislative obstacles to an accurate census here in the House, and have also begun a campaign at the state level to prevent the use of accurate numbers. The 1990 census had an error rate of over 10 percent. There were 8.4 million people missed, and 4.4 million people counted twice. The 1990 census missed 1 in 10 African American males; 1 in 20 Latinos; 1 in 8 American Indians on reservations; and 1 in 16 rural non-Hispanic Whites. Up until just recently, the sole focus of the majority's agenda has been to make sure that these people are left out of the 2000 Census as well. But there are signs of hope. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I think the Republican leadership may be coming to its senses. They have finally agreed with us on one census problem and will not shut down the government this June 15th as they originally planned. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriation which passed last night contained a provision eliminating that artificial deadline. It also included $45 million in additional money the Census Bureau will need to conduct the census using old methods. That too is a hopeful sign. I welcome these signals of a new spirit of bipartisanship on Census issues. Let me just add that I hope it continues through the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process we are about to begin. We also need to realize that conducting the Census using the old methods that Republicans have insisted upon will cost a lot of money-- as much as $2 billion more than originally planned. I urge Republicans and Democrats alike to support full funding for the 2000 Census. There is one clear and simple issue here--will the next census count everyone, or will it repeat the mistakes of 1990 leaving millions of people unrepresented and unfairly left out. I call upon the Republican Party to build upon its recent gestures and allow the Census Bureau to conduct the most accurate census possible. The first census of the 21st century must be as accurate and complete as we can make it. The Constitution of the United States and the American people demand no less.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to The Church of the Holy Trinity, an Episcopal Church located in my district, as it celebrates 100 years of longstanding dedication to the community. Well known for its expansive community outreach and excellent music, dance, and theater programs, Holy Trinity will celebrate this tradition with a year long Centennial Celebration which culminates with a weekend celebration on Friday, May 7, 1999, to Monday, May 9, 1999. There will be many musical performers at the Centennial Procession, including: the New York Boy's choir, African Drummers, and The Holy Trinity Choir, to name a few, Holy Trinity's annual May Fair, benefiting the Church's outreach programs will also be held over the Centennial Weekend. The festivities begin on Friday, with a cocktail reception and silent auction in the Church's auditorium. On Saturday the fair will fill the streets with an atmosphere reminiscent of an English Country Fair. Designed to appeal to families, the event will feature circus street performers and Morris Dancers joining with live music from the French Cookin' Blues Band. On Sunday, former rectors Clark Oler and Reid Issac, former clergy assistants and parish staff, and past and present parishioners will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the Consecration of the church. The sermon will be given by The Holy Trinity's Rector, The Reverend Herbert G. Draesel, Jr.; The Right Reverend Mark Sean Sisk, Bishop Coadjutor of New York will celebrate a Chorale Eucharist. Special guests will include Father Elias Tsabang, Rector of St. Andrews Church in Klerksdorp, South Africa, Holy Trinity's Companion Church. The Centennial Procession will begin with a special peel of the Carillon Bells, followed by a Trooping of the Color, the New York Boy's Choir, the Holy Trinity Vestry, African Drummers and the Holy Trinity Choir and Clergy. After the service, a time capsule will be buried in the Church's Court Yard. In addition to this celebration, the church will also have a Centennial Exhibit that offers a retrospective of the Church and its community over the past 100 years. The exhibit was prepared by and will be on display at the Republic National Bank. After its close, the exhibit will then become a permanent exhibit in Holy Trinity's St. Christopher House. The Holy Trinity Neighborhood Center (HTNC) addresses the problems of the hungry and the homeless, the elderly and children. Together HTNC's programs serve nearly 2000 people annually. The Church has had a long standing tradition of serving its community and hopes to continue in the future. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleagues to rise in tribute to The Church of the Holy Trinity. It truly represents the best of community spirit and values.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to salute a resident of New York who currently serves our country as a White House Fellow--Alexander Friedman. Mr. Friedman is one of just 17 individuals nationwide to receive the White House Fellowship this year. Established in 1965, the fellowship allows outstanding citizens to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime experience by working hand-in-hand with leaders in government. Applicants are chosen based on demonstration of excellence in community service, academic achievement, leadership and professional experience. It is the nation's most prestigious fellowship for public service and leadership development. Alexander Friedman co-founded Adventa.com, an Internet firm that provides business-to-business marketing information. He also founded Accelerated Clinical, a biotechnology service company dedicated to accelerating the clinical trial process for biotechnology firms. He earned his BA in politics from Princeton University and a JD/MBA from Columbia University. Mr. Friedman is also a founder of the 21st Century Roundtable, his generation's first civic venture-capital non-profit group. The organization pairs young leaders of non-profits with young professionals who can provide advice, services and financing. He has maintained his commitment to civic duties by founding Climb for the Cure, a national student effort that raised $1 million for AIDS research through a climb of Alaska's Mt. McKinley, and also by serving as a small-claims court and family mediator in Harlem and the South Bronx. His tireless efforts on behalf of the people of New York have earned him the honor of becoming a recipient of such a competitive fellowship. As a White House Fellow, Mr. Friedman has been assigned to the Department of Defense. In this capacity, he serves as acting policy coordinator for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Office in the weapons protection, security and accounting effort, which is charged with protecting nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union. He also analyzes and organizes the Department's and U.S. government's inter- agency assets to best respond to threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. Further, Mr. Friedman created a prototype for the first Military-Business Leadership Fellowship and undertook a Marine Corps- wide analysis of organizational mission and implementation procedures. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Alexander Friedman on the floor of the House of Representatives for his accomplishments and for being chosen to participate in the White House Fellowship Program. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Alexander Friedman many more years of success.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Kiwanis Club of Astoria/Long Island City and its honorees for this year: Roseanne and Tom Alafogiannis and Theresa and Jack Brucculeri. The Kiwanis Club of Astoria/Long Island City was established 11 years ago with a primary emphasis on the community's youth. The Club's motto is ``Children Priority I.'' This organization not only says it cares about children, it proves it. The Club's projects include: college scholarships for high school seniors; an anti-graffiti program; support for the ``Bring up Grades'' program in the local elementary schools; sponsorship of the ``Safe Haven'' program for children who get lost or need assistance on the street; Thanksgiving turkey donations for the needy; and support of local groups such as Goliard Concerts and the Queens Autistic Children's Society. On May 7, 1999, at its second annual dinner dance, the Kiwanis Club of Astoria/Long Island City will honor two couples who exemplify the heart and soul of the Kiwanis organization: Roseanne and Thom Alafogiannis and Theresa and Jack Brucculeri. Thom Alafogiannis was born in Greece and followed his dream by immigrating to the United States. Thirty-five years ago he moved to Astoria, Queens, where he founded Alafogiannis Plumbing and Heating. He is also the president of the Greek American Homeowners Association and a member of the Board of Directors of the AHEPA (America Hellenic Educational Progressive Association) Hermes Chapter. Roseanne and Tom has been married for 30 years and have four children: Paul, Jennie, Joe and Billy. Roseanne is the corresponding secretary of the Greek American Homeowners Association and a vital community worker. Both Tom and Roseanne are active in other groups and fraternal organizations in Astoria. Jack Brucculeri came to Astoria at the age of eight from Italy and has lived there since. Theresa moved to Astoria 24 years ago. They have two daughters. Jack, an entrepreneur and businessman, owns the JICC Industries Construction Company, the Pizza Palace and Portofino Restaurant. Along with Rocco Sacramore, he also owns the Trattoria L'Incontro in Astoria. Jack has been a member of the Astoria Kiwanis Club since 1982 and has served as president of the Club. He is a member of the Italian American Club, the Forum Club, and Ditmars Restoration. Theresa has been a member of the Kiwanis since 1988 and she also serves as a Board of Directors member of the Ronald McDonald House. Both are also active in other groups and fraternal organizations. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleagues to rise in tribute to this outstanding organization and their honorees. They truly represent the best of community spirit and values.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the remarks of Mr. Benjamin Meed who recently gave an exceptionally moving speech about Yom Hashoah, The Days of Remembrance, at the United States Capitol. Mr. Meed is Chairman of both The Days of Remembrance Committee, United States Holocaust Memorial Council and the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance Organization (WAGRO). He is also the President of The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Mr. Meed is a champion of humanitarian causes around the world. Remarks by Benjamin Meed, Chairman, Days of Remembrance Committee, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the Lenox Hill Democratic Club. This month, the Lenox Hill Club celebrates 44 years of service to the community. Founded as part of the reform movement in Democratic politics, the Lenox Hill Club has developed a reputation for championing progressive causes and candidates. The Lenox Hill Democratic Club is composed of a concerned group of citizens eager to assist their neighbors. For the tenant, the elderly, or the women facing discrimination, the Lenox Hill Club is a place to turn for help. In addition to working on behalf of the community, the members of the Lenox Hill Club have helped ensure the election of numerous progressive leaders. Located in the ``silk-stocking district'' on the East side of Manhattan, the Lenox Hill Club has been a source of strength for many of the most prominent leaders of our era, including Ed Koch, Mario Cuomo and Jimmy Carter. Since its founding, the Lenox Hill Club has been dedicated to reforming the political process and expanding citizen participation. For more than forty years, the Lenox Hill Club has championed education, the environment, civil rights, world peace and many other causes. Through their efforts to assist individuals, the Lenox Hill Club has improved countless lives. Through their help in electing progressive leaders, Lenox Hill has helped transform the political landscape of our city, state and nation. This is indeed an admirable testament to the valuable contributions of the Lenox Hill Club.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss funding for the 2000 census, a constitutionally mandated activity that will be the largest peacetime mobilization ever undertaken by this country. Mr. Speaker, funding for the Census Bureau will cease on June 15 unless Congress acts to change current law. Let me say that I welcome the Republican leadership's recognition of the need to eliminate that funding deadline and agree with it entirely. Republicans and Democrats disagree on the best way to conduct the 2000 census, but I think we can all agree on one thing, we should not shut down the government in little more than 4 weeks over this disagreement. The Republican leadership has hinted that it may be interested in a truce on the census. Let us start by doing something we all agree on. Elimination of the June 15 deadline can easily be inserted in the supplemental appropriation measure this House will consider shortly. I urge all Members of this body, both Republican and Democratic, to support such a measure.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the Fire Administration Authorization Act contains an important provision which closes the loophole specific to New York City, the area that I represent. In 1993, a provision was slipped into a technical amendments bill which exempted New York City from the national requirement that all multi-family housing built using Federal funds must have fire sprinklers installed. This loophole allowed Federally funded multi- family housing only in New York City to be exempted from this requirement if the structure had ``an equivalent level of safety.'' Yet it did not define what ``an equivalent level of safety'' was. And, as we have learned, there is absolutely no substitute to sprinklers when it comes to limiting fires and saving lives. After a terrible string of fires in New York City apartment buildings, the City Council this year passed a very strict fire safety law which made sprinklers mandatory in multi-family housing. But with this loophole in place, if a developer receives any Federal funding, they can apply to be exempt from this fire safety requirement. I introduced a stand-alone bill, H.R. 1126, to close this loophole; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), an original cosponsor, added it as an amendment to this legislation. I would like to publicly thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. James Sensenbrenner) for supporting this provision and for making certain that apartment buildings in New York City are as safe from fire as they are in the rest of the country. I thank them for including the amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the remarks of Mr. Benjamin Meed who recently gave an exceptionally moving speech about Yom Hashoah, The Days of Remembrance, at Congregation Emanu-El in my district in New York City. Mr. Meed is Chairman of both The Warsaw Ghetto Resistance Organization (WAGRO) and The Days of Remembrance Committee, United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He is also the President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Mr. Meed is a champion of humanitarian causes around the world. Tribute to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs--56th Anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Today, Jews gather to pay tribute to the memory of our Six Million brothers and sisters murdered only because they were Jewish; We gather to honor the fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto; to grieve; and to continue asking the questions: Why did it happen? How could the civilized world allow it to happen? Why were we so abandoned? Six million times, why? This year's national Days of Remembrance theme is dedicated to the voyage of the SS St. Louis. It is a story of refuge denied; it is a tale of international abandonment and betrayal. Why were they refused entry into this country? How can we ever understand why this was allowed to happen? Today, it is inconceivable to us just how that ship in those days was turned away. Today 54 years ago the American soldiers came across Nazi Germany slave labor camps and liberated Buchenwald and saved many of us who are here present today. Our gratitude will remain with us forever. We will always remain grateful to these soldiers for their kindness and generosity, and we will always remember those young soldiers who sacrificed their lives to bring us liberty. Today, wherever Jews live--from Antwerp to Melbourne, from Jerusalem to Buenos Aires, from New York to Budapest--we come together to remember to say Kadish collectively. Remembering the Holocaust is now a part of the Jewish calendar. We are together in our dedication to Memory and our aspiration for peace and brotherhood. Yom Hashoah, the Days of Remembrance, time to collectively bear witness as a community. And what lessons did we derive from these horrible experiences? The most important lesson is obvious--it can happen again the impossible is possible again. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, is happening as I speak. It can happen to any one or any group of people. The slaughter in Kosovo and in other places must be brought to an end. Should there be another Holocaust, it may be on a cosmic scale. How can we prevent it? All of us must remain vigilant--always aware, always on guard against those who are determined to destroy innocent human life for no other reason than birthright. It is vital that we remember; it is our commitment to those who perished, and to each other; a commitment taken up by our children and, hopefully, by the generations to come. What we remember is gruesome and painful. But remember we must. Over the years, we have tried to make certain that what happened to us was communicated and continues to be told, and retold, until it becomes an inseparable part of the world's conscience. And yet, some fifty years after the Holocaust, we continue to be repulsed by revelations about the enormity of the crimes against our people. And we are shocked to learn of the behavior of those who could have helped us, or at least, not hurt us, but who, instead, actually helped those whose goal was to wipe us out. Sadly, many of those who claimed they were neutral were actually involved with the German Nazis. They were anything but not neutral. The world has now learned that the Holocaust was not only the greatest murder of humanity, the greatest crime against humanity, but also the greatest robbery in the history of mankind. Driven from our homes, stripped of family heirlooms--indeed of all our possessions--the German Nazis and their collaborators took anything that was or could be of value for recycling. They stole from the living and even defiled the Jewish dead, tearing out gold fillings and cutting off fingers to recover wedding bands from our loved ones who they had murdered. But the German Nazis did not--could not--do it alone. The same people who now offer reasonable sounding justifications for their conduct during the Holocaust were, in those darkest of times, more than eager to profit from the German war against the Jews. None of the so-called ``neutral'' nations has fully assumed responsibility for its conduct during the Holocaust. The bankers, brokers, and business people who helped Nazi Germany now offer some money to survivors, but they say little about their collaboration. They utter not a word about how they sent fleeing Jews back to the German Nazi's machinery of destruction, nor about how they supported the Nazis in other ways--no admission of guilt; no regret; no expression of moral responsibility. We must guard against dangerous, unintended consequences arising from all that is going on now. Hopefully, family properties and other valuables will be returned to their rightful owners. But the blinding glitter of gold--the unrealistic expectations created by all the international publicity--has diverted attention from the evil which was the Holocaust. For five decades, we survivors vowed that what happened to our loved ones would be remembered and that our experiences would serve as a warning to future generations. We must continue to make sure that the images of gold bars wrapped in yellow Stars of David do not overshadow the impressions of a mother protecting her daughter with her coat, upon which a Star of David is sewn, or of a young boy desperately clutching his father's hand a Auschwitz/Birkenau before entering the gas chambers. The search for lost and stolen Jewish-owned assets has generated enormous publicity and excitement, but it also has created serious concerns. Gold, bank accounts, insurance policies and other assets have become the focal point of the Holocaust. That somehow minimizes Germany's murderous role. Great care must be taken to find a balance. The various investigations must continue to uncover the hidden or little publicized truths about the so-called neutral countries that collaborated, and to recover what rightfully belongs to the victims, survivors and their families. The focus should never be shifted from the moral and financial responsibility of Germany for the slaughter of our people--acts for which there is no statute of limitations, acts for which Germany remains eternally responsible. Our books should not and cannot be closed. Let us Remember.

Ms. MALONEY of New York

Ms. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Greek American Home Owners Association on the occasion of the organization's dinner dance. I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues an outstanding organization, the Greek American Home Owners. This organization was established 21 years ago to help the homeowners in the area. Its members include new homeowners and multi-dwelling owners. The organization has consistently striven to meet the needs of the community. Monthly guests speakers from the city, state and federal governments speak on relevant issues. I have enjoyed being one of their speakers. The issues that are discussed relate to the fundamental needs of the community, rents, water meters, citizenship, and more. The meetings are open to the community and not restricted to members only. Annually they serve over 500 people at the annual Thanksgiving Dinner. They also send out 225 dinners to those who are unable to attend and give 85 turkeys to needy families. All of these activities are housed in the Greek American Home Owners building located at 23-49 31st Street in Astoria, Queens. The purchase of this building required many monetary contributions and a great deal of work. On March 20, 1999, the organization wishes to honor the individuals who placed the first bricks of that building: Athanasios Alafogianns, George Alexandrakos, George Alexiou, John Alexiou, William Boutsalis, Athena Bubaris, Triantafilos Golfinopolous, George Katsigianis, James Korakis, Nick Karamatzanis, Dimitrios Karvelis, Irene Ladas, Steve Lagoudis, James Langas, John Lymberis, Kyriakos Michaelides, Nick Michaltos, Aristidis Markos, John Millas, George Moustakos, Demetrios Politis, Theodoros Panagiotakopoulos, Tom Papachristos, Panagiotis Pliakas, George Poulakas, Stavros Pyrovolikos, Dino Rallis, James Spahidakis, Pete Stathatos, George Stavroulakis, Dennis Syntilas, Marina Tsokanos, Antonios Vasilopoulos and Nikitas Vlachos. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the Greek American Home Owners Association and to all of these founders who established the Greek American Home Owners Association.

Ms. MALONEY of New York

Ms. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to point out that the experts support the use of scientific methods to correct the census for undercounts and overcounts. Yesterday the National Academy of Sciences released the first report from the fourth panel to review the Census Bureau's plans for the 2000 census. Yet again, the experts convened by the Academy endorsed the Census Bureau's plan to use science to evaluate and correct the census counts. At the end of 1998 the Census Bureau asked the National Academy of Sciences to convene a fourth panel to evaluate the Census Bureau's design for Census 2000. This independent panel, like the three that preceded it, has unequivocally stated that statistical methods work. The Academy panel stated yesterday that the design of the quality control survey represents, and I quote from the panel, ``good, current practice.'' In fact, the panel explained, and I quote: ``Because it is not possible to count everyone in a census, a post- enumeration survey'' using modern scientific methods ``is an important element of census planning.'' Currently the Census Bureau intends to use a post-enumeration survey entitled the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation or A.C.E. The A.C.E. Survey was designed in light of the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of statistical methods for the purpose of apportionment. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to hear criticism of the A.C.E. This Academy report should finally put that criticism to rest. Yes, the A.C.E. is a different program in its design and size than the survey that had been planned for Census 2000 prior to the court case. Those who are critical of these differences are not reviewing the details of A.C.E. As the Academy reports, changes in sample size as a result of the Supreme Court decision, quote, should not affect the quality, end quote, of the results. In fact, the panel comments that since the Bureau will no longer be using statistical methods for apportionment, there is no need for the larger survey envisioned prior to the court decision. In addition, the Academy notes that it is appropriate to combine information across States. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's report demonstrates the professional community's continued strong support for the Census Bureau's plan for the year 2000 census. In 1994 the Academy issued its first report which laid the foundation for the current plans. In 1995 a second panel reviewing Census Bureau plans at the request of Congress in a bipartisan way reported that spending more money on traditional methods would not improve the accuracy of the counts or the census. Earlier this year a third panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences said that it strongly supports the use of a quality control survey to correct for errors in the census. I support counting everyone. The National Academy of Sciences has stated for the fourth time that the best way to count the population is to use modern scientific methods. I am going to rely on the opinion of these independent, impartial scientists at the National Academy of Sciences. These experts say the plan devised by the professionals at the Census Bureau will give us the most accurate count. That is the plan that I support. If my colleagues agree with me, that we should count everyone, then they should join me in getting out of the way of the professionals at the Census Bureau. Let us let the professionals do what they are hired to do, count people, and let us let them do it in the best way they can. We should be encouraging the use of modern scientific methods in Census 2000, not preventing them. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record the report from the National Academy of Sciences, the fourth report that has come out in support of the use of modern scientific methods for the most accurate count in counting all Americans. The report referred to as is follows: National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC, May 3, 1999. Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Prewitt: As part of its charge, the new Panel to Review the 2000 Census offers this letter report on the Census Bureau's plans for the design of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) survey, a new post-enumeration survey. This survey is needed in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the use of the census for reapportionment. In general, the panel concludes that the ACE design work to date is well considered. It represents good, current practice in both sample design and post-stratification design, as well as in the interrelationships between the two. In this letter the panel offers observations and suggestions for the Census Bureau's consideration as the work proceeds to complete the ACE design. background Because it is not possible to count everyone in a census, a post-enumeration survey is an important element of census planning. The survey results are combined with census data to yield an alternative set of estimated counts that are used to evaluate the basic census enumeration and that can be used for other purposes. For 2000, an Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM) survey had been planned for evaluation and to produce adjusted counts for all uses of the census.\1\ The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the use of sampling for reapportionment among the states eliminates the need for a post-enumeration survey that supports direct state estimates, as was originally planned for the ICM survey. (The state allocations of the ICM sample design deviated markedly from a proportional-to-size allocation in order to support direct state estimation. Specifically, the ICM design required a minimum of 300 block clusters in each state.) Alternative approaches are now possible for both sample and post-stratification designs for the 2000 ACE survey. As a result, the planned ACE post-enumeration survey will differ in several important respects from the previously planned ICM survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Footnotes at end of attachment to the letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- plans for ace sample and post-stratification design Our understanding of the current plans for the ACE survey is based on information from Census Bureau staff.\2\ Building on its work for the previously planned ICM, the Census Bureau will first identify a sample of block clusters containing approximately 2 million housing units and then will independently develop a new list of addresses for those blocks.\3\ In a second stage, a sample of block clusters will be drawn from the initial sample to obtain approximately 750,000 housing units, which was the number originally planned for the ICM. (Larger block clusters will not be drawn in their entirety; they will first be subsampled to obtain sampling units of 30-50 housing units. Because the costs of interviewing are so much greater than the costs of listing addresses, this subsampling approach allows the interviewed housing units to be allocated in a more effective manner.) Finally, in a third stage, a sample of block clusters will be drawn from the second-stage sample to obtain the approximately 300,000 housing units required for the ACE sample. The target of 300,000 housing units for the ACE, which may be modified somewhat, will be based on a new set of criteria that are not yet final. The Census Bureau is considering three strategies for selection of the 300,000 ACE subsample from the 750,000 sample: (1) reducing the sample proportionately in terms of state and other block characteristics from 750,000 to 300,000; (2) reducing the sample by using varying proportions by state; or (3) differentially reducing the sample by retaining a higher proportion of blocks in areas with higher percentages of minorities (based on the 1990 census).\4\ These options for selection of the 300,000 ACE housing units from the 750,000 units first selected will be carefully evaluated. The plans include three evaluation criteria for assessing the options: (a) to reduce the estimated coefficients of variation for 51 post-stratum groups (related to the 357-cell post-stratification design discussed below); (b) to reduce the differences in coefficients of variation for race/ethnicity and tenure groups; and (c) to reduce the coefficients of variation for estimated state totals. (Option (3) above is motivated by criterion (b)). Without going into detail, it is also useful to mention that the Census Bureau has instituted a number of design changes from the 1990 post-enumeration survey for the ACE that will reduce the variation in sampling weights for blocks, which will reduce the sensitivity of the final estimates to results for individual blocks. This represents a key improvement in comparison with the 1990 design. The current plan to produce post-strata involves modification of the 357-cell post-stratification design suggested for use in 1990-based intercensal estimation. Current modification under consideration by the Census Bureau include expansion of the geographic stratification for non- Hispanic whites from four regions to nine census divisions, adding a race/ethnicity group, changing the definition of the urbanicity variable, and adding new post-stratification factors, such as mail return rate at the block level. Logistic regression, modeling inclusion in the 1990 census, is being used to help identify new variables that might be useful, as well as to provide a hierarchy of the current post-stratification factors that will be used to guide collapsing of cells if that is needed. (In comparison, the analysis that generated the 357-cell post-stratification was based on indirect measures of census undercoverage, such as the census substitution rate.) The Census Bureau plan demonstrates awareness of the interaction of its modification of the 750,000 housing unit sample design with its modification of the 357 post-strata design. (On the most basic level, the sample size allocated to each post-stratum determines the variance of its estimate.) The plan also makes clear that even though much of the information used to support this modification process must be based on the 1990 census, it is important that the ultimate design for the ACE survey (and any associated estimation) allows for plausible departures from the 1990 findings. For example, significant differences between the 1990 and 2000 censuses could stem from the change in the surrounding block search for matches, the planned change in the treatment of ACE movers, or changes in patterns and overall levels of household response. observations and comments Sample design to select the 300,000 housing units Because of the need to keep the ACE on schedule by initiating resource allocations that support the independent listing of the 2 million addresses relatively soon, as well as the need to avoid development and testing of new computer software, the Census Bureau has decided to subsample the 300,000 ACE housing units from the 750,000 housing units of the previously planned ICM design. The panel agrees that operational considerations support this decision. The cost of the constraint of selecting the 300,000 ACE housing units from the 750,000 ICM housing units, in comparison with an unconstrained selection of 300,000 housing units, is modest. While the constrained selection will likely result in estimates with somewhat higher variances, the panel believes that careful selection of the subsample can limit the increase in variance to that it will not be consequential. (By careful selection, the panel means use of the suggested approaches of the Census Bureau, or new or hybrid techniques, to identify a method that best satisfies the criteria listed above.) This judgment by the panel, although not based on a specific analysis by itself or the Census Bureau, takes into account the fact that a large fraction of the 750,000 housing units of the ICM design are selected according to criteria very similar to those proposed for the ACE design. In addition, the panel notes that the removal of the requirement for direct state estimates permits a substantial reduction in sample size from the 750,000 ICM design in sparsely populated states, for which ACE estimates can now pool information across states. As a result the ACE design could result in estimates with comparable reliability to that of the previously planned, much larger ICM design. Given the freedom to use estimates that borrow strength across states, the final ACE sample should reduce the amount of sampling within less populous states from that for the preliminary sample of 750,000 housing units. However, there is a statistical basis either for retaining a minimum ACE sample in each state, or what is nearly equivalent, for retaining a sample to support an ACE estimate with a minimum coefficient of variation. The estimation now planned for the ACE survey assumes that there will be no important state effects on post-stratum undercoverage factors. In evaluating the quality of ACE estimates, it will be important to validate this assumption, which can only be done for each state if the direct state estimates are of sufficient quality to support the comparison, acknowledging that for some of these analyses one might pool data for similar, neighboring states. (Identification of significant state effects would not necessarily invalidate use of the ACE estimates for various purposes but would be used as part of an overall assessment of their quality.) This validation could take many forms, and it is, therefore, difficult to specify the precise sample size or coefficient of variation needed. We offer one approach the Census Bureau should examine for assessing the adequacy of either type of standard. Using the criteria for evaluating alternative subsample designs (i.e., the estimated coefficients of variation for 51 post-stratum groups, the differences in coefficients of variation for race/ethnicity and tenure groups, and the coefficients of variation for state totals), the Census Bureau should try out various state minima sample sizes to determine their effects on the outputs. It is possible that a moderately sized state minimum sample can be obtained without affecting the above coefficients of variation to any important extent. There are a variety of ways in which the assumption of the lack of residual state effects after accounting for post-stratum differences could be assessed, including regression methods. We encourage the Census Bureau to consider this important analytic issue early and provide plans for addressing it before the survey design is final. The panel makes one additional point on state minima. The state minima will support direct state estimates that will be fairly reliable for many states. The Census Bureau should consider using the direct state estimates not only for validation, but also in estimation--in case of a failure of the assumption that there will be no important state effects on undercoverage factors. Specifically, the Census Bureau should examine the feasibility of combining the currently planned ACE estimates at the state level with the direct state estimates, using estimated mean-squared error to evaluate the performance of such a combined estimate in comparison with the currently planned estimates. We understand that the necessity of prespecification of census procedure requires that the Census Bureau formulate an estimation strategy prior to the census, which adds urgency to this issue. Finally, the panel has two suggestions with respect to the criteria used for assessing the ACE sample design. First, there should be an assessment of the quality of the estimates for geographical areas at some level of aggregation below that of states, as deemed appropriate by the Census Bureau. (This criterion is also important for evaluating the ACE post-stratification design, discussed below.) Second, the importance of equalizing the coefficients of variation for different post-strata depends on how estimates for specific post-strata with higher coefficients of variation for post-strata that do not have much effect have less need to be controlled, assuming that the estimates for these post-strata do not have other uses. Post-stratification plans The 1999 census adjusted counts used 1,392 post-strata, but post-production analysis for calculating adjusted counts for intercensal purposes resulted in the use of 357 post-strata. The panel believes that the use of these 357 post-strata (and the hierachy for collapsing post-stratification cells) was a reasonable design for 1990, and that, in turn, the 1990 design is a good starting point in determining the post- strata to be used in the 2000 ACE. The Census Bureau is considering four types of modifications to the 357 post- strata design, although it has not yet set the criteria for evaluating various post-stratification designs. Logistic regression will be used to identify new variables and interactions of existing variables that might be added to the post-stratification. Finer post-strata have the advantage of greater within-cell homogeneity, potentially producing better estimates when carried down to lower levels of geographic aggregation. Some gains with respect to the important problem to lower levels of geographic aggregation. Some gains with respect to the important problem of correlation bias might also occur. However, stratifying on factors that are not related to the undercount will generally decrease the precision of undercount adjustments. The tradeoff between within-cell homogeneity and precision needs to be assessed to undermine whether certain calls should be collapsed and whether additional variables should be used. It is also important to examine the effects of various attempts at post-stratification on the quality of substate estimates, especially since certain demographic groups are more subject to undercoverage, and so substate areas with a high percentage of these groups will have estimates with higher variances. (This argument is based on the fact that, as in the binomial situation, the mean and the variance of estimated undercounts are typically positively related.) We believe it is extremely important that analysis at substate levels of aggregation be conducted to inform both the sample design and the post-stratification scheme. Furthermore, this issue needs to be studied simultaneously with that of the effect of the design and post-stratification on the post- stratification on the post-stratum estimates. The fact that analysis of substate areas appears in both sample design and post-stratification design is an indication of the important interaction between these two design elements and justifies the need for studies of them to be carried out simultaneously. The panel encourages the Census Bureau to work on them at the same time. The panel notes that the decision to use a modification of the 357-strata system from 1990 for the ACE post- stratification design will probably not permit many checks against estimates from demographic analysis that use direct estimates from ACE. This limitation may increase the difficulty of identifying the precise source of large discrepancies in these comparisons. However, the panel does not view this is a reason not proceed, since the precision of direct estimates at the finest level of detail of post- stratification (using 1,392 strata in this context) could make such comparisons more difficult to interpret, and the estimates from demographic analysis are not extremely useful for this purpose (except for blacks, and then only nationally). As work on both the sample design and post-stratification design progresses, the Census Bureau should not rely entirely on information from the 1990 census: substantial differences might occur between the 1990 and the 2000 censuses that would lead to either a sample design or a post-stratification design that was optimized for 1990 but that might not perform as well in 2000. Instead, the Census Bureau should use a sample design that moves toward a more equal probability design than 1990 information would suggest. Similarly, the Census Bureau, using whatever information is available since 1990 on factors related to census undercoverage, should develop a post-stratification design that will perform well for modest departures from 1990. Finally, when considering criteria for both sample design and post-strata, it is important to keep in mind that the goal of the census is to provide estimated counts for geographic areas as well as for demographic groups. Since the use of equal coefficients of variation for post-strata will not adequately balance these competing demands, the Census Bureau will need to give further attention to this difficult issue. The balancing of competing goals is not only a post- stratification issue, but also a sample design issue. For example, if block clusters that contain large proportions of a specific demographic group are substantially underrepresented in the ACE sample, the performance of the estimates for some areas could be affected. Documentation Given the importance of key decisions and input values for the ACE design, it is important that they be documented. In particular, the Census Bureau should produce an accessible document in print or in electronic form that (1) gives the planning values for state-level, substate level, and post- stratum level variances resulting from the decisions for the sample and post-stratification designs and (2) provides the sampling weights used in the ACE selection of block clusters. summary From its review of the Census Bureau's current plans for design of the ACE survey, the panel offers three general comments; The panel concludes that the general nature of the Census Bureau's work on the ACE design represents good, current practice in sample design and post-stratification design and their interactions. The panel recognizes that operational constraints make it necessary for the Census Bureau to subsample the ACE from the previously planned ICM sample. The subsampling, if done properly, should not affect the quality of the resulting design if compared with one that sampled 300,000 housing units that were not a subset of the 750,000 housing units previously planned for the ICM. The panel believes that removal of the constraint to produce direct state estimates justifies the substantial reduction in the ACE sample size from the ICM sample size. The planned ACE could result in estimates with comparable reliability to that of the larger ICM design. The panel offers three suggestions for the Census Bureau as it works to finalize the ACE design, some of which the Census Bureau is already considering: (1) a method for examining how large a state minimum sample to retain; (2) some modifications in the criteria used to evaluate the ACE sample design and post-stratification, namely, lower priority for coefficents of variation for excessively detailed post-strata and more attention to coefficents of variation for substate areas; and (3) a possible change in the ACE estimation procedure, involving use of direct state estimates in combination with the currently planned estimates. In addition, the Census Bureau should fully document key decisions for the ACE design. The panel looks forward to continuing to review the ACE design and estimation as the Census Bureau's plans are further developed. The panel is especially interested in the evolving plans for post-stratification design, including the use of logistic regression to identify additional post- stratification factors; plans for the treatment of movers in ACE; and the treatment of nonresponse as it relates to unresolved matches in ACE estimation. In addition, after data have been collected, the panel is interested in the assessment of the effect of nonsampling error on ACE estimation and the overal evaluation criteria used to assess the quality of ACE estimates. We conclude by commending you and your staff for the openness you have shown and your willingness to discuss the ACE survey and other aspects of the planning for the 2000 census. Sincerely, Janet L. Norwood, Chair, Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Attachment: Panel Roster. Panel to Review the 2000 Census Janet L. Norwood (Chair), Urban Institute, Washington, DC Robert M. Bell, RAND, Santa Monica, CA Norman M. Bradburn, National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL Lawrence D. Brown, Department of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania William F. Eddy, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University Robert M. Hauser, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin Roderick J.A. Little, School of Public Health, University of Michigan Ingram Olkin, Department of Statistics, Stanford University D. Bruce Petrie, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Andrew A. White, Study Director Constance F. Citro, Senior Program Officer Michael L. Cohen, Senior Program Officer Footnotes \1\ See National Research Council (1999), Measuring a Changing Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. Michael L. Cohen, Andrew A. White, and Keith F. Rust, eds., Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methodologies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. \2\ See Kostanich, Donna, Richard Griffin, and Deborah Fenstermaker (1999), Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey: Plans for Census 2000. Unpublished paper prepared for the March 19, 1999, meeting of the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. \3\ The use of the term block cluster refers to the adjoining of one or more very small blocks to an adjacent block for the purpose of the ACE sample design. Large blocks often form their own block clusters. \4\ The Census Bureau is aware that mixtures of strategies (2) and (3) are also possible, although such mixtures are not currently being considered.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for organizing this special order and calling attention to the plight of older women as we approach Mother's Day this weekend. I also thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for working on putting this special order together. Social Security is tremendously important to all Americans, but particularly to women. Many women come to rely heavily on the Social Security system when they retire for a number of reasons. First of all, women earn less than men. For every dollar men earn, women earn 74 cents, which translates into lower Social Security benefits. I remember when I began working, it was 52 cents to the dollar. We got a raise. We are now at 74 cents to the dollar, but it is still terribly unfair and our Social Security benefits in our elderly years reflect this unfairness. In fact, women earn an average of $250,000 less per lifetime than men. Considerably less to save or invest for retirement. Therefore, they rely more on Social Security. Women are half as likely than men to receive a pension. Twenty percent of women versus 47 percent of men over age 65 receive pensions. Further, the average pension income for older women is $2,682 annually compared to $5,731 for men. Women do not spend as much time in the workforce as men. In 1996, 74 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 44 were fully employed full- time compared to 49 percent of women in that same age group. Women spend more time out of the paid workforce than do men in order to raise their families and to take care of their aging parents. Women live longer than men by an average of 7 years. Social Security benefits are the only source of income for many elderly women. Twenty- five percent of unmarried women, widowed, divorced separated or never married rely on Social Security benefits as their only source of income. Not only will these women find themselves widowed, they are likely to be poor. A recent report by the General Accounting Office showed that 80 percent of women living in poverty were not poor before their husbands died. The ``feminization'' of poverty is another reason why Social Security must be there for our senior citizens, particularly women in their elderly years. The financial outlook for elderly women is pretty grim. The poverty rate among elderly woman would be much higher if they did not have Social Security benefits. In 1997, the poverty rate among elderly women was 13.1 percent. Without Social Security benefits, it would have been 52.3 percent. For elderly men, the poverty rate is much lower at 7 percent. If men did not have Social Security benefits, the poverty level among them would increase to 40.7 percent. Social Security's family protection provisions help women the most. Social Security provides guaranteed inflation protected lifetime benefits for widows, divorced women, and the wives of retired workers. Sixty-three percent of female Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and over receive benefits based on their husband's earning records, while only 1.2 percent of male beneficiaries receive benefits based on their wives' earning records. These benefits offset the wage disparity between men and women. As we move forward with reform of our Nation's Social Security system, we must remember that women face special challenges. It is my hope that many of the contributing economic factors, particularly pay inequity, will soon be eliminated. In the meantime, Congress must take the economic well-being and security of women into account when discussing reform. Women clearly are at a disadvantage when facing retirement and poor elderly women have the most at stake in the Social Security debate. Any reform that is enacted must keep the safety net intact. Our mothers, our daughters and our granddaughters are counting on us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a story, a story about the life of one of my constituents. Her many years of work, the many things that she did in her life, and how much she now depends on Social Security for a safety net in her own life. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in calling upon Congress on both sides of the aisle to be very cautious in the reforms in Social Security to make sure that this safety net for men and women continues. I am glad to be here tonight to remind my colleagues that it is critical that we take the different circumstances of women into account as the 106th Congress considers proposals to reform the current Social Security system. Lucy Thomas' story illustrates many of the key issues. Mrs. Thomas is 83 years old. She worked for 35 years as a waitress, earning less than minimum wage. At the same time, she reared two daughters, and cared for both her father as he became increasingly disabled with rheumatoid arthritis, and for her grandmother, a farm woman who had virtually no income. She now depends solely on Social Security--$650 a month. At age 71, she moved in with her daughter, Marilyn, because she could no longer work outside the home to supplement her Social Security income. As a waitress and a bartender, Thomas and her husband barely made enough money to pay for their daily living expenses. Mrs. Thomas does not have a pension, nor does she have income-generating savings. Her current income consists of about $8,000 a year from Social Security. She is one of the nation's elderly poor. Of that amount, $1,600 is used for secondary health coverage. Last year she paid an additional $1,000 in medical costs and another $1,400 for a hearing aid. In the fall, a bout with stomach ulcers forced her to pay over $200 for prescription drugs. Her daughter purchased most of her clothing and paid for her room and board for the past 12 years. Social Security is a real factor in her ability to survive with some dignity in her old age. Mrs. Thomas' story is not unique. Many women come to rely heavily on the Social Security System when they retire, for a number of reasons.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the Franklin Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing as it celebrates its 25th Anniversary. The Franklin Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing is a 320-bed skilled nursing facility located in my Queens district. For over 25 years, this institution has served the Queens community with dedication and commitment. It has earned itself the high regard of the Queens community and is considered one of the finest nursing homes in the area. The Franklin Center, which is Joint Commission accredited, receives annual perfect surveys and is renowned for the expert care provided by the Center's team of highly qualified, experienced professionals. The Franklin Center is equipped to manage the needs of sub-acute patients requiring IV Therapy, trach vents and tube feeding. In addition, its vast rehabilitative services include: physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, social work services, among others. However, above and beyond the services the Franklin Center provides is the manner in which they treat their patients. Perhaps the Center's greatest asset is its concerned, caring and compassionate staff. Since the Franklin Center is committed to the well-being of those who reside in the home, the Center places a special emphasis on the comfort and security it provides. For example, the Franklin Center takes into consideration the ethnic make-up of the community which it serves. The Center offers a special focus towards the Asian community and has a full-time Asian cook on staff as well as a multi-lingual staff. The dietary constraints of the community's Jewish residents are also considered; the Center provides Glatt Kosher catering and religious services. It is this attention to the individual concerns of its residents and patients that has earned the Franklin Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing its outstanding reputation. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring to your attention the fine work of the Franklin Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing as it celebrates its 25th Anniversary. It is truly an honor to have such a remarkable institution in my district assisting my constituents.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, and the representative of a large and vibrant community of Armenian Americans, I rise today to join my colleagues in the sad remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. First, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), cochairs of the Caucus, for all of their hard work on this issue and other issues of human rights. April 24, 1999 marks the 84th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. It was on that day in 1915 that over 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested and murdered in central Turkey. This date marks the beginning of an organized campaign by the young Turk government to eliminate the Armenians from the Ottoman Empire. Over the next 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Turks, and a half million more were deported. As the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. has written, and I quote, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race. They understood this well and made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.'' As a supporter of human rights, I am dismayed that the Turkish government is still refusing to acknowledge what happened and, instead, is attempting to rewrite history. In a sense, even more appalling than Turkey's denial is the willingness of some officials in our own government to join in rewriting the history of the Armenian Genocide. It is vital that we do not let political agendas get in the way of doing what is right. Mr. Speaker, the issues surrounding the Armenian genocide should not go unresolved. I call upon the United States Government to demand complete accountability by the Turkish Government for the Armenian genocide of 1915-1923. To heal the wounds of the past, the Turkish Government must first recognize the responsibility of its country's leaders at that time for the catastrophe. Nothing we can do or say will bring those who perished back to life, but we can require them and bring everlasting meaning by teaching the lessons of the Armenian genocide to future generations. The noted philosopher George Santayana has said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' We should heed this wise principle and do all we can to ensure that those that died, the people of the Armenian genocide, that these people are not forgotten.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, after the regrettably partisan fight that we witnessed here yesterday over the Census, I was tremendously pleased to read in the Washington Post this morning a statement by the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller), where he stated that the Republican majority was not continuing with their plans to shut down the government. Hopefully the House and Senate will move quickly to remove the uncertainty of all government agencies that were funded only to June 15 because of the Census dispute. Commerce, Justice, State were funded not for a full year, but only to June 15. The leadership in both the House and Senate should move quickly to reassure the American public that the services provided by these agencies will continue for a full year by passing a full funding resolution.