Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. Religious freedom flourishes in America. Individuals already have the right to pray, talk about their beliefs, express their spirituality, and read scriptures, whether they are in a school, in a courthouse, or on the street. The most precious thing about that freedom is that it protects individuality. It forces no leaders and demands no followers. The so-called Religious Freedom Amendment would rob Americans of their individuality. It would break down the barriers between church and State and permit individuals to force their beliefs on others. Mr. Speaker, this amendment allows the government to endorse a particular religion by displaying certain symbols. It allows the government to fund sectarian groups and creates the likelihood that some groups will be excluded. Recently conducted polls show that Americans are pleased about their current religious freedom. More than 60 groups representing dozens of faiths are speaking out against this bill. We cannot let one voice take away our freedoms. We must not let the political right take away our religious right. Vote against this.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. With us tonight is a leader on so many issues and on the census as well, Congresswoman Juanita McDonald.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Thank you for your statement and thank you for being a leader on making sure that all Americans are counted, no matter where they live, no matter what their ethnic background. Yesterday, the President in Houston not only met with people who were speaking about what the census meant in real terms to their lives, but he also called upon the opponents of an accurate census to recognize that the census is about people, not about politics. Unfortunately, they responded, the opponents that is, with politics as usual. The chairman of the Republican conference tried once again to invoke the Constitution, but, as we all know, actual enumeration is not a specification for what methodology should be used in the census, and the Constitution is quite clear on that point. You see, Mr. Speaker, the chairman only quoted part of the Constitution because it suited his purpose to distort and to confuse. What the Constitution says is that the actual enumeration shall be made, and I quote, in such manner as they, meaning the Congress, shall by law direct, end quote. Congress passed a law in the 1940s delegating to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to determine the manner in which the census shall be taken. If that are were not bad enough, recently there was a lengthy brief filed in the case of the House of Representatives versus the Department of Commerce that looks at the dictionaries used by the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Those dictionaries defined enumeration as the act of, quote, numbering or counting over, and they define to number as to reckon how many to compute or to input. The chairman of the Census Subcommittee accused the President of, and I quote, pedaling statistical snake oil, end quote, but the chairman showed his true colors. He is more concerned with protecting the double counts in the census, and there were 4.4 million people overcounted, in making sure that those people missed are forever left out. He claims that real people are going to be deleted from the census. That is simply not true. No one's form is going to be deleted from the census, and no one other than the chairman has ever suggested such a possibility. Last month, the chairman tried to frighten the public by claiming that the census was on the path to failure. He likened it to the Titanic. Once again the chairman failed to do his homework. Modern technology has shown that the failure of the Titanic was not in the design, but because the manufacturer used substandard rivets. The real parallel to the Titanic is that the chairman wants to make sure that we use substandard technology in the census so that fails too. Why? Because he believes that errors in the census are to his party's political advantage. Two years ago the Census Bureau put forth a new plan for the 2000 census. It is a plan founded on 200 years of experience in conducting the census. It is a plan created with the understanding of 60 years of research on who was missed in the census. It is a plan with the advice of hundreds of experts, inside and outside the Census Bureau. The plan for the 2000 census has been endorsed by dozens of organizations and hundreds of individuals, groups like the American Chamber of Commerce, the Researchers Association, the American Statistical Association, the Cities of New York and Los Angeles, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Regional Councils, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the United States Conference of Mayors. These are all organizations committed to a fair and accurate census in the year 2000. Despite this broad and overwhelming support, the opponents of the census continue their attack. Why? Because they believe the errors in the census are to their political advantage. I used to believe that all of the misstatements in their rhetoric were just because the speakers did not know much about the census, and I would go to the floor and try to set the record straight so that my colleagues could judge the facts for themselves. But now I truly believe that the mistakes in my opponents' statements are purposeful and they are there to confuse and mislead the public. Today you have already heard a number of my colleagues talk about the importance of a fair and accurate census and the high cost of the errors in the census. That cost is very human and very real. The 1990 census, according to the General Accounting Office, had 26 million errors in it, people missed, people counted twice, and people counted in the wrong place. Most of those missed were urban and rural poor; most of those counted twice are suburban and white. The opponents of an accurate census cry out against the idea that we should correct the census for those counted twice. ``Don't you dare take people out of my county,'' they cry. At the same time, they fight with the same energy to make sure that nothing is done to account for those missed in the census for those that have historically been undercounted. Why? Because they believe that errors in the census are to their political advantage. The opponents of a fair and accurate census say that the 1990 census was pretty good; the second best ever, they say. The 1990 census was the most unfair census ever measured. Is that what they consider pretty good? Unfortunately, it is. The opponents of an accurate census want to continue this system, where those fortunate enough to have two homes are counted twice, and the poor and the minorities are missed. It is time for the American public to reject ideas like that and the people who promote them. We need an accurate census and we need to support the plan that has been put forward by the National Academy of Sciences and the Census Bureau to count every single American.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I, too, would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on campaign finance reform and also the census. Chris Shays and myself, we are both co-chairs of the Census Caucus, and we have been working this year trying to build a broad base of support on both sides of the aisle for a fair and accurate census. Thank you for your statement tonight.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we believe that a fair and accurate census is fundamental to the democratic principles on which our country was founded. We are here today because those principles are being threatened as never before. We have vowed to fight that threat to the very end. There are some in this Congress who seek to manipulate the census process to assure that the errors that have been made in the past continue. There is nothing that they will not do to achieve their ends. They began 2 years ago by saying that sampling is unscientific. When that did not work, they said that modern scientific methods are unconstitutional. When that did not work, they began to attack the plan for the 2000 census as too complicated. I suspect that the next tactic will be to attack the Census Bureau's ability to take the census. Their goal is to make sure that the errors of 1990 are repeated in the 2000 census, because they believe those errors are to their political advantage. Yesterday, the President of the United States was at a forum in Houston, Texas; and he called on the opponents of an accurate census to recognize that the census is about people, not about politics. This forum was held in Texas, Houston, Texas, in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is here, and he will share with us more information that the President gave at this forum and will put a human face on his constituents, on people who are running programs, planning services, planning the roads, sociologists, professors, an entire forum of many people who could speak from a personal point of view of why an accurate census is important to our country. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Multipurpose Center in the gentleman's district, we met with real people, and we could see the real impact that an accurate census has on their lives. Information gathered in the census is used by States and local governments to plan schools and highways, by the Federal Government to distribute funds for health care and other programs, and by businesses in making economic plans. There was a person there from the private sector who said he needed to know where the people were so he knew where he would invest the expansion of his businesses. Because the census is so important, we must do everything that we possibly can to make sure that everyone is included in the count. We know that previous censuses overlooked millions of Americans, especially young people, children and minorities. That is not fair, it is not accurate, and it is not acceptable. That is why the President went to Houston and met with Mr. Green and with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and some of their constituents. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who was also at this meeting at the Multicenter yesterday. I thank her for being there yesterday and being here today.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement and for her attending the conference yesterday in Houston. The President made the point over and over again that the census is about people, not about politics. Our goal is the most accurate census employing the most up-to-date scientific methods with the most cost- effective use of taxpayers dollars. We have been joined tonight on this special order by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I yield to one of our Democratic whips. I thank her for coming down to the floor.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut. What she pointed out is that so much of it is part of our everyday lives, that this data is important to us and we must have accurate data. To prove the point, I just took one day of USA Today and cut out of the paper all of the articles that were based on census data. I really challenge all my colleagues and all of the listening public to do the same thing. When you read the paper, notice how many articles really are based on the census. On the front page, one of the articles that was cut out is about the recent successes in the war on cancer. Measurement of these successes requires information on national disease rates, which rely on census data. There is also a little front page article on recent college graduate jobs and pay situations. The column on ``What's Up in Washington,'' it talks about Social Security, transportation, it talks about grant moneys, that are based on census numbers. We must have an accurate count. It is a bipartisan effort. With me is the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). I would like to yield to him. He has been a leader on this issue in our bipartisan effort to get a fair and accurate count.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the special order just presented.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. First of all, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who signed the discharge petition that has brought campaign finance to the floor, particularly the Blue Dogs, who initiated the petition drive in support of campaign finance reform. It has been a long time since the Speaker shook on it, and a great deal has happened since then. We have held hearing after hearing on alleged campaign finance abuses, but we have taken no concrete action to repair the problem. We have spent hundreds of taxpayers' dollars and hours of valuable time on hearings that have yielded nothing. So if we spend hours and days on this floor debating reform, as long as we end up with a strong law instead of the usual shell game, where we vote on a bill knowing that it will not be enacted into law, I do hope that the ultimate outcome will be passage of Shays-Meehan. It is bipartisan, it bans soft money, it mandates disclosure, it levels the playing field between challengers and incumbents, and it regulates independent third-party spending. We need to hold elections, not auctions, to select our leaders. I hope we move forward as quickly as possible with reform, and that we all get behind Shays-Meehan.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a historic event that started to heal a schism that began 27 years ago and divided the Greek Orthodox Church in America from the Orthodox Church elsewhere in the world. The dispute related to a 13-day discrepancy between the Gregorian calendar and the old Julian calendar to which Orthodox traditionalists adhere. The reconciliation, approved by the Synod in Constantinople on April 7, was simple. Neither group would have to give up its calendar but the Old Calendrists of churches such as St. Irene Chrysovalantou would be accepted under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. St. Irene Chrysovalantou was named a patriarchal monastery as a result of this agreement. Its Old Calendrist clergy were re-ordained last month. The sacraments that they had celebrated, as well as the countless weddings and baptisms, were deemed retroactively proper. Archbishop Spyridon, who endorsed the plan, led a moving ceremony celebrating the event on May 3, 1998. He was joined by the founders of St. Irene, His Excellency Metropolitan Pasisios of Tyana, Abbot of the Monastery and Bishop Vikentios of Apameia. Amid the airs of a brass band, the ringing of church bells, sonorous Byzantine incantations, and the jubilant salutes of a thousand faithful, the community turned out in strength to rejoice over this historic reconciliation. To further commemorate the reconciliation, on May 23, 1998, His All Holiness Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, will visit the Sacred and Patriarchal Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovalantou. Since this is the first time that His All Holiness will visit Astoria, his visit is eagerly anticipated. This historic event will be celebrated by thousands of faithful who will come to welcome him and to attend the Patriarchal Great Vespers. Mr. Speaker, these events in Astoria mark the beginning of a healing process that I hope will reunite a people long divided. This reconciliation should give hope to others living amid conflict.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for revising his amendment regarding the Micro-Purchase Threshold. I support his amendment to provide for a study of implementation of the Micro-Purchases procedures that were enacted as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA). During the consideration of FASA, the small business community had voiced deep concerns about the contracting procedures that applicable to Micro-Purchases, those purchases less than $2,500 in value. They could be awarded without any competition. Of even greater concern, Micro-Purchases were exempt from the long-established requirements of the Small Business Act that initially reserved small purchases for competition among small firms. Purchases below the $2,500 Micro-Purchase Threshold also represented a very substantial pool of potential business highly suitable for small firms. Procurements below $2,500 are estimated to represent approximately 85% of the procurement actions each year, which totalled some $15 million in fiscal year 1997. In dollar terms, procurement opportunities below $2,500 total approximately $4 billion. The Department of Defense has been advocating increasing the Micro- Purchase Threshold. Such action should not be taken until we know the impact of Micro-Purchase procedures at the current $2,500 threshold. To do otherwise would do a disservice to the small business community.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, because it will eventually allow us to vote on campaign finance reform, though I must say that it should be called the heel-dragging rule. There is so much debate scheduled on this issue, that I am afraid it could go on for months. While I object to this filibuster tactic, I am pleased that it will finally allow us to vote on Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan bans soft money, it regulates third party expenditures, it will help to level the playing field between challengers and incumbents and it encourages greater disclosure. It will help to turn the political process back to an election, instead of an auction that is going to the highest bidder, the person who spends the most money. Mr. Speaker, we need to show the public that our elections are not for sale, our government is not for sale, and bring in real campaign finance reform. We need to vote on it before we go back and ask our constituents to vote for us.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week the Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing on the 1990 census, and once again, the record is full of mistakes. Let me, once again, put the facts on the table so that Congress can make its decisions on what really happened. Some of the errors at the hearing are because most of the members and staff on the Republican side are new to the issue, and get confused about which facts apply to 1990 and which to previous censuses. Some of the errors occurred because two of the three statisticians who testified had no previous experience with the census undercount issue. It is often useful to get fresh minds to think about a problem, but in this case it also resulted in people making statements when they did not have the facts to support their position. At last week's hearing the statement was made that in 1990 50 percent of the undercount came from problems in the address list. That is wrong. The facts are that in 1990 70 percent of those missed were in households that were counted, and the address list was 97.5 percent accurate. One of the witnesses criticized the Post Enumeration Survey because it put more people into the census than other methods said were missing. That too is wrong. The problem with the Post Enumeration Survey in 1990 was that despite the Census Bureau's best efforts, it will missed people. In 1990 the Post-Enumeration Survey showed that the census net undercount was 1.6 percent, while the Census Bureau's Demographic Analysis, which they have done since 1940, showed an undercount rate of 1.8 percent. Finally, one witness said that after the 2000 census there would be no Demographic Analysis. That is just wrong. These are not all of the mistakes made at that hearing, but they do illustrate the point that new-comers to this issue are having a hard time understanding the facts. What I find more troubling is the intentional misrepresentation of information. At last weeks hearing the majority tried to suggest that the 1990 census was actually better than the 1980 census. To do that they took the measure of the undercount of Blacks from Demographic analysis in 1980 and compared it to the Post Enumeration Survey estimate of undercount for Blacks for 1990. I would hope that our Subcommittee Chairman is a good enough statistician to know that is wrong. In 1980, Demographic Analysis shows that the undercount of Blacks was 4.5 percent. In 1990 it was 5.7 percent. The Post Enumeration Survey shows a lower undercount for Blacks because even after the Census Bureau's best efforts, the survey still misses some people. Unfortunately, it wasn't bad enough that the majority tried to minimize the fact that the census misses millions of poor and minorities. What they are really concerned about is that the Census Bureau may take out the millions of people who are counted twice. On the one hand they are saying that they don't care that millions of Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and the poor are left out of the census. At the same time they are saying, don't you dare take out any of those white suburbanites who were counted twice in my district. Following the 1990 census, there was a broad and bipartisan consensus that we had to find a better way to conduct the census--to improve the accuracy of the counts and to control the cost. For several years, while experts toiled over alternative methods and the Census Bureau threw its energies into research, Republican in Congress paid little attention. In fact, the appropriators kept prodding the Census Bureau to move more quickly to develop a plan for a better census. It was not until consultants working for the Republican National Committee decided that the use of sampling methods to help fix the problem of undercounting might hurt Republicans in the redistricting process that the party leaders stood up and took notice. All of a sudden, scientific methods that the National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and the Commerce Department's Inspector General had recommended a few years earlier, were no good. They were ``unscientific'' according to a report pushed through by the majority of the Government Reform Committee. All of a sudden, the National Academy of Science was politically biased, and the Census Bureau incapable of conducting a census. Even the Speaker of the House changed his position on the issue. In 1991 he supported adjustment. In 1996 he did a 360 degree turn around. Now, I ask you: Is there any basis for the strong and sudden opposition to the use of scientific sampling methods in the 2000 census among Republicans, other than their concern that a more accurate count of African Americans and Hispanics and Asian Americans and poor people might somehow work to their disadvantage when political district boundaries are drawn. Let's not try to fool the American people with talk about the efficacy of choosing this post-stratification variable or that. All of this minutiae is meant to do one thing only: to confuse the American people, to make them think the Census Bureau isn't capable of honest, to undermine public confidence in the entire census process. All because Republican leaders believe that their hold on political power will slip if the census more accurately reflects the true composition of our diverse population. How utterly irresponsible! How utterly devoid of any shred of moral imperative. I ought to be angry or outraged. Instead I am genuinely saddened. Saddened because one of the most fundamental activities of our democratic system of governance is being belittled and diminished for partisan political advantage. The census and the Census Bureau may forever be tarnished by this organized effort to tear down the messenger because some people don't like the message. This is a sad day and a low point for this Congress. I hope my Republican colleagues will look within themselves before they continue on their campaign of terror against science in general, and the Census Bureau in particular. I hope they will decide if they really want to live with the consequences of their plan to ensure that the 2000 census will continue to miss millions of people and that the Census Bureau will be diminished in the eyes of the public.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for accepting one of my amendments regarding soldiers' pensions en bloc. While I understand this sort of protection is necessary for those who have served honorably, I was most disappointed to see it used as a loophole for enlisted men who have a felony conviction to avoid punishment. My amendment closes this loophole, and I thank them for accepting. I also rise in support of the Session amendment requiring the Department of Defense to begin using modern, best-business practices, common-sense business practices for its inventory control. I am happy to see that he, as well as members of the Committee on National Security, are finally taking up an issue on which I have been working for many years. The Department of Defense controls some of the most advanced technology in the world, but its inventory management practices are stuck in the stone ages. Last year, the General Accounting Office reported that DOD was holding a secondary inventory worth $67 billion, and they further reported that $41 billion of which was not needed. They reported there was a hundred-year supply of some items that were totally unnecessary and that it cost taxpayers $90 million a year just to house it. This amendment will require the Department of Defense to order supplies on an as-needed basis. It will save taxpayers billions of dollars in useless parts and supplies. I compliment my colleague, and I am glad that he has brought this to the floor, and I hope that it passes.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, really, only in a Republican-led Congress could we have women serving all over the world defending our country and have back here this Congress rolling back their rights of equality of treatment in the military. I refer specifically to the segment of this bill that will roll back women to segregated training. I do not know anyone who supports this except the Republican leadership. Three of the four branches of the armed service do not want it, the trainees do not want it, all the experts have recommended against it, and I am honestly not sure why we are being forced to consider, in this legislation, legislation that would segregate the men and women of our Armed Forces. Earlier today and last night in a bipartisan way, the Women's Caucus asked for a bipartisan amendment that would strike this language from the bill. Our amendment was not placed in order. I cannot understand why they would not even allow a floor debate on this or a vote on this issue. I guess they think that they know that we would win. Another problem with it is that we allocated last year $2.2 million to set up a commission to study this and other things. We have not even gotten the results of this commission. The Army says that it will cost them $159 million to implement it, when absolutely no one wants it. Basic training is a time to build trust and camaraderie. It is a time to solve problems while there is ultimate control over them. Right now I do not see what the problem is. The military is not having a woman problem. In my opinion, it is more of a man problem. It is no longer the men at the top of the Department of Defense. General Shalikashvili, Secretary Cohen, all of them have called for integrated training. The problem is with the men who are controlling this House, the Republican leadership. Men and women must train as they fight. You cannot solve a social problem with a logistical maneuver. Right now, as I am speaking, men and women are fighting together in Bosnia defending freedom. I do not believe that divide and conquer, which they are trying to do with this maneuver, will work here. Separating the sexes during basic training would be a tremendous mistake, a rollback. It creates an atmosphere of distrust and may affect military readiness. I hope that this Congress will refuse in the conference committee to accept this rollback to segregate women and men in the Armed Services.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Lowey-Harman- Morella amendment. DACOWITS, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, found that women soldiers had difficulty getting access to medical care overseas, particularly in the Pacific. This unequal ban exacerbates this problem. Last time I checked, an American woman still had the right to choose, that is if she is living in the United States. When she decides to defend our country, she loses that constitutional right. When a female soldier is defending the rights and privileges of this country, she is denied some of the same rights and privileges. If a male member of the armed services needs medical attention overseas, he receives the best. If a female member of the armed services needs a specific medical procedure, she is forced to either wait until she can travel to the United States, at extreme inconvenience and expense, or go to a foreign hospital which may be unsanitary and dangerous. This bill will cost the American taxpayer absolutely nothing. Each woman will pick up her own tab. All she wants is the constitutional right that she has in this country to also be provided when she is serving overseas in American bases; to be able to go to American hospitals and receive the same rights. Women have waited long enough to receive equal treatment in the military. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this amendment and give these most-deserving soldiers back what is rightfully theirs. I might add, only in a Republican Congress would constitutional rights that are given to our citizens over here be denied to them when they are overseas defending probably many men that did not even serve in the military.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for allowing one of my amendments to be in order. This legislation will tighten a loophole in the law regarding military retirement pensions. I was very disappointed to see a soldier who was recently convicted of a felony go unpunished. Certainly, any soldier who has served honorably deserves a full pension, but any soldier who has been demoted due to the commission of a crime should not be entitled to retire based upon the highest rank served. Unfortunately, this defense authorization bill also includes a provision that no one wants. I am very disappointed in the Committee on Rules for not allowing a vote on gender segregation during basic training in all branches of the Armed Services. My amendment to strike this language was dismissed by the Committee on Rules. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force have all come out against gender segregation, because they know men and women must train as they fight. Separating them creates an atmosphere of distrust and may affect military readiness. Just as soldiers from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds must learn to become a cohesive group, so must men and women. Separate and secure quarters are achieved without placing unit members in different buildings. Segregating the sexes will cost the Army $159 million, according to the Department of Defense. Why should we spend this kind of money to create a situation that no one wants? Secretary Cohen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili, all came out against separating the sexes. Sexual misconduct issues are not a result of training policy, but a manifestation of poor leadership. We cannot cure a social problem with a logistical solution. Further isolating women will not solve the problem. If nothing else, it will make the problem worse. It is not an issue of segregation or separation, it is about respect and leadership. Mr. Speaker, as we speak here on the floor today, men and women are defending our country in all parts of the world. They are fighting together. In some parts of Bosnia they are living together in the same tents. It is being done with respect and leadership. Segregating men and women in the military amounts to giving women their marching orders back into the dark ages. Women are defending this country. We should defend their right to be treated equally in the military. I urge a vote against the rule on this issue alone, and on the issues raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank). Modification to Resolution Offered by Mr. Solomon

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for continuing to yield to me. I would like to speak to the Speaker and my colleagues and really say that I really have not seen an investigation meltdown like this one since I watched Inspector Clousseau look for the Pink Panther. Of course, what all of us are talking about is the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's alleged investigation. Three of us serve on this committee, and they are looking into the alleged fund-raising abuses in the 1996 campaigns. Many of us are beginning to believe that the investigation which would yield more results would be one that would focus on the people or the person in charge. The antics of the chairman have reduced this probe to a series of bulbles and blotches and embarrassments. Six hundred subpoenas have been issued without the consent of the full committee. This is the first time this has happened since the McCarthy era. The committee has spent $6 million to hold just 6 hearings so far. The Senate investigation ran for days on just over half that cost. Then just in case those numbers were not incriminating enough, the name calling began that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) just referred to. Now tapes are being doctored. The lead investigator has been forced to step down. We have all been labeled squealing pigs, and we are all on the Sunday morning talk shows. What is next? Oprah, Jerry Springer? When they start throwing chairs in the committee, I think we are going to all try to get off that committee. But in all seriousness, the only chair that should move is that chair which is controlling the so-called probe, the one that is occupied by Mr. Dan Burton. The committee is no longer credible. It can no longer move forward under the leadership of the current chair. This is no longer a partisan request. Even the Speaker of this House has indicated that some of Mr. Burton's actions have been an embarrassment to him. When I looked outside the Beltway and into the pages of my hometown newspaper, The New York Times, it wrote, after the release of the edited tapes of personal conversations between Webb Hubbell and his wife, and I quote, and there is a part of it right here from my hometown newspaper, By now, even Representative Dan Burton ought to recognize that he has become an impediment to a serious investigation of the 1996 campaign finance scandals. If the House inquiry is to be responsible, someone else on Mr. Burton's committee should run it. Coming on the heels of an impolitic remark of Mr. Burton about the President 2 weeks ago, the tapes fiasco is forcing House Republicans to confront two blunders. The first was to entrust the investigation of campaign finance abuses to Mr. Burton; the second was to give him unilateral power to release confidential information. In the past 16 days more than 50 editorials and columns have been written in papers printed everywhere from Washington, D.C., to Omaha, Nebraska, to Tacoma, Washington, questioning whether Mr. Burton should continue in this position and taking him to task for his tasks in this supposed probe. This is not a Beltway sentiment, this is not a partisan sentiment, it is a sentiment that is shared across this country and across party lines. I truly believe that there are skeletons in the closets of both sides of the aisle and that the real solution is reform. And many of us on both sides of the aisle are working toward that. In the meantime, we need to move forward with a fair, bipartisan investigation. It is appropriate that the lead investigator step down. It is now appropriate that this should be terminated or sent back to the Senate, which was able to have a more reasoned, sensible hand in the investigation. It just cannot continue the way it has. It has really been an embarrassment not only to Mr. Burton and the Republicans, but I believe to this entire body.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, Chairman Burton not only has issued the 1,037 unilateral subpoenas, he has also issued unilateral subpoena power that is so incredibly one-sided. It only attacks Democrats. He issued 551 document subpoenas, and all but 9 have gone to Democratic affiliated persons or entities. The Democratic National Committee alone has received 17 separate document subpoenas, many of which were designed to uncover the Democratic Party's campaign strategy and policy decisions. Along with other members of the committee, we have written the chairman to investigate allegations against some Republican donors. Let us be evenhanded. There has been wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle. But all of the attention has been so partisan, so one-sided that it has really destroyed all credibility. On the Senate side, there was an effort for a bipartisan investigation. It was a far more credible investigation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. It is very repetitive. Everything is repetitive.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Anthony Summa of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, who has been chosen as an honoree for the School Settlement Testimonial Dinner. Anthony Summa graduated from Stuyvesant High School and earned a B.S. from New York University in 1953. Shortly after graduation he was drafted into the Army and carried out a twenty-month tour in Europe. Upon his discharge and return to New York, Anthony was employed by Alexander's Department Stores as a manager. Mr. Summa then became involved in banking, first at Citibank as a senior examiner and at the largest bank in New Jersey, First National State Bank. He then joined Irving Trust Company where he rose to the honorable position of vice president and deputy auditor. Mr. Summa is now chairman of Cross County Federal Savings Bank. Mr. Summa remains active in his parish. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church, where he has served as usher, lecturer, trustee, member of the Parish Finance Committee, past president of the Parish Council, and as chairman of the Mt. Carmel Parish Centennial. Mr. Summa is also a past president of the Holy Name Society, a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus where he is a council recorder and community committee chairman. In addition, Mr. Summa is president of the Daughters & Sons of Italian Heritage Lodge of the Order Sons of Italy in America, as well as treasurer of the New York State Commission for Social Justice, which is an anti-defamation branch of the order. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to rise with me in this tribute to Anthony Summa of Brooklyn, New York as he receives this award for his dedication to his community. I am proud to have Mr. Summa as an active member of my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Vincent Gangone, who has been chosen as an honoree for the School Settlement Testimonial Dinner, in Brooklyn, New York, along with his brother, John. Vincent Gangone, the co-owner of a surgical supply store, was born at St. Catherine's Hospital in the Greenpoint/Williamsburg section of Brooklyn over thirty years ago. He attended the Grover Cleveland High School in Ridgewood, Queens, and the School of Pharmacy at St. John's University in Jamaica, Queens. Later, Mr. Gangone graduated from the Police Cadet Corps. Mr. Gangone then became a fixture in the Greenpoint community while working in a neighborhood pharmacy. In 1990 Mr. Gangone came to a crossroad in his life and decided to open Salerno Surgical Supply with his brother. The Gangones' business, named after the Italian hometown of his parents, Nicola and Anna Gangone, has become a successful surgical supply store and a necessary addition to the Greenpoint/Williamsburg community. It has been eight years since Salerno Surgical Supplies opened, and Vincent Gangone believes it was one of the best decisions he and his brother have made. The store allows Mr. Gangone to serve and interact with the community, an element of the job that he cherishes. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Mr. Vincent Gangone of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. He deserves sincere congratulations for receiving such a fine honor from the School Settlement Association. I'm proud to have him as a constituent.