Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to the East Side Chamber of Commerce on the 70th anniversary of its founding. The chamber has had a remarkable and honorable history of serving the residents and businesses of the East Side of Manhattan for most of this century. The chamber was born in 1927 when it fought, almost single-handedly, to have a suspended trolley service reinstated to the Upper East Side. The chamber's successful 2-year battle to save the trolley service was only the beginning of a long history of service for the East Side. The chamber also encouraged and took an active role in the development of housing projects like the Peter Stuyvesant Apartments, Ageloff Towers, and the Nation's first public housing venture, the First Houses at Avenue A and 3d Street. East Side businesses benefited from the chamber's efforts as well. One successful campaign the chamber waged was the battle against push- cart markets which were rapidly congesting the Lower East Side and posing a threat to the area's businesses. The chamber's proposed alternative, the Essex Street Retail Market, was an indoor market that successfully kept push-cart vendors in business, but off the streets. Over the past 70 years, the chamber made numerous transportation improvements to the East Side to facilitate access. The chamber played an active role in widening East Side streets, providing adequate subways, such as campaigning to have the IND routed through the East Side, and initiating discussions for an East River Drive. The East Side Chamber of Commerce in 1997, under the leadership of president Joseph Greene and chairman of the board of directors, Sidney Baumgarten, is involved in many of the issues that affect East Siders: sanitation, rent control, bridge reconstruction, housing, crime prevention, education, and much more. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the East Side Chamber of Commerce as it celebrates its 70th anniversary. Their formidable record of achievement in bettering the East Side has made it a better place to live and work. I am proud to have an important and respected organization in my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further proceedings on this question are postponed until after 5 p.m. today. The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to finance reform, it seems our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer to keep the focus on whether or not elected officials are using bad form rather than our desire for reform. Despite their best efforts, our message is finally being heard. I thought the Wall Street Journal put it well on Monday in their publication. The story read, and I quote, ``They,'' the Republican leadership, ``have been pushing for an independent counsel for months, but they have resisted calls for sweeping changes in campaign financing.'' We are being heard in major publications, and we are being heard in the Senate where the Committee has apparently agreed to shift its focus from fingerpointing to problem-solving. But we need to be heard on this floor, and we need to bring campaign finance reform to the floor of this House for a vote before we recess.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, earlier today H.R. 680, as amended by the Senate, passed the House by unanimous consent. H.R. 680 as amended makes two important changes in the law governing the donation of Federal property no longer needed by the Federal Government. These changes have been agreed to in a bipartisan manner, both in this House and in the other body. The first change allows the donation of surplus personal property to organizations which help all property-stricken people, not only the homeless as currently permitted. Passage of this measure is long overdue. It passed the House in the 103d Congress, only to miss final clearance because of adjournment. This provision will help charities like Habitat for Humanity and food banks better assist this Nation's needy. In my own State of New York, I have been assured by the State surplus property agency that this law will help get clothing and other necessities into the hands of The Phoenix House, Day Top Village, and local branches of the Salvation Army, where the real war on poverty is waged. Congressman Lee Hamilton, the author of this bill, deserves all of our thanks for his effort to achieve this clearly needed change to help the impoverished. H.R. 680, as amended, will also allow for the donation of Federal surplus real property to nonprofit groups which provide housing to low- income individuals and families, groups like Habitat for Humanity, founded by former President Jimmy Carter. Such donations would be permitted only if the families receiving assistance contribute a significant amount of labor toward the construction of the homes, and all local building codes would have to be met. The other body has amended H.R. 680 to ensure that this provision will not unfairly discriminate against those with mental or physical disabilities. H.R. 680 preserves the General Services Administration's central role in the disposal process and has been carefully crafted to prevent any future abuse.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to the Polish National Catholic Church of the Resurrection on the 75th anniversary of its founding. The Church of the Resurrection has a noble history in serving the Polish community of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Twenty-five years after the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church in 1897, the Church of the Resurrection was organized on September 19, 1922. Originally, Mass had to be said in the rented building of the former Christian Church of the Evangelist from November 1922, until the present church was purchased on December 29, 1924. Prime Bishop Francis Hodur performed the act of consecration on December 13, 1925. Despite difficult early years in the parish's history, it went on to flourish. A Polish language supplementary school, a catechism class, the White Eagle choir, and numerous other societies and organizations formed around and in the church. On July 1, 1938, the parish acquired the rectory on 137 Meserole Avenue. During the Second World War, 110 parishioners served in the Armed Forces, and three gave their lives. Chapters of the Red Cross, the Junior Red Cross, and the Boy Scouts were all active at the church during the war. In 1958, the parish held services in English for the first time. On October 11, 1959, the mortgage was ceremonially burnt. And, as membership increased, the church made improvements to the parish hall. In preparation for the Diamond Jubilee, the interior of the church has been completely renovated and repainted. the celebration will take place on Sunday, September 21, 1997, with a solemn Mass celebrated by the present Prime Bishop, Most Reverend John Swantek. His Excellency will bless the church and reconsecrate the main altar assisted by the clergy of the New York and New Jersey area. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the Church of the Resurrection as its celebrates its 75th anniversary. I am proud to have such an important parish in my district continuing the Polish immigrants' traditions of their homeland and introducing them to the culture of their new home.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 11th Annual Greenpoint/Williamsburg Columbus Day Parade and in particular to commend Thomas F. Catapano upon the occasion of his selection as Grand Marshal of the parade, which is to be held on October 12, 1997. Mr. Catapano has been chosen by the Federation of Italian-American Organizations of Greenpoint/Williamsburg, under the direction of President Gerard DePaola, Chairman Anthony Pastena, and Parade Chairman Vincent Martello. Mr. Catapano, a resident of Brooklyn, attended St. John's University and the State University of New York College in Old Westbury. He began his distinguished career in public service as the Assembly- House Operations' Regional Coordinator for New York City and Director of the Assembly Speaker's Field Services Division; in 1982, he was elected to the first of five terms as a Member of the Assembly, representing the 54th District. As an Assemblyman, Mr. Catapano chaired the Assembly Committee on Real Property and Taxation, on Ethics and Guidance, the Subcommittee on Volunteer Ambulance Services, on Housing for the Elderly, and the Task Force on New Americans. He was also an active member of the Assembly Committees on Aging, Social Services, Banking, Consumer Affairs, Government Employees and Housing, and was instrumental in enacting legislation which established the first State-funded nursing home for veterans in New York City, codifying procedures for the licensing of real estate appraisers statewide, and developing new housing opportunities for the elderly. Mr. Catapano is currently executive director of the New York State Conference of Italian-American legislators. He has served as a valued public servant on the advisory boards of the John Calandra Institute of CUNY, the Italian-American Legal Defense Fund, Council of State Governments, Cypress Hill Local Development Corp., Coalition of Italian-American Organizations, and the Northern Brooklyn Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Mr. Catapano and the 11th Annual Greenpoint/Williamsburg Columbus Day Parade.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We have roughly 100 cosponsors on our bipartisan effort, and certainly 100 cosponsors shows a depth of support in this body and one that certainly should merit a hearing and a vote on this floor.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman organizing this hour tonight for us to express our support for campaign finance reform, and I congratulate the freshman class for their work in their task force. As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] announced today that his committee will move forward with hearings next week. The gentleman has replaced his lawyers. He has got roughly a $15 million budget to go forward. There have been 46 depositions. Yet not one penny has been spent, not one hearing has been held, and not one witness has been called in an effort to figure out how to solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, the closest this Congress came to making any real move on this issue was in March, when the Senate voted down a resolution which proposed a constitutional amendment to allow mandatory campaign spending limits. Yesterday, the President repeated his request for a resolution on campaign finance reform. He has pledged that he would sign one into law. There are 85 different pieces of legislation floating around Capitol Hill now trying to address the problem of campaign finance reform, and there is a virtual graveyard of proposals that have died in former Congresses. Yet none of these 85 proposals have had a hearing or have been given serious review or consideration by a committee in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at this list, of course, there is the bipartisan Freshman Task Force proposal which would ban soft money. There is the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997, which would award postal and broadcast discounts to those who voluntarily limit spending. There is the American Political Reform Act, which bases spending limits on how much a candidate's opponent spends. And really there is my personal favorite which would ban soft money and combine it with the Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform of 1997. Mr. Speaker, of course this is my bill, which is a bipartisan effort, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White]. Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish a commission that would come up with a plan for reform. The plan would have to come up this Congress for a vote in this session. Our proposal is based very strongly on the successful Base Closing Commission, which passed in a former Congress. We all agreed that we had to close the bases but we could not agree which ones had to be closed, so we had a commission. It came forward with a plan and we moved forward and closed the bases. We have a similar problem before Congress now. Everyone says they are for campaign finance reform, yet they cannot seem to agree on a proposal or get one to the floor for the vote. Our commission would require a vote in this Congress on campaign finance reform. The legislation, the 85 proposals that are before us, are very varied. Some are good. Some I agree with. But there is one point that all of them have in common: They do not have a chance to become law because not a single one of them has been permitted to come to the floor for a vote. We have not even been permitted to examine any of these proposals in a formal hearing. Meanwhile, many of us who serve on that committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, will have to sit for hours, possibly days, possibly months, at hearings in this committee which will do nothing more than point fingers at people who have already been accused and little to correct the problem. As you have pointed out, and many of your colleagues in the freshman class, we need to be putting more of our efforts in trying to solve the problem. In 1996, the House and the Senate, the candidates for the House and the Senate spent more than $765 million to get elected. That is $765 million. This is up 72 percent from 1990. The Speaker of the House has been quoted as saying that there is not enough money in the campaign system. Well, Mr. Speaker, how much more money would we have to spend? This election system is one that turns elections into auctions. We need to show the American people that our Government is not for sale, that our elections are not for sale to the highest spender. We need to move forward with meaningful campaign finance reform. It is very simple to do the math, $765 million on elections. This adds up to one strong point: We need campaign finance reform. We need to bring a bill to the floor of this House for a vote before we ask our constituents to go to the polls and vote for us. I congratulate the gentleman and the freshmen class for all the hard work that they have done on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Rodriguez for bringing this important amendment to the floor for a vote. Comprehensive regional assistance centers are a vital resource for our educators, and they are the only source for federally funded comprehensive technical assistance. They provide valuable resources for all of our children including children in high-poverty areas, children with disabilities, limited English-proficient children, and neglected or delinquent children. I am fortunate to have one of these centers located in my district-- the New York Technical Assistant Center [NYTAC] which is located at NYU's School of Education. I can see the positive influence that it has made. It brings together five organizations in a partnership to provide technical assistance to the New York State Education Department. It is one of 15 programs designed to assist schools, districts, and State education departments in implementing the Improving America's Schools Act. Children can only learn if those who teach them are endowed with the proper tools. I was a teacher in the New York City public schools, and I know the necessity of having good and current resources at your fingertips. If we do not give our educators the proper tools, we rob our children of their best chance at receiving a good education. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Rodriguez amendment, for our Nation's schools, our children's future.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we need to vote on and pass campaign finance reform. The Speaker has said that there is not enough money in the system. Yet everyone else knows that there is too much money in the system. In the 1996 elections, soft money rolled into campaigns at a record level. We need to ban soft money. The American people want elections, not auctions to the highest bidder or the person who can spend the most money to buy and win an election. The opposition party has budgeted $12 to $15 million to investigate the 1996 campaigns, yet they have not scheduled one hearing on how to reform the election process. We need to legislate, not just investigate. Mr. Speaker, you promised the President in the famous handshake in New Hampshire that you would vote on and work and pass campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, it is time to turn the promise of your handshake into the reality of a law.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the burning of Smyrna and to honor its victims. The destruction of Smyrna in 1922, was the culmination of a Turkish campaign to eradicate the Greek population in Asia Minor, known today as Turkey. During this genocide, thousands were killed in forced labor camps, hundreds of Greek towns and villages were destroyed, and 450,000 civilians were massacred by Turkish forces in areas where they composed a majority as on the Black Sea coast, in Pontus, and the Smyrna region. In 1922, Smyrna was the largest city in Asia Minor and a cosmopolitan hub populated by a highly educated Greek community and flourishing middle classes. In September of that year, Turkish troops sacked, burned to the ground, and slaughtered Smyrna's Greek and Armenian inhabitants along with refugees from the countryside. Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city, was seized from religious services in the cathedral by the Turkish police and horribly murdered by a street mob. Other Greek metropolitans were brutally tortured to death as were dozens of Armenian clerics. As George Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' That is why today I introduced, along with Mr. Bilirakis of Florida and Mr. Sherman of California, a bill to commemorate this anniversary and honor the victims of the burning of Smyrna. I urge my colleagues to join in commemorating this horrible tragedy by becoming a cosponsor of this resolution. It is important that these crimes against humanity are never forgotten and never repeated.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment. This is a difficult issue for me. As the parent of two daughters, if one of my daughters were receiving advice from a family planning clinic, I would want to know. But a reality is that most of our young people do not consult their parents or any adult about their sexual activity. In fact, studies show that 80 percent of teens who currently seek family planning advice at clinics would stop going if they had to ask their parents. Only 1 percent of those kids would stop sexual relations. This amendment would effectively increase the number of abortions, increase teen pregnancies, increase the spread of sexually transmitted disease and increase the spread of AIDS. Whether we are asking for parental consent or parental notification, the result is the same: Confidentiality is crushed and, with it, the intent of the program. How many times a day do we ask our teenagers to act responsibly? Let us give them the freedom to do as we ask. We can encourage our young people to consult their parents, we can ask parents to be there for their children, but we as a government simply cannot mandate these sorts of relationships. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Istook amendment and a ``yes'' vote for the Castle amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we know the answer to the question that my colleague raised. Existing law is not enough. We need to pass real reform. We need to pass campaign finance reform. Members of the other side of the aisle, they talk about reforming the system. Yet the real reform, campaign finance reform, there has not been one single hearing on it in this Congress. How can the leadership of this House in good conscience talk about packing up and going home in October when they have not looked at, held a hearing, or done anything about the most crucial problem confronting this country? I am talking about campaign finance reform. It is rather typical. We talk about actually doing something and they pack their bags and head for the hills. Some of my colleagues find it easier to strike the gavel of adjournment rather than hammer out the tough decisions here in Washington. There must be a vote on campaign finance reform in this Congress before we go home to our districts. We must vote on this issue before we ask our constituents to vote for us.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Burton amendment which would limit developmental assistance to India. As we all know, it has been 1 year later, and we are still fighting the same fight, the same bad idea. We defeated a similar amendment last year by an overwhelming margin, 269 to 127. On August 15, we celebrated India's 50th anniversary of democratic rule. Passage of this amendment will have a devastating effect on the growing relationship between India, the world's largest democracy, and the United States, the world's oldest democracy. Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past and in the present. But this Nation has taken exceptionally strong steps forward. In fact, India's human rights commission, headed by a former Supreme Court justice, has been hailed by our State Department for its, and I quote, ``significant progress in resolving human rights problems.'' The gentleman pointed out that there are still acts of terrorism. There still are rapes. There still is racial violence. But we also have acts of terrorism and many problems in our own country. Cutting developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor in India. The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives of India's democratically elected prime minister to improve the living conditions of the country's poorest citizens. And finally, this amendment would be an enormous blow to United States-India relations at the very moment when we should be strengthening ties between our two democracies. Last year India held a critical and historic election. Three hundred million people went to the polls to vote in what the New York Times writer William Safire called, and I quote, ``the most breathtaking example of government by people in the history of the world.'' The world's most populous democracy proved that its most powerful weapon is the ballot. We must not pass a punitive, anti-India amendment on the heels of this great election. United States-India relations are strong. American businesses are flourishing in India. The United States is now India's largest overseas investor and its biggest trading partner. The Commerce Department has designated India as one of the most important, and I quote, ``big emerging markets for United States exports.'' Let us send the world's most populous democracy the right message. Let us vote for progress in India. Let us vote for democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in support of the bipartisan amendment. I would like very much to be associated with the comments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that pointed out the compromises in this amendment, particularly with the China language. Federal funds cannot be used to perform abortions overseas. That is the law. But it appears that some of my colleagues are so jittery over a woman's right to choose that they confuse it with a person's right to medical education and a family's right to plan their lives. The U.N. Fund for population activities is not an organization which encourages abortion. What it does encourage is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies in 140 different countries. Not only does the U.N. fund work to prevent abortions, it provides programs which promote better nutrition, health and longer life expectancy. Vote for the bipartisan Pelosi-Gilman amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Betty Shabazz, a woman of great courage and dignity, who died tragically on June 23, 1997. We all will miss her presence. I attended Dr. Shabazz' funeral in New York City, remembering with others how much her work has affected us all. Betty Shabazz was a woman who faced down tragedy and rose above the sadness, emerging strong and powerful. When she could have been bitter and angry, she chose instead a path to peace and hope for the future. A pillar of strength for all women, she did not live her life in her husband's shadow. Instead, she claimed her place in both the women's rights and civil rights movement. Left a widow after the assassination of her husband, Betty Shabazz triumphed over every hurdle placed in her way. She used her nursing degree to support herself and her six daughters. She returned to school, and received her doctorate in education. She inspired thousands of young people, teaching them about the legacy of Malcolm X. At the time of her death she served as the director of Institutional Advancement and Public Relations at Medgar Evers College, of the City University of New York. We have come a long way, from when no political leader dared show his face at her husband's funeral, to where thousands of us, irrespective of politics, were united in grief for this wonderful woman. Dr. Betty Shabazz made this journey possible. I expect her work to be as important and as far reaching as her husband's.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute of the 50th anniversary of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two large apartment complexes in the Borough of Manhattan, in the city of New York. On August 21, 1997, the owners, residents, and neighbors celebrated the 50th anniversary of the historic public-private partnership which created thousands of spacious apartments for reasonable rents. Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village deserve honor here today as an outstanding example of private housing developed in the public good. In 1943, Frederick Ecker, chairman of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., worked with the city government to rebuild a run-down section of New York known as the Gas House District. He committed resources to build a large housing development, in exchange for property tax incentives. All 3,000 families who lived in the area were first re-housed by Metropolitan Life in an extensive and successful relocation program. The first families moved into Stuyvesant Town on August 1, 1947 and by June 1, 1949 all apartments were rented. Today, Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village together house 11,000 New York families. The Stuyvesant Town apartment buildings occupy 75 acres and comprise 89 apartment buildings, stretching from East 14th to East 20th Streets and from First Avenue to Avenue C in Manhattan. Peter Cooper Village is located between East 20th and East 23d Streets and also from First Avenue to Avenue C. The complexes have their own security force, supervised play and sports for children, a senior's lounge, annual flea market, holiday celebrations, among other amenities. A very unique quality of these complexes is their park-like setting--between the many buildings are trees, flowers, grass, and a centrally located fountain to give respite from the stresses of city life, just steps away outside the complex. I ask my colleagues to join me in honor of the historic partnership which has housed thousands of families, generation after generation, for 50 highly successful years. Congratulations to the residents of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village and to all at Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. who have contributed to the ongoing success of these historic apartment buildings.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, many of the abuses in Latin America can be traced back to graduates of the School of the Americas. The opposition has circulated dear colleagues highlighting quotes from several Latin American officials, but we have also heard from the people. Their voices are smaller and their speeches not as polished, but these are the people who have suffered from this scandalous school and they deserve to be heard. The fact that there are provisions that call for the Secretary of Defense's approval should not make us feel secure but suspect. I would hope that we would only fund 50-year-old programs that have already proven themselves, not ones that need special scrutiny. We spend billions of dollars on our defense interests, and when that money is used to keep our military strong and our troops safe, it is money well spent. But we mock our brave men and women in uniform who work for peace and justice in our world when we spend even one penny on this scandal. The school is not a creative solution to downsizing our military and it is more than just a waste of taxpayer dollars. Many graduates have been involved in some of the most brutal atrocities in Latin America and it is a national disgrace and a blotch on our military history. If we are to support democracy we must stop the killing of those people whose welfare we claim to support and the School of the Americas must fall into the oblivion it so richly deserves.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Burton amendment, which would limit development assistance to India. Mr. Speaker, it is 1 year later and we are still fighting the same fight. We defeated a similar amendment last year by an overwhelming margin--296 to 127. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional India Caucus, and was pleased to travel to India recently. On August 15, we celebrated India's 50th anniversary of democratic self rule. Passage of this amendment will have a devastating effect on the growing relationship between India and the United States. The United States is now India's largest overseas investor and its biggest trading partner. Since 1991, major Fortune 500 companies have invested in India. The Commerce Department has designated India as one of the most important ``Big Emerging Markets.'' Mr. Speaker, American businesses recognize the importance of a strong relationship with India. The gentleman from Indiana appears to have a noble purpose--to focus the attention of the House on human rights abuses. But despite his intentions, the amendment will do great harm to the very people it purports to help. Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past. But this nation--this great democracy--has taken exceptionally strong steps forward. In fact, India's Human Rights Commission, headed by a former Supreme Court Justice, has been hailed by the State Department for its ``significant progress in resolving human rights problems.'' Freezing developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor in India. The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives of India's democratically elected Prime Minister to improve the living conditions of the country's poorest citizens. And finally, this amendment would be an enormous blow to United States-Indian relations at the very moment when we should be strengthening ties between our two democracies. Last year, India held a critical and historic election--300 million people went to the polls in what the New York Times' William Safire called ``the most breathtaking example of government by people in the history of the world.'' The world's most populous democracy proved that its most powerful weapon is the ballot, not the bullet. We must not pass a punitive anti-India amendment on the heels of this election. United States-India relations are strong. American businesses are flourishing in India. Let's send the world's most populous democracy the right message. Let's vote for progress in India. Let's vote for democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to Virginia and Pawel Bednarek who have been chosen as the Marshals for the Greenpoint, Brooklyn contingent in the 1997 Pulaski Day Parade in New York City. As editors of Greenpoint's local paper, the Greenpoint Gazette, and through their civic activities, the Bednareks have contributed immensely to the Greenpoint community. Virginia Bednarek, born and raised in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, is the daughter of the late Adelle Haines, the founder and original editor of the Greenpoint Gazette. After her mother passed away, Virginia Bednarek assumed the position of editor of the Gazette. Pawel Bednarek met his wife in 1978 when he came from Europe to the United States to continue his study of music and singing. During the early years of their marriage, Pawel achieved wide acclaim for his vocal talent. In 1992, he joined Virginia at the Gazette. Through the Gazette, the Bednareks keep the community informed about current events while highlighting subjects of local importance each week. They also devote much of their free time to community causes. They led community opposition to New York City zoning laws that permitted X-rated stores to open in Greenpoint. The Bednareks' personal dedication to the Greenpoint community is evident in their support of organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, the YMCA and St. Stan's Athletic League. They are both parishioners at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church where Mr. Bednarek is the vice-president of the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi. The Bednareks have a son, John Paul, and a daughter, Maria Yvonne. For their wideranging efforts and accomplishments, the couple has been honored by organizations such as the Catholic War Veterans, the Northside Community Development and St. Stan's Athletic League. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Virginia and Pawel Bednarek. Mr. and Mrs. Bednarek are tremendously talented and exhibit extraordinary dedication to their community. I am delighted that they live in my district.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a respectful tribute to Congregation Beth Jacob of Astoria on the 70th anniversary of its founding. The congregation's history is one of perseverance and growth, supported by a foundation of worship, education, and dedication. Beth Jacob was founded in 1927 by a small group of Hungarian Jews who were determined to have their own congregation. These founders had very little money and could only afford to erect a fragile, one story structure which leaked badly after the first rain. However, the congregants were determined to have a home. Their weak structure never fell. In fact, it grew, as did the number of people who prayed there. And in 1938, in the midst of the destruction of synagogues throughout Germany, the growing congregation rebuilt their temple. In 1951, upon the completion of a second story, Beth Jacob truly began to flourish. At this time, it housed a Hebrew school with 126 students and three teachers. The Yeshiva of West Queens also began at Beth Jacob and had to move when its students overfilled the available classrooms. Worshipers filled the synagogue beyond capacity on holidays. Since the 1960's, the size of the Jewish community in Astoria has decreased. However, Congregation Beth Jacob has maintained its lively atmosphere, providing a center for Jewish life for residents from Astoria and nearby communities. Consistent with its tradition of growth, Congregation Beth Jacob now has a young new rabbi, Rabbi Zev Itzkowitz, and is always expanding its educational offerings, including adult classes and special programming. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Congregation Beth Jacob as it celebrates 70 years of a most vibrant history. I am honored to have such a thriving synagogue in my district, serving as a center for Jewish life and a home for Jewish education and worship.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

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

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in 1988, Congress passed and the President signed into law a requirement that the Department of Defense report details of crimes, including rape and sexual assault, committed within their jurisdiction to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, the Department of Defense has failed to comply with this law. That means that there are thousands of crimes committed on base and off base by members of the armed services and others that are never reported to the FBI. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put in the Record a letter from the general counsel of the Department of Defense and other press articles on this which state that they are looking at this, that they would like to proceed forward, but that there is a problem with funding. My amendment provides $1 million to the Department of Defense so that they could collect and report these statistics. The money comes from the operation and maintenance budget. I hope that my amendment will be considered in the conference report. I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for their support and their commitment to work on this in conference. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following: General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Washington, DC, May 27, 1997. Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mrs. Maloney: This further responds to your letter to the Secretary of Defense, dated February 26, 1997. In my interim reply, dated March 11, 1997, I informed you that I had asked the Judge Advocate General of the Army to provide me information on certain cases you mentioned in your letter. I now have this information and am prepared to respond to your questions. On October 24, 1995, then-Representative Dornan wrote the Secretary of Defense requesting an investigation of allegations made by Mr. Russell Carollo in a series of articles in the Dayton Daily News. After review by the Service Judge Advocates General and my office, I replied to Mr. Dornan on April 23, 1996. Your February 26 letter asks follow-up questions based on my reply to Mr. Dornan. I will address your questions in the same order as I replied to Mr. Dornan's inquiry. Do many accused sex offenders avoid prosecution or escape criminal punishment? You have asked whether the Department of Defense disputes the validity of the ``hard facts or statistics'' in Mr. Carollo's articles. Mr. Carollo was highly selective in the statistical data he chose to publish. Mr. Carollo's published figures on sex crime complaints included cases where the perpetrators were unknown and involving civilian suspects who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the military justice system. In those cases, it was not possible for a complaint to result in a court- martial conviction. Also, the offense ``titled'' on a complaint form or investigation report is often not the same offense that is formally charged. The decision on what title to use is made by an investigator at an early stage of the investigation. A formal charge, however, is preferred after full investigation and proof analysis by a military prosecutor. A formal charge is only referred to a court- martial after additional legal review, and this review may produce other changes. Even assuming that a court-martial charge reflects the same offense in the complaint, there may be a court-martial conviction for a lesser (but nonetheless serious) crime. For example, an accused may be acquitted of a rape charge, but found guilty of attempted rape or assault with intent to commit rape. Acquittal of a principal charge, but conviction of a lesser one, is a process that goes on every day in every jurisdiction in the United States, where each element of any charged offense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The military does not prosecute rape charges in ``misdemeanor courts'' or administrative hearings. If a complaint of rape is not prosecuted at a general court- martial, there is a reason and that reason is grounded in the evidence. A case may begin with a rape allegation, but end in another, lesser charge prosecuted at a special court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, or other administrative action. In another case, the quality of the evidence may persuade military authorities to accept an accused's offer to separate from the Service (with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge) rather than face a court-martial. If one of these actions happens, it is because particular circumstances make it appropriate. If a rape charge is supported by sufficient evidence for conviction, that charge is referred to a general court-martial as is fitting for a crime of that seriousness. In Mr. Carlo's articles and associated correspondence, we have seen many comparisons of the military justice system with the ``civilian judicial system'' that reflect a misunderstanding of both. A monolithic ``civilian judicial system'' does not exist. There are fifty-one such systems in the United States, the Federal system (including the commonwealths and territories) and one for each state. In none of these systems does a complaint of rape automatically result in a trial, conviction, and long prison sentence for the defendant. In each of the civilian systems, just as in the military, prosecutors must make decisions based on the quality of the evidence before them. If a case is prosecuted as a rape, a civilian court must determine guilt based on the evidence before it. In doing so, the court applies a ``beyond reasonable doubt'' standard of proof, just like a court- martial. If there is a conviction for rape, or of a lesser offense, a civilian court then determines a sentence based on the particular circumstances of the crime and the offender, just as a court-martial does. One significant difference between the military justice system and its civilian counterparts concerns the availability of alternative actions when there is insufficient evidence to prosecute in court. In any civilian jurisdiction, if a prosecutor or grand jury decides not to prosecute, nothing happens to the alleged offender. In the military, if the evidence is insufficient for a court-martial prosecution, commanders still have several options, any of which may result in significant sanction. The use of these options should not be cited as evidence that the military does not take crimes as seriously as in civilian jurisdictions, when these actions are not even available to civilian authorities. In your February 26 letter, you discussed several Army cases at Fort Carson, Colorado, and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. According to information provided by the Judge Advocate General of the Army, much of what you have been told about these cases is incorrect. Moreover, these cases are excellent illustrations of how, in any system, each case must be judged on its own specific facts. Your letter states that Army investigators at Fort Carson ``found substantial evidence for claims of rape against 13 soldiers in 1995 and 1996,'' yet only two were tried and five others received nonjudicial punishment. According to the Army Judge Advocate General's information, this statement is not accurate. Of the thirteen cases, in one the subject was a civilian, over whom the military had no jurisdiction, and in another the perpetrator was never identified. Of the remaining eleven cases, the State of Colorado assumed jurisdiction of two. In one of these, the State treated it as a domestic violence case. Of the remaining nine, in three cases the alleged victims either recanted their accusations or refused to cooperate after making an initial statement. In one of these, however, a soldier received nonjudicial punishment for consensual sodomy with another soldier's wife, an offense to which he confessed in his statement to investigators. The other two cases resulted in no disciplinary action. Of the remaining six cases, Army prosecutors determined the evidence was insufficient to go forward with trial in three cases, and three cases went to court-martial. Of the three soldiers who were tried, one was acquitted of rape, but convicted of consensual sodomy and indecent acts, and sentenced to hard labor without confinement. Two soldiers were convicted of rape. One of these was sentenced to 28 years. In the other, the accused (First Sergeant David Medeiros) received a sentence of only reduction to staff sergeant (two pay grades). Of the thirteen Fort Carson cases, the only apparent anomaly is the Medeiros case. I will not speculate as to the reasons for such a light sentence for the crime of rape, as I was not at the trial and do not have detailed knowledge of the evidence. However, you should be aware that the alleged victim in the Medeiros case later recanted her trial testimony and claimed her sex with Medeiros was consensual. Concerning the Fort Leonard Wood cases, your letter states that the post commander, Major General Ballard, reversed the ``sexual assault'' convictions of three soldiers, substituting administrative discharges. You asked ``[w]hat right did [General] Ballard have to reverse convictions?'' General Ballard had the powers and duties of a general court-martial convening authority, conferred by Congress under several articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As convening authority, General Ballard had ``authority . . . to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial [as] a matter of command prerogative involving [his] sole discretion. . . .'' Art. 60(c)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 860(c)(1). The Judge Advocate General of the Army informs me that General Ballard exercised his discretion in these three cases, after legal advice from his staff judge advocate, to reach what he thought was an appropriate result under unusual circumstances. The three Fort Leonard Wood cases are connected. None involved ``sexual assault.'' They involved three young soldiers dating, and having consensual sex with, three underage teenage girls. Two of the girls were not living at home, but had taken up with a local ``biker gang.'' In the other case, the girl's mother had introduced her daughter to the soldier in a bar. All the sexual conduct occurred off- post, but the local Missouri prosecutor declined to prosecute. However, the Army prosecuted the soldiers at special courts-martial for ``carnal knowledge,'' that is, consensual sex with a minor. See Art. 120(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 920(b). Each soldier's court-martial sentenced him to reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, and restriction to post, but did not impose either confinement or a bad-conduct discharge. General Ballard, using his powers under law as a convening authority, determined the best interests of the Army would be served by approving administrative discharges in lieu of the court-martial convictions. In each case, the soldier received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge, which deprives the soldier of entitlement to many benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such a discharge also carries a social stigma. I also invite your attention to data available from the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The USDB is the central facility for long-term confinement for prisoners from all Services. Of the 1,023 inmates at the USDB, 495 are serving sentences for sex crimes--almost half the prison population and nearly double the next category (homicide, 256 inmates). The Army reports that 1,392 soldiers have been tried by courts-martial for sex crimes since 1991. Of these, 870 have been convicted, with an average confinement sentence of just over 6.5 years. Of these, 253 were convicted of rape, with an average confinement sentence of 12.2 years. I hope this discussion has shown that statistics and anecdotes do not necessarily tell an accurate story, especially when the statistics are incomplete and the anecdotes are, at best, one-sided or, at worst, wrong. Mr. Carollo's fundamental premise is that the military lets an unacceptably high number of sex offenders off (either completely or with light punishment) out of apathy, investigative incompetence, and/or prosecutorial indifference. As I emphasized in my letter to Mr. Dornan, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that military investigators, prosecutors, convening authorities, judges, and court-martial members deal with real cases, in real time, involving real people as accused and alleged victims, Every case is different and every decision must be made on its own merits. Does the military fail to report many criminal records to the FBI as required by law? In my letter to Mr. Dornan, I acknowledged that the Services' investigative arms had not consistently complied with Department of Defense Inspector General Memorandum 10, dated March 25, 1987, which requires submission of fingerprint cards to the FBI in certain cases. I also described an evaluation of Memorandum 10 compliance by the Inspector General, as mandated by section 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. That evaluation is now complete and the Inspector General's report is available. That study confirmed that the Services have not done well in complying with Memorandum 10. In November 1996, the Inspector General replaced Memorandum 10 with another memorandum clarifying the Services' reporting requirements. Moreover, the Inspector General intends to replace this memorandum with a Department of Defense instruction. A draft instruction is presently in the coordination process within the Department of Defense. When issued, the instruction will clearly state required actions by Department of Defense law enforcement organizations. In a related area, you have also asked about the Department's progress providing Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) statistics to the FBI. The UCR is part of the National Incident-Based Crime Reporting System (NIBRS). The Department is now implementing the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS). NIBRS information will be reported by DIBRS along with other information of special significance to the Department of Defense. On October 15, 1996, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed DoD Directive 7730.47, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System. While many DIBRS issues are still under review, we expect the Services will begin reporting this year and hope to have the system fully on-line by early 1998. Your letter also states that you ``understand that the military can expunge criminal records from the FBI's database,'' and asks for information about such expungements. The military has no authority to ``expunge'' any record from the FBI database. However, a Military Department can correct an erroneous record and inform the FBI of that correction, causing a corresponding correction in the FBI database. Department of Justice regulations permit a person, on request and verification of identity, to review his or her information in a Department of Justice criminal history record information system. If a person believes the system contains incorrect or incomplete information, he or she may submit a correction or update. An individual usually applies to the agency that contributed the questioned information. A person may also make a request for correction to the FBI Identification Division, which will forward the request to the concerned agency. If the agency agrees that the record should be corrected, it notifies the FBI and the FBI will make the necessary changes. Do victims of violent crime continue to be victimized by the military justice system? As I described to Mr. Dornan, the process of a criminal trial in any court is a difficult one, especially for victims and their families. This is particularly true with respect to sex crimes, which often involve intensely personal facts. While no court system intentionally seeks to harm victims, such harm is often a regrettable result. Recognizing this, each Service has a victim assistance program that compares favorably with federal civilian and state programs. Concerning your suggestion to create an ``ombudsman'' for servicemembers, comment at this time would be premature. As you know, one aspect of the Secretary of Army's pending inquiry into sexual harassment is the mechanism for reporting complaints. When the Army's inquiry is complete, the Department of Defense will review its recommendations for application to all Services. Is the military's judicial system plagued by sketchy records, secret proceedings, and abuse of discretionary power given commanders? I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my reply to this question from Mr. Dornan as ``terse'' and ``contradict[ing] the facts shown by the Dayton Daily News.'' As I explained to Mr. Dornan, a court- martial is a public trial unless closed for a specific lawful reason (such as to prevent public disclosure of classified information). I also reiterate that military law and Service regulations provide for records of trials. As for records of nonjudicial and administrative proceedings, there continues to be a misunderstanding that I hope I can resolve here. The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits disclosure of personnel records except under specified circumstances. This is not military ``secrecy,'' but a law that the Department of Defense, including the Military Departments, is bound to follow just like other federal agencies. Nonjudicial and administrative actions are evidenced in personnel records covered by the Privacy Act and, unless an exception applies, may not be released under the Freedom of Information Act. As required by the Privacy Act, the Services did not disclose information about such actions to Mr. Carollo when he was researching his articles. It appears that Mr. Carollo then characterized these personnel records as ``secret'' as a literary device to imply that something sinister was going on in the military. Unless the Congress amends the Privacy Act to exempt military personnel records, such records may not be released except under the limited circumstances provided in the Privacy Act. As I emphasized in my reply to Mr. Dornan, it is wrong to label these personnel records as ``secret'' and imply that nondisclosure of personnel records is unique to the military. Did the Navy fail to take appropriate action against personnel involved in the 1992 incident in Sitka, Alaska? In referring to my response to Mr. Dornan, you stated, ``I agree with the DoD's response in that the Navy [sailors] were not punished for their transgressions.'' You then declined further comment because the case was in litigation. I wish to clarify an apparent misunderstanding concerning my response and inform you of recent developments in the Sitka cases. My reply to Mr. Dornan was not intended as an opinion that the sailors were not properly punished for misconduct. While I provided Mr. Dornan a summary of the incidents at Sitka involving sailors from the USS DUNCAN, I expressly reserved comment on whether the actions taken were justified. That was because there was an ongoing civilian prosecution against two DUNCAN sailors, one of whom was still in the Navy. That prosecution concluded in January 1997, when the Alaska Superior Court dismissed the indictments against both men. The Sitka cases involved two separate incidents. In the first incident, two underage girls admitted lying to two enlisted sailors that they were over 16, the age of consent for sexual intercourse under both military law and Alaska law. After an investigation, the Alaska state's attorney declined to prosecute the sailors, as did the DUNCAN commanding officer. There has been no further action concerning this incident. The second incident, however, eventually produced state indictments. As described in my letter to Mr. Dornan, the second incident involved sexual contact with two underage girls by two members of the DUNCAN crew. No intercourse occurred. A commissioned officer, although an ensign (the most junior commissioned officer grade), participated in these acts in the presence of an enlisted sailor. Both men knew the girls were underage. After the incident was reported and investigated, the girls' parents did not want to press charges, and the Alaska state's attorney declined to prosecute. Under the circumstances, the DUNCAN commanding officer determined that disciplining the enlisted sailor was inappropriate because his participation had been encouraged by a commissioned officer. The Navy took action against the ensign that eventually resulted in his separation from the Navy in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although the ensign's request for separation in lieu of court-martial was approved, it resulted in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. As discussed previously, this character of discharge deprives the recipient of entitlement to any veterans' benefits to which he would otherwise be eligible and carries with it a significant social stigma. For the ensign's transgressions, he lost his job, any possibility of a military career, and present and future entitlements to veterans benefits. He will also endure the lifetime of disgrace associated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. I am aware of no civilian authority that can impose administrative sanctions of such severity and permanence. I still decline to comment on the appropriateness of these actions, as I was not there and am not in a position to pass judgment on the officers who made these decisions. However, any perception that this ensign escaped punishment is not accurate. You have concluded from Mr. Carollo's allegations and ``recent military sexual misconduct scandals'' that there is a need to reexamine the military justice system. The only things proven by Mr. Carollo's articles are that sex crime allegations make hard cases and the military justice system adjudicates them one at a time. It is ironic that recent ``scandals'' have been cited as evidence that the military justice system is failing in comparison to the civilian system. To the contrary, these events have proven the worth of the military justice system. Please examine Mr. Carollo's anecdotes and find out how many were cases that civilian authorities declined to prosecute or had no interest in from the start. In the military justice system, if a particular allegation has resulted in a lesser charge, conviction of a lesser offense, punishment that may seem lenient, or exoneration, that is because someone made a hard decision. The same is true if an allegation has produced a conviction as charged and a severe sentence. In all cases, the decisions are made by those who, under the law, have the power and duty to do so, based on the applicable law and the evidence before them. I will close by assuring you, as I did Mr. Dornan, that the military justice system is fair and efficient. I reaffirm my rejection of any allegation that service members live and work in a culture that officially condones sex crime or shelters sex offenders. To anyone who is genuinely familiar with the military and the military justice system, that notion is nonsense. Thank you for your letter. I hope this reply has been helpful in addressing your concerns. Sincerely, Judith A. Miller.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.