Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time for me and for his leadership. For the first time in decades we are working in the black. I believe the President put it best in his State of the Union speech when he said: Our fiscal discipline gives us an unprecedented opportunity to address a remarkable and needy new challenge, the aging of America. In other words, protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing income and health care to the elderly who need it must be a high priority. The majority's budget resolution, however, completely ignores Medicare, and it provides only false promises of protecting Social Security. The majority's budget fails to protect the elderly. It puts into jeopardy the surpluses and the economic benefits we have worked so hard to gain by balancing the budget. I was elected in 1992 and came to Congress when we faced a $290 billion deficit. I never believed that the major debate before Congress today would be over what to do with the surplus. When I ran for Congress in 1992, Federal aid to New York City under Reagan and Bush for 12 years, it had been cut by 62 percent. Under President Clinton, aid to New York City has continually risen. In 1992, the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. Today it is 4.4. In 1992, inflation rate was at 2.9 percent. Today it is at a phenomenal 1.6 percent. The so-called misery index, the combination of unemployment and inflation, was 10 percent in 1992 when President Clinton and I were elected. Today it is at a 30-year low of 6.1 percent. Since 1992, this economy has generated 18 million new jobs, and workers' average weekly take-home pay after inflation has increased by more than 2 percent in 1997 and 1998. And, added to that, we balanced the budget. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the rest of my comments into the RECORD and say we should not reverse course and go back to the 1980's that grew the deficits. Let us follow the program we are on. Vote against the Republican resolution and for the Democratic one. The current economic expansion is not just a statistical phenomenon, it has improved living standards for most Americans. These are all economic events which occurred since I arrived here. And I believe that the 1993 budget which introduced fiscal discipline--a budget which cut the deficit by $52 billion that first fiscal year--put us on the path of what is now a $70 billion surplus-- and it is growing. And I just want to remind us all that the first budget which put us on this path was passed without a single Republican vote. We balanced the budget, but the Majority's Budget Resolution before us today reverses course. We all like tax cuts, but this budget resolutions cuts taxes. This is the same formula used in the 1980s. The result was astronomical deficits from which we have just begun to recover. Are we willing to return to the days of deficits as far as the eye can see in order to finance the tax cuts? The costs and consequences of the Republican tax cuts increase as the years go by. It postpones the question of how to finance them into some point in the future. But we must take responsibility for our actions today and not postpone the hard decisions to another time, far in the future when it may be too late. Instead we must continue to pay down the debt and reap the benefits of having a budget in surplus. This is the path which will pay off for us in the future. A report by the Congressional Research Service, examines the surplus options. It concludes that maintaining the surpluses and reducing the debt ``are likely to contribute more than tax reduction to capital formation as well as to the government's fiscal position. Debt reduction [begins] when surpluses occur and would end when they end.'' (And we must rely on real surpluses--not offsets--like the one some of my colleagues are trying to create by the supposed selling of Governor's Island--for an inflated price to people who would misuse it.) Mr. Chairman, let us take the wise path and continue the surpluses, reduce the debt, protect Social Security and save Medicare. Let us take that path and not the path towards a new era of deficits that will be the result of this Budget Resolution. We learned that their method was wrong and the sound economic policy of the past six years is what will keep the economy on track.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am here with my colleagues to commemorate the 178th anniversary of Greek Independence Day which is a national day of celebration of Greek and American Democracy. While commemorative resolutions are no longer allowed in the House, there is support for Greek Independence Day. Every year since 1986, a resolution has been cosponsored by over 50 Senators and passed in the Senate. The President has once again signed a proclamation this year recognizing this as Greek Independence Day, and I would like to insert a copy of this in the Record. ``Our Constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not a membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses,'' This could have been written by Thomas Jefferson, but it was written by Pericles in an address made in Greece 2,000 years ago. Plato said, ``Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a kind of equality to equals and unequals alike.'' Isn't that a wonderful way to describe democracy? Thomas Jefferson once said, ``. . . to the ancient Greeks . . . we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' Just as Greek ideas of democracy and individual liberties became the foundation of our government, the American Revolution became one of the ideals of the Greeks as they fought for their independence in the 1820's. Greek intellectuals translated the Declaration of Independence of the United States and used it as their own declaration. A Greek Commander in Chief (Petros Mavromichalis) appealed to the citizens of the United States, saying: ``Having formed the resolution to live or die for freedom, we are drawn toward you by a just sympathy since it is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode, and by you that she is prized as by our fathers. Hence, honoring her name, we invoke yours at the same time, trusting that in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors and be thought worthy of them if we succeed in resembling you . . . it is for you, citizens of America, to crown this glory . . .'' Greece has been a long and trusted ally. In fact, they fought along side of us in every major international conflict this century. During the early 1900s, one of every four Greek males between the ages of 15 and 45 departed for the United States. And, I might add that many of them settled in Astoria, Queens which I am fortunate enough to represent. Astoria is one of the largest and most vibrant communities of Greek and Cypriot Americans in this country. It is truly one of my greatest pleasures as a Member of Congress to be able to participate in the life of this community, and the wonderful and vital Greek American friends that I have come to know are one of its greatest rewards. I have also had the pleasure of establishing the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues with the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. This caucus allows Members of the House to join together to find ways to work toward better United States-Greek and Cypriot relations. We are here today because 177 years ago today, the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire began. Greece had remained under the Ottoman Empire for almost 400 years, and during this time the people were deprived of all civil rights. Many volunteers from various localities in the United States sailed to Greece to participate in Greece's war for independence. On this joyous occasion, we should also direct our attention to the island of Cyprus which, for 25 years now, has been striving for an end to its tragic division and the illegal Turkish occupation of 37 percent of its territory. Again, Cyprus is on the verge of becoming a flashpoint for regional conflict because of Turkey's hardline stance with unrealistic conditions to any peace talks. It is now time to reaffirm our commitment to a peaceful solution. We must use Cyprus's EU accession as an impetus for positive progress and not let Turkey use it as an excuse for heightened tensions. A positive contribution by Turkey to help resolve the situation in Cyprus would facilitate Turkey's aspirations to become a member of the European Union. We should use our influence in the region to help Turkey understand this. Hopefully, soon we will also celebrate Cyprus Day when once again the entire island will be united. However, the reason that we are here today is to celebrate the 178th anniversary of Greek Independence. Daniel Webster said of this time in Greek history, ``This [Greek] people, a people of intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit, and enterprise, have been for centuries under the atrocious unparalleled Tartarian barbarism that ever oppressed the human race.'' There has always been a special bond of friendship between our two countries, and I would like to leave you with a quote from Percy Shelley. ``We are all Greeks! Our laws, our literature, our religion, our art, have their roots in Greece.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Tom and Paul Calamaras. They were honored on November 20, 1998, as ``Men of the Year'' by the Broadway-Astoria Merchants & Professionals Association at their 18th Annual Dinner Dance at the Crystal Palace. Tom and Paul Calamaras, the owners of the Crystal Palace and Oyster Bay Catering Hall, have played an immensely significant role in New York City's Greek-American community. The history of the Calamaras family is the story of the American Dream. Thomas, Paul, and their sister, Eleni, were born in Sparta to Despina and John Calamaras. When the children were still young, John came to the United States to support his family. He worked at the Oyster Bay Restaurant, first as a dishwasher and later as a chef. In 1944, John opened a small coffee shop on the Lower East Side. John, who was not a citizen, was finally able to bring his family to the United States in the late 1940s. The Calamaras family ran the coffee shop, and when the restaurant next door became available, they expanded the restaurant into the Blue Sea Restaurant. In 1957, Paul returned to Greece where he met and married Mary Stefanos Resiopoulos of Athens. They returned to the United States in 1958. Today, they live on the north shore of Long Island with their three sons, John, Stefanos, and Athanasios. In 1959, Tom also returned to Greece where he met and married Aphrodite Christopoulos of Kalamata. They currently live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. In 1959, John, Paul and Tom purchased the Oyster Bay Restaurant, John's first place of employment in the United States. The Oyster Bay joined the Blue Sea Restaurant and many other diners and restaurants run by the Calamaras family. In 1961, John fulfilled another one of his dreams when he purchased the Broadway Movie Theater. The Calamaras family also established the Crystal Palace Caterers around this time. Sadly, John passed away in 1973, but Tom and Paul are continuing his legacy. They still own and operate their father's restaurant and they are also continuing his tradition of honoring their Greek roots. In recognition of their continued support of causes that promote Hellenism in America, in February of this year Thomas and Paul Calamaras received the title of Archon Depoutatos by the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring to your attention these important men, Tom and Paul Calamaras, as they are honored as ``Men of the Year.'' I would also like to offer my sincere congratulations to the Broadway-Astoria Merchants & Professionals Association as it celebrates its 18th Annual Dinner Dance.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his important comments. It is important to remember that the census has real impact on people's lives. Information gathered in the census is used by States and local governments to plan schools and highways, by the Federal Government to distribute funds for health care and all other government programs, and by businesses in making their economic plans and predicting the future. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek) is here to comment. We had a public hearing, actually, in her city, which she hosted for the Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform. If I remember correctly, everyone testified in support of modern scientific methods.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues only have to look at the history of the issue of the census to understand what is going on in the House this Congress. Tomorrow, we will begin the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill for the Wye River Peace Accord and the victims of Hurricane Mitch. Just 2 years ago, we were debating another supplemental appropriations bill. Then it was for flood victims in the Midwest. The waters in North Dakota had not yet receded when the Republican majority added language to ban the use of modern scientific methods to the flood relief bill. They thought the President would not dare veto flood relief over the census, particularly when so many people were suffering. They were wrong. The President vetoed the bill, stating very strongly that Congress had no business tying flood relief to anti-modern scientific counts in the census. The President received editorial support clear across this Nation, and the Republican majority backed down. Then, in September of 1997, the majority put language in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to ban the use of modern scientific methods. When the President threatened to veto that, the majority knew they did not dare shut down the government over the census, so they came to the bargaining table with 17 pages of language designed to tie the Census Bureau up in knots. The majority insisted on language that required two sets of numbers for the 2000 census. Now they say that two sets of numbers is irresponsible. They set up a monitoring board with a $4 million budget and complained when the President insisted that the board be balanced with an equal number of presidential appointments and congressional appointments. The majority tried again in 1998 to kill the use of modern scientific methods and failed. Then they turned to the courts. In January they lost that battle, too. 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. Of course, what the majority really cared about was keeping the Census Bureau from producing census counts that were corrected for those missed and counted twice. Now they are desperate again. They claim that apportioning the 435 seats among the States is the same thing as drawing Congressional District boundaries, even though apportionment is done by the Congress and drawing district lines is done by the State legislatures. In fact, the last time the Republicans controlled Congress during the census was 1920, and they so disliked the results of that census that they refused to reapportion the House for the entire decade. The fight today is about whether or not the professionals at the Census Bureau will be allowed to conduct the census as they see fit. The majority has introduced seven bills that look harmless on the surface but most of them are designed to make it more difficult for the professionals to do an accurate count. Several of the bills are so invasive that the Census Bureau director said that the effect, and I am quoting Dr. Prewitt now, the Director of the Census Bureau, he claimed it would be ``just short of disastrous.'' He said, ``It would put the entire census at risk''. Several are so bad that the Secretary of Commerce said that he would recommend a presidential veto. None of their proposals would make the census any more accurate. And I will insert at this point in the Record the letter from Secretary of Commerce Daley to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, DC, March 16, 1999. Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Burton: Tomorrow, the Government Reform Committee is scheduled to mark up seven bills related to the conduct of the Decennial Census in 2000. While I know we share a common goal of ensuring that Census 2000 is the most accurate and cost-effective Decennial possible, the Department of Commerce must strongly oppose legislation that would mandate a post census local review, require the printing of short census forms in 34 languages, and mandate a second mailing of census forms. According to the Director of the Census Bureau, Kenneth Prewitt, and the professionals at the Census Bureau, these three bills would reduce the accuracy and seriously disrupt the schedule of Census 2000. Based on the attached detailed analysis of the legislation provided by Dr. Prewitt, if this legislation were presented to the President, I would recommend that he veto it. The Census Bureau is already working on many of the issues that these and the other four bills address. For example, the Census Bureau is not designed to manage a grant program, but it is working to increase partnerships with local governments and tribal and non-profit organizations to increase participation in Census 2000. In addition, we expect to seek additional funding for a variety of other activities. And we would appreciate assistance in making it possible for more individuals to take temporary census jobs without losing their government benefits. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the legislation under consideration by your Committee. I look forward to continuing to work with you and other members of Congress to ensure that Census 2000 is the most accurate census possible. Sincerely, William M. Daley. Mr. Speaker, the 1990 census was the first census to be less accurate than the one before it. There were 8.4 million people missed and 4.4 million people were 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. The sole focus of the majority's agenda is to make sure that these people are left out of the next census as well. When the Constitution was written, there was a shameful compromise to the count. African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person. We must not allow the 2000 census to count African American males as nine-tenths of a person. 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? The census is tied to not only accurate data but our funding formulas are tied to it. The census plan that the Census Bureau has put forward, using modern scientific counts, is supported by the entire scientific community. These are the people that support statistical methods in the Census 2000: The National Academy of Sciences; the American Statistical Association; the Council of Professional Associates on Federal Statistics. Dr. Barbara Bryant, a Republican, President Bush's Census Bureau Director. She speaks out every day for a modern scientific count. The American Sociological Association; the National Association of Business Economists; the Association of University Business and Economic Research; the Association of Public Data Users; and the Consortium of Social Science Associates. These professionals versus the Republican majority. We have a number of important Members of Congress that are participating in this special order tonight, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Elijah Cummings) is first, but I really would like to put in one of the recent editorials that have come out across the Nation regarding the GOP plan to undermine the census with this bill that they have before us. I would like to just quote one line out of it. And this is from the Washington Post. This editorial is entitled ``Census Chicken": ``House Republicans are playing an indefensible game of chicken with the next census. To prevent the publication of accurate figures, which they fear could cost them seats in the next redistricting, they are threatening steps that could disrupt the entire operation. They put themselves in an untenable position reminiscent of their amateurish threat of several years ago to shut down the government unless they got their way.'' This editorial goes on. It is quite a lengthy one. Again, they say, ``So some Republicans also are trying, in the name of greater accuracy, no less, to impose new requirements on the Census Bureau whose effect would be to delay publication of the adjusted numbers until after redistricting had safely begun.'' And it ends by saying, ``They ought to back off.'' Mr. Speaker, I will submit at this point for the Record the entire editorial. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 15, 1999] Census Chicken House Republicans are playing an indefensible game of chicken with the next census. To prevent the publication of accurate figures, which they fear could cost them seats in the next redistricting, they are threatening steps that could disrupt the entire operation. They put themselves in an untenable position, reminiscent of their amateurish threat of several years ago to shut down the government unless they got their way on the budget. The carried that threat out, much to their chagrin. Their leaders--or some of their sensible members; it doesn't take that many in the House these days-- should save them from suffering a similar embarrassment this time. The issue is whether and how to correct for the chronic undercount, of low-income people and minority groups especially, that has come to plague the census as it has become better understood in recent decades. Disproportionate numbers of such people tend to be missed in the traditional head count, conducted first by mail, then by knocking on doors. The administration proposes, with the overwhelming support of the statistics profession, to use a system of sampling--extrapolation from exhaustive counts in selected census tracts--to adjust for this. The Republicans seek to block that, on grounds it is little more than sophisticated guesswork, illegal, subject to political manipulation--and, in their view, likely to benefit Democrats. Last year they sought to enlist the courts. The Supreme Court found the law to be mixed. It agreed that an actual count had to be used for apportionment of congressional seats among the states, and the bureau has had to adjust its plan accordingly. There will be more of a head count and less reliance on sampling; the White House is still trying to figure out how to fit the additional cost of perhaps $2 billion within the president's budget. The court also said, however, that adjusted figures are required to be used for most other purposes, including, in most cases, the allocation of federal funds. It left up in the air which set of figures should be used for redistricting within states. The administration's goal is to publish both sets by the spring of 2001, when redistricting is supposed to begin, and let each state choose which to use, since redistricting is a state function. The Republicans have threatened to withhold appropriations to prevent this, but that can get them back into the business of shutting down part of the government if the president makes good, as he should, on his own threat to use the veto. Nor may a vote whose clear effect would be to deny full political representation to significant numbers of vulnerable people be a comfortable one to cast. So some Republicans also are trying--in the name of greater accuracy, no less--to impose new requirements on the Census Bureau whose effect would be to delay publication of the adjusted numbers until after redistricting had safely begun. Delay might serve their purpose as well as prohibition, at less political cost. The bureau says on the basis of long experience that the most important of these proposals--a second mailing and an additional chance for local officials to appeal the results of the head count--would actually detract from accuracy, innocuous though they sound. Director Kenneth Prewitt recently testified that they ``would disrupt and even place at risk Census 2000.'' The Republicans are contemplating mounting a national ad campaign in behalf of their position. But it's an unworthy cause. Nor is it clear to us that, in the complicated business of redistricting, the adjusted figures even if states choose to use them would necessarily work to Republican disadvantage. They ought to back off. Mr. Speaker, I now call upon my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying that we should let the professionals do their job. We should let them conduct an accurate count using accurate scientific methods. We know what the last count gave us. It gave us an undercount that disproportionately hurt minorities and the poor and the children, and we should not let that happen again. We must correct it, and we have a plan that does that. We should be supporting the professionals, not trying to undermine their efforts in getting the most accurate count possible.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Subcommittee on the Census, who has been a truly outstanding leader on this issue, and I thank him for joining us as he has so many times on the floor to speak up for accuracy and fairness.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would like to put in the record an editorial from the Chicago Tribune dated March 14 entitled: ``Not One Census, But Two,'' and I quote from this, this particular editorial. It ends by saying: ``It has not escaped the notice of either party that the people who are missed in the old fashioned census tend to be the kind of people, poor, minority, urban, who generally vote Democratic. But pretending they don't exist is not likely to work to the long-run advantage of the GOP. Now that they have won on the apportionment, fairness and political wisdom argue that Republicans should compromise on the other census battle.'' Is that the gentlewoman from Illinois' hometown paper? So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add this to the list of items that have been put in the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 14, 1999] Not One Census But Two The decennial census of the population is one of the most important tasks undertaken by the federal government--and one of the hardest. A complete count is impossible, because there are so many people in the United States, some of them hard to find. Experts say the last census missed about 4 million people, including 2.4 percent of those in Chicago. The Clinton administration wanted to address this problem by using statistical methods known as ``sampling'' to arrive at estimates of people who are omitted by the traditional head count. But in January, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not permit sampling for purposes of congressional apportionment. It's not clear that, if obliged to decide, the justices would conclude that the Constitution does either. The most noteworthy consequence of the verdict is that when it comes time to divvy up seats in Congress, some states may be shortchanged. That can't be helped. What can be avoided is using a plainly faulty tabulation for other purposes. The court held that sampling was forbidden for apportionment. For all other purposes, though, it not only is permissible but may be required. So the administration plans for the Census Bureau to come up with two numbers in 2000-- one based on traditional door-to-door methods for parceling out House seats and another using state-of-the-art techniques for such purposes as distribution of federal money and state legislative redistricting. That proposal is imperfect, but not as imperfect as the alternative, which is to use the less accurate tally for everything. Republicans object to spending any extra funds to supplement the conventional census, and warn the public will be confused. But it's hard to see the sense in refusing to allocate government aid in accordance with where the intended beneficiaries actually are. The Constitution may bar the use of estimates when the sacred matter of voting is involved, but that principle doesn't apply when it comes to social welfare programs. It has not escaped the notice of either party that the people who are missed in the old-fashioned census tend to be the kind of people (poor, minority, urban) who generally vote Democratic. But pretending they don't exist is not likely to work to the long-run advantage of the GOP. Now that they've won on apportionment, fairness and political wisdom argue that Republicans should compromise on the other census battle. It is very important that the 2000 census be complete, and the Census Bureau will use modern scientific methods, techniques that will provide an essential quality check on Census 2000 to ensure a complete and accurate census. The President of the United States has spoken out in support of accuracy, and he has said, and I quote a statement he made on June 2 of 1998, and I quote: ``Improving the census should not be a partisan issue. It is not about politics. It is about people. It is about making sure that every American really, literally counts.'' Mr. Speaker, he has indicated on several occasions publicly and in meetings, and really he told me himself once in a private conversation, that he would veto any vehicle that in any way undermined an accurate count. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some of the articles that have appeared in Roll Call tend to speak of partisan politics and goals, and I would like to put in the RECORD the editorial from March 15 entitled: ``Census Summit:'' Census Summit Republicans and Democrats are at the brink of a catastrophic war over the 2000 Census. It's time for a summit conference between President Clinton and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to avert a partial shutdown of the federal government and, even worse, a failed census that convinces the U.S. population that its government in Washington can't even count. The issue over which the parties are fighting, of course, is sampling--the use of modern polling techniques to estimate the hardest-to-reach 10th of the population. The Clinton administration adamantly supports sampling, backed by ex- President George Bush's census director and the National Science Foundation, which called for it as a remedy for serious undercounting in the 1990 Census. Republicans adamantly oppose sampling, contending that the constitutional mandate of an ``actual enumeration'' forbids sampling and fearing that the administration would rig the count to cost the GOP House seats in the post-2000 redistricting. The Supreme Court might have resolved the conflict, but didn't. It failed to rule on the constitutionality issue and rendered a split decision on the 1976 census law--banning sampling for purposes of apportioning House seats among the states, but permitting it for drawing districts within the states and for dispensing federal grants. The Clinton administration wants to proceed with a dual-track census, but Republicans are determined to block it. It's possible that the entire State, Commerce and Justice departments could shutdown on June 15 if no agreement on sampling is reached. That's because last year, instead of resolving their differences, Congress and the administration postponed their day of reckoning by funding the three departments for only part of this fiscal year. As Roll Call reported last week, Hastert is preparing for war by assembling a strategy team to devise ways of convincing the country that this shutdown--if it occurs--is Clinton's fault, not that of the GOP. Meantime, on another front, the House Government Reform Committee is set to mark up legislation containing at least three provisions that are likely to delay and complicate census-taking in the guise of improving the count. One provision would require printing all census forms in 34 languages instead of the planned six, an enormous logistical problem for the Census Bureau, which has made other plans for contacting persons speaking minority languages. Mr. Speaker, the census is not only about counting people and the distribution of Federal funds, it is about accurate data, and we need to have accurate data in order to come forward with good policy. It is the basis, literally the census is the basis of all demographic information used by educators, policymakers, journalists and community leaders. America relies on census data absolutely every single day to determine where to build more roads, hospitals and child care centers. So it is important that this data be accurate so that we have long- range, accurate policies, that we really draw upon on the information that is provided by the census. We know that we have a problem. In 1990 the census missed more than 8 million people and double-counted more than 4 million people. Poor people living in cities and rural communities, African Americans and Latinos, immigrants and children were disproportionately undercounted, and in order to correct these mistakes and in order to correct the undercount, we really should leave the 2000 census in the hand of the professionals at the Census Bureau, allow the seasoned experts to plan and conduct the most accurate census. The professionals at the Census Bureau are continuing their preparations to produce the most accurate census permitted under the law. Our goal must be to support these professionals using the most up-to-date, scientific methods and the best technology available. I must say that all of the scientific community supports the Census Bureau's plan. Many leading Republicans support it. My own Mayor Giuliani, who is a Republican, joined many of us who were opposed to the lawsuit that was being brought by Speaker Gingrich to really stop the use of modern scientific methods. Dr. Barbara Bryant, who is a Republican who served in the Bush administration, has testified many times before the committee in support of modern scientific counts.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. She is always right to the point, and I would like to put in the Record an editorial in the Sacramento Bee that really reinforces many of the points that she was making. It is from March 12 of 1999, and it is entitled: ``More Census Mischief.'' And I would like to quote briefly from it, and the Sacramento Bee in its editorial says, and I quote: At this eleventh hour Republicans in Congress are proposing legislation that seeks to significantly change census methodology and procedures, adding cost, confusion and, most critically, time to an already tight schedule. Three of the specific provisions in the Republican bills threaten the process. The editorial ends with a very strong comment, and I quote: With their predictably higher numbers of poor and minority residents, corrected counts are expected to benefit Democrats. If Republican Members of Congress can slow the census long enough to disrupt the count, corrected numbers will not reach the States in time to re-draw internal boundaries in 2001, thus helping Republicans. The public interest is in as accurate a census as possible. The Republican mischief at this late date threatens that. End of quote, and again I will put the entire editorial from the Sacramento Bee into the Record: There are 385 days left before April 1, 2000--Census Day. Preparation for the once-a-decade national head count began even before the 1990 census was over. Twenty-five major software systems have been designed, linked and tested to keep track of the 175 million forms printed in six different languages, to pay hundreds of thousands of workers, to monitor tens of thousands of partnership programs and to produce 12 million maps needed to count an estimated 275 million residents at 175 million addresses. No small task. As Kenneth Prewitt, director of the Census Bureau, told Congress the other day: ``Every step, every operation, every procedure is on a huge scale and is interdependent with every other step, operation and procedure.'' At this eleventh hour, Republicans in Congress are proposing legislation that seeks to significantly change census methodology and procedures, adding cost, confusion and, most critically, time to an already tight schedule. Three specific provisions in the Republican bills threaten the process. One would require the Census Bureau to print forms in 33 languages instead of the six already planned for. Those six languages account for 99 percent of U.S. households. Using translators and community liaison workers, census planners already have tested and put in place procedures for reaching out not just to those who speak the 27 other languages Republicans want forms printed in, but to 130 other language groups as well. To add more foreign language forms at this late date would require new computing capacity, optical scanners, renegotiation of printing contracts and a dozen other changes, making an already difficult task more so. Republicans also want a post-census local review, in which 39,198 units of local government would validate the bureau's housing count block-by-block. That was tried in 1990 and 1980 and, according to a Republican former Census Bureau director, turned out to be a logistical and public relations nightmare. The last bad idea offered would require a second mailing of the census questionnaire. Second mailings were tested during dress rehearsals last year and resulted in 40 percent duplicate responses, another wasteful and time-consuming effort. The real Republican goal here seems obvious: delay. That would make it harder for the Census Bureau to perform the controversial post-census statistical surveys so crucial to correcting for the expected undercount of poor and minority residents. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal law bars the use of corrected numbers to determine how many congressional seats a state can have. But those numbers may still be used to redraw congressional and legislative boundaries within individual states. With their predictably higher numbers of poor and minority residents, corrected counts are expected to benefit Democrats. If Republican members of Congress can slow the census long enough to disrupt the count, corrected numbers won't reach the states in time to redraw internal boundaries in 2001, thus helping Republicans. The public interest is in as accurate a census as possible. The Republican mischief at this late date threatens that. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that a new Member of Congress has joined us, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and she serves on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. She also serves with me on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, where she has already demonstrated leadership on protecting consumer rights, and I thank her for coming here and joining us on the floor tonight.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his work in his home State on getting an accurate count. What he is talking about is basic fairness. Because the census is so important, we must do absolutely everything that we can possibly do to ensure that everyone is included in the count. We know that previous censuses overlooked millions of Americans, especially children and minorities. That is not fair, it is not accurate, it is certainly not acceptable, and we are definitely determined to do better with this census. That is, if the Republican majority does not put language and requirements that make it impossible to get an accurate count. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has been a leader on this issue and many issues before this Congress. I thank her very much for joining us in this special order and being with us tonight.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for his most accurate statements and descriptive statements. We are not about turnip juice, as he says, we are about accuracy, and or goal is the most accurate census possible, completed using the most up-to-date methods as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority of the professional scientific community. We should be supporting science, not trying to undermine it and get a less accurate count. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for joining us. I had the great honor of serving with his father. He was dedicated to civil rights, was very proud of his role in it, and I think it is very appropriate that his son is here to speak on what has been called by many civil rights leaders the civil rights issue of this decade, making sure that all Americans, every single one of them, is counted with the most modern scientific methods.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the gentlewoman knows that H.R. 472 has been pulled from the floor agenda for tomorrow. It will not be on the floor tomorrow. And this is very good because, as the gentlewoman pointed out and as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) pointed out, it does absolutely nothing to correct the undercount. It does not do anything to correct the mistakes of the last census and, according to the professionals at the Census Bureau, puts hurdles and red tape in front of it that makes it impossible it get an accurate count. So we are fortunate that the Republican Party has not put it on the floor for tomorrow, and I hope that they will not ever put it on the floor, since it does not do anything to help get an accurate count. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the RECORD an editorial from the home city of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the Miami Herald, from March 22nd. It is entitled ``Everyone Counts. Republicans Will Prevent An Accurate Census At Any Cost.'' And to read just a small portion from it, ``U.S. House should remove the barriers to statistical sampling.'' The editorial goes on. ``If you are black, Hispanic, Asian or poor, live in the city or on city streets and have a mind to be distrustful, you might conclude that many Republicans in Congress just want you to go away, at least until the 2000 census count is over and the new congressional district lines are drawn. ``Quite unreasonable has been the Republican congressional majority's attempts to thwart an honest count.'' It states that ``The House Government Reform Committee voted last week to throw as many monkey wrenches as needed into next year's count with bills that would delay a true count until the new district lines are drawn. In other words, delay it until all those initially overlooked black, brown and other minority faces no longer count.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial for the Record: [From the Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 1999] Everyone Counts: Republicans Will Prevent an Accurate Census at Any Cost U.S. House should remove the barriers to statistical sampling. If you are black, Hispanic, Asian or poor, live in the city or on city streets and have a mind to be distrustful, you might conclude that many Republicans in Congress just want you to go away--at least until the 2000 Census count is over and the new congressional districts are drawn. These Republicans--and South Florida Reps. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart are among them--apparently fear that if these minorities are counted, the Democrats will gain more seats come redistricting time. It's a reasonable, albeit political, fear. Quite unreasonable has been the Republican congressional majority's attempts to thwart an honest count. Last year, the party restricted Census Bureau funding and went to the Supreme Court to outlaw the use of statistical sampling, which would result in a more-accurate count. There, they got a partial win--sampling cannot be used for apportioning House seats. But they aren't content to leave it at that. The shame of it is that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart are in the thick of this misguided effort, even though theirs were among the top 25 undercounted districts in the country in 1990. Why is this important? Because government aid is tied to population counts. So their constituents lost federal funds because of it. Why do they want their constituents cheated again? Government Reform Committee voted to throw as many monkey wrenches as needed into next year's count with bills that would delay a true count until the new district lines are drawn. In other words, delay it until all those initially overlooked black, brown and other minority faces no longer count. One bill mandates a second mailing of census questionnaires to all households that don't respond, even though census workers will phone and visit each of those homes anyway. A second measure, seemingly innocuous, would allow skeptical municipalities to demand that the Census Bureau come back after the count and recount the number of households--not the people--in a given area. The idea is that there may be discrepancies between the local address lists and the bureau's. That's unlikely to happen. So says Barbara Everitt Bryant, director of the Census Bureau from 1989 to 1993. She headed the 1990 count under President George Bush--a Republican administration. After that count, some of the cities protested so loudly that the bureau sent interviewers to recanvass. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of new households were uncovered--at a cost of $10 million. The 2000 count will be even-more accurate because a change in the law lets cities and the bureau share address data to make sure questionnaires don't go to vacant lots. Yet this recount could take months. When these bills get to the House, common sense must trump partisan politics. Otherwise, it will be clear who really counts in the GOP's America--and who doesn't.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I really would like to speak to my dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle and state that, in the spirit of Hershey, a one-third/two-thirds split is totally fair, and builds on two votes that were taken on this floor that supported such action. As my dear colleague just pointed out, there has been some progress, but when the majority created a new committee, the Census Committee, this would have been a perfect opportunity, an absolutely perfect opportunity to put forward the fair two-thirds/one-third division. But what happened when they created a Subcommittee on Census is they only provided the minority with 25 percent of the resources, not 33.3 percent, but 25 percent of the resources. In the ratios of slots of Members assigned to the committee, it was terribly unfair, 11 to 4, 11 Republicans to 4 Democrats in the allocation of slots. The census is supposed to be about fairness and fair counts. This would have been an opportunity to implement the one-third/two-thirds division. But my colleagues gave us 25 percent, the same as what my colleagues gave the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight over the past 6 years. There has been absolutely no movement. I must say that the Republican funding resolution, which does include a 3 percent increase, does nothing to guarantee the minority a fair one-third/two-thirds split in resources. The reserve fund is allocated at $3 million for the 106th Congress, but the Republicans are allocating $2.4 million to the Subcommittee on Census of the Committee on Government Reform, money that came out of the reserve fund in the 105th. Democrats are only getting 25 percent and again only four of the 15 slots. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the spirit of Hershey to support fairness, the one-third/two-thirds split, the Hoyer amendment, and motion to recommit.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a recent Op-Ed written by Dr. Arthur H. Rubenstein about the benefits federal money has produced for medical research. Dr. Rubenstein is the Dean of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, one of New York City's and the country's premiere teaching hospitals. More Aid Means More Responsibility--Federal Money Puts Medical Research on the Threshold of a Golden Age (By Arthur H. Rubenstein) New York.--Congress has now approved billions of dollars in research money to complete the elements of what could be the Golden Age of Medical Research. We now have scientific excellence, outstanding technology, public support and greatly increased funding aligned to make possible a quantum leap forward in our search for better treatments, prevention and hopefully cures of some of the most dreaded diseases on earth. But as we celebrate this unique opportunity, scientists and physician researchers must understand that with it comes a new, and perhaps higher, level of responsibility. If we ignore this responsibility, we risk losing this newly won support. A combination of forces has brought us to this unique opportunity. The media continues to follow the rapid pace of scientific breakthroughs and gives medical news front page status. The public, particularly patients and their families, clamor for life saving and life prolonging treatments. In addition, many recent discoveries are now being applied in actual practice. Leading lawmakers in Congress took particular notice of these forces during the last congressional session. Realizing that a big boost in funding could capitalize on the intensifying scientific knowledge of the past decade, thoughtful lawmakers brought about a $2 billion increase in the NIH budget. As a physician and a Dean of a major medical school, I am elated over this opportunity. During my lifetime, basic science has advanced and accelerated so rapidly that we are on the verge of unprecedented discoveries. Just 45 years after the discovery of the structure of DNA, we are on the road to examining how tens of thousands of genes function. That will be the key to understanding how many diseases occur. And that is the shaft of light that can lead us to curing or controlling the disease. We will look back on these years with the same awe as was felt for the wondrous age after Newton discovered the Laws of Motion or Einstein discovered the Laws of Relativity. However, if I put my own scientific excitement to the side for a moment and focus on my role as the leader of an entity which depends heavily on research funding, I must also offer a cautious warning about this great rush forward. All over the country, in clinical and research laboratories, the scramble is on to garner a share of this new funding. This competition is healthy and will lead to better science. My own school will compete as hard as the next. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), though, faces a formidable challenge to allocate money to research laboratories. Clearly, the funds must be spent in a wise and responsible manner. But which scientists working on what diseases will get an infusion of money to throw their research into high gear or get it off the ground? How much ``politics'' must be considered? What markers will be laid out to show if the money was wasted or well spent? I don't envy the NIH at all! The Institute of Medicine recommends the public be given a strong say in this process and that a public advisory board be created. Those are excellent and appropriate ideas. The funding decisions must not be solely made in meetings amongst administrators and scientists. To maintain public support, the scientific community must make the public a greater part of the discussion of what could be literally life and death decisions for generations to come. But we, as scientists and leaders of the academic community, must also be mindful that our individual and collective actions are appropriately facing a higher level of scrutiny than ever before. We must embrace this examination, respond appropriately, or else face great peril. We have an obligation to find ways to share our work with the lay public, to do our best to make it intelligible to non scientists. We have an obligation to be cautious with our pronouncements of progress. As exciting as incremental progress is to the scientist, its reality, that it is progress but not yet a cure, can be exceptionally cruel to the human being looking for solace. We have an obligation to shun fleeting fame when it is premature, and fortune when its potential jeopardizes the credibility of our work. Science is tantalizingly close to so many discoveries! To me, it is simply breathtaking to even begin to comprehend that within five to ten years we may--I underscore ``may''-- have the understanding to cure or prevent various infectious diseases, mental illnesses, birth defects, and would be killers like heart disease, cancer, AIDS, and diabetes. If the medical and research communities are perceived as not using public funding wisely or let false optimism blind us to the often unpredictable nature of scientific exploration, we will have failed in a monumental and tragic manner. Besides the discoveries lost or delayed, and the lives that would be affected, there could be a public backlash against those who failed to act responsibly. The Golden Age of Medical Research then would be replaced by an era of suspicion and skepticism about science's ability to improve life.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the NYU Child Study Center, a unique multi-specialty program at New York University School of Medicine. The NYU Child Study Center is an innovative program dedicated to offering complete child and adolescent psychiatric care that is fully integrated with scientific research and education. The Center's research considerably advances the understanding of the causes and treatments of child mental disorders. In addition, the Center collaborates with public, parochial and private school systems to provide invaluable preventive resources to families. The NYU Child Study Center is an indispensable resource for parents, educators and child health and mental health professionals both in New York and across the United States. The premier clinicians at the NYU Center implement the knowledge gained from research and translate it into care that incorporates the most up-to-date information about the causes, symptoms and treatments of mental disorders. Some of the programs in the Center's clinical care area include: Furman Diagnostic Service to assess treatment and long-term follow up; NYU Summer Program for Kids with ADHD; Young Adult Inpatient Program; Port Washington Alternative Learning Program for at-risk adolescents; Family Studies Program to prevent future problems in couples and families at risk; Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program to promote healthy relationships; Unique Minds, to assist families of learning disabled children; and NYU Child Study Center East for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and learning disorders. The Center's other main missions include advanced training for mental health professionals; research in areas such as pediatric psychopharmacology, children at risk, attention deficit hyperactivity and related disorders, and child and adolescent anxiety disorders; and educational outreach and prevention for parents, educators, pediatricians and other mental health professionals. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring to your attention the NYU Child Study Center. The Center provides an invaluable service to New York's children and their families, and for children across the country. It is an honor to have such an important institution located in my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to KRIKOS, an outstanding Hellenic cultural organization located in my district, as it celebrates its 25th Silver Anniversary. Since its founding in 1974 and ensuing incorporation in 1975, KRIKOS has served as a vital link between the various communities of the Hellenic world. KRIKOS aims to foster and promote cooperation and fellowship among Hellenes and phil-Hellenes throughout the world and to preserve and enrich the Hellenic heritage of Hellenic communities worldwide. Over the past 25 years, the organization has taken many important initiatives to attain its goals. KRIKOS has organized over forty conferences throughout the world and, where possible, published the proceedings. The conferences have covered such topics as energy alternatives for Greece, media coverage of Greece, a history of Byzantium, Greek-American Letters and Arts, the Macedonia-Tinderbox of Europe and the Yugoslav Civil Wars, to name a few. KRIKOS has also organized a Medical Task Force and, since 1982, held annual medical conferences. The Task Force has supplied various hospitals with kidney dialysis machines, medical publications and other needed supplies. KRIKOS has also guided college and college-bound youth; made arrangements for students to visit abroad through a work- study program: established and assisted in locating and listing the treasures of St. Catherine Monastery on Mt. Sinai through computer technology; created ``information banks'' of available expertise in a wide spectrum of specialities; donated 5,000 books to the Polytechnic University in Athens; and published a newsletter. The organization has also experimented publishing a quarterly magazine of social commentary. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring to your attention this important event in the history of KRIKOS. This organization has played a significant role in the Hellenic community both here in the United States and abroad. I am pleased to recognize them on their Silver Anniversary.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is this Nation's foremost family protection plan. As the 106th Congress considers proposals to reform the current Social Security system, it is critical that we take the different circumstances of women into account. I have several examples of women that have faced problems in their elder years and have relied heavily on Social Security. I am just going to put them in the Record. But I would like to point out that women earn less than men. For every dollar men earn, women earn 74 cents, which translates into lower Social Security benefits. In fact, women earn an average of $250,000 less per lifetime than men, considerably less to save or invest in retirement. 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 employed full time, compared to 49 percent of women in that age group. Women spend more time out of the paid workforce than men do in order to raise families and take care of aging parents, and this is reflected in their Social Security payments. 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 totally 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 financial outlook for elderly women is pretty grim. The poverty rate among elderly women 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 52.2 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 protection, lifetime benefits for widows, divorced women, and the lives of retired workers. Mr. Speaker, 63 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 wive's earning records. These benefits offset the wage disparity between women and men. Mr. Speaker, 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, such as 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 are clearly 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 have additional documents that I will submit for the Record at this time. Social Security is this nation's foremost family protection plan. As the 106th Congress considers proposals to reform the current Social Security system, it is critical that we take the different circumstances of women into account. 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: Women earn less than men. For every dollar men earn, women earn 74 cents, which translates into lower Social Security benefits. In fact, women earn an average of $250,000 less per lifetime than men-- considerably less to save or invest in retirement. 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 employed full-time, compared to 49 percent of women in that age group. Women spend more time out of the paid work force than do men in order to raise families and take care of aging parents. Women live longer than men by an average of seven 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 (GAO) showed that 80 percent of women living in poverty were not poor before their husbands died. The financial outlook for elderly women is pretty grim. They poverty rate among elderly women 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 52.2 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 age 65 and over receive benefits based on their husbands 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 women and men. 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.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his yielding to me and for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, it was not long after the Republicans took over Congress that they reached the conclusion that they did not like the use of modern scientific methods in the counting on the census. I am not sure how they reached that decision, having abolished the committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction over the census. I am fairly certain that that conclusion did not come through oversight. In fact, they gave jurisdiction over the census to the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform, where it languished. The full committee did hold a couple of hearings on the census, but they were halfhearted events. There certainly is no record to support their conclusions. In fact, the only report issued by the Committee on Government Reform stated that sampling and the use of scientific counting methods was unscientific, a conclusion they were later forced to repudiate. Given the lack of evidence to support their position, one might question their motives. However, there is no need to do that. We only have to look at their tactics to understand where they are coming from. At every turn they have come and tried to use some back-room maneuver to push their agenda. Two years ago, House Republicans added language to the Flood Relief Bill to make the census less accurate. They thought the President would not dare veto the Flood Relief Bill. But, to their surprise, not only did he veto it, but he won overwhelming editorial support clear across this country. Faced with this opposition, they backed down. The next effort to force a less accurate census on the American public came as part of the 1998 appropriations bill. Not only did the Republicans add language to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that would have prohibited the use of statistical methods in the census, but they also rejected a genuine compromise offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). They even added language requiring a two-number census. And I would like to add to the record the language from the 1998 appropriations bill which the Republicans put in the budget requiring the two-number census. To hear them talk today, one would think a two-number census was on the same order as high crimes and misdemeanors. But I learned long ago not to expect the opponents of a fair and accurate census to be consistent. Last September, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Census of the Committee on Government Reform called the Census Bureau's plan for a one-number census irresponsible. This week, in a hearing, he called a two-number census irresponsible. Perhaps the chairman believes that all numbers are irresponsible. It was not until February of 1998, a little more than 2 years before the 2000 census, that the majority created the Subcommittee on Census of the Committee on Government Reform and 2 years after the plan for the 2000 census was announced. For 3 years they ignored their oversight responsibility and tried to bludgeon the Census Bureau through the appropriations process. Having repeatedly failed at those attempts, they decided to harass the Census Bureau into submission. With a staff of 12 and a million dollar budget, the majority was able to field six hearings over the first 11 months of the subcommittee's existence, but they peppered the Census Bureau with requests for meetings, documents and data. One day recently, the Census Bureau director got eight, and I repeat, eight separate letters requesting documents. Despite receiving boxes and boxes of documents, the subcommittee complains that the Census Bureau is operating in secret. Despite being briefed and briefed and briefed, they complain that the Census Bureau will not tell them what they are doing. Despite the lack of evidence, they continue to claim that the Census Bureau plans to manipulate the census, and they have come forward with many attacks on the career professionals at the Census Bureau. There are 394 days until April 1, 2000. Census day. It has been 3 years since the Census Bureau released its plan for the 2000 census and over 8 years since the planning for the 2000 census began. In fact, the plan for this census was shaped during the Bush administration under the direction of Dr. Barbara Bryant. With a little more than a year to go, the Republicans have just come up with a legislative agenda for changes they want to make to the census plan. We marked up one of these bills today in the subcommittee. It was a bill that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek) introduced in 1996, and I am pleased that the subcommittee chairman is joining her, and I hope that this bill will pass. However, there may be something very much more sinister afoot. Having failed repeatedly to legislate the census plan through the appropriations process, they are now trying to pass legislation that on the surface looks benign, but it is designed to throw a monkey wrench into the census process. Earlier this week, the Census Bureau director warned Congress that legislating major changes in the census at this late date will jeopardize the accuracy of the census. He offered to work with Congress to achieve its goal within the context of the operational plan but warned that procedures created by Congress that require reworking and an operational change would result in major disruption. The time for legislation has passed. The opponents of a fair and accurate census spent their time trying to bully the Census Bureau with threats and busy work instead of helping them with a comprehensive plan. The opponents of a fair and accurate census seem to be getting desperate; and the more desperate they get, the louder they yell. But all of the yelling in the world will not change the facts. They provided taxpayer dollars to finance a partisan Republican suit against the Census Bureau. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of statistical methods was prohibited for apportionment but required, I repeat, required for all other purposes, if feasible. Democrats accept the court's judgment. But the opponents of a fair and accurate census continue to yell, and each yell is more desperate than the last. Why? Because they believe that a fair and accurate census is a threat to their majority. I would remind my colleagues of one other fact. The last time the Republicans controlled Congress during a census was in 1920. That was the only time in the history of this country that Congress has refused to reapportion the seats in Congress. Why? Because they did not like the facts that were revealed in the census counts. The population had shifted from the rural south to urban areas, and they simply refused to acknowledge the census numbers. It was 10 years later that Congress was finally able to apportion the seats. I hope we are not on the way to another failed census, as we were in 1920. The 1990 census missed 8.4 million people and counted 4.4 million people twice. Most of those missed were the urban and rural poor and minorities. The opponents of a fair and accurate census want to make sure that those 8.4 million poor and minorities are left out of the census forever. They want to make sure that those 4.4 million people who were counted twice, who are mostly suburbanites, are forever left in. In fact, now they want to force the Census Bureau to do a second mailing, because it has been shown in their dress rehearsals and in their research that it will create more duplicates that are difficult to remove. Now, I ask my colleagues, who is trying to cook the books? Is it the professionals at the Census Bureau and the experts brought together by the National Academy of Sciences, who want to use modern scientific methods to correct the errors in the census; or is it those fighting to keep the census full of mistakes? The 1990 census missed 1 in 10 adult black males, 1 in 20 Hispanics and 1 in 8 American Indians living on reservations. But the 1990 census only missed 1 in over 142 nonHispanic whites. Now, I ask my colleagues, why does the Grand Old Party want to make sure that these errors are not corrected? Is it because they believe that modern scientific methods are not scientific? I do not think so. Is it because they believe that the professionals in the Census Bureau will manipulate the numbers? I do not think so. Is it because they believe that the director of the Census Bureau is a statistical shill? I do not think so. I do not believe they believe their own rhetoric. But I do know that they can count, and they like the odds of suburbanites being counted and minorities being missed. The fight over a fair and accurate census is the civil rights fight of the 1990s, and it is a fight that we must win.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) for organizing this resolution in honor of Mo Udall. I never met Mo Udall. The only way I knew him was by reading about the issues that he stood for, the actions that he took in Congress, and as a leader. I always admired him. In 1976, long before I was ever elected to city, State or Federal Government, as a public citizen I endorsed him and even sent him a check when he ran for President, because I liked what he was doing on a national level, and I wanted his leadership to be felt even more in our country. I never served with him as many of my colleagues are sharing their stories and memories, but when I joined this body, it was hard to go to a caucus meeting or a large meeting where his name was not referred to, where my colleagues quoted him or referred to the actions that he achieved or the goals that he stood for. He was greatly admired by those who worked and served with him. I consider it a great honor, and I am sure he would, too, that his son and nephew have joined this body and will be working along the same principles and goals that he did. Today there are a number of important tributes to Mo Udall. There is a memorial service at 2, there is a dinner tonight honoring him, and there is probably no greater way to honor him and his work than by a living tribute. This morning, in a bipartisan spirit, as we are today on this floor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and myself and many others have started a Parkinson's task force in honor of Mo Udall and others who have suffered from this terrible disease. We hope to achieve a cure within 10 years. The current director of the National Institutes of Health says that it is achievable. Last year, $100 million was authorized for Parkinson's disease research. We need to work together to make sure this money is appropriated so that we can find a cure for Parkinson's so that others will not suffer in their final days as he did.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill; and I applaud the hard work of the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member, in bringing this legislation to the floor. I would like to comment on the statement of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who spoke about certainly supporting voluntary efforts first. This bill does that. Before there is any movement to centralize collections or to initiate any effort to collect it, there are three attempts to persuade the debtor to pay what is owed to the taxpayers of this country. At least three letters and phone calls have to go out trying to persuade this person to live up to their obligations before any other method or any other project is encountered. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us builds on the success of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which the gentleman from California and I authored over 3 years ago. When we introduced the Debt Collection Improvement Act, we had just conducted a study that showed that over $50 billion was owed to the taxpayers of this country, $50 billion in nontax debt, $50 billion that could be used for teachers, police officers, roads, mass transit, all types of things to help our people in this country. Furthermore, the government was writing off, writing off and forgetting about over more than $10 billion of that debt each year. Our original bill, which received widespread bipartisan support, simply employed good business, common-sense tools to collect this debt. First, it centralized collection and management in Treasury, whose mission it is to bring in revenues that are owed to this country and to manage our finances. It called upon common sense good business tactics such as computerizing the debt, cross-servicing, certainly not handing out a debt to a bad debtor, managing it better. These efforts, according to Treasury, should bring in billions of dollars to our citizens. The bill we have today builds on the successes of the original piece of legislation. It prohibits agencies from writing off debt without making significant efforts to collect it, first through persuasion, then through letters, phone calls, all types of efforts, and then finally allowing the private sector to come in and try to collect that debt before it is written off or forgotten about. This bill is a strong piece of legislation. It will significantly aid the government in its efforts to collect the money that is owed to the hardworking citizens of our country. It builds on some of the successes of better management in our original bill, strengthens gain sharing, rewards agencies that do well by allowing them to keep part of the money that they are managing better. My only disappointment with this legislation before us is that it does not contain a provision that many of us had worked on that was attached to last year's version of the bill. My provision would institute greater data sharing practices and information among government agencies, to strengthen Federal debt collection efforts, and provide for stronger verification of eligibility for Federal benefits. This provision was supported by the administration, by OMB, who estimated it would bring in roughly a billion a year. As the Chairman knows, there were concerns raised about permitting access to the national directory of new hires, so the provision was removed from this bill that is before us today. I am optimistic that we can address these concerns and agree on a bill that permits greater data sharing among agencies in a manner that is responsible and fair. I applaud the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) for his leadership. He apparently is setting up some meetings on this with his colleagues, and I appreciate that. I know that he is supportive. I look forward to working with him to improve this legislation, to enact this legislation today, and I thank him for his support for this legislation and his hard work.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 12, (H.R. 440), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 20 (H.R. 391), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 21 (H.R. 437), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 19 (Kucinich amendment to H.R. 391), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''