Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Union Square Park in New York City. I am very pleased to report that Union Square was dedicated as a National Historic Landmark on September 11, 1998, in a ceremony that paid honor to the tremendous history of this important site and to the hundreds of thousands of people who have supported labor in this country. The very first Labor Day Parade took place on September 5, 1882, at Union Square. At that time, nearly 30,000 trade unionists from 30 unions marched before a reviewing stand to demonstrate the strength of labor. The laborist were there to support the eight-hour work day and other measures to improve the lives of working people and their families. Also on that day, speeches were given by labor leaders and activists appeared carrying signs with pro-labor slogans. Union Square has played a significant role in the development of the labor movement in the United States. The very first parade on September 5, 1882, created the momentum that followed that event to the enactment of federal legislation establishing a national holiday for the recognition of labor. Union Square has also played an important role in the historic development of New York City. It was initially settled as a square surrounded by beautiful residences, and later, in the 1850's, the area around the Square became New York City's first theatrical district. Also during the 19th century, Union Square became a major nexus for transportation, ultimately to become a hub in New York City's subway system. The easy access to Union Square helped to bring people in the 1920's and 1930's to Union Square Park for political rallies and labor demonstrations. In recent years, Union Square Park has been rehabilitated and has become known for its open spaces and green-grocer markets. It retains its importance in New York City through this, its transportation crossroads, and its proximity to the historic and refurbished Ladies' Mile. Its historic importance will only be augmented by its designation as a National Historic Landmark. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to bring to your attention this important dedication. Of the 2,250 sites granted this status, fewer than 25 are related to labor. The inclusion of Union Square as a National Historic Landmark will guarantee that it will continue to be a magnet for working people and free political expression.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to the Coler/Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility and Roosevelt Island Housing Management Corporation as they and the residents of Roosevelt Island celebrate FDR Day on Saturday, September 12, 1998. This very special day on Roosevelt Island recognizes the accomplishments and goals of the disabled in honor and memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our nation's most heralded disabled American, and the 44th Governor of the State of New York and the 32nd President of the United States. As President, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation through some of its worst crises, most notably the Great Depression and the Second World War. As a man who had overcome the fear and insecurity of his own physical disability, he assured the people that they had ``nothing to fear but fear itself.'' The FDR Festival was born in 1981 with a proclamation by the United Nations declaring 1981 as the ``International Year of Disabled Persons.'' In that founding year of the Festival, the theme was ``Full Participation and Equality.'' The United Nations expressed its concern about the prevailing negative treatment of disabled persons with the words: ``A drastic change in our attitude toward disabled persons is a prerequisite. We have, above all, to remember that the problems of physical or mental disability are the problems of society as a whole. We not only bear the collective responsibility to avert the unnatural courses of human disability, such as war, but to give the disabled everywhere, every possible assistance to lead productive lives.'' On Saturday, I will join with the residents of Roosevelt Island to celebrate and honor the many accomplishments of the disabled. I also would like to commend Detective Steven D. McDonald, disabled in the line of duty, who will be participating in the awarding of medals to participants of FDR Day. Detective McDonald's bravery and courage is an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Coler/Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility and the Roosevelt Island Housing Corporation, the FDR Day Committee and all other dedicated citizens who have worked to ensure a very special day of recognition for the disabled. The unity between the able bodied community with the disabled community is an achievement that you all should be proud to be a part of.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 14, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 426 through 429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 426, 427, 428 and on 429.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment and funding for the International Monetary Fund. With the world situation the way it is, this is no time for the United States to abandon and pull out of international organizations. I fully support Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Rubin and the Administration, all of whom support funding for the International Monetary Fund because it is in the economic interest of the United States. We live in a world economy. It would be a terrible signal to the world if we suddenly decided we wanted to destroy this international organization by withholding funding. The signal we should be sending from the United States is that we support this international organization and that we do not want to abandon ship during a time of crisis that is important not only to the world economic situation but to the economy of the United States. We should debate it and vote on it. I support the Pelosi amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration on the 90th anniversary of its founding. Throughout its history, the Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration had dedicated itself to providing spiritual guidance to the growing immigrant population of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The Cathedral was founded in 1908, with construction beginning on the cathedral in 1916. In 1921 Archbishop Platon consecrated the church. This large, beautiful house of worship was listed in the National Registry of Historic Places in 1980. The Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration would not have grown and prospered without its dedicated parishioners and priests. The first Divine Liturgy was celebrated by Rev. Alexander Hotovitzky. The first assigned pastor was Rev. Theofan Buketoff. Since that time a number of distinguished theologians have had the privilege of serving the Greenpoint community through the Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration. The Cathedral has met the challenge presented by the diverse and growing immigrant population of the community by offering a variety of religious and spiritual services. Among these are Devine Liturgies, Vigil, panikhida and Vespers. The church encourages the active participation of its parishioners in its liturgical life. Additionally, the church provides myriad services for the community via various clubs and associations. These church sponsored organizations also provide a sense of community and belonging for their members. These organizations include the Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity, the Transfiguration Russian Orthodox Club, the Church School, the Parents Association and a special organization for new immigrants. These groups provide services ranging from church maintenance to youth educational programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration as it celebrates its 90th anniversary. I am honored to have such a distinguished and important parish in my district continuing in a long tradition of spiritual and community service.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: New York, NY, September 3.--I rise today to pay tribute to John Catsimaridis, who today is celebrating his fiftieth birthday. John Catsimatidis, an outstanding member of the community which I represent, was born in Greece in 1948. While still an infant, his parents brought him to the United States where he was raised in New York City. He attended high school in Brooklyn and then graduated from New York University. Mr. Catsimatidis' contributions to the New York City community as a businessman and as a caring citizen are vast and varied. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Red Apple Group, Inc., a privately held company that employs 10,000 people. The Red Apple Group is a diversified company with holdings in several areas, including: oil refining, supermarkets, real estate, aviation and publishing. Red Apple Group operates United Refining of Warren, Pennsylvania, a midsized oil refinery that functions under the name ``Kwik-Fill.'' The refinery operates 354 convenience stores and filling stations in Northwest New York and Western Pennsylvania. Mr. Catsimatidis' company also operates the largest supermarket chain in Manhattan under the names ``Sloan's'' and ``Gristede's.'' He founded this business in 1969 while still a college student; the company now operates 50 stores. An additional supermarket operating under the name ``Grand Union,'' located in the Virgin Islands. Mr. Catsimatidis, a pilot, also operates an aviation company under the names ``Capitol Air Express'' and ``C&S Acquisition.'' This company is a worldwide commercial charter and aircraft leasing company with Boeing's 727's and personal jet aircraft. Additionally, he is the owner and editor of the Hellenic Times newspaper, the largest English-language Greek-American newspaper in the United States. The list of Mr. Catsimatidis' philanthropic activities is equally as extensive and impressive as his business initiatives. He is the former chairman of the Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Committee (HANAC), a nonprofit social services organization which operates low-income housing, medical services, and housing for the elderly and home meal delivery in the New York Metropolitan area. He is the co-chairman and founder of the Brooklyn Tech Endowment Foundation; the $10,000,000 fund is the largest gift to a secondary school in the United States. He is the director of the New York Police Athletic League. He funds the John Catsimatidis Scholarship Fund at NYU School of Business, which awards two scholarships annually. He is a past president of the Manhattan Council of Boy Scouts of America. He is also active in the National Kidney Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Young Men's Philanthropic League and the Alzheimer's Foundation. In 1991, he underwrote the construction of the library at Camp David Chapel, the Presidential Retreat. John Catsimatidis and his wife, Margo, have two children, Andrea John, 9; and John Andreas, Jr., 5. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in tribute to John Catsimatidis on his fiftieth birthday. It is a privilege to have such an outstanding leader in my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to clarify the status of planning for the 2000 Census. Some of my colleagues tried to give the impression that the Census Bureau is pursuing an illegal course of action by planning for a scientific census that will count all Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are three issues here: Number one, what have the courts said? Secondly, what were the terms of the agreement between the administration and Congress passed by the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill last November? And thirdly, what is the appropriate course of action for the future? Last month, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in the case of the U.S. House of Representatives v. the Department of Commerce. That court ruled that the use of sampling in the census violates the provisions of Title 13 of the United States Code. If this were the first ruling on this issue, this might be news, but it is not. The fact of the matter is, three district courts have ruled on this issue since 1980 and all three have come to the opposite conclusion. Let me read to my colleagues a few of the other courts' decisions so that we can make up our own mind about the guidance from the courts. In 1980, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan said, ``The words `actual enumeration' in Article 1, section 2, clause 3 do not prohibit an accurate statistical adjustment of the decennial census to obtain a more accurate count.'' That court went on to address Title 13 and said, ``There is nothing contained in Title 13, United States Code, section 195, as amended, which would suggest that the Congress was interested in terminating the Census Bureau's practice, manifested in the 1970 census, of adjusting the census returns to account for people who were not enumerated. All that section 195 does is prohibit the use of figures derived solely by statistical techniques.'' In that same year, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said, ``The court holds that the Census Act permits the Bureau to make statistical adjustments to the headcount in determining the population for apportionment.'' In 1993, these concepts were restated by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which said, ``It is no longer novel or in any sense new law to declare that statistical adjustment of the decennial census is both legal and constitutional.'' Three separate district courts have ruled that the use of modern statistical methods to correct the census is both legal and constitutional. One district court has said that it is illegal and did not address the constitutional issue. When agreement was reached last November to pursue the legality and constitutionality of the census plans in the courts, all agreed that the ultimate answer must come from the Supreme Court. This division among the district courts, even though it is 3 to 1, simply reinforces the wisdom of that decision. If we were to draw a conclusion from the district courts, the smart money would be on the side of the Census Bureau. But that is not what we agreed to, and it is irresponsible to now chastise the Census Bureau for continuing down the path laid out last November. Where do we go from here? The answer is obvious. We stay the course. That is not what the Republican majority is doing. Instead, they want to hold the funding for the second half of the 1999 census hostage because they fear that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Census Bureau. The Republican majority's fight against the census has always been an issue of political survival, not one of getting the most accurate count. We need a scientific census, one that will count all Americans. We need to support the professional Census Bureau plan.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, August 5, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 389. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. Please place this in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mrs. Norton's amendment to allow the District of Columbia to use its own locally raised revenue to provide abortion services for poor women. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 96th vote on choice since the Republican majority came to power in 1995. And they've been successful in restricting abortions for many women--women in the military, poor women on Medicaid, federal employees, women in the Peace Corps, and women in federal prisons. Today, I stand with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to stop this House from trampling on the rights of women in the District of Columbia. Prohibiting the District of Columbia from using its own locally-raised funds to provide abortion services is misguided and unfair. It is bad enough that D.C. residents are not allowed a voting representative in this House. This provision is a second slap in the face to all D.C. women. I believe it is highly unfair that the District of Columbia is singled out in this way. In New York State, where I represent, we provide funding for poor women to obtain abortions. Why should the federal government step in to restrict abortion for poor women in D.C.? Especially since we're talking about their own locally raised revenue. It is simply unfair, and I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Norton in her efforts to delete this misguided provision. The Supreme Court has already ruled that each state may use its own revenue to provide abortions to poor women. Unfortunately, because D.C. residents are not treated as all other citizens are, they are doubly penalized by measures such as this one. We should really be working to eliminate the Hyde restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion. But this amendment doesn't even go that far. It simply brings the District in line with the 50 states where the decision to use locally raised revenue for such a purpose is constitutionally protected.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not plan to object, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for a brief explanation of this legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would like to make my own very brief remarks. Our work here is important but it is far surpassed by the persistence that Holocaust survivors, historians, and researchers have shown in their search for the truth. S. 1379, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, which passed the Senate, introduced by Senator DeWine, and its House companion, H.R. 4007, which I introduced, will help to reveal some of those truths. The bill sets up a process for the declassification of documents held by Federal agencies. It establishes an interagency working group to locate and sort out all classified Nazi war crime records. The bill also wisely allows for the withholding of information which would pose a threat to personal privacy or national security interests. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement for the record for myself and Chairman Horn. In the absence of a report on this bill, there are a number of provisions which we would like to clarify, to make our intent crystal clear. Under this legislation, the President is required to appoint the Director of the Holocaust Museum, the Historian of the Department of State, and the Archivist of the United States to the Interagency Group created by the bill. He is also to appoint those agency heads he considers appropriate and maximum of three other persons from within or outside of Government. The Interagency Group is to report to Congress after one year describing all classified Nazi war criminal records of the United States, the disposition of such records, and the activities of the Interagency Group and affected agencies. The Interagency Group is created for three years and will cease to exist at the end of that time, without reauthorization. This three year sunsetting provision should not be viewed by any agency as a reason for delay. It is our intention that affected agencies should declassify all documents recommended by the Interagency Group as quickly as possible. It is our expectation that all such documents shall become public as soon as possible, preferably within the first year, and most certainly by the end of the three-year period during which the interagency group is in existence. Senator DeWine, the author of this legislation in the other body, has indicated his interest in holding early oversight hearings on the implementation of this legislation. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee may hold such hearings as well, and certainly will if there is any indication of stalling on the part of any executive agency. The bill requires not only a report from the Interagency Group, but also notification and explanation by agencies when they apply the exemptions to declassification included in the bill. These provisions were included in this bill in part to ensure that agencies comply with the spirit of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, while this legislation required the disclosure of Nazi war criminal records specifically related to individuals, it should in no way be interpreted as inhibiting the release of other, more general, records, such as policy directives or memoranda. Indeed, we hope that if such records are uncovered during the search of files this bill necessitates, that they become public along with the rest of the documents. Further Mr. Speaker, the intent of this legislation is to bring to light information which may be in the files and archives of the United States Government. This may well include information from the post-war period showing a relationship between those agencies and Nazi war criminals. It is not our intent that the exemptions included in the bill be used to shield this type of information from disclosure. We have included the exemptions that currently exist in Executive order. They should not be revoked simply to protect any agency from embarrassment. Finally Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee in the other body has included language to increase the budget of the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice by 2 million dollars to help implement this legislation. We urge the House Appropriators to agree to that language in the Conference on the Appropriations bill for Commerce, State, Justice and the Judiciary. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and many thanks to all those who have been involved in developing this legislation, particularly Senator DeWine. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kolbe and Hefley amendment. The United States is an inclusive country. It is built upon the thoughts, beliefs, practices, of many countries. I am almost embarrassed that any Member of Congress would attempt such a slap in the face against any one segment of the American population. Do gay people not pay taxes? Do gay people not participate in this Nation's economic growth? Do gay people not make creative, intelligent, thoughtful, and important contributions to America as a whole? Why would we then single them out as a particular group not worthy of common courtesy, decency, and fairness? Two hundred and forty-five Members of this House and 65 Senators have in place proper nondiscrimination policies. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies have similar policies in place. The Federal Government should not be the exception. In fact, it should be setting the right example. No one is asking for any special privileges, quotas, or preferences. The President's Executive Order asks only for basic human rights for everyone. It simply clarifies existing nondiscrimination policies of Federal agencies and offices. I urge a no vote against both amendments.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman, and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership on this job. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment, which will fully fund the Census 2000 so that they can merely get the job done. We should let the Census Bureau be the Census Bureau, and the Republican majority should stop interfering with the Census Bureau doing their job. The Nation needs an accurate count of our population, one that includes everyone. In 1990 the Census missed 8.4 million people. one in 10 black males, one in 10 Hispanics, and one in 20 Asians was missed. Conducting a fair and accurate Census has become the civil rights issue of the nineties. The Census Bureau is working to implement a plan that is inclusive. It is modern, cost-effective, and comprehensive, and it will eliminate the undercount. The House leadership will say that the 1990 Census was not so bad. They say that missing 8.4 million people and counting 4.5 million people twice was okay by them. They will tell us that everyone will be counted if they just do more counting. However, the truth is, the old methods just do not work anymore. They will tell us that the Census plan is unconstitutional and illegal, but the truth is, every court that has ruled on the use of statistical methods in the Census has found them both legal and constitutional. They will tell us that the Census plan is subject to political manipulation. The truth is that real manipulation is doing nothing about the undercount. They will tell us that this is President Clinton's plan, but the truth is that Congress ordered this plan and President George Bush signed it into law, a mandate that the National Academy of Sciences come up with a plan to correct the undercount. This plan is supported by every major statistical organization. The House leadership will tell us that the plan is partisan. However, the truth is that nonpartisan editorial boards across this country, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, have all endorsed the use of modern statistical methods in the year 2000 Census. Guess who does not support modern statistical methods: the Republican National Committee. The Republican leadership should not be afraid of counting blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. What they should be afraid of is repeating the errors of 1990 while the Nation's minorities look on, knowing those mistakes could have been prevented, knowing they were intentionally left out. The year 2000 Census must be about policy, not politics. It is the right thing to do. It is right for America. I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the Census Bureau. Support the Mollohan amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, earlier my colleague from Florida mentioned to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), ``I do not trust you.'' I would like to really respond to some of the statements that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has made on this floor and in the many meetings we have had in the Committee on Census. He has often referred to a book called ``How to Lie about Statistics'' written by Darrell Huff, and he uses this as an example in his arguments against the use of modern scientific methods. Well, I decided not only to read the book, but to call the author. And, guess what? He supports modern scientific methods. I quote from Darrell Huff: ``I do not think there is any controversy among professionals about the validity of sampling studies or statistical methods. They are universally used and in some cases they are the only methods possible.'' Mr. Chairman, I will put into the Record quotes from leading experts on statistics and quotes from editorial boards across the Nation, including Barbara Bryant, former Director of the Census Bureau. Census 2000: Experts Support an Accurate Census Using Statistical Sampling The National Academy of Sciences resolved in 1995 that, ``[P]hysical enumeration or pure `counting' has been pushed well beyond the point at which it adds to the overall accuracy of census. . . .Techniques of statistical estimation can be used, in combination with the mail questionnaire and reduced scale of follow-up of nonrespondents, to produce a better census at reduced costs.'' And again in 1997, the National Academy of Sciences concluded, ``It is fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with traditional census methods of physical enumeration.'' [Report of the Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, Committee on National Statistics, 1995; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Report to Congress ``The Plan for Census 2000,'' August 1997] Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau under Former President Bush wrote in a letter to Speaker Gingrich, ``[O]ur social and economic development as a nation will be served best by striving for the most accurate census possible. In every decade, that will be one which combines the best techniques for direct enumeration with the best known technology for sampling and estimating the unenumerated.'' [Dr Barbara Bryant of the University of Michigan Business School's National Quality Research Center in a letter to Speaker Gingrich, 5/12/97] The American Statistical Association stated, ``It is unwise to prevent the use of `statistical sampling,' which is a long established and fundamental component of statistical science . . . it is essential to obtain as accurate a measure as is possible using the best statistical tools available at the time of a census. The environment and methodologies are different today from those 200 years ago, and they will be different again in the 21st century. We urge you to support using the latest scientific methods to assure that the Census 2000 results are the best current knowledge and science can provide.'' [ASA Letter, 6/13/97] The General Accounting Office said it is ``encouraged that the Bureau has decided to sample those households failing to respond to census questionnaires rather than conducting a 100-percent follow-up as it has in the past . . . Sampline households that fail to respond to questionnaires produces substantial cost savings and should improve final data quality.'' [1997] Department of Commerce's Inspector General, Frank DeGeorge, remarked, ``The Census Bureau has adopted a number of innovations to address the problems of past censuses-- declining accuracy and rising costs. One innovation, which we fully support, is the use of statistical sampling for non- response follow-up.'' [October 1995] The National Research Council concluded, ``Change is not the enemy of an accurate and useful census; rather, not changing methods as the United States changes would inevitably result in a seriously degraded census.'' [The Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methololgies, ``Preparing for the 2000 Census: Interim Report II,'' June 1997] The Population Association of America's President, Douglas S. Massey, asserted, ``The planned and tested statistical innovations [in the census] . . . have the overwhelming support of members of the scientific community who have carefully reviewed and considered them. If their use is severely limited or prohibited, the 2000 Census planning process will be obstructed, and the result could be a failed census.'' [June 1996]

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Nation needs an accurate census, one that includes everyone. The 1990 census undercounted 8.4 million people. The count heavily disfavored minorities. Correcting the census undercount is the civil rights issue of the 1990s. The Census Bureau, under the direction of the National Academy of Sciences, has come forward with the modern comprehensive plan for the Year 2000 Census, one that will include everyone. The Republican majority is trying to stop the plan from going forward. The Republican majority should not fear counting blacks, Hispanics and Asians. What they should be afraid of is repeating the errors of 1990 while the Nation's minorities look on, knowing those mistakes could have been prevented, knowing they were intentionally left out. Mr. Speaker, the Year 2000 census must be about policy, accurate policy, not politics.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. We have the power to make history tonight and to succeed where past Congresses have failed by passing true campaign finance reform, and we owe it to the American people. I rise in support of the Meehan- Shays bill. I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan substitute. Not because I think it's the ``cat's meow''--it has its imperfections. But it certainly has nine lives. It's dodged a number of death threats and I'm proud to say that reformers have done a great job of keeping it alive. The bill before us today--is our last best hope. It bans soft money, increases disclosure, and strengthens the means of disclosure. It also provides an on-going process in the form of a commission to come back and do more to repair our broken down elections process. This bill brings the American people back into the elections process. I applaud Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan for their dedication . . . and success so far. And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Shays-Meehan substitute.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, it is not only the National Academy of Sciences, it is every statistical association. We have many editorials that I would like to put in the Record from clear across the country supporting modern scientific methods. Also it was approved by the Bush Administration, and Dr. Barbara Bryant put the plan in place under the Bush Administration. We were moving forward with a plan to count everyone. The only person that I know who objects to it is the Republican National Committee that has raised many objections to getting an accurate count of all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following editorials: Editorials Y2K II There'll certainly be hell to pay if the nation's banking, power and communication systems shut down because computers confuse the year 2000 with the year 1900. Government will get blamed for not doing enough in advance to handle the problem. But at least public officials will be able to say that the disaster was not originally of their making. That's not the case with the second Y2K meltdown that's impending: a failed 2000 Census, which took another step toward reality yesterday in the House Appropriations Committee. On a party-line vote the committee's Republicans moved to give the Census Bureau only half of its funding for next year and to release the rest next March--if and when Congress has voted on how the census should be conducted. This was a blatant and dangerous move to keep the bureau from even planning to implement statistical sampling as a counting method. It's important that the Census Bureau be fully funded from the get-go in fiscal 1999 because much of the agency's vital preparatory work for 2000 needs to be done early in the year--regardless of how the sampling issue finally gets decided. Offices must be leased, employees hired, questionnaires printed and computers bought--which can't happen efficiently without full funding. Moreover, if there are delays approving a second trance of funding in March, offices will have to be closed and employees let go, making a botched census even more likely--again, regardless of how the sampling issue is resolved. The responsible way to handle the sampling issue is to let the Supreme Court decide whether or not use of modern statistical methods violates the constitutional mandate of an ``actual enumeration'' of the population each decade. We do not see how the Court can possibly decide that it does in view of the changes that have previously been made in the census. Until 1970, census-takers actually went around counting the number of persons in households. Since the, written questionnaires have been the main counting method, supplemented by personal visits. It's been conclusively determined that both methods systematically undercount the population, especially in minority and poor communities. So the Census Bureau wants to supplement visits and mailers with sampling to achieve a more accurate count. We'd bet that the Court will find that what the Framers meant by ``actual enumeration'' was ``a realcount'' of the population--as opposed to guesswork or political logrolling-- to determine distribution of Congressional seats and government benefits. But we could be wrong. If so, there won't be sampling in 2000. If the court decides that sampling is OK, though. Republicans will have no legitimate reason to oppose the practice. To block it, they'd have to say they want minorities to be undercounted--a disgraceful proposition that's unsustainable politically or morally. The GOP has every right to want sampling to be conducted in an honest, professional manner. But it's covered this problem by creating a bipartisan census oversight board. So, we urge the full House--or the Senate--to assure full funding for census preparations. One Y2K problem is plenty.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, every American deserves to be counted in the census, and we must have the most accurate census possible. The 1990 census was the first in history to be less accurate than its predecessor. It missed millions of Americans, predominantly children and minorities. The Census Bureau has a plan that will count everyone. For political reasons, our opponents' plan will not do that, and we must not let that happen. They will not fund the plan that is needed for the entire year. Virtually every expert agrees that the way to get the most accurate count possible is by using modern scientific methods to supplement the traditional head count. Here we have a list of many of the people who already support the plan that the Census Bureau has put forward, that the Mollohan amendment supports. Funding the Census Bureau for only six months, as the opposition suggests, will cripple its ability to adequately plan and prepare for the largest peacetime mobilization undertaken by the United States Government, that of counting all of our people. I stand in support of the Census Bureau's plan and the Mollohan amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I thank the committee for ruling the Mollohan amendment in order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his extraordinary leadership in working towards achieving an accurate census for 2000. The Nation needs an accurate census of our population, one that includes everybody. The Census Bureau has a modern, comprehensive plan for 2000 to eliminate the undercounting of the population and produce a more accurate census. We should not be satisfied with a census which underrepresents millions of people, as the census did in 1990. Only with modern improvements in the census will we be able to achieve this. We should not be satisfied with a census which underrepresents people. The Mollohan amendment allows the Census Bureau to move forward with the census by striking a provision in the bill that fences off half of the 1999 fiscal year appropriation. Americans in every community benefit from having a more accurate census. Census data helped direct Federal spending for schools, health care. Programs for seniors and children, businesses, industry, local governments and local communities all rely on accurate census data to make decisions. Without an accurate census, local communities will not receive their fair share. We need to fund the census for the whole fiscal year. We cannot cut off funding in the middle of the year. They will not be able to do their job. We owe it to our country to ensure that we have the most fair and accurate census of all of our people that we can produce. Let us put politics aside and allow the professionals at the Census Bureau to do their job. Let us fund it properly. Let us move forward. Let us support the Mollohan amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their extraordinary commitment to this issue and their hard work on it for many years. Many of the amendments that come before us tonight collectively serve only one purpose, and, that is, to sidetrack reform. We have the power to change that today by passing and voting for Shays-Meehan, voting down absolutely every single amendment. We have a commission that is attached to it that can review all of these. The Shays-Meehan as we have said bans soft money and it also prevents the so-called independent groups from running sham issue advocacy ads whose true aim is to elect or defeat a particular candidate. This particular amendment really would create a sham legislative alert. Whether it is a sham issue advocacy ad or a sham legislative alert, all we are saying is disclose who is paying for it. Let the American public know who is wooing whom and pay for it, not with the huge loophole of soft money but with hard money. I think that all of us have been attacked by these so-called independent groups in our campaigns. What is very troubling, in many cases I believe these independent groups are spending more money than the candidates themselves. But I am all for free speech. We all support free speech. Just let the American public know who is paying for it. Is that too much to ask? But the real point is that we have before us a very carefully crafted bill that has what I call the fragile flower of consensus. We have a majority of Members in this Congress that support Shays-Meehan. We can pass it and enact it into law. We can consider other important amendments in the commission bill. That is what we should be doing tonight. What I find particularly troubling is that I suspect that many of the Members who have offered amendments this evening have absolutely no intention for voting for Shays-Meehan. Their real agenda is to try to destroy it with poison pills or with amendments that disrupt the balance that we have created. Vote for Shays-Meehan. Vote against all amendments.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to Dr. Gerald From, who has provided invaluable services to the South Bronx Mental Health Council since 1969 and made a tremendous contribution to the Gouverneur Hospital Community Advisory Board. A long-time resident of New York, Dr. From received his B.A. from Yeshiva University, his Masters in Counseling Psychology from Columbia Teachers College and his Ph.D. in Rehabilitation Counseling from New York University in 1987. A man of many talents, Dr. From is a licensed substitute teacher for the New York City school system, as well as a rehabilitation counselor and a psychologist. He has worked at the Rockland County Center for the physically handicapped, the Pesach Tikvah Guidance Center, and he also ran his own part-time private practice. Dr. From has made significant contributions to the Bronx Mental Health Clinics. In a variety of capacities during his 28 years of service there, he acted as both a senior and a supervising vocational rehabilitation counselor. Dr. From impact on the New York community has also been profound. He was a remedial mathematics teacher at an antipoverty program called Project Talent, and he served as an audiometric tester for the Jewish Educational Committee, testing thousands of youngsters for hearing defects. He has served on many boards, including the board of directors for the 219 Henry Street Corporation and the Department Center for Education and Health Services. Dr. From has also received numerous honors, ranging from being named among the ``Outstanding Young Men in America'' in 1974, to being included in the 1997-98 Whos's Who in Medicine and Health Care. Tonight, however, Dr. From will be honored for his outstanding contribution to the Gouverneur Hospital Community Advisory Board. Dr. From was first elected to the board in 1974 by over 3,000 diverse members of the New York City community. He served as treasurer until 1977, and then proceeded to serve as chairman of the board for 21 years. The community and Gouverneur Hospital have benefitted immensely from his wisdom and guidance. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking and congratulating Dr. From for his many years of outstanding service to this board and to the community. It is a privilege to have such an outstanding leader in my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to add to what my fellow Members of Congress have said here today about the dedication and commitment of the Capitol Police Force. Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives so that some of my colleagues might live. I did not know officers Gibson or Chestnut. But they laid down their lives for my fellow Members and in so doing, they were my friends. I want to simply thank the Capitol Police Force for their acts of bravery. And I deeply admire their courage--not only in the face of danger but also in the face of tremendous grief these past few days. Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson are leaving behind wives and children. I extend my condolences to them, and I also extend my condolences to my fellow Members of the House because we all clearly have lost two friends--two people who were committed to service--who were committed to us. Committed to this country and committed to democracy. They have continued to stand proudly and helpfully on the streets and corners of Capitol Hill carrying on through these difficult days. We remember these two brave officers today--and will memorialize them in the Capitol building. It's also a time to remember the officers across the country who have laid down their lives for the citizens they protect. Right now--near my home town--a 28 year old officer is struggling to stay alive after a teenager shot him in cold blood. Officer Gerard Carter took a bullet to his head as he walked with a fellow officer apparently on his beat in Staten Island. Officer Carter had recently received the ``Policeman of the Month'' award. He is married and has a young son. I pray for his survival.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 20, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 297-306. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 297, 298, 299, 300 and 301, ``no'' on rollcall vote 302, ``yes'' on rollcall votes 303, 304, and 305, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 306. Please place this in the appropriate place in the record.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise against the bill. Madam Speaker I rise against this bill. This is the first time that Congress has attempted to criminalize a medical procedure--a rare procedure used to save a woman's life and save her reproductive future. That's what it was for Kim Koster, who lives in Iowa. In November 1996, she became pregnant. In February, she faced heartbreaking news: Their baby had anencephaly--no brain. Kim says, ``our world came crashing down around us.'' Thankfully, the D and E procedure was available, and Kim's fertility remained intact. In March of this year, Kim became pregnant, and just last week, she learned that--again--she has another baby with no brain. Nineteen states, including Iowa, have blocked these state laws, ruling that they are unconstitutional, vague, and overly broad. Thankfully, Kim was able to have the abortion she needed. Unfortunately, this federal bill prevents women like Kim Koster from receiving necessary, safe medical care in rare cases when a much wanted pregnancy has gone tragically wrong. When a woman seeks medical care, she wants the best care her doctor can provide. Congress has no place in their decisions. And Congress has no place politicizing family tragedies. Apparently, the supporters of this bill feel it is more important to save a doomed fetus than the life of the mother and her ability to have children in the future. I urge a ``no'' vote on this override vote.