Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of child abuse victims everywhere. The legislation I have introduced, the ERISA Child Abuse Accountability Act, H.R. 1142, empowers people in a system that seems to be set against them. Abuse survivors may have moved past the physical pain, but the scars, and emotional turmoil remain. Some have turned to the judicial system to hold their abusers accountable for their crimes. They endure traumatic trials, reliving the years of torment, and dredging up suppressed memories, in order to put their pasts behind them. But too often, a court battle is only the beginning of the struggle. Even if a court finds the abuser guilty and awards the victim compensation, the money can be elusive. The logical target might be the abuser's pension. However, although private pensions are attachable for child support or alimony settlements, current law protects private pensions from court ordered monetary awards in child abuse cases. Under legislation authored by Representative Patricia Schroeder and passed during the 103d Congress, victims of child abuse are permitted to collect awards from Federal pensions. The ERISA Child Abuse Accountability Act is a natural extension of the original bill, to include private pensions. Those who would commit a crime against a child must be held accountable. We cannot allow abusers to hide behind the law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the law on the side of the victims.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will soon vote on whether to hold a serious campaign finance investigation or to hold a narrowly focused, partisan, wasteful charade. The chairman of that committee has begun a blatantly partisan investigation of the White House to embarrass the President. He proposes, he has an unprecedented proposal, and that is to limit the scope very narrowly only to the actions of the executive branch officials and only to the Presidential election. Doing so, limiting it only to the 1996 Presidential campaign and the executive branch, means it will focus only on the Clinton campaign and executive branch officials, means it will be only democratic violations that will be looked at. At the very least, if the chairman was serious about studying campaign finance violations, they would look at both campaigns; they would look at both the Democratic and the Republican campaigns. There have been published abuses in the Dole campaign and the Clinton campaign. We should study both campaigns if we are serious about finding solutions. Likewise, it should be expanded to cover the Congress, both branches, in the Senate campaigns and the House campaigns, if you are really looking at finding what is wrong with the system and trying to change it and make it better. The chairman plans to use $15 million for his investigation. That is three times more money investigating the President than the Senate is spending to investigate both the President and the Congress. That makes absolutely no sense, and it is wasteful. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has significantly broadened his own powers. He has issued more than 100 subpoenas without the committee's approval. Furthermore, the chairman is seeking unilateral authority to release the documents that he obtains by subpoena. The Senate, on the other hand, the Republican Senate, on the other hand, has voted unanimously and endorsed a bipartisan investigation of both Presidential and congressional campaigns regardless of party. They are looking at issues, not at politics. Led by Senator Fred Thompson and the Republican leadership, the Senate is charged with an investigation of both illegal and improper campaign finance practices during the past election. The scope is well defined and entirely appropriate to serve the public interest and to understand the full range of abuse. However, the House investigation which the chairman is proposing is not. The chairman's blanket authority to unilaterally issue subpoenas and release documents is without precedent. I want to state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the view that has been taken by all the good government groups. They are all criticizing the proposals that the Republican chairman has before the committee tomorrow: Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, NYPIRG; they have all come out in opposition to this. The Perot party has come out in opposition to this. This is not partisan opposition; this is good government, commonsense opposition. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Common Cause: ``This issuance of a formal subpoena is a serious matter subject to great potential abuse.'' They go on, and I quote, ``It is inappropriate for a committee chairman to have the unchecked authority to unilaterally issue a subpoena which could be intended to harass, to embarrass, or oppress the other party.'' Deans of this House on both sides, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, I served with him, a Republican who was the chairman of this committee, he would never, never do anything like this. I heard both Mr. Clinger and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] on our side of the aisle say that the best legislation is legislation that is bipartisan, that is thoughtful, that is intended to help public policy. The proposal that the Republican chairman is putting forth before the committee, according to Common Cause, Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters is unprecedented, wrong, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-good government, anti-common sense, wasteful, and should not be done. I would like to caution all Members of this body on both sides of the aisle that everyone should think very carefully before they would vote for a proposal that absolutely the entire country seems to be opposed to except the chairman of this particular committee. I hope everyone will read the documents he is putting forward and read the statements of the groups that have come forward in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I am entering into the Record the statements of Common Cause, Public Citizen, NYPIRG, the League of Women Voters, and other government groups that have uniformly and with great force come out in opposition to the proposal that the chairman, Republican chairman, is putting forth. Statement by Tom Andrews, National Program Director, Citizen Action-- News Conference, April 7, 1997 When it comes to the way political campaigns are financed in this country, Americans have two fundamental beliefs: 1) they are disgusted with the way things are and 2) they are highly cynical about the prospects of politicians cleaning it up. Incredibly, it is possible that the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may exclude from its investigation into campaign fundraising practices illegal or improper campaign fundraising by members of Congress. Apparently Chairman Burton would like to restrict the scope of his Committee's work to only one party by probing only into the White House and the Democratic National Committee. Apparently we are to believe that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to any other politician's fundraising practices--certainly not the U.S. Congress. In light of how disgusted Americans are with politics as usual, Chairman Burton's move needs to be entered into Ripley's Believe it Or Not. It is unbelievable that a House Committee would actually vote to begin an investigation of the campaign fundraising practices of politicians by systematically excluding the U.S. Congress. I know how out of touch some politicians can become from real people but you would have had to have traveled to Mars for the Congressional recess not to know how angry people are with big money in politics and how disgusted they will be with any investigation that attempts to sweep the truth under the rug before it even begins. The issue here is clear. The Senate voted unanimously to open up their investigation to the entire campaign fundraising problem as it relates to all Washington politicians. To do anything else on the House side will render their investigation at best incomplete and, at worse, a partisan hatchet job that exhibits what Americans have come to hate most about politics. The vote on this issue will become a marker for members of the Committee. Those who vote against a complete and fair investigation that includes Congress as well as the White House, will clearly identify themselves as a major part of the problem. Because every politician has learned to talk a good game on this issue, this vote will be very useful for citizens to know which side their member of Congress is really on when it comes to cleaning up our political system. Every member of the committee needs to know that you can run but you cannot hide on this issue. Your vote will be counted and you will be held accountable. There is no excuse for anything less than a full and fair investigation of the mess and the scandal of the role of big money in our political system. Any member who votes against such a full investigation can expect to be asked by their constituents at home: ``What do you have to hide?'' People are tired of the excuses, the inaction and the partisan manipulation. They want and deserve to have a democracy taken back from the monied special interests that bankroll candidates and returned it to it's rightful owners-- the American people.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor a courageous man and to try to shed some light on the tragic disease which he courageously fought. Larry Bienstock was my constituent and lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He attended Columbia University and received his law degree from New York University. Everyone who knew him, even in passing, was amazed at his searing intelligence, his fierce independence, and, above all, his unwavering commitment to the cause of dystonia. Unfortunately, Larry knew dystonia well. Generalized dystonia symptoms began when he was a boy and progressed in adulthood to the point of confining him to a wheelchair. Yet despite the cruel nature of this debilitating disease, Larry's spirit never dampened. During the many years that I knew and worked with Larry, I learned directly from him about his battle with dystonia. Dystonia is a neurological disorder characterized by severe involuntary muscle contractions and sustained postures. There are several different types of dystonia, such as: generalized dystonia which afflicts many parts of the body and usually begins in childhood; focal dystonias affecting one specific part of the body such as the eyelids, vocal cords, neck, arms, hands or feet; and secondary dystonia which is secondary to injury or other brain illness. There is no definitive test for dystonia and many primary care doctors have never seen a case of it. These facts coupled with its varied presentations make it difficult to correctly diagnose. It is estimated that 85% of those suffering from dystonia are not diagnosed or have been misdiagnosed. Because of the complications with diagnosing the disease, it is difficult to determine the number of people who are affected by it. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation estimates that approximately 300,000 individuals in North America alone suffer from some form of dystonia. Unembarrassed by his condition, Larry and his wheelchair went traveling often--to lobby for funding in the halls of the Capitol, to the boulevards of Paris, to symposia and social events related to dystonia. Throughout his life, Larry was always a fighter for research into the cause and treatment of dystonia. Larry was active in politics, volunteering on political campaigns and with the local Democratic party. He felt that government belonged to the people and he always took advantage of opportunities to speak out on issues he felt strongly about. He spread his word via the Internet and created a web page for the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, which can be found at: http://www.ziplink.net/users/dystonia/. Larry saw e-mail and his web page as powerful tools for bringing together people concerned about dystonia and for establishing a strong collective voice for advocacy. Larry Bienstock provided a model of courage, perseverance, and independence. When he passed away recently, Larry Bienstock left a legacy of activism and advocacy. He taught me about dystonia, and more importantly, about the undying human spirit.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James D. Dougherty, who is stepping down as president of the Gramercy Neighborhood Associates [GNA]. Mr. Dougherty has served as GNA's president since 1990. Over the past 7 years, as a result of Mr. Dougherty's leadership and vision, GNA has helped improve the Gramercy Park neighborhood in many ways. Among the GNA initiatives undertaken during his tenure, there are two I would like to note. GNA worked to replace 24 cobra lampposts with the more attractive and historically appropriate Bishop's Crook lampposts. Additionally, GNA published the award-winning book, ``Gramercy: Its Architectural Surroundings,'' which is playing a pivotal role in the drive to expand the Gramercy Park Historic District. Mr. Dougherty first moved to the Gramercy area in 1960 when he was attending Columbia Law School. After 8 years of practicing law on Wall Street, Mr. Dougherty joined Pathmark Supermarkets, Inc., as a lawyer. In 1987, he was appointed president of Pathmark. Mr. Dougherty's volunteer work does not stop with GNA. Since his retirement from Pathmark in 1990, Mr. Dougherty has also taken an active role in the environment. He served as the chairman of the Nature Conservancy chapter on the east end of Long Island and as a director of the New York League of Conservation Voters. Mr. Dougherty has also applied his retail experience to several State Department volunteer assignments. He spent a month in Latvia in 1992, during the first winter of its independence from the Soviet Union, helping to establish new distribution channels for scarce food and medical supplies. In 1996, he spent 2 months in Siberia advising a Russian retail chain in the design and opening of its first supermarket. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor James Dougherty, a man who has used his expertise and leadership to serve his own community and the communities of others around the world. I ask my colleagues to join me today in this well deserved tribute to Mr. James Dougherty.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Ming Pao Daily News, an esteemed newspaper serving the Chinese communities in Hong Kong and Canada. Today they celebrate the debut of their New York edition, the first Ming Pao publication in the United States. The Ming Pao Daily News began publication in Hong Kong in 1959 and is now the third largest newspaper in Hong Kong in terms of advertising revenue and circulation. Highly regarded for its editorial integrity, Ming Pao has received many awards. In 1995, for the fourth consecutive year, the paper won 7 out of 10 annual awards presented by the Newspaper Society of Hong Kong. In 1996, according to a Hong Kong Chinese university survey, Ming Pao was ranked No. 1 in reader confidence and authoritativeness. The Ming Pao Daily News currently publishes two Canadian papers which play an integral role in helping the Canadian Chinese communities acculturate to their new societies. In these editions, Ming Pao has placed great emphasis on reporting Canadian news, local lifestyle, political and social events, and sports and entertainment. In New York, Ming Pao is determined to provide the Chinese speaking population with informative local, national and international news. Ming Pao intends to continue its service to the Chinese speaking populations in the United States when it expands its publication to include San Francisco and Los Angeles in the near future. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the Ming Pao Daily News, a paper which takes great pride in its service to the North American Chinese population. I ask my colleagues to join me today in this well-deserved tribute to the Ming Pao Daily News as they launch their first edition in the United States. I wish them the greatest success.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to join my colleagues and add my voice as a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, speaking out against the $7.9 million slush fund that will not go to the House floor. It is really wrong. I also oppose the $12 million that they are asking for for clearly a partisan investigation against the White House and the Democratic party. The committee has yet to reveal any information or any details about how they intend to spend this slush fund or any of this money. I would like to quote, please, Becky Cain, president of the League of Women Voters. She said about this, ``The House investigation into campaign fundraising should include a thorough examination of both parties' Presidential and congressional practices, both improper and illegal. A limited scope will turn the investigation into a partisan charade.'' Today's Washington Post editorial goes even further. It warns that this investigation runs the risk of becoming, and I quote, ``its own cartoon, a joke and a deserved embarrassment.'' The New York Times editorial recommended today that the House should follow the Watergate precedent and let the Senate conduct a single investigation. I would like to submit into the Record the editorials in both the Washington Times and in the Washington Post against this investigation, and also the Roll Call editorial. Instead of using this money for the slush fund for a partisan investigation of the House, we should be increasing funding for the bipartisan agency that is charged with regulating campaigns: The Federal Election Commission. The FEC has requested an increase of $8.2 billion for fiscal year 1998 to deal with its increasing caseload. In the last 3 years the FEC's caseload has increased. I am opposed to the slush fund. We should be funding the FEC instead.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we face yet another attempt by the new majority to roll back a woman's right to choose. Let me place this vote today in perspective. Last Congress there were 52 antichoice votes on the floor of Congress. My colleagues who support this bill are barely trying to disguise their agenda. They mean to attack Roe versus Wade procedure by procedure. They mean to attack the right of women to control their decisions about their health, their families, and their life. Eliminating late-term abortion is just their first step toward sending the debate back more than 20 years back before the Supreme Court. Congress can outlaw procedures, but they can never outlaw the circumstances that lead some women to need abortions late in pregnancy. No matter how good the technology gets, tragic discoveries are sometimes made late in pregnancies, and for these women we need to have the best and safest medical care available. This new bill would have a woman die if her life were threatened by the pregnancy itself. Again instead of allowing a doctor, a woman, and her family to make this decision, they would have the woman die. This bill also allows abusive and absent husbands to sue doctors who perform procedures that are sometimes necessary in tragic situations. So now we care more about abusive husbands than we do about a woman's health. How odd that the new majority calls itself family friendly. How odd that the new majority says that they want to get government off our backs. Yet they are trying to dictate, procedure by procedure, the most intimate decisions that a woman has to make in her life about her own life, about her health, and about the future of her family. Congress has no place in women's decisions and no place in women's tragedies.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Census Accuracy Act of 1997. The Census Accuracy Act requires that 3 years prior to the census, the Census Bureau must submit to Congress its plans for carrying out the census. It must report what methods will be used to take the census, including direct counting methods, sampling, statistical techniques, and any other methods to ensure that the census is as accurate as possible. The Census Accuracy Act also specifies that when Congress requires the allocation of funds based on population or housing characteristics, unless otherwise specified, that data should be collected on the census at the same time as the information for apportionment is collected. Some critics of the Census Bureau's current plans for the 2000 census argue that title 13, U.F.C., prohibits the use of sampling to derive the population counts used for apportionment. In fact, the record is clear and overwhelming that just the opposite is true. The Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton has concluded that the use of sampling is both legal and constitutional. Similarly, when asked to rule, the courts have consistently upheld the use of sampling. Nevertheless, some observers continue to question whether section 195 of title 13, U.F.C., permits the use of sampling to derive the population counts used for apportionment, even when read in conjunction with section 141 of the same title. Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to reaffirm the interpretation of the courts and the Justice Department that the use of sampling is both appropriate and desirable in order to make the census more accurate, and ensure that sections 195 and 141 of title 13, U.F.C, are in harmony as originally intended. In just 3 years, the 2000 census will be under way. That census is important to this body because it will determine how the seats of this House are apportioned among the States. That census is important because over the decade it will be used to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to State and local governments. It will be used to enforce the Voting Rights Act to assure equal representation. It will be used by businesses to locate manufacturing plants where there is an adequate work force, and to provide services that are valued by the communities of which they are a part. It will be used by State governments to plan highways, and by local governments to assure adequate sewer and water facilities. We cannot afford an inaccurate census. The bill I am introducing today will assure all of us that the next census is as fair and accurate as possible. Our understanding of the accuracy of the census increases each decade. Both Thomas Jefferson, the first census taker, and George Washington knew there were errors in the 1790 census. But it took until 1940 for census demographers to start measuring that error with sound scientific tools. Between 1940 and 1980 the net undercount decreased from 5.4 to 1.2 percent, but the differential undercount, the difference between black and nonblack undercount, went from 3.4 percent in 1940 to 4.3 percent in 1970 to 3.7 percent in 1980. In 1990, both the total net undercount and the differential went up. In fact, the differential of 4.4 percent between blacks and nonblacks in 1990 was the largest ever. In addition to increasing error in 1990, the cost per household, in constant dollars, went up. The 1990 cost was 25 percent higher than 1980 and 150 percent higher than 1970. Because of the errors in the 1990 census, California was denied a congressional seat that was rightfully theirs. The 1990 census missed over 10 million Americans. Six million were counted more than once. It is not fair that those 10 million Americans were left out of the census, and it is not fair that those 6 million were counted twice. We would not stand for those kinds of errors in our election results, and we should not tolerate them in the census. Is there anything that can be done about it? Absolutely. The Census Bureau has proposed a variety of changes in the 2000 census that will produce a more accurate census at a lower cost. The Census Bureau will make a greater effort to count everyone than ever before, and people will have more opportunities to respond than ever before. Before the census form is mailed, everyone will receive a letter telling them that the census is coming. Then each household in the United States will receive a form. About a week later, they will receive a letter thanking them for returning the form, and reminding them to mail it if they have not. About a week after the reminder letter, the Census Bureau will send out a second form so that those who misplaced it will have a replacement. In addition to the mail, the Census Bureau will use a variety of methods to make it easier for the public to be counted. Forms will be placed in super markets and community centers, post offices and government buildings, convenient stores and retail stores. Forms will be available in foreign languages, and there will be a toll-free number where people can call for help. There will also be a toll-free number where people can fill out their form over the phone. And, if privacy concerns can be addressed, it may be possible to return your form through the internet. There will be an advertising campaign to inform the public that the census is coming, and to explain why the Government is collecting this information. There will be programs for schools and civic organizations, as well as census employees whose job it is to work with community organizations to get out the count. Even with all of these efforts we know that not everyone will send back their form. For every 1 percent of the population that does not mail in their form, or respond over the phone, it costs an additional $25 million to count them. The best estimate of the experts is that even with all of these efforts, nearly 35 percent will not be counted by mail or phone. At $25 million for each 1 percent, that's $875 million to followup with nonresponding households. And even after hiring a half a million temporary employees, and spending weeks going door to door, not everyone will be counted. No census has ever counted everyone. The difference is that we now have the technology and scientific tools to estimate how many people were missed, and to correct the census so that it is as inclusive as possible. The 1990 census missed almost 2 percent of the population. If that were spread evenly across groups of people and across the country, not too many stakeholders would care. But the undercount is not random. Less than 1 percent of whites were missed, but over 5 percent of African-Americans were missed. On Indian reservation the census missed 12 percent. In 1990 the census included an experimental method to correct these mistakes--to account for those who are missed and to correct for those who are counted twice. In the end, the Secretary of Commerce chose not to use those adjustments, and we have lived with those inequities for the past 7 years. Every year millions of dollars are lost by States whose population was undercounted. The vast body of scientific evidence shows that these errors can be corrected in a way that is fair to all. Three separate panels of experts at the National Academy of Sciences have recommended that these errors be corrected. The techniques for correcting the census have been endorsed by professional organizations like the American Statistical Association and by groups like the National Association of Counties. The inspector general at the Commerce Department has endorsed correcting these errors, as has the General Accounting Office. Well, you must be asking yourself by now, just who opposes a more accurate census. Unfortunately, some Members of this body will pay any price to get the wrong answer. They argue that we should throw more money at the old methods of doing the census, even though they will produce a count that is less accurate. Of course, the Members making this argument are not on the Appropriations Committee. The members of the Appropriations Committee have yet to fund the census at the requested level, much less, give the Census Bureau more money. One of the objections they raise to the methods proposed for the 2000 census is that they are not allowed under current law. I disagree with their interpretation of the law. This bill makes it clear that once the Census Bureau makes a good faith effort at an enumeration, the count can be supplemented by other methods to achieve a more accurate count. Mr. Speaker, we must all work for the most accurate census possible in 2000. If we do not, it will be the American public who loses. My bill will make a more accurate census possible, and ensure that any confusion over current law is eliminated. I urge that it be passed quickly.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the rule on H.R. 1 and the bill. I want to make it very clear that the bill before us today is not the President's proposal. The President's proposal would give workers real time off and expanded time off to go to school functions and medical visits and other activities. This does not. They call it the Working Families Flexibility Act, but unfortunately, it is neither flexible for workers, nor is it family friendly. Under the guise of giving workers flexibility in the workplace, H.R. 1 gives employers flexibility in deciding whether employees will be able to collect overtime pay and when they can take their accrued comp time. Many workers rely on overtime pay to make ends meet. This bill allows employers to find ways to intimidate workers who insist on getting paid overtime. That means that a single mother who relies on 5 extra hours of overtime pay each week may not get any overtime assignments, if the employer knows that another worker is willing to do the work for comp time. That does not help the single mother, it robs her of her ability to earn valuable overtime pay. The people who are affected by H.R. 1 are not usually in a powerful position, and are therefore unlikely to refuse their employers' requests to do them a favor by being paid in comp time instead of their valuable overtime pay. Two-thirds of covered employees make less than $10 an hour. Thirteen percent of workers get overtime pay each week. This money is not always extra. Because women are the majority of low- wage workers, they are more vulnerable to these potential abuses of the law. Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought to you by the same people who fought against and voted against family and medical leave. Do they care about protecting workers? I do not think so. This is a bill that would threaten women and working people around the country. This bill is not family friendly, it is family fraudulent.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for organizing this special order to celebrate Greek Independence Day. I am very fortunate and very pleased and privileged to represent Astoria, NY--one of the largest and most vibrant communities of Greek and Cypriot Americans in this country. It is truly one of my greatest pleasures as a Member of Congress to be able to participate in the life of this community, and the wonderful and vital Greek-American friends that I have come to know are one of its greatest rewards. I have also had the pleasure of establishing the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues with the gentleman from Florida. This caucus allows Members of the House to join together to find ways to work toward better United States-Greek and Cypriot relations. March 25, 1997, will mark the 176th anniversary of the day when Greece declared her independence, beginning an 8-year struggle for freedom. From the fall of Constantinople in 1453, until the Declaration of Independence in 1821, almost 400 years, Greece remained under the heel of the Ottoman Empire. During that time, the people were deprived of all civil rights. Schools and churches. One hundred seventy-six years ago, the Greek people were able to resume their rightful place as an ideal of democracy for the rest of the Western world. The ancient Greek paradigm of democracy and individual liberties inspired our country to seek its own independence, and in that sense, as the American philosopher Will Durant observed, ``Greece is the bright morning star of that Western civilization which is our nourishment and life.'' Yet half a century later, the American Revolution became one of the ideals of the Greeks as they fought for their own independence. Since their independence, Greece has become one of the most trusted partners allied with the United States in every major international conflict in this century. In light of this special and longstanding relationship, some recent actions taken by the administration are particularly troubling. The proposed sale of Seahawk naval helicopters sends the wrong signal to Turkey, particularly given the tense situation on Cyprus. The Hellenic Caucus responded by sending a letter condemning this sale to President Clinton that was signed by over 80 Members of Congress. I believe that it is time for the administration to reach the same conclusion and end unfortunate weapons sales until certain actions are halted. We need a rational policy that does not encourage aggressive actions and attitudes. There can be no middle or neutral position between those who uphold the rules of law and those who violate it. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join in celebrating Greek independence and the indomitable, life-giving spirit of its people.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, what I have found to be most inspiring in my life is the act of giving from people and organizations that have very little for themselves. This exemplary behavior is often exhibited by citizens in our nonprofit groups who, despite serious budget constraints, seem to be able to reach down deep and come up with a little more for those around them. The NEA and NEH are two such agencies. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has again written a letter urging the President, Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Speaker Lott to consider that, The arts and humanities serve as an essential and forceful vehicle to educate our citizens, help our struggling youth, spur economic growth in our communities, and bring us together as a nation. And I could not agree with this sentiment more. As a proud Representative of one of the world's most celebrated cultural centers, I am appalled that this body would consider zeroing out funds for two of the most judicious and economical organizations by any business' standards. The fact is, that since the 40-percent reduction in arts funding, the American public spends only 38 cents per person to fund the largest cultural voice in America. The fact is, all other developed nations spend more than 2 to 10 times as much as the United States. The fact is, through its public-private partnerships, the NEA draws roughly $12 for every $1 in Federal funding it is awarded. The fact is, the arts have generated billions of dollars through many of our industries and return over 10 percent of what it earns through taxes. The fact is, the nonprofit arts industry represents nearly 1 percent of our work force. There are many, many more economic reasons to support the NEA and NEH--we all know them, and yet the Republican leadership is still on the warpath to kill Federal sponsorship of the arts. As far as I am concerned, the fight to end our Federal arts institutions is yet another assault on children. These are not the children of the privileged as the Republican leadership would have us believe, but the kids who are, at their best, culturally deprived, and at their worst, at-risk youth with little in their life to keep them going. I am extremely honored to serve and be served by what I consider the single greatest arts region in the world. New York City is not only revered for its famous collections and prosperous operas and dance productions, but because it has a rich tradition of sharing these treasures with those less fortunate within the community and throughout the United States. The wealthy will most likely always have their cultivation, but Federal dollars through the NEA and NEH provides access for those who would not. And even though Harris polls still show that Americans want higher investment in the arts, I think that we have no idea how these agencies touch our lives. We can find so much waste in our Government departments, not least of all Defense, but the NEA and NEH have the most flawless budgetary records. The radical right has been very clever in distorting small glitches in NEA grants and have purposely misled the public. In reality, the NEA and the NEH are the greatest gifts we can offer our children and future generations and one of the most generous outreach services we can provide to the public. I think it is important to remember that only positive energy comes from these programs. We cannot lose when we invest in the arts. This meager investment helps us to learn more about our history and ourselves and conveys to us our common humanity and I would loathe to see the dying of this outstanding legacy. I fully stand by the President's decision to restore funding to these agencies to what they were a few years ago and am pleased to stand with my colleagues from across the aisle who understand what the value of these agencies is to the greatest Nation in the world. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Louise Slaughter, for her tireless efforts in defending the arts and for her most recent undertaking in rejuvenating the Congressional Member Organization for the Arts. Please support including the arts in our national agenda by fully funding the NEA, NEH, and IMLS at the President's suggested levels.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Bartosiewicz of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, who is being honored this Sunday as the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men's Man of the Year. John grew up in a musical family, and his success as a musician was identified quickly. During his childhood, he was known for his musical talent whether he was singing or playing an instrument. In 1967, he joined the St. Cecilia Choir of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, as a bass section voice. In 1974, John took over as the music director and conductor of the choir. Under his aggressive and masterful style of teaching and conducting, the St. Cecilia Choir has recorded four record albums, made numerous television appearances, and performed numerous times throughout the New York metropolitan area including at an ecumenical service for Pope John Paul II. In addition to his musical achievements, John has also been involved in politics, business, and community affairs throughout his entire life. While attending St. Francis College and majoring in political science, he interned with the newly city councilman, Abraham G. Gerges. Bartosiewicz worked on the successful election campaign and became part of the councilman's staff for almost 2 years. From 1976 to 1988, John managed six campaigns for reelection to the New York State Senate on behalf of his brother, Tom Bartosiewicz. He worked closely with community leaders, volunteers, and a dedicated hard-working staff, and that work resulted in landslide victories. Following his brother's retirement from the Senate, John kept active in Greenpoint politics. In 1976, John Bartosiewicz joined his mother and father in the family-owned business of Newell Fuel Co. as general manager. Through his efforts the company modernized its operations and office location establishing itself as a creative energy efficient leader in the fuel oil industry. John is also very active in fund-raising campaigns benefiting his parish of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church and the community. In particular, he was instrumental in raising funds for the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, DC. In June 1996, Bartosiewicz joined Vijax Fuel Corp., where he presently serves as marketing and heating installations manager. Through Vijax, John instituted a ``give back to the community'' program which benefits the youth of Greenpoint. Entitled ``Energy for Youth,'' the program provided financial support to the activities of the Greenpoint YMCA, the St. Stanislaus Kostka Athletic League, and the Greenpoint Lions Club Toys for Tots Program. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating John Bartosiewicz on this well-deserved honor.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the valuable contributions of the U.S.S. Monitor during the Civil War and the wonderful success that the Greenpoint Monitor Museum has been in preserving its memory. Built in the shipyards of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, the U.S.S. Monitor left the New York Harbor on March 6, 1862, to ward off its attacks and to destroy the C.S.S. Virginia. On March 9, for 4 hours this vessel fought her dreaded adversary to a standstill, in a battle which revolutionized naval warfare while protecting the Union blockade of the southern coast from its most serious challenge. On Saturday, March 8, the people of Greenpoint will gather to celebrate the 135th anniversary of the departure out of the New York Harbor of the U.S.S. Monitor on its way to defeat the C.S.S. Virginia. They will follow the route of the U.S.S. Monitor from Greenpoint where she was built and launched, passed the Navy yard where she was fitted with her armaments, and finally up to Fort Hamilton where she departed the New York Harbor. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the Greenpoint Monitor Museum which made this first annual celebration possible and the history of the U.S.S. Monitor available to everyone.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and esteemed respect that I acknowledge my constituent, Mortimer Levitt, for his many achievements. Mr. Levitt, founder of the Custom Shop Shirtmakers, started his venture in 1937. After losing his job and his savings in the height of the Great Depression, Mr. Levitt courageously launched his business, the Custom Shop Shirtmakers. He now owns 73 Custom Shop Shirtmaker stores. Mortimer Levitt, however, is not just an archetype in the fashion industry. He is also a philanthropist, Broadway producer, and author of four books. The custom shirtmaker is the founder and biggest contributor to the Levitt Pavilion for the Performing Arts. He contributed funds to the building of the arts center and has since helped raise half of the pavilion's annual budget. He is on the board of directors for the Lincoln Center Film Society, the Manhattan-based Young Concert Artists, and founder of the Manhattan Theater Club where not only was he on the board, but also produced over 20 plays. Levitt has also made significant contributions to Lincoln Center and endowed a scholarship fund at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, NY. Mortimer Levitt, for the past 60 years, has provided jobs for his community, has raised funding for the arts, and has been an inspiration to the world of fashion. It is for these reasons and many more that I would like to recognize Mr. Levitt on his 90th birthday.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, Mexico City is nothing more than an international form of gag rule on providers, severely restricting the way legitimate helpful organizations use their own funds. Restricting use of money will not decrease the number of abortions performed in developing countries. Rather, lack of access to family planning facilities will likely lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions. We have seen in our own country how simple family planning education can work to solve problems of overpopulation and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Again, family planning means education. It is not a means of doling out abortion dollars across the globe. This gag rule has no place in this debate, and I urge my colleagues not to give in to these tactics. I urge a vote against the Smith bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, despite the heated controversy and, at times, unfortunate rhetoric surrounding the plight of women and minorities who must strive for career advancement, I am pleased to report that Wesley, Brown and Bartle finds America's leading corporations continue to maintain diversity employment practices. Almost 2 in every 3 Fortune 100 companies (62 percent) responding to a survey by Wesley, Brown and Bartle Company, Inc. have hiring programs dedicated to diversity and 15 percent of them tie portions of executive compensation to achieving diversity leadership goals. A year ago, when WB and B first surveyed these companies, 64 percent said they maintained such programs and 17 percent said they included compensation incentives. These percentages were almost identical to the survey results of a year ago, despite the political assault on affirmative action programs in the intervening months. WB&B founder Wes Poriotis notes the influence of a widely circulated study by the Hudson Institute on the effects of the marketplace to changing demographics in the United States. The study concluded that in the near future, companies with workforces that mirror the demography of their customers will prevail over competitors whose workforces do not. In short, diversity hiring is good business. Wesley, Brown & Bartle is the oldest minority-partnered international search firm. It provides senior and middle management executive recruitment for major corporations and Federal agencies. Their innovative systems for identifying and maintaining contact with managers and professionals have been utilized by many of the Nation's leading corporations, including AT and T, DuPont, Northrop Grumman, The Prudential, Toy's R US, and Union Pacific. Wesley, Brown and Bartle is to be commended for having been in the forefront of advancing quality executives from the ranks of the Nation's women and minorities for almost a quarter of a century. I salute this firm in my district and the truly inspirational results of their quarter-century of significant and innovative achievement.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the great achievements of Alex Smith and the East Side Peace Action Committee. This outstanding organization in my district has worked for 40 years on world peace and nuclear disarmament issues. The East Side Peace Action Committee, which has been led by Mr. Smith for 40 years, was born out of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy in 1957. It was established in a time when Americans first felt fear over the threat of nuclear war. Early on, the members of the East Side chapter recognized the dangers of stockpiling nuclear weapons and banded together to work on ending ``mutually assured destruction,'' or MAD, as a national campaign. Participants in this cause have included Eleanor Roosevelt, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Senator Wayne Morse, Norman Cousins, and many others. The East Side chapter would not have been so successful if it were not for Mr. Alex Smith, a long time resident of the 14th Congressional District. Mr. Smith has spearheaded the East Side chapter and served our community since 1957. He is a remarkable leader and organizer and has received widespread recognition for his work on peace issues and for ending the threat of nuclear annihilation. His labor and struggle has truly made our world a safer place, especially now that the chances of nuclear war has greatly diminished. Alex Smith, for the past 40 years, has been an advocate for eliminating nuclear weapons and has provided leadership for the East Side Peace Action Committee. It is for these reasons and many more that I would like to recognize Mr. Smith on his 90th birthday.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that family planning is about saving lives, not ending them. Almost 600,000 women die every year because they are having too many children too close together. Not only are women dying, the world population is exploding. By the year 2000, there will be 800 million teenagers on this planet, one-seventh of the entire current world population. That is 800 million people who need family planning information, or the world's population growth will literally affect the survival of the planet. Again, let me be clear, any family planning is about saving lives. This is not a vote for abortion. It is a means of preventing abortion. While family planning sounds like a domestic issue, its impact is as far-reaching as world peace. Overpopulation leads to unrest. Recently I met with Ambassador Wisner to India, and I asked him what is the single most important thing we could do to improve relations between our two countries. He said release this family planning money. Women are lined up for days just to receive information. It is an important vote. Vote for family planning.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said, ``You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face * * * You must do the thing you think you cannot do.'' The Americans for Democratic Action has for 50 years been an organization that has looked the sometimes cold and heartless agenda of some in this Congress and fought it head on with its more just and compassionate ideals. The Democratic agenda has long been rooted in the principles that the ADA espouses and we are pleased that this organization reminds us of our responsibility to be tough in the face of injustice. I rise tonight as a proud member of the Board of the Americans for Democratic Action. I am particularly privileged to stand here as a New Yorker as the ADA has an extraordinary history in the Big Apple. Founded in 1947, by David Dubinsky and the ever remarkable Eleanor Roosevelt, and ADA began as part of a labor movement and since then has developed a progressive agenda that spans from equal rights to jobs to economic justice to education. The ADA has been a strong voice for those whose voices are drowned by words of intolerance and fear. We are truly fortunate that the ADA has not only been completely dedicated to justice within U.S. borders, but has also been instrumental in advancing human rights throughout the world. From Vietnam to Sarejevo, in its support of the United Nations, in its struggle to promote simple human dignity in the smallest villages to the most thriving cities, the ADA has reminded us that it is essential that the United States lead with more than just its own interests in mind. The ADA is a proud and vigilant conscience of progressive causes during a time when being called a liberal is sometimes the harshest political epithet that can be hurled. There is no way to adequately thank the ADA for its 50-year fight for peace and justice. I can only say thank you for allowing me to be part of your dynamic organization and I look forward to being a part of the next 50.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Black History Month, and I thank my colleagues, Congressman Owens, Congresswoman Waters, and Congressman Stokes, for organizing this Special Order. There are many black Americans who are important to our history, and I am pleased to speak of four African-American women who hail from the great State of New York. These women, ranging from the early 1800's to the present day, have each left their mark on New York and America. Sojourner Truth was born a slave in Huron, NY. After receiving her freedom, she moved to New York City where she dedicated her life to the abolition of slavery and suffrage for all women. She was the first person to publicly acknowledge the relationship between slavery with the oppression of all women. After the Civil War she worked tirelessly for women's rights, gaining the support and respect of fellow suffragettes, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. At the Equal Rights Association in 1867 she gave one of the most quoted speeches in feminist history, ``Ain't I A Woman''. Lorraine Hansberry was the first African-American female Broadway playwright. Her play, ``Raisin in the Sun,'' opened in 1959 to outstanding reviews. It focused on discrimination and family values. She was the first black and the youngest person to win the Best Play of the Year Award of the New York drama critics. Though she died in New York City at the age of 34, Hansberry opened the door for all future young black playwrights. Shirley Chisholm has the distinct honor of being the first black woman elected to Congress and the first woman to run for President of the United States. She was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1964 and went to Congress in 1968. She was an early member of the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus. A former Head Start teacher, she did a great deal to help the children of this Nation. Congresswoman Chisholm not only paved the way for more black Representatives, but for all women. Judge Constance Baker Motley attended New York University and Columbia. She worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where she won seven lawsuits before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1964 she became the first black woman elected to the New York State Senate. A year later she became the first black woman elected as Manhattan Borough president. In 1966 President Johnson nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the Southern district of New York, making her the first woman named to the Southern District bench and the first black woman named to the Federal bench. In 1993 Judge Motley was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame. From Sojourner Truth to Judge Constance Baker Motley, these women have worked to make our lives better. Civil rights is not just a place in time; it is an outlook we should all strive toward in our life. I salute them and all who are here in our collective appreciation of Black History Month, and I thank my colleagues for organizing it.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to the Greenpoint Gazette, a local newspaper which celebrates its 25th anniversary on Saturday, January 11, 1997. This newspaper has made a major contribution to the Williamsburg-Greenpoint community of Brooklyn, NY, and deserves honor for its many years of dedicated service. The Greenpoint Gazette started publication in 1971. At that time, local residents had experienced frustration with the existing newspaper for its uneven reporting on local candidates. A few of these residents, Ralph Carrano and Adelle Haines, among them, launched the Greenpoint Gazette. It began out of Adelle Haines' house. Revenue for the paper came from advertisements, paid notices, and the newsstand price of 10 cents a copy. The Greenpoint Gazette has always been responsive to and involved in the community it serves. Residents of Greenpoint use the paper to celebrate birthdays, births, and anniversaries; to announce weddings, engagements, graduations, job promotions, and deaths; and to voice opinions about issues of the day. Each year, the Gazette sponsors the Miss Polonia event, a beauty contest to select the young woman who will be chosen to represent the community in Manhattan's Pulaski Day Parade. The Gazette regularly publishes press releases submitted by elected officials to keep voters informed of Federal, State, and local issues. Finally, in keeping with its 25-year tradition as the voice of all of Greenpoint, the paper welcomes submissions with opinions that differ from those of the editors. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to the Greenpoint Gazette, a paper which takes pride in its service to the Williamsburg-Greenpoint community. I ask that my colleagues join with me in honoring the Gazette for 25 years of dedicated and reliable service.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today the 105th Congress begins. While there is much talk swirling in the Capitol Hill air about the Speaker, I want to rise and pay tribute to my Speaker, New York Speaker Sheldon Silver. On Sunday, January 5, 1997, Speaker Silver received a well-deserved award at the silver anniversary of one of New York City's outstanding community groups, the United Jewish Council of the east side. I am proud to represent the diverse and vibrant neighborhood of the lower east side, and prouder still of the magnificent contributions made to the community by the UJC. The UJC currently administers a variety of social services to over 16,000 residents. From senior centers, to housing, to nutrition programs, to immigrant assistance, the UJC's contributions to the quality of life in our city are without limit. Mr. Speaker, space prohibits me from congratulating the entire leadership of the UJC, but I want to commend Rabbi Yitzchok Singer, Heshy Jacob, David Weinberger, Joel Kaplan, and Judy and Willie Rapfogel for all that they have done for this special neighborhood. The lower east side simply would not be the same without Sheldon Silver. Born, raised, and educated in the neighborhood, Shelly graduated from Yeshiva University and Brooklyn Law School. In 1976, Shelly began his stellar career in public service when he was elected to the assembly. After serving in the prestigious leadership posts of chairman of the election law and then the ways and means committees, Shelly ascended to the Speakership in 1994, where he now sits as the most influential Democrat in the State of New York. Sheldon Silver's tenure as Speaker has been marked by extraordinary success. He has made his mark on criminal justice, welfare, and education issues, and has remained a powerful and articulate advocate for New York's working and middle class families. It has been an extraordinary honor for me to serve side by side with Speaker Silver, representing the lower east side community. Shelly is a man of principle and honor. His ethical and moral world view is shaped by his deep religious convictions, but he is also a friend to New Yorkers of every race, religion, and ethnic background. If I could borrow one word from Shelly's own Yiddish vocabulary, I would have to summarize his many attributes by calling him a ``mensch.'' Mr. Speaker, as Congress beings a new session, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to one of our Nation's outstanding public officials, my Speaker, the Honorable Sheldon Silver.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3452, the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, as amended by the other body. The basic principle behind this legislation is that the Federal Government should be subject to the same laws and regulations as the private sector. Congress has already passed the Congressional Accountability Act, and there is no good reason why the Executive Office of the President should not also be subject to the same laws as Congress and the private sector. The other body has improved this bill by deleting two controversial provisions from the House-passed version--one called for a compliance board and the other for establishing an inspector general in the White House. The compliance board would have been unnecessary and overly bureaucratic, as White House employees already have recourse to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The provision establishing an inspector general in the White House was, in my view, costly, unnecessary, and of dubious constitutionality. I am glad that we will have an opportunity for full and open debate on this issue in the future. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3452 is a good bill, and I want to thank Representative Horn and Chairman Clinger for their willingness to work with the minority as it made its way through the legislative process.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4194, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, as amended by the other body. I would like to focus my remarks on section 12 of this bill, which was added by the Senate and concerns the so-called Scanwell jurisdiction. This section will be a great benefit to small businesses in New York, and across the Nation. The conference report on H.R. 2977, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, which was on the suspension calendar for floor action September 27, 1996, was pulled at the last minute--to the benefit of all our constituents. Provisions in that measure would have eliminated Federal district court jurisdiction for bid protests of Government contracts, leaving only two other possible forums, both located in Washington, DC. Federal district court jurisdiction, commonly known as Scanwell jurisdiction, has been an important safeguard to our constituents back home, ensuring that they have a local forum to appeal decisions on Government contracts. Eliminating Scanwell would have put burdens on our businesses, both large and small, to litigate their claims long- distance. This provision was included in the bill, although no hearings on this subject were held in the House. A compromise was later reached that creates equal forums in the Federal district courts and in the Court of Federal Claims--and requires both courts to use the Administrative Procedure Act as the standard of review. The procedure will be in effect for 4 years. This makes sense. It gives our constituents the benefit of either forum for a full evidentiary hearing and allows a practical test of whether both forums are needed. Such common sense approaches are just good Government. This provision will enable actual experience over the next 4 years and a GAO study, after 2 years to provide the data necessary for Congress to make an informed decision regarding something as important as how far the courthouse door will be from home. I am certain that we would not allow the post offices to be closed in our towns and cities, so why should we close the Federal district courthouse door for claims concerning the $200 billion spent annually by the Government for goods and services. This bill protects our constituents, and I am happy that these good provisions will not be lost.