Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. As the gentleman knows, the commission bill is an appendage of Shays-Meehan. We would enact in this Congress, send to the Senate, the President would sign into law Shays-Meehan. All of the aspects of Shays-Meehan would become law. Then, as the gentleman knows, our bill in the next Congress, the commission would go into effect for 180 days with 12 appointments, 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, 4 Independents. It must have a supermajority of 9 votes to come back with an expedited review. That ensures that at least one Republican, one Democrat and one Independent agree. They can then come back to this floor for an up or down vote. The likelihood of any part of Shays-Meehan being repealed, although it could be, is about as likely as a two-headed cow coming out of this commission, coming back. I do not think it would happen. I do not believe it would happen. It is beyond belief to me. But it possibly could. Again, it would have to be passed by this House.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment which I offer along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and with the support of the gentleman of Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), it is a bipartisan amendment. It would create an independent commission to study and recommend changes to our campaign finance laws. This amendment is identical to the substitute introduced earlier this week by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) except for one important point. The White amendment, had it passed, might have blocked and killed the Shays-Meehan bill. Due to the structure of the rule, had the White amendment received more votes than Shays-Meehan, it would have prevented Shays-Meehan from becoming law. This amendment works in conjunction with Shays-Meehan. It strengthens and supports Shays-Meehan. It lets us fix some of the most important problems with our campaign finance system today and creates a commission to solve the problems that remain tomorrow. I think this option is the best of both worlds. Shays-Meehan can be signed into law so that we can ban soft money and provide for greater disclosure of our third-party expenditures; but, at the same time, we will create a commission to fix problems that are not addressed in Shays-Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I see that we have many, many amendments ahead of us on this substitute. I am sure that many of these amendments are strong. But if the House agrees to this commission proposal, then I hope my colleagues will withdraw their amendments. I certainly plan to withdraw the amendments that I had hoped to introduce, not because I do not think that they are strong and important, but, with this commission, we now have another vehicle to take a serious look at all of these issues that remain to be done and report back with a proposal for addressing them. Mr. Chairman, we have a choice before us. We can spend until August debating every problem, every issue on campaign finance and the hundreds of amendments made in order under this rule, and we may never finish this debate. Or we can pass this amendment and pass Shays-Meehan and let the commission address the remaining problems. I think the choice is clear. I urge all Members to support the Maloney-Dingell amendment and to withdraw any of their own amendments so that we can finally pass Shays- Meehan and take a real step toward restoring the faith of the American people in their electoral process. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked so hard on campaign finance in a bipartisan spirit.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last night we had an opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform; and for the fourth time, the GOP leadership pulled it out from beneath us. I am beginning to feel a little bit like Charlie Brown running to kick the ball. Just as he is about to approach the ball, Lucy moves it. The truth of the matter is, the GOP House leadership knows that if a real campaign finance bill hits the floor, it just might pass, and that scares them, and that is the reason that we have this convoluted rule, 258 nongermane amendments put in order. In my entire congressional career, I have had maybe four amendments accepted by the Committee on Rules. Yet, this time, they have accepted 25 on this one issue alone, 25 of my own amendments. To put it in perspective, in the last Congress, in the second session of the last Congress, 150 amendments were ruled in order. Yet, on this one bill, there are 258 amendments ruled. Rules are meant to guide the Congress toward a decision, not to delay. Vote against the rule.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues important to our State of New York. I believe it is very fair to say that none of us enjoys paying taxes. But instead of having an honest debate about the Tax Code, the Republican leadership has presented us with irresponsible election year pandering. This bill brings dangerous uncertainty to the American economy, which has been so successful for the past 6 years, while it puts off the real work of determining what the Tax Code should look like to two Congresses in the future, the summer of the year 2002. That is right, the Republicans are saying let us take credit now for something someone else will have to work on 3 years from now. I am certainly in support of an honest debate about the Tax Code, but an honest debate means that a real alternative is on the table. If we could consider the national sales tax or the flat tax that the Republicans have been proposing, then we could have a debate on the merits. But, instead, the majority appears to be afraid of a debate on the merits and has before us an election year pandering proposal. I urge a ``no'' vote and a ``yes'' for Rangel-Boyd-Tanner.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my own bill. As one of the principal sponsors of the commission bill, I really am asking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the bill, or to vote ``present,'' because it is now in competition with the Shays-Meehan bill, a real reform bill that will accomplish many of the things that many of us wanted to accomplish through a commission bill. First of all, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who worked very hard on this legislation, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is a leader not only on campaign finance, but so many important issues before this body. He has often said that the best legislation is bipartisan, and we had a sincere bipartisan effort. I also thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for all their hard work and commitment. But what has happened with the way the rule is in place, the prospects for passage of Shays-Meehan is weakened with each competing vote. And now the commission bill is in competition with Shays-Meehan. I have always called the commission bill a fall-back position, one that we would go to if we could not achieve a vote in this Congress on meaningful reform. But Shays-Meehan is a strong vehicle for change. It addresses two of the greatest abuses. It bans soft money and brings into accountability the so-called independent expenditure groups. And so now is not the time to vote for a fall-back position, but to vote for real reform. Mr. Chairman, we cannot let the commission bill be used as a trump or a way to kill Shays-Meehan. We have an historic opportunity to pass real reform. That is Shays-Meehan. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``present.''

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the main point is that today, tonight, we can pass a bill that will ban soft money from campaigns. That is an important achievement. Many of us in this body have sat through many hearings on alleged campaign abuses. But what was in common in every alleged campaign abuse was soft money. So instead of pointing fingers at each other and having partisan investigations or hearings, let us work together and actually do something about it. This is a very modest proposal. It would ban the soft money. It would clean up third-party expenditures. So instead of delaying tonight, let us pass hopefully Shays-Meehan, send it to the Senate where a majority has already supported it, and a Democratic President has come out and said that he will sign it into law. So we have an historic opportunity to this night pass meaningful, not all that needs to be done, but very meaningful reform, reform that other Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been most critical of. So instead of criticizing, let us do something. Let us ban the soft money. We do not have to wait to do it. One of the things that I wanted the commission bill to do was to ban soft money. But we do not have to wait for the commission bill to do it. We can do it tonight. We do not have to wait 180 days. Quite frankly, I did not think that we would be able to get this vote in this Congress. That is why I worked so hard on the commission bill, to force something to the floor. But right now we have it before us. We do not have to wait. We can vote tonight and let our constituents know that we are serious about changing the system in a very meaningful way. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to compliment very much my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), not only for their hard work and their willingness to compromise, to really roll back their bill to basically two major issues, that of banning soft money and cleaning up third-party expenditures. Now, they have generously indicated that they will accept an amendment to their bill, Shays-Meehan, which accomplishes a great deal, of the commission, which, after we enact and sign into law Shays- Meehan, will allow 180 days for members appointed by legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle to come forward with other important proposals. But the main point is we do not have to wait. We can do it tonight. And we should. I compliment the leadership on the other side of the aisle for moving forward, hopefully tonight, with a vote on Shays-Meehan, so that we can ban soft money, we can take care of these abuses that so many Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been so critical of, they have said has been wrong. Let us do something about it. Let us take it out of the system and show our constituents that we are serious about something that is far more important than our own reelections, that of making our campaign system more accountable to the people who vote for us by taking out of the system this huge, massive amount of money that flows into our campaigns called soft money. Mr. Chairman, I can say when I ran for Congress, my opponent outspent me five to one. I was one of the few Members who ever gets elected when you are outspent in that type of way. The area where most of this money flows into campaigns is through the soft money loophole. So even if that is all we accomplish, we will have accomplished a great deal. Mr. Chairman, I compliment really all of my friends on both sides of the aisle for their work on Shays-Meehan. I am hopeful that my leaders on the commission bill on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting ``present'' on the commission bill, moving quickly towards Shays-Meehan so we can send it to the Senate, so they can act on it, so we can send it to the President and enact it into law. It is important reform. It is meaningful reform. But due to the nature of the rule, a vote for the commission bill is a vote against Shays-Meehan. It is in effect a vote against Shays-Meehan. That is why we have to vote ``no'' or ``present'' on the commission bill. If we pass this amendment, if we pass the commission bill, it would prevent us from passing legislation to ban soft money, to clean up third-party expenditures and to accomplish many very important substantive reforms. I ask my colleagues who are cosponsors to vote ``no'' or ``present.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully respond to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) my colleague and really partner on the commission bill with whom we went through innumerable hours of work on this bill. I would really like to point out that Shays-Meehan will accomplish banning soft money and third-party disclosure now, and that is very important. If my colleague recalls that on our negotiations on the commission bill, and believe it or not, it was difficult to reach that fragile flower of consensus on the commission bill. One of the things that I had in my bill was that the commission should address soft money. Some Members on the other side of the aisle objected to that being included in the commission bill. So then to argue that Shays-Meehan will not be comprehensive enough, in all due respect, I do not believe is a very genuine argument. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues who are sincere reformers on both sides of the aisle, is that we can pass Shays-Meehan tonight, banning soft money and other proposals, and enact it into law. An amendment that is attached to Shays-Meehan with the commission bill will not touch the important reforms in Shays-Meehan but will allow all the other many good ideas from the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), from everyone here to be considered and reported back in 180 days. But what we have before us tonight is a vote where we can actually accomplish something, we can actually pass meaningful reform, banning soft money tonight. As I say, many of us have sat through so many hearings where alleged abuses in campaigns, all of which involved soft money. We now have an opportunity, in the best of bipartisan spirit, with Shays-Meehan, to actually do something about the abuses that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been critical of. So by passing Shays- Meehan, we can ban soft money but we can attach the commission bill and discuss all of the other options and report back in 180 days.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support free speech. But I think what we need to focus on is what is in front of us, not some letter to the Federal Election Commission. And what is in front of us is the opportunity to vote for a good, clean bill, a modest bill. Many of us would like to have seen much more in it. That is why attaching a commission to it will allow us to do more in 180 days, but we do not have to wait 180 days. Tonight we can vote on two very important reforms. Let us do it. Let us focus on passing Shays-Meehan and let our constituents know that we came here to do something far more important than work for our own reelections, that we want to do something that is important to them, and, that is, reform the campaign system.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to Zion-St. Mark's Lutheran Church, the last German- speaking church in the Yorkville area in my district. The church has organized an historical exhibit of old Yorkville to commemorate the history of the area which used to be known as ``German Town.'' It was formed as a middle and eastern European melting pot. As more and more high-rises and other large buildings have been built in recent decades, the character of the area has changed and some of the old-world charm has been lost. Also to be prominently featured at this exhibit is a commemoration of the Slocum Disaster, the most lethal fire in American history and one of the world's greatest maritime tragedies. On June 15, 1904, the parishioners of St. Mark's church on 6th Street in Manhattan held their annual picnic. Since the festivities included a boat ride on the General Slocum, 1,446 members of the congregation boarded for a trip to Locust Grove on Long Island. Tragically, the boat caught fire. According to reports, the loss of life was disproportionately high because the boat's life vests and life boats were old or useless and there had been no fire-drills. 1,021 people died. Because this disaster took such a heavy toll, the Lower East Side's German community was suddenly greatly reduced in number. Many of those remaining were too saddened to stay, and decided to move uptown, to Yorkville. The members of the St. Mark's congregation eventually merged with the Zion Church on East 8th Street. The church is now known as Zion-St. Mark's Lutheran Church. Many accounts have been written of the terrible Slocum Disaster. This exhibit will allow people to remember the many fine contributions of the German-American community before and after this horrible event wiped out so much of their population. It will commemorate the victims, honor the survivors, and highlight some of the history of Germans in New York City. Finally, the exhibit will recall the days of old Yorkville, from the 18th Century through the 20th. This area was once a landmark section of New York and has quite a story to tell. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the congregation of Zion-St. Mark's Lutheran Church, to the Ladies Aid Society, and to Kathryn A. Jolowicz.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned that the sampling technique is guessing, yet the National Academy of Sciences has come out with a report that was ordered really by President Bush saying that it is the most scientific method, most accurate method to count Americans.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, that is what the gentleman calls it. They call it ``accuracy.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for his very important statement. He is absolutely correct. Today I rise to defend the integrity of the Census Bureau. Repeatedly, in an argument over a fair and accurate census, the opponents of accuracy have suggested that they would support the use of modern technology if they could be assured that the process would not be manipulated for political purposes. Perhaps Jim Hubbard, the representative of the American Legion said it best at last week's meeting of the Secretary's Census 2000 Advisory Committee. He said that the only way that the census numbers could be manipulated would be if the professionals in the Census Bureau did it. He went on to say that he did not believe that that was possible. Mr. Hubbard is absolutely right, and the opponents of an accurate census should be ashamed of themselves for attacking the Census Bureau like that. Never in the almost 100 years of the Census Bureau has there been a breach in the integrity of that organization. Just after Pearl Harbor, the President of the United States asked the Census Bureau for a list of the names and addresses of Japanese living in America. The Census Bureau refused. During the 1970s, President Nixon did not like the fact that the rate of poverty was increasing during his administration, and put pressure on the Census Bureau to change the numbers. The Census Bureau refused. The reputation of the Census Bureau is unassailable, and the opponents of an accurate census do themselves and the country a disservice to suggest otherwise. Today, the Atlanta Journal tries to make this case once again. They admit that scientific methods will make the census more accurate. They acknowledge that if the count shows a population shift that favors one party or the other, it should stand. But then they claim that only the most optimistic could believe that the numbers would not be manipulated by the politicians. On that, they are dead wrong. Anyone who has any knowledge of how a census works, and how the plans for 2000 work, know that the only ones who could manipulate the numbers are the professionals in the field or in the headquarters of the Census Bureau. There is not now, and there has never been, any evidence to suggest that those professionals would abandon their professional scientific judgment. As my Members are all aware, I am sure, my colleagues and I have been destroying, sacrificing the American forests, my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and I have, in defense of our positions on the census. He is fond of circulating editorials attacking the census and I have sent out literally dozens in suppport of a fair and accurate census. Mr. Speaker, I hope that today the gentleman resists the temptation to use the Atlanta Journal editorial for a partisan battle, but rather joins me in defense of the professionals at the Census Bureau. The Atlanta Journal suggests that only the ``blissful optimistic'' could believe that the census process is protected from political manipulation by the professionals at the Census Bureau. I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) will join me in telling the Atlanta Journal that the professionals at the Census Bureau are our best hope of a census that is free of politics and as accurate as possible, regardless of how our battle turns out.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the rigid approach of means-testing and my strong support for the substitute amendment. If means-testing is made into law, a debtor's actual living expenses will be disregarded, while an inflexible IRS formula is imposed. Even if those predetermined numbers cause true hardship through a strict repayment plan, it is the consumer that would have to initiate litigation to appeal, an expensive and intimidating process. If the main target of bankruptcy reform are wealthier abusers, let us give creditors the tools they need to get the job done. The Democratic substitute amendment does just that. It empowers credit companies to contest the Chapter 7 filing of debtors who are deliberately shielding their wealth. But it also ensures that the fate of debtors will be decided by a thinking person, a trained judge, who can evaluate what are often subjective factors on a case-by-case basis, not an unbending formula. Equally important, the substitute puts the burden of litigation where it belongs, on the creditor, which, after all, made the decision to take the risk of lending. We need to help creditors get back more of what is owed to them, but we need to do it in a balanced way. The Democratic substitute does that. Mr. Chairman, there has been much discussion back and forth on the child support enforcement provision. I would like to put into the Record practically every women's group that I have ever heard of who is opposed to this bill because of the impact it will have on child support. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the names of at least 20 women's organizations opposed to this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we have an historic opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform in this Congress. That opportunity is Shays-Meehan. Although some of my colleagues in this body support an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley vs. Valeo, such an amendment is not needed to pass Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan will pass constitutional review. The DeLay amendment will do just that, delay. I have been told that the amendment's sponsor does not even intend to vote for it. Shays-Meehan will ban soft money once and for all, and will require greater disclosure from groups which conduct sham issue advocacy ads. For months we have held hearings in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on alleged campaign finance abuses. All of the alleged abuses involved soft money. Not one of these hearings would have been needed or would have been held if Shays-Meehan had been enacted, if Shays-Meehan had been law. If we vote in favor of the DeLay amendment, those of us who may favor it, it will be years before it could take effect while the States debate ratification. In the meantime, we will have lost our best chance in years to pass real reform, Shays-Meehan. There is an old saying that a bird in hand is better than two in the bush, and the Shays-Meehan bill is within our grasp. So I am urging all of my colleagues who are sincere reformers on both sides of the aisle to vote present on all substitutes, on all bills, except Shays-Meehan. Let us keep our eye on enacting within this Congress and passing it and ratifying true reform, Shays-Meehan. Vote present or no on the DeLay amendment and yes for Shays-Meehan.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 1704.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Arthur B. Brown who celebrates his 90th birthday this week. Mr. Brown was born on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in 1908 to Hungarian immigrants. After the death of his father when he was only 17 years old, Mr. Brown was forced to quit high school and work to support his family. At 20, he became the youngest person to become a licensed plumber in the city of New York. Mr. Brown's successful business and his genuine understanding of the plumbing profession lead to his invention of the Holby Tempering Valve, an instrument which is now used around the world. The success of Mr. Brown's business has enabled him to acquire considerable real estate on the Upper East Side, as well as an off- Broadway theater called Theater East which he has owned since 1954. Beyond his professional life, his commitment to his community is remarkable. Mr. Brown is one of the longest members of Community Board #8 in Manhattan, a board he has been a part of since 1967; he is also a member of the East Manhattan Chamber of Commerce; the 19th Precinct Community Council; the 17th Precinct Community Council; the Central Park Community Council. Mr. Brown has long been an advocate for the elderly in New York City, most notably as vice president of the New York Foundation of Senior Citizens. In light of these impressive credentials, it is only fitting that the senior citizen housing located at 225 East 93rd Street was named the Arthur and William Brown Gardens after himself and his brother. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Mr. Arthur Brown. He has faithfully served his family and his community for decades and his work for Manhattan is without question worth recognizing. I am proud to have Arthur Brown as a constituent.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) and to include extraneous matter:) Mr. McGovern. Mr. Kind. Mr. Skelton. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Hamilton. Ms. Norton. Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Brown of California. Mrs. Maloney of New York. Mr. Berman. Ms. Furse. Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin. Mrs. Meek of Florida. Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Lantos. Mr. Abercrombie. (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania) and to include extraneous matter:) Mr. Gilman. Mr. DeLay. Mr. Burton of Indiana. Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Duncan. Mr. McKean. Mrs. Morella. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Packard. Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Collins. (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Owens) and to include extraneous matter:) Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Upton. Mr. Hastings of Florida. Mr. Clyburn.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for his hard work on this, and also the Chair on the subcommittee on which I had the honor to serve for many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for working hard on this and for accepting some changes in the language from the Democrats to Resolution 447, which we are now supporting. The bad news contained in this resolution is that the Federal Government, the world's largest financial entity, has financial problems. These problems are not new; they have existed for decades. We knew this when we decided to initiate reforms. When we began reforms, there were no accounting standards for the Federal Government. Most Federal agencies had never issued a financial statement, and there had been no independent verification of the agencies' estimates of their financial position. So in a bipartisan effort, a Democratic Congress crafted and passed the Government Management Reform Act along with the Republicans in 1994, and a Democratic President signed it into law. The administration has worked hard to implement this law. Next year 15 of the 24 major agencies are expected to receive clean financial opinions. This year the administration met the bill's statutory deadline by completing the first governmentwide audit ever, the first in more than 200 years. We should congratulate them for this effort. I commend the ranking member and all who have worked on this. As we have worked in the past for increased procurement reform, for increased debt management and position systems, I join my colleagues in supporting this.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Well, I really join the gentlemen with their concern on the Patient Bill of Rights, and I am a strong supporter of it, but I really rise with these few seconds today to remember the more than 6 million men, women and children who perished during the Holocaust. On Thursday, April 23, we remembered the victims of the Holocaust at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's 1998 Days of Remembrance. This year's theme, Children of the Holocaust, their memories, a legacy, paid tribute to the more than 1.5 million children who lost their childhoods, their friends and their families throughout one of the darkest periods in our history. It is particularly fitting that this year's theme centers on children because of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's exhibit, the Story of Daniel. The museum has collected the stories of numerous children through their diaries and poetry written throughout World War II and compiled them into one story of a young boy, Daniel. This exhibit was designed to teach our children what the children in World War II experienced. It tells and retells the stories of those children so we may never forget their stories of the Holocaust. On behalf of the Days of Remembrance Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I would like to submit into the Record the speeches delivered in the memory of more than 1.5 million children that lost their lives in the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Congressional Record the following speeches: Children of the Holocaust: Their Memories, Our Legacy Remarks of Benjamin Meed, Chairman Days of Remembrance Committee, United States Holocaust Memorial Council Members of the diplomatic corps, distinguished members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, distinguished guests, fellow survivors and dear friends, welcome to the 19th national Days of Remembrance commemoration. First, let me take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the members of the United States Congress for their strong support of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The enormous success of the Museum and its educational and Remembrance programs is due, in large part, to your efforts on our behalf. Thank you. We gather together again to remember those whom we loved and lost in the pit of hell--the Holocaust. We dedicate this commemoration to all the precious children of the Holocaust, their memories, our legacy. More than a million and a half children--almost all of them Jewish--were struck down without pity. They were murdered simply for who they were, Jews. The young ones, who were silenced forever, were the hope and future of our people. We will never know the extent of human potential that was destroyed--the scientists, the writers, the musicians--gifted talent burned to ashes by German Nazi hate. At such tender ages, our children grew old overnight. They quickly learned how to conceal pain and how to cover up fear. More importantly, with natural compassion, they comforted those around them. The writer and educator Itazek Katznelson was so touched by an abandoned little girl caring for her baby brother in the Warsaw Ghetto that he composed a poem about her. And I quote: Thus it was at the end of the winter of 1942 in such a poor house of shelter for children, I saw the ones just gathered from the streets. In this station, I saw a girl about five years old. She fed her younger brother--and he cried. The little one was sick. In a diluted bit of jam, she dipped tiny crusts of bread and skillfully inserted them into his mouth. This my eyes were privileged to see-- to see this mother of five years, feeding her child and to hear her soothing words. How can we survivors forget these martyred children? Their lives, their laughter, their gentle love, their strength and bravery in the face of certain death are still part of our daily lives. Their acts of courage and resistance remain a heroic inspiration. Their cries to be remembered ring across the decades. And we hear them. They are always in our thoughts, in our sleepless nights, in our pained hearts. Like all survivors, there are many horrible events that I witnessed, but one particular event deeply troubles me and hounds me. It was in April, fifty-five year ago, almost to this day. Passing as an ``Aryan'' member of the Polish community, I was Krasinski Square near the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto. Inside the Ghetto, the uprising was underway. Guns and grenades thundered; the ghetto was ablaze. From where I was standing, I could feel the heat from the fires. There were screams for help from the Jews inside the walls. But the people surrounding me outside the walls went about their daily lives, insensitive to the tragedy-in-progress. I watched in disbelief as, across the Square, a merry-go-round spun around and around to the joy of my Polish neighbor's children, while within the Ghetto only a few yards away, our Jewish children were being burned to death. To this day, that scene still enrages me. How can one forget the agony of the victims? How can we explain such moral apathy of the bystanders? Many of us were children in the Holocaust. Whether by luck or by accident, we survived. Liberation by the Allied Armies restored us to life, and our gratitude to the soldiers will always remain. The flags that stand behind me from the liberating divisions of the United States Army and from the Jewish Brigade are far more than cloth. In 1945 and today, they are the symbols of freedom and hope for us survivors. Today we are bringing history together. Liberation offered new opportunities and we seized them. The transition was very brief. We helped to create a new nation--the State of Israel, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Our history might have been very different if only Israel had existed 60 years ago. Nevertheless, we are here, and Israel is our response and Remembrance of the Holocaust. Mr. Ambassador Ben Elissar, please convey to the people of Israel our commitment and solidarity with them. Many survivors became part of this great country that adopted us, and we are grateful Americans. Although we are now in the winter of our lives, we look toward the future, because we believe in sharing our experiences--by bearing witness and educating others--there is hope of protecting new generations of men, women and children--who might be abandoned and forgotten, persecuted and murdered. We remember not for ourselves, but for others, and those yet unborn. Knowing that the impossible is possible, there is the chance that history can be repeated--unless we are mindful. The task of preserving Holocaust memory will soon pass to our children and grandchildren; to high school and middle teachers; to custodians of Holocaust centers; and, most importantly to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. But monuments of stone and well-written textbooks are not enough. Personal dedication to Remembrance--to telling and retelling the stories of the Holocaust with their lessons for humanity--must become a mission for all humankind, for all generations to come. In these great halls of Congress, we see many symbols of the ideals that America represents--liberty, equality and justice. It was the collective rejection of such principles by some nations that made the Holocaust possible. Today, let us--young and old alike--promise to keep an ever watchful eye for those who would deny and defy these precious principles of human conduct. Let us remember. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker I rise today to discuss the 2000 census and in particular the two lawsuits that have been generated because of the 2000 census. As many of my colleagues know, Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) each have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the use of statistical methods when conducting a census. What my colleagues may not know is that 25 other Members of Congress who support the use of statistical methods when conducting a census have joined those two lawsuits to make sure that our position is represented in the court system. As a Member of that group of 25, I want to give the Members of this House a status report on the two lawsuits. On Monday, April 6, 1998, the administration moved to dismiss both lawsuits on the constitutional grounds that the plaintiffs, Gingrich and Barr, lack standing to sue the Census Bureau because they will not be harmed by the proposed plan and that the cases are not yet ripe for adjudication because the census is 2 years away. The rhetoric from Members opposed to an accurate census suggests that the administration is hiding behind the procedural issues of standing and ripeness. This is simply not the case. As everyone knows, each case brought before a court must be reviewed procedurally before it can be reviewed on its merits. A case cannot go forward if it is not procedurally sound. The administration has repeatedly stated that it is eager to argue the merits of the case; however, it believes it has a legal obligation to also argue standing. Even if the administration did not bring up the issue of standing, a court has an obligation to dismiss a case if it is not procedurally sound, regardless of what the parties to the lawsuit allege. My colleagues should remember that standing is also a provision of the Constitution. You cannot violate the Constitution, even with a wink and a nod, in order to get a ruling on the use of modern technology in the census. What is not mentioned by my friends opposed to a fair and accurate census is that the administration in its motion to dismiss also argued the case on the merits, stating that the statistical method plan is both constitutional and in accord with the Census Act. Therefore, in addition to the procedural issues, the administration points out that the two cases should be dismissed on substantive issues as well. Some of my colleagues may remember that there was a court challenge to the Line-Item Veto Act by some Members of Congress in January 1996. Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act effective January 1996. Within the act, Congress created the right of expedited judicial review and attempted to create standing for Members of Congress. Therefore, shortly after the effective date, some Members of Congress filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Line-Item Veto Act. The defendants in the line-item veto case filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal court's dismissal of the January 1996 Line-Item Veto Act challenge stating that the Members did not have standing to sue. Likewise, with regard to the 2000 census, we have the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act creating the right to expedited judicial review and attempting to create standing for Members of Congress to sue. Just like the January 1996 line-item veto case, these two lawsuits are being challenged on procedural grounds. Constitutional scholars agree that these two cases lack the necessary procedural requirements to move forward. The courts cannot give advisory opinions as these two cases request. My anti-accurate census friends continually point to the Constitution when discussing the sampling details of the 2000 census but ignore the part of the Constitution that states that there must be a case in controversy in order for it to proceed and considered on the merits. The Constitution is very clear on that point. I am as eager as anyone to have the courts review the substantive issues surrounding the use of modern statistical methods when conducting a census. I believe that if these cases reach the merits, the courts will determine, and the Supreme Court will uphold, that the 2000 census plan is constitutional and in accord with the Census Act. I would love to have these issues decided by the courts which are in the business of interpreting statutes and the Constitution. In the meantime, I think it is imperative to set the record straight. Neither the administration nor the 25 Members who have joined the two lawsuits are afraid of discussing the merits of the two cases. We have said it before and we will say it again and again. The Census Bureau will obtain a fair and accurate count only by using statistical, modern methods. This week in both the District and Virginia courts, there will be hearings at which each side will plead its case. On Thursday, arguments will be heard in Washington, D.C. and on Friday in Virginia. I am confident that we will prevail in the courts and in the court of public opinion. The American people deserve a fair and accurate census in which every person, rich or poor, black or white or Hispanic or Asian, is accounted for. The President has put forward a plan that will account for all Americans. The opponents of this plan want to repeat the errors of the past because they believe it is to their political advantage. The President's plan is true to the Constitution in both word and spirit, and it is the only plan that is fair to all people.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I rise really in support of Mr. Bonior's statement and would like to add to it that it has been indeed a very long time since that historic handshake of the Speaker in New Hampshire, where there was a promise to bring campaign finance reform before this body. Again we were promised that it would be brought before this body in May. We were told that it would be brought before this body in June. We are now in the second week of June, and it seems to be a continuing case of promises, promises, promises, yet never a reality. And I would like to ask the gentleman, to underscore the question that Mr. Bonior asked, is this a new form of filibuster? Or are we going to have debate and a vote in this body, specifically where we have a vote before July 4th of this year so we can get it to the House, so it can get to the President's desk?