Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and funding for the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today. We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved and their importance was understood. They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-esteem. The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives of millions of Americans. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country; today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there are 300. Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each year; today over 55 million attend annually. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlemen from the Committee on Appropriations from the minority side for their very strong statements and really to rise in support of their statements and respond to some of the words on the other side of the aisle, where one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle accused the FEC of being partisan. Yet a study by the Conservative Fair Government Foundation found that ``partisan favoritism is absent'' at the Federal Election Commission. In fact, in this study, and I would be glad to give it to my colleagues, it showed that they had, in fact, investigated more Democrats than Republicans. Yet there is no doubt that the need for more spending at the FEC is needed because of the spending in campaigns and the allegations that have come to them. Campaign spending, as my colleagues have pointed out, has gone up 146 percent, referrals of audits have gone up 110 percent and itemized transactions to be processed have gone up 157 percent, so they need this money. As my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out, whether it is the $6 million that has been spent in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight investigating President Clinton, or the monies that have been spent in others, I have seen everything from $30 to $50 million in investigations in committees in this body, some of which only subpoena Democrats, only investigate Democrats, at least at the FEC they investigate both parties, all people who run, Democrat, Independent, Republican. There have been some concerns that the majority party has been trying to destroy the FEC, and I will at this point put in the Record editorials that have appeared across this country. [From Roll Call, June 11, 1998] Micro-Muzzling Congress is at it again, trying to throttle the Federal Election Commission, the weak watchdog it created to regulate campaign finance. As spending and contribution levels soar and crafty political operatives invent new loopholes to skirt finance laws, Congress regularly keeps the FEC on a bare- subsistence diet, unable to keep up with the action. Now, in a simultaneous act of micro-management and muzzling, House Republicans seem bent on firing the commission's general counsel, Lawrence Noble. Under current law, it would take a four-member majority of the six-member FEC to oust Noble. The commission is evenly divided, with three Republicans and three Democrats. But last month, the House Oversight Committee approved a bill to require that both the FEC's staff director and general counsel be reconfirmed in office every four years, beginning next January, with a four-vote majority. The bill won't become law, but the Noble ouster may be adopted today as a rider to the Treasury, Postal Service and general government appropriations bill. Disingenuously, backers of the provision say it's not aimed at Noble, just at administratively tidying up the FEC. But everyone knows what's really going on. Noble, who's in charge of FEC enforcement, has angered Republicans by claiming that the agency, having opened the loophole that allows for unlimited soft-money donations to political parties, has the power to close it. Noble takes an expansive view of FEC posers to regulate issue ads. And he led the way in investigating the 1996 Dole campaign's management of Republican party advertising, which led to a hefty fine. To his credit, he also is reliably reported to be investigating the even more blatant and extensive White House use of Democratic National Committee funds to run ads boosting President Clinton. For Congress to be deciding who serves as general counsel of the FEC would be like allowing the AFL-CIO to name (and fire) the chairman of the National labor Relations Board or for the Chemical Manufacturers Association to pick the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Already, politicians appoint the members of the commission. The equal partisan division of the commission ensures that it can't be wildly aggressive or overly partisan. Having created the commission, Congress ought to let it pick--and keep--its own general counsel. In addition, it's time for Congress to quit hog-tying the agency with limited funds and then complaining it has to perform triage on the cases it investigates. Last year, the FEC dismissed 55 percent of its cases as ``low rated'' or ``stale'' in order to concentrate on higher priorities and to clear its backlog. Fundraising by House and Senate candidates during the first 15 months of the 1997-98 election cycle was up by 14 percent over the same period in 1996, yet House Oversight cut the FEC's budget authorization from a requested $36.5 million to $33.7 million. It's time for Congress to strengthen federal campaign laws and the FEC, not sneakily undermine them.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which will give the Federal Election Commission an additional $2.8 million, bringing its total budget to $36.5 million. This is the full amount requested in the President's budget. This amendment is sensible. It is a proposal that simply gives the Federal Election Commission the resources it needs to do the job to efficiently enforce the laws that we create. All throughout the campaign finance reform debate we have heard opponents of reform argue that we do not need any new laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are on the books. But those same opponents of reform are reform refuse to fully fund the Federal Election Commission. The FEC is the only bipartisan agency empowered to enforce our campaign finance laws. It is the watchdog which polices our elections. It is the only government center that compiles information on campaign contributions and expenditures. But many Members of this House would like to see the FEC become a toothless tiger incapable of enforcing any laws. There was even an effort to change the whole structure in the FEC of how they hire and fire personnel. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight which, along with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, has spent over $7 million on a partisan investigation of the Clinton administration. By contrast, during the last year the Federal Election's General Counsel's Office spent only 6 and a half million dollars enforcing the law, and the FEC is responsible of investigating all elections in this country, not just the presidential race. So we see this body empowering committees to spend more than the entire FEC on investigating President Clinton, but they will not fund it to the level that they say they need to do an appropriate job. Opponents of the FEC like to argue that since 1990 funding for the agency has increased. This statement is only partially true. On paper, funding for the FEC has increased, but in recent years Congress has fenced off large portions of their budget for use of modernization of computers. Congress has specifically told them that they cannot use the money for investigations. When we consider the fact that the total amount of money available to the FEC for enforcement and disclosure has more or less remained constant over the last 4 years, yet the work load has increased dramatically and the total number of staff that the FEC has been able to hire has actually gone down, and while the FEC resources have stayed constant or decreased, campaign spending has increased astronomically. In fact, since 1990 campaign spending has gone up 146 percent, cases in which the FEC has determined that there is a sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to conduct an audit have gone up 110 percent, and total itemized transactions, and here I mean the total number of contributions which the FEC records in its data base, have gone up by 157 percent. So, even if the FEC's budget has gone up, it has clearly not gone up enough to keep pace with the explosion in campaign spending and alleged abuses. So the argument that the FEC's resources have kept pace with the work load is simply not supported by the facts. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to really thank the gentleman from Kansas for his work on this issue and for offering this amendment, and I hope that all Members will support it. If we are serious about campaign finance reform, then all Members in this body should join us in this effort to fund the FEC at the level that they feel is necessary to enforce the laws that are on the book.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. This weekend marks the 150th anniversary of the first women's rights convention in this country. One hundred and fifty years ago on this weekend, women gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, and created a document called the Women's Bill of Rights. Since then, we have worked hard to gain more freedoms and to be sure that our rights are not run over. We have come a long way since Seneca Falls, but now, in this Congress, I feel that we can no longer make progress. We can only fight to hold onto the hard-earned rights we won in prior Congresses, and in fact, we are losing ground for women. This Congress has acted again and again and again toward the gradual elimination of a woman's right to choose. Let us put this vote today in perspective. This is the 88th vote either to protect choice or to restore choice that we have taken in this body since the beginning of the 104th Congress. Two years ago Federal employees were prevented from getting health insurance that covers abortions. That was one of the first in a series of setbacks, and it needs to be corrected. This amendment gives back the right of choice to Federal employees. It does not require anyone to provide coverage or choose coverage for abortions. It simply allows an insurance company to cover abortions, and it allows women to choose those companies. They may still select a company which does not cover abortions. It is all about choice. It is about choice in health care, legal, safe health care. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to give back to women, Federal employees, their right to choose. I want to just end by saying that I remember when I received my notice, after the Republican majority passed the law barring a woman's access or right to purchase abortion coverage. It was a chilling moment to see in writing a specific act of this Congress rolling back choice piece by piece for women. Let us restore choice. Let us vote for the DeLauro amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against section 511 on page 67, lines 5 through page 68, line 17, on the grounds that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI constituting legislation on a general appropriations bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership on this issue and many others. I rise in opposition to this rule and to this bill, as I have risen in opposition to every other piece of legislation that has moved through this Congress which attacks abortion rights. This Congress is working to dismantle a woman's most hard fought rights, the right of a safe, legal abortion. Procedure by procedure, obstruction after obstruction this antiwoman Congress is succeeding. This time the targets are on our Nation's young people. This bill will criminalize the act of taking a noncustodial minor out of State, which requires parental consent, to have an abortion. All of us would hope that our children would be able to confide in us. I am sure that the parents of Amy Grossberg felt that she could confide in them. However, family loyalty kept her from doing that and the situation turned tragic. Sometimes a teenager simply cannot confide in her own family. And if she has no other alternative, no other adult who will help her, she will inevitably resort to an unsafe, unclean, underground clinic, or worse. Family values simply cannot be legislated. This Congress has no business making laws which force one family member to confide in another. There may be very good reasons a pregnant teen does not want to deal with a parent. He or she could be abusive. There could be a history of incest. Alcohol or drug use could be a factor, or she simply does not feel comfortable telling a parent. This legislation is not about protecting young women from undue influence, it is about stripping our young people of essential support. It is not about helping our children, it is about abortion politics, and it puts our kids at risk. I urge a ``no'' vote against this so-called child custody bill and against this rule which did not allow one single Democratic amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow I will raise a point of order against section 511 of this bill. I had planned to offer an amendment to strike this language. However, the provision is not protected, and I will instead raise a point of order. The current version of this bill contains an unprecedented provision which makes Members of Congress micromanagers. It would essentially fire the general counsel and staff director of the Federal Elections Commission. Since when, Mr. Chairman, have Members of Congress gotten into the business of hiring and firing staff at the Federal Elections Commission? The Federal Elections Commission is a congressional campaign watchdog. How can Congress be put in charge of hiring and firing people who are supposed to be policing them? It is sort of like letting the inmates run the penitentiary. This is how it is being engineered: The FEC is a bipartisan commission made up of three Republicans and three Democrats. The Commissioners make all the final decisions: Salaries, decisions regarding who or what is investigated. It is all made on a bipartisan basis because four members must agree. The bill that is in front of us tonight and tomorrow would change all that. It would allow the general counsel and the staff director to be fired by just three Commissioners or by just one party. It was not long ago that the new majority tied the hands of the FEC financially by fencing their money, saying it could only be used for computers and not for investigations, which is what they needed. Now the new majority is attempting to tie the hands of the FEC politically. In other words, if one's party or big donor becomes a target of the FEC, the FEC and its staff will become the target. Unfortunately, I believe the pattern has already been set. The current FEC general counsel, Mr. Lawrence Noble, has served the agency with distinction for 11 years. During that time he has recommended investigations of anyone he believes may have violated election laws, Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike. However, because he is making sensible recommendations regarding an FEC ban on soft money and tightening the definition of ``independent expenditure,'' he has become the target of the GOP. Also, his investigations of GOPAC have been questioned. I must note quickly that these two recommendations are currently contained in the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. That, too, is a proposal that the leadership on the other side of the aisle has taken great creative pains to kill. Mr. Chairman, I have before me a recent editorial from the New York Times called ``Punishing Competence at the FEC.'' The text reads, ``This change is nothing more than an attempt to install a do-nothing staff. Reform-minded members from both parties have a duty to oppose this vendetta.'' Vendetta. Mr. Chairman, we have enough on our plate to do; we should not be getting into the area of making personnel decisions at the Federal Election Commission, and I am relieved that this provision will be stricken tomorrow, and I hope that this is the last time that we will ever hear of such an ill-conceived, partisan, misguided idea as was put forward by the majority party.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Earlier today, we debated abortion again--for the 87th time since 1995--and this House passed a bill to criminalize abortion in yet another way. Now, we learn that this rule does not protect language already included in this Treasury Appropriations bill to provide for contraceptive coverage equity for federal employees. Later today, we will vote once again on the issue of whether a federal employee's health plan can choose to cover abortion. I find this very contradictory. If you want to prevent abortion, why not do everything we can to make contraceptives more available and affordable. The language left unprotected by this rule simply requires Federal Employee Health Benefit plans that currently cover prescription drugs, to also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services to individuals and their families. Mr. Speaker, women of reproductive age spend approximately 68% more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs. Much of this disparity can be attributed to the lack of coverage of reproductive health care costs. By improving insurance coverage of contraceptive care, we can reduce or eliminate this unfair financial cost to women. More than half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and half of these pregnancies end in abortion. Currently, 10% of FEHB plans offer no coverage of reversible contraceptives and, in some cases, plans cover only one method of prescription contraception. This lack of insurance coverage leads many women to choose less expensive and less reliable methods of contraception. So why not allow a vote on this provision? It won a bipartisan victory in committee, and now this rule will make it easy to strip this language. That is unfair and undemocratic. We have a real opportunity today to decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and the number of abortions. And, the Republican majority says no. It is shameful. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 87th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. This Congress has acted again and again to eliminate abortion procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction, and unfortunately, they are succeeding. Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act taking a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent, if the state in which the person resides requires it. As a mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple issue. Of course, I would hope that my children would include me when making such an important decision. Unfortunately, parental notification requirements lead many teens-- especially those from from severely dysfunctional families not to seek a safe abortion at all. I would hope that any young woman who refuses to involve her parents would have another trusted adult from which to seek guidance and support. However, this bill will make criminals of those loving grandparents, siblings, counselors and friends who have nothing but the safety and well-being of the young woman in mind. It sends the message to young women that the abortion process is something they must go through alone. H.R. 3682 is a dangerous bill. It will succeed only in making it more difficult for young women to gain safe, legal abortions. If she refuses to involve her family and the law prohibits her from looking to another responsible adult for help she may be forced to travel alone to a clinic, adding delays which increase the risk to her health, or worse, resort to ``back alley'' or even self-induced abortion. H.R. 3682 is also an unnecessary bill. For those who worry about young women being forced or coerced by an adult into having an abortion against their will, let me remind them that we already have laws, such as informed consent laws or prohibitions against kidnaping and statutory rape, which protect against this. This bill doesn't protect young women from undue influence. On the contrary, it strips them of essential support. This bill is not about protecting our young women. It is driven solely by the divisive nature of abortion politics. I urge you to oppose H.R. 3682 and in doing so put the safety and well-being of America's young women before the political agenda of anti-choice legislatures.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) pointed out that his amendment has already passed this body as a stand-alone bill. So why are we debating it now? We are debating it because, I would venture to say, many Members who support this amendment and who are trying to add amendments to Shays-Meehan are trying to defeat the bill, which has 218 votes to pass this body if we keep it in the form that it is in that is like the McCain-Feingold bill that has the majority of votes in the Senate. I call on my colleagues, if they are for reform, vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 22, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 252-256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all of them.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment, which will prohibit the FDA from testing, developing or approving any drug that has the chemical inducement of abortion connected to it. Last time I looked, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal. However, this Congress continues to attack a woman's right to choose. This is the 85th vote against reproductive rights since the beginning of the 104th Congress or maybe I should say since the beginning of the antiwoman Congress. What might surprise some people is the fact that this vote is about much more than reproductive rights. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) was pointing out. It is about biomedical research. One of the drugs targeted by this amendment is used to treat a number of conditions, among them, uterine fibroids, certain breast cancers, and endometriosis. To my gentleman friends on the other side of the aisle, it is even used to treat conditions affecting men, like glaucoma, arthritis, AIDS, lupus, and some types of burns. Blocking research and development of safe and effective drugs in the name of abortion politics is just plain wrong. My opponents called their position on reproductive rights pro-life and their position on this bill pro-life, but this amendment and their position is anything but. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Science should not be compromised by politics. It would be a dampening affect on research. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Schumer amendment, and compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for his outstanding leadership on this issue. The United States sugar program, as it is spelled out in this legislation, amounts to a sweet deal for the sugar producers. As was pointed out by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) on the other side of the aisle, only a small percentage of American families benefit, family producers, benefit from this program. It is a raw one for refiners, consumers, and the environment. I thought programs that we initiate here in Congress were supposed to help people. This one has managed to close 11 of 22 sugar refineries here in the United States. Three of the well-known Domino Sugar refineries have closed their doors, and I am afraid that the one that remains in my district is the next target. It employs hundreds of highly-paid industrial workers, many of them from New York's minority community. By providing price support loan programs to producers, this program is taking jobs away from the American worker at the same time it is driving up costs for the American consumer. Domestic sugar prices are still twice as high as the world price of sugar. As long as this sugar program remains the same, so will the prices. The Federal Reserve, the USDA, and the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability all agree on the obvious: Working families would benefit from lower sugar prices. We have a chance to repair the damage brought by this program. We have a chance to sweeten the deal for most Americans. American consumers deserve lower prices, and American workers deserve to keep their jobs. By voting for this amendment, it is a modest one and in the right direction. Vote for Miller-Schumer.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the President nominated Dr. Kenneth Prewitt to be the next director of the Bureau of the Census. Dr. Prewitt is the current president of the Social Science Research Council. He has been senior vice president of the Rockefeller Foundation, the director of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Corporation, chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, and vice president of the American Academy of Arts and sciences. He has also served on the boards of trustees of Washington University, Southern Methodist University, the Center for Advanced Study and Behavioral Sciences, National Opinion Research Corporation, and the German American Academic Council. He has a long and distinguished career as an administrator and researcher with publications too numerous to mention. He is highly regarded by his colleagues for his scholarship and professionalism. Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed that the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census chose to attack Dr. Prewitt just hours after he was nominated. The chairman referred to Dr. Prewitt as, and I quote, yet another statistical shell. It is just that kind of attack that makes it so difficult to recruit highly qualified and talented individuals to public service. I hope the chairman will apologize to Dr. Prewitt. However, I do not feel that that is likely. Last week one of the chairman's staff was reported to have made a comment infused with political and racial overtones. This was in an article written by David Broder entitled Playing Hard Ball on the Census in the Washington Post, and it was referenced earlier in the comments of my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The staff member said, and I quote: Someone should remind Bill Daley that if he counts people the way he wants to, his brother could find himself trying to run a majority-minority city. Unfortunately, rather than repudiate that statement or even to acknowledge that it was a poor choice of words, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) offered a feeble excuse that the quote was taken out of context. He is unwilling to apologize for the racial innuendos uttered by his staff. I do not think there is much hope that he will apologize for an abusive comment about a public servant. Instead, the chairman keeps trying to rewrite history. He tries to call this the Clinton census plan. The truth of the matter is that the plan was created by Dr. Barbara Bryant under President Bush. President Bush signed into law legislation passed by Congress calling for the National Academy of Sciences to advise the Census on planning the 2000 census to be less expensive and more accurate than the census of 1990. When the planning process initiated by Dr. Bryant and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences came together, we had a plan for a census that would be more accurate and less expensive, just as Congress directed. That plan has been endorsed by the American Statistical Association, the Council of Professional Associates on Federal Statistics, the National Association of Business Economists, the Association of University Business and Economic Research, the Association of Public Data Users and many, many others. Only one organization seems to favor a less accurate and more expensive census in 2000, and that is the Republican National Committee. The sad truth is that the Census Bureau has developed a plan that will count everyone who lives in America, including blacks and Latinos and the poor and Asians and whites, everyone. But some Members of Congress do not want that to happen. Why? Because they believe not counting certain minorities and the poor is to their political advantage. The Census Bureau has developed a plan that will count everyone who lives in this country, a plan that is more accurate and less expensive, but some Members of this body do not want that to happen. Instead they want to spend more money to make sure that the census is less accurate. Why? Because they believe that a less accurate census is to their political advantage. The opponents of a fair and accurate census try to smear the Census Bureau, claiming that the 2000 census will be manipulated for political purposes. If the opponents have their way, the 2000 census will be manipulated for political purposes, not by the Census Bureau, but by those who want to continue the errors of the past for their own political gain. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the President nominated Dr. Kenneth Prewitt to be the next Director of the Bureau of the Census. Dr. Prewitt is the current President of the Social Science Research Council. He has been Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Director of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Corporation, Chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, and Vice President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has also served on the Boards of Trustees of Washington University, Southern Methodist University, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, National Opinion Research Corporation, and the German American Academic Council. He has a long and distinguished career as an administrator and researcher with publications too numerous to mention here. He is highly regarded by his colleagues for his scholarship and professionalism. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census chose to attack Dr. Prewitt just hours after he was nominated. The Chairman referred to Dr. Prewitt as ``yet another statistical shill.'' It is just that kind of scurrilous attack that makes it so difficult to recruit highly qualified and talented individuals for public service. I hope the Chairman will apologize to Dr. Prewitt. However, I don't think that is likely. Last week one of the Chairman's staff was reported to have made a comment infused with political and racial overtones. The staff member said ``Someone should remind Bill Daley that if he counts people the way he wants to, his brother could find himself trying to run a majority-minority city.'' Unfortunately, rather than repudiate that statement, or even to acknowledge that it was a poor choice of words, Mr. Miller offered a feeble excuse that the quote was taken out of context. If he is unwilling to apologize for the racial innuendoes uttered by his staff, I don't think there is much hope that he will apologize for an abusive comment about a public servant. Instead, the Chairman keeps trying to rewrite history. He tries to call this the Clinton census plan. The truth of the matter is that this plan was created by Dr. Barbara Bryant under President Bush. President Bush signed into law legislation passed by Congress calling for the National Academy of Sciences to advise the census on planning the 2000 census to be less expensive and more accurate than 1990. When the planning process initiated by Dr. Bryant and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences came together, we had a plan for a census that would be more accurate and less expensive--just as Congress had directed. That plan has been endorsed by the American Statistical Association, The Council of Professional Associates on Federal Statistics, the National Association of Business Economists, the Association of University Business & Economic Research, the Association of Public Data Users, and many others. Only one organization seems to favor a less accurate and more expensive census in 2000: the Republican National Committee. The sad truth is that the Census Bureau has developed a plan that will count everyone who lives in America including Blacks and Hispanics and the poor and Asians and Whites--everyone. But some members of Congress do not want that to happen. Why? Because they believe not counting minorities and the poor is to their political advantage. The Census Bureau has developed a plan that will count everyone who lives in this country--A plan that is more accurate and less expensive. But some members of this body do not want that to happen. Instead, they want to spend more money to make sure that the census is less accurate. Why? Because the believe that a less accurate census is to political advantage. The opponents of a fair and accurate census try to smear the Census Bureau claiming that the 2000 census will be manipulated for political purposes. If the opponents have their way, the 2000 census will be manipulated for political purposes--not by the Census Bureau, but by those who want to continue the errors of the past for their own political gain.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 30 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. How they are selected is the members are appointed by the President on recommendations made by the four leaders in the House and in the Senate. The Republican Speaker, the Democrat minority leader, the Republican leader in the Senate and the Democratic minority leader would make the recommendations.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?