Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but I would like to express my reservations about this resolution. Mr. Speaker, today as we end the 104th Congress we will vote on a resolution to move the statute of Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton from the Capitol Crypt to the Capitol Rotunda. The struggle over this statute of the leaders of our suffrage movement has a long and tumultuous history. More than 75 years ago, Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party commissioned sculptor Adlaide Johnson to create a statute to commemorate the passage of the 19th amendment and to celebrate those remarkable women whose lives were devoted to gaining for women the right to vote and the opportunity to participate fully in American life. On February 15, 1921, Susan B. Anthony's 101st birthday, the statute was welcomed into the Rotunda--6 months after American women won the right to vote. Yet 2 days later, it was moved into storage in the Capitol Crypt. That same year, Congress ordered workers to scrape off the statute's blasphemous feminist inscription, which in gold gilt had read: ``Woman, first denied a soul, then called mindless, now arisen declared herself an entity to be reckoned.'' Since 1921, many resolutions to move the statute have failed, including ones in 1928, in 1932 and 1950, when Congress refused to approve bills that would have let the suffragists out of the basement. In 1963, when the crypt was renovated and opened to the public, the statute was open for viewing. Still, treatment of the statute did not improve. Placed a few feet from a souvenir stand, the statute does not even carry a sign identifying the women by name. And the memorial's name has been changed from ``The Woman Movement'' to ``The Portrait Monument.'' To commemorate the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage, a bipartisan group was established in 1995 to move the statute to the Capitol Rotunda. On July 14, 1995, Senator Ted Stevens introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, which called on the Architect of the Capitol to restore the Portrait Monument to its original state and place it in the Rotunda of the Capitol. It also sought to make arrangements for the rededication ceremony of such statute in the Rotunda and procession in cooperation with the 75th anniversary of Woman Suffrage Task Force. Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 unanimously passed the Senate on July 17, 1995. Unfortunately, Republican House Members objected to passage of the same authorizing resolution because they objected to using $75,000 in Federal funds to move the statue. Since then the Woman Suffrage Statute Campaign, a project of the National Museum of Women's History, has raised the $75,000. The group raised $40,000 on their own. A pledge of $25,000 came from Abbott Laboratories, and a $10,000 pledge came from a woman in Connecticut. As I wrote in my letters to Speaker Gingrich asking him to act on moving the Portrait Monument, ``American women ask as they asked President Wilson for the right to vote. How long must we wait?'' This resolution before us today, House Concurrent Resolution 216, places the 9-ton statue in the Capitol's most prestigious hall, and finally breaks the all-male lock on the statues in the Rotunda. It is a victory for all American women who believe that it is important to honor our American female heroes, in the same manner that we honor our American male heroes. I would like to acknowledge the fine work of my colleague Connie Morella for bringing this resolution to the floor today. I salute Karen Staser of the National Woman's Suffrage Statue Campaign and all of the women's organizations that have worked tirelessly to bring this initiative to fruition. It is to their credit that we are here today acting on this resolution. Although the resolution at hand will finally move the statue, it is flawed. It would place the statue alongside statues of our male American heroes in the Capitol Rotunda--but only for 1 year. At that time, a commission will be established of 11 interested parties that will make recommendations about the final resting place for the statue. Apparently, there are differing views as to what should happen to the statue. Why? Perhaps because half the population gaining the right to vote was not historically significant enough to merit the statue's full-time display in the Rotunda alongside statues of our great male leaders. The Republican leadership initially opposed the move on the grounds that it would cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. They said that if money could be raised privately, the statue could be moved to the Rotunda. They then came forward with a compromise resolution that creates a Commission to decide what should be done with the Portrait Monument We now have secured private funding to move the statue this year. When then would a compromise resolution call for possibly moving it twice? The bottom line is that taxpayer expense was never the real issue. If this Congress was 90 percent female and 10 percent male--not 90 percent male and 10 percent female as it is today--I believe that there would not be a 1-year clause and that the women's suffrage statue would become a permanent fixture in the Rotunda. Furthermore, statues are about history. And in historical context, moving the statue in this particular congress is incredibly ironic since many of our hard fought victories of the past were eroded and threatened in the past 2 years. Moving this statue of these three heroines of the women's suffrage movement is a significant step in recognizing the rich history of the America's women's rights movement. Fortunately Mr. Speaker, the 104th Congress will soon be history, too.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Pamela Anagnos Liapakis. Pamela, recently featured in Time Magazine as America's most politically influential and successful trial lawyer, has been named HANAC's 1996 Woman of the Year. Pamela Liapakis should serve as an inspiration to women throughout the Nation. She served this year as president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. She has served as president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, and is currently a trustee on the boards of the Rosco Pound Foundation, the Civil Justice Foundation, and ATLA PAC, and LAW PAC, the Federal and State political action committees of the trial bar. Her accomplishments have won her numerous accolades, including the 1994 National Organization for Women Woman of Power and Influence Award, the 1994 ORT Jurisprudence Award, the 1993 United Jewish Appeal Trial Lawyer of the Year Award, the 1993 Young Adult Institute Advocate Award, and the 1991 Freedom Award from the Institute of Jewish Humanities. I ask all of my colleagues to join me today, Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute to Pamela Liapakis, an extraordinary Greek-American. She has received the respect and honor of the American legal community by fighting to protect and preserve the individual rights of average citizens. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the most recent achievement of a truly remarkable career.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Polish Heritage Week, and to remind my colleagues of the contributions made to our society by Polish-Americans. First, I would like to pay special tribute to Gen. Witold Urbanowicz. I was saddened to hear of his death on August 18, 1996. General Urbanowicz was a true hero to the Allied forces during World War II, serving as a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain and in China with the Flying Tigers of Gen. Claire L. Chennault. For his distinguished service, General Urbanowicz received Poland's highest decoration for valor, the Order of Vertuti Militari. He was also awarded the British Order of Merit and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Last year, he received a formal promotion to general in the Polish Forces from Polish President Lech Walesa. His brave service will not be forgotten. Additionally, I would like to honor Jan Nowak-Jezioranski. On September 20, 1996, Nowak was awarded the highest civilian honor in the United States, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The award honored his service during World War II, in which he risked his life to bring vital information from Poland to the Allies. Later, he directed Radio Free Europe's Polish Service, and was a voice of hope to millions of his fellow Poles. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor these two great men, and to celebrate the contributions of all Polish-Americans during this very special week.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, but I would like to express my limited reservations about this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to explain the resolution.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland for her leadership and persistence on this issue, and I would like to thank the Speaker of the House for supporting it and moving it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as a New Yorker, I am pleased that New York State's distinguished leaders, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Stanton are finally going to be moved, after 76 years in the basement of the Capitol, into the living room of the Capitol rotunda. Mr. Speaker, almost every great struggle throughout American history is represented in the Capitol's rotunda. Exactly 76 years ago, American women gained the right to vote. But our leaders were not allowed into the rotunda to stand beside the great revolutionary male leaders, Lincoln, Washington, and King. The Republican leadership initially opposed the move because of expense to the taxpayer. Now that we have $75,000 of private funding from the National Museum of Women's History to move the statue once, this compromise solution could possibly move it twice. Statues are about history. Moving the statue of these three great heroines of the women's suffragette movement is a small but significant step in recognizing the rich history of the American women's movement. I support it. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I would just like to end by saying that fortunately this Congress will soon be history, too, and we will be able to go home to our families, but I am thrilled that finally, after 76 years, the great women leaders will be moved to a place of honor in the rotunda along with the other great leaders in the history of our country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] again for her persistence and leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, we are appealing to you to release the ethics report and to release the women from the basement. As a New Yorker, I am anguished that the statute of our State's most distinguished leaders--Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott--have remained in the basement of the Capitol for the past 76 years. Mr. Speaker, almost every great struggle throughout American history is represented in the Capitol's rotunda, including the leaders of those revolutions, Lincoln, Washington, and King. Exactly 76 years ago American women gained the right to vote, but our great leaders still are not allowed in the living room to stand beside the great male leaders. Mr. Speaker, American women ask the same question they asked President Wilson: how long must we wait?

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, the basic principle behind the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act 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. There is no reason why the executive branch should be exempt from laws which already apply to Congress and which were applied to the private sector long ago. It brings more accountability in two major areas, employment laws and financial management, to the White House. H.R. 3452 would apply to the Executive Office of the President 11 civil rights, labor, and workplace laws which already apply to Congress and the private sector. OSHA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these are only some of the landmark laws that would be covered under this bill. This bill would also establish remedies and procedures similar to those in the private sector for aggrieved employees. While the bill is far from perfect, the majority has worked with us to improve it, incorporating a number of amendments from the minority. This bill also requires the appointment of a chief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President and makes certain changes to the definition of a ``Special Government Employee.'' At our subcommittee markup of this legislation, the minority proposed a number of amendments to this bill which were adopted, and I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] and the majority for accepting them. These amendments protect the White House volunteer program, allow the President to consider political compatibility when hiring, and change the definition of ``Special Government Employee'' to include a functional test. To meet that definition, one must work less than 130 days and be retained, designated, appointed, or employed in the Federal Government to perform a Federal function. This definition is supported by ethics experts from both sides of the aisle. I hope that my serious concerns, which, incidentally, are shared by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department, about the amendment which mandates creating an inspector general for the White House, will be addressed in the other body. This amendment would grant an inspector general within the White House broad and unprecedented powers to audit and review any function, with limited oversight by the President and with regular reporting to the Congress. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a partisan effort to politicize a bill that has otherwise won large support from Democrats and Republicans as well as the administration. This amendment may be unconstitutional. The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department has concluded that it violates the separation of powers doctrine. For the first time in American history, it would establish an office within the White House that is statutorily required to report to Congress on a regular basis. Madam Speaker, I will include for the Record a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel's letter. Admittedly, the Congressional Research Service has concluded that the IG proposed by the amendment is constitutional, but, where there is a fundamental difference of views on such critical point, we should debate these views before we pass something in haste. Second, an inspector general in the White House is unnecessary. For 220 years Congress has exercised its oversight over the President through hearings, investigations, and, more recently, the General Accounting Office's audits. Furthermore, this bill already creates a chief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President that provides additional accountability. Third, this provision violates the guiding principle that the President should be subject to the same laws as the Congress. We do not set up Government oversight outposts inside of corporations, and the idea behind this law is to impose these same labor laws as exist in the private sector and in Congress, not stronger and more intrusive ones. The Senate has no inspector general at all. The House has one, but it is limited to financial audits of nonlegislative offices and reports only to the leadership. Fourth, the new majority has been very vocal in this session on the need to streamline Government. There have been proposals to eliminate the Commerce, Education, and Energy Departments, but here the new majority wants to create a new level of bureaucracy in the Executive Office of the President, which has traditionally been a relatively small and flexible organization. Finally, there has not been 1 day of hearings on this issue in the 104th Congress. Putting an IG in the White House would produce a fundamental shift in relations between two separate branches of Government. Such a historic change certainly merits the scrutiny of hearings. Instead, it was offered on the last day of committee consideration of this bill. Finally, Madam Speaker, the manager's amendment to this bill contains a provision adding a compliance board for the White House. This provision was not considered by our committee, and I have reservations concerning the additional bureaucracy that it might create. Despite my reservations on these particular issues, I am convinced that this bill on the whole is a good one. Labor laws and civil rights laws have been devised in the White House. They should also be observed in the White House. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, July 24, 1996. Hon. William F. Clinger, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express further views on H.R. 3452, the ``Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act.'' Previously we expressed our support for the Subcommittee's changes in the bill, which would limit the remedies to damages only. We understand that an amendment, embodying the White House Inspector General Act of 1996, may be offered as an amendment to H.R. 3452 during the Government Reform Committee's markup of this legislation tomorrow. This amendment would interfere significantly with the discharge of the President's constitutional authority. Accordingly, the Department of Justice believes that the amendment would raise serious constitutional concerns and we strongly oppose the amendment on separation of powers grounds. The Executive Office of the President is the designation of the President's closest advisors and aides. The amendment would add the Executive Office of the President to the list of Executive establishments subject to the Inspector General Act. An Inspector General is appointed for each covered establishment. Inspectors General, along with their staffs, are to be ``independent and objective units'' within their respective establishments and are ``to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishment,'' ``to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations,'' and ``to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.'' 5 U.S.C. app. 3, section 2. This general charter is supplemented with a variety of specific duties. Inspectors General are to ``provide policy direction for and * * * conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations;'' review legislative proposals and make recommendations for legislation relating to their respective establishments; recommend policies for and actually conduct and supervise activities to promote ``economy and efficiency'' in the establishment's administration; detect and prevent ``fraud and abuse;'' supervise and coordinate relationships between the establishment and other Federal agencies, State and local governmental agencies and non-government entities to promote efficiency and prevent fraud and abuse; and keep the heads of their respective establishments and the Congress fully and currently informed about battery within their jurisdiction and recommend corrective action. Id. at section 4(a). In addition to these duties, each Inspector General is required to submit to Congress semiannual reports extensively detailing the Inspector General's activities and findings from the preceding period. Id. at section 5. To carry out these duties, Inspectors General are vested with wide-ranging authority. Among other things, they are allowed access to all records, documents, and other materials relating to their respective establishments that pertain to their duties, and are authorized to make such investigations and reports as they deem ``necessary or desirable.'' Id. at section 6(a). In discharging their authority, Inspectors General are to report to and be under the general supervision of the heads of the establishments to which they are assigned. However, the head of an establishment may not prohibit or prevent the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation. Id. at section 3(a). The amendment would depart somewhat from the existing framework under the Inspector General Act. The Inspector General in the Executive Office of the President would be subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President with respect to audits or investigations or the issuance of subpoenas that require access to information in any of six categories.\1\ The President would be permitted to prohibit such an audit, investigation, or subpoena, but only after the Inspector General had decided to initiate such action and only if the President determined that ``the disclosure of that information would interfere with the core functions of the constitutional responsibilities of the President'' and that ``the prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of that information,''Id. at section 3. If the President exercised this preventive power, he would be required, within 30 days, to submit in writing the reasons for the determinations regarding interference with constitutional responsibilities and the possibility of disclosure to the Inspector General. The Inspector General, in turn, would be required to transmit a copy of the President's submission to specified congressional committees. In addition, the Inspector General would be required to include a description of the episode in the public semiannual report. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The categories are ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings, undercover operations, the identity of confidential sources, deliberations and the decisions on policy matters, intelligence or counterintelligence matters, or other matters the disclosure of which constitute a serious threat to national security or cause significant impairment to the national interest. See section 3 (adding section 8F(a) to 5 U.S.C. app. 3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These provisions would raise serious concerns about intrusion on the President's constitutional responsibilities. The Constitution assigns a variety of powers exclusively to the President. Examples include the powers to nominate Federal officers, grant reprieves and pardons, act as commander in chief, and receive ambassadors and other public ministers. See U.S. Const. art. II. Congress may not intrude upon the President's exercise of these exclusive powers. See, e.g., Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1988) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam); United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872); Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866). Yet the amendment threatens just such an intrusion. Even as to those exclusive powers encompassed within one of the six categories where the President may stop an audit, investigation, or subpoena, the bill would intrude upon the executive function. The Inspector General would have authority to investigate, audit, and issue subpoenas in these areas unless the President prevented the Inspector General from exercising the authority. The President could act only after the Inspector General decided to investigate, audit, or issue a subpoena, and even then, the President would have to make written findings and submit those findings to the Inspector General who would transmit them to Congress. In these findings, the President would have to determine that ``disclosure'' of the information would ``interfere with the core functions of the constitutional responsibilities of the President.'' But where the President is exercising, or has exercised, exclusive constitutional authority, Congress is wholly without authority to imposed such requirements on the President or the President's advisors. Furthermore, it is far from clear that all investigations, audits, or subpoenas concerning the exercise of exclusive constitutional powers would even fall within any of the six categories as to which the President would have preventive authority. For example, unless the deliberations of the President and his advisors regarding whom to nominate for a Federal office are ``policy matters,'' the President would be without statutory authority to prohibit the Inspector General from performing investigations and audits of the exercise of that power or from reporting to Congress on these matters. Another example is the pardon power. Even if the grant of a reprieve or pardon is a ``criminal . . . proceeding[],'' this category applies only to ``ongoing'' proceedings. Thus, the bill would subject the President's deliberations on pardons that already have been granted to investigation and audit, and ultimately disclosure. The Constitution prohibits Congress from doing this. With regard to those presidential powers that are not exclusive--powers in those spheres where Congress possesses authority to legislate--the doctrine of separation of powers still limits Congress's ability to adopt legislation that infringes on the President's constitutional role. In this area, a bill's validity depends on ``the extent to which the bill prevents the Executive Branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions.'' Nixon v. Administrator of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977); see Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988); CFTC v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986). ``Only where the potential for disruption is present must we then determine whether that impact is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress.'' Administrator of Gen. Servs., 425 U.S. at 443. Here, where the bill would invade powers exclusively committed to the President, it is unnecessary also to identify all of the ways in which the bill could invalidly intrude on the President's powers that are not exclusive. Rather, we note only that the amendment would create a strong potential for extensive interference with the ability of the President to perform all of his constitutional functions. At the least, the necessity for the President's constant vigilance about possible intrusions on his exclusive powers would impede the President's discharge of his non-exclusive constitutional powers. As we have recently observed, ``the Constitution's very structure suggests the importance of maintaining the `hallmarks of executive administration essential to effective action.' '' The Constitutional Separation of Powers between the President and Congress at 12 (May 7, 1996) (quoting Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 134 (1926)). Application of the Inspector General Act to the Executive Office of the President would seriously undermine this constitutional structure and this should be strongly resisted. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on H.R. 3452. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, (For Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General). Ann M. Harkins. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to add to the Record an amendment that I offered at the subcommittee as a substitute to the Bass amendment, which would put forward in the White House the exact same IG that we have in the House of Representatives, in this Congress. That amendment was defeated. It is true that my colleague on the committee pointed out that the House has an IG, but it is limited to financial audits of nonlegislative offices and reports only to the leadership. The Bass IG would go well beyond that, providing for program audits of all presidential activities and with reporting to Congress. So I merely was trying to have the same oversight in both offices in the amendment that I put forward. I would like to put my amendment in the Record as a clarifying point, and also a comparison that I did on the Bass amendment and House rule VI for the Office of the Inspector General.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, Chairman Horn, and his fine staff and my fine staff for all of their hard work on bringing this measure to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Combest, and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for their assistance. I also want to thank our former colleague, Elizabeth Holtzman, not only for her efforts on this bill but for a career spent in pursuit of justice and human rights, dating back to her pioneering legislation on Nazi war criminals. Madam Speaker, this is a somewhat bittersweet moment. Chairman Horn and I had wanted to bring forward H.R. 1281 as reported, which unanimously passed the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill which I have been working on for nearly 3 years would end a tremendous loophole in the Freedom of Information Act which currently allows Government agencies to block the release of information on Nazi war crimes. Although we have a carefully crafted bill, which protects legitimate national security, the CIA strenuously objected to the legislation and has effectively killed it in this Congress. Given that half a century has passed since the end of World War II and given that the cold war is over, I find it outrageous that the CIA would block a bill which would help us shed light on the Holocaust, the darkest moment in the history of man's inhumanity to man. But bringing this substitute sense of Congress resolution to the floor today, we will put the House on record in support of the principles of our bill and we will set the stage for the passage of binding legislation in the next Congress. Madam Speaker, I am indebted to A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times for his series of articles he wrote about secret U.S. Nazi war crimes files. I am also thankful for the advice and assistance of professor Robert Herzstein of the University of South Carolina who has cataloged the celebrated case of Kurt Waldheim. For years the CIA was keeping its information on Waldheim a secret, even as the Department of Justice was placing him on the watch list of individuals forbidden to enter the United States. It is not difficult to imagine how history might have been changed if Waldheim's secret past had become public. Most notably, he probably would not have been elected to the post of Secretary General of the United Nations, one of the most shameful events in the history of that world body. And Waldheim's outrageous story continues. In his recent autobiography, he continues to whitewash his Nazi past and blames the American Jewish community for his banishment from the United States. I drafted H.R. 1281 to ensure that the entire Waldheim file is finally disclosed. It is also my hope that the enactment of this bill will help those who research the horrors of the Holocaust to ensure that cases like Waldheim do not occur again. Madam Speaker, some of what we might learn in U.S. Government files may not be pleasant. Evidence exists, for example, that our Nation actively recruited Nazis and facilitated their entry into the country to pursue early cold war objectives. But as we quote in this resolution, President Clinton's Executive Order 1212958, which represents a strong step forward in the declassification of national security documents states, and I quote, ``Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government.'' Madam Speaker, this is the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act which this year turns 30 years old. FOIA has been a great tool to historians, studying World War II and the Holocaust. But all too often U.S. intelligence, defense, and foreign relations agencies deny FOIA requests, citing outdated exemptions that are simply no longer valid in the post-cold war era. Our bill as reported would have required the release of this material but would have exempted disclosure of files that would have seriously harmed current or future national security concerns. Our bill would have ended the longstanding practice of routine denial by the CIA of freedom of information requests about Nazi war crimes, by placing the CIA under the judicial review requirements of other government agencies. What this means is that researchers who present the CIA with reasonable FOIA requests, only to have them denied, would be able to turn to the Federal courts for final ruling. Our bill would not have interfered with the outstanding work of the Office of Special Investigations, which has a long track record of exposing and expelling Nazi war criminals from our country. Madam Speaker, during the past several days, as I have been attempting to get H.R. 1281 to the floor, the Nation has learned some very interesting facts from previously classified historical documents. For example, we learned last week from a 40-year-old document that our government knew about U.S. prisoners of war held by North Korea during the Korean war. We also learned from World War II documents that millions of dollars in gold looted by the Nazis is currently sitting in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These two revelations may be disturbing but learning about our Nation's past, disturbing as it might be, to teach us how to govern in the future is the essence of democracy. And this is the essence of the resolution we are debating today. We can never heed Santayana's warning that, and I quote, ``Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,'' if we do not have the proper historical tools. Madam Speaker, yesterday Jews all over the world celebrated Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This is a day of somber reflection about the past. In my district and in countless others, thousands of these individuals are survivors of the Holocaust and their families. These people can never escape the searing memories of what befell them half a century ago. In passing this resolution, we honor the memory of those who died and the suffering of those who survived. In passing this resolution, we are taking a stand against those who insult humanity by denying the very fact that the Holocaust occurred. And in passing this resolution, we must pledge that before another year goes by, we will ensure that our government's full accounting of this terrible era and its aftermath is made public. I ask my colleagues to support our resolution calling for the release of Nazi war crime files. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 52d antichoice vote taken on the floor of Congress during the 104th Congress. As one of my colleagues in the new majority has said, ``We intend to repeal choice procedure by procedure.'' And they are doing it. This is merely another effort to antagonize and terrorize young women like Becky Bruce of Ohio. At 22 weeks, doctors determined a lethal abnormality in her fetus. She and her husband decided to seek an abortion. Much like the abortion protesters who screamed and pointed at her, frightening her at the clinic, this legislation instills the same kind of fear. This bill is an effort to chip away at the overall law of the land. Abortion is legal and safe. We cannot begin to make exceptions now. The antichoice supporters of this bill would love to start here, today, moving from their positions as lawmakers to become personal physicians. When women seek medical care, Congress has no place in their choices and no place in their tragedies. Apparently the supporters of this bill believe that it is more important to save a doomed fetus than to save the life and the health of its mother. Had my colleagues in the majority allowed an amendment with an appropriate exception for the life or physical health of the mother, I would have supported this bill. There have been many distortions put before Congress today. One is that this procedure is performed all the time. This procedure is performed rarely and only to save the life, health, and the ability to have children, of women. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, like much of the work that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has done this year on legislation, this bill is a triumph of policy over partisanship. In the most partisan Congress in memory, this committee has passed several bills with broad bipartisan support that will collectively save the taxpayers billions of dollars and make Government work better for the average American taxpayer; the Paperwork Reduction Act, the debt collection bill which Treasury estimates will save taxpayers $10 billion over 5 years, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the Single Audit Act, and the General Accounting Office Act, to name a few. These achievements are a credit to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], who chairs the Subcommittee on Government Management Information and Technology on which I serve as the ranking member. They are also a credit to a ranking member of the full committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], whose leadership will be greatly missed when she retires at the end of the year. On this particular bill I want to thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], for his active leadership and Senator Patrick Leahy who has been the driving force behind the bill in the Senate. I appreciate the majority's willingness to adopt my amendments, in particular one amendment that would track how agencies are responding or not responding to Freedom of Information requests. As Senator Leahy testified at our committee hearing, long delays in access can mean no access at all. Mr. Speaker, in short, the Electronic Freedom of Information Act will bring the Freedom of Information Act from the technological stone age into the information age. It has been 30 years since President Johnson set upon signing the original Freedom of Information Act, and I quote: This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles, a democracy works best when people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. That principle still holds true today, but as written, the Freedom of Information Act is woefully outdated, drafted for a time when personnel computers were unheard of and cyberspace was no more accessible than outer space. This bill will change all of that. It clarifies that there is no legal distinction between Government records stored on paper and Government records stored electronically, that records maintained in an electronic format can be subject to FOIA requests. Government agencies are increasingly storing their information on personal computers, computer databases, and electronic storage media such as CD-ROM's. But some Government agencies have denied freedom of information requests for information stored electronically. They are seeking the green light from Congress to provide access to that information, and this bill gives it to them by placing substance over form instead of form over substance. The rationale for this provision is obvious. Today our information warehouses are on computer and compact disks, not in huge buildings in industrial zones. By using technology, Government bureaucrats can avoid going through endless file cabinets hunting for information, often to provide identical or overlapping information from previous FOIA requests. And ordinary American citizens can access that information without leaving their desks or driving to the post office, or in some cases having any contact with Government workers at all. With Government downsizing, Government employees' workloads are mounting, so avoiding the need for contact with them at all can dramatically expedite fulfillment of freedom of information requests, as in the case of identical FOIA requests which have been filed before. Mr. Speaker, the bill also forces agencies to exercise foresight when installing computer systems which must help expedite agency FOIA requests and operations, rather than impeding them. Furthermore, it would encourage agencies to offer online access to Government information, effectively transforming an individual's home computer into a Government agency's public reading room. Most importantly, the bill would tackle the mother of all complaints lodged against the Freedom of Information Act: that is, the often ludicrous amount of time it take some agencies to respond, if they respond at all, to freedom of information requests. By the time freedom of information requests are fulfilled, the information is often useless to the requester, if the requester has not died of old age. If you request a document from the FBI, you may be forced to wait for more than 4 years before you receive it, if not longer. This bill will make several commonsense changes. It will establish that all freedom of information requests are not created equal. The bill creates a compelling need standard, warranting faster FOIA processing. Two categories of compelling need would be created. In the first category, the failure to obtain the records within an expedited deadline poses an imminent threat to an individual's life or physical safety. The second category requires a request by someone, and I quote, ``Primarily engaged in disseminating information,'' and ``urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged government activity.'' This would apply to our good friends from the media. Marlin Fitzwater once talked about the need to constantly feed the beast, meaning the media, with information. This provision will help keep the media informed in a quicker and faster way. Mr. Speaker, the bill would further differentiate and prioritize FOIA requests based on size, giving requesters an incentive to frame narrower requests. Agencies would no longer be able to delay responding to FOIA requests on the grounds of ``exceptional circumstances'' if those circumstances are nothing more than the predictable agency overload. This clause would strengthen the requirement that agencies respond to freedom of information requests on time. However, this bill does recognize the great demands placed on agencies to fulfill FOIA requests by extending the deadline for responding to requests to 20 workdays from the current 10-day workday requirement, which is simply unworkable for many agencies. The bill also gives agencies an incentive to comply with statutory time limits by allowing them to retain half of the fees. The amendment that I introduced, which has been adopted, acknowledges that we need to make agencies more accountable to the public by requiring them to report to Congress and the public on their efforts to comply with FOIA or their failure in complying with FOIA. Information delayed is certainly information denied. The bill requires each agency to report on its FOIA workload during the year, the number of requests received and completed, as well as the amount of backlog and the steps the agency is taking to reduce it. Each agency will also report on how long it normally takes to process the request. Finally, each agency will report on the resources, dollars, and persons devoted to responding. This will allow us to make a judgment about whether adequate resources are being devoted to these requests and whether agencies are making a sufficient effort to comply with the law of the land. The bill also requires agencies to become more user-friendly to the public, informing average Americans in a readily understandable way how one makes a FOIA request, how long it takes for normal requests to be processed, how the Government responds to a request, and in what circumstances the Government is not required to fulfill the request. One issue not addressed in this legislation is the recent D.C. Circuit Court decision in the case of Armstrong versus the Executive Office of the President. In that decision the court ruled that the National Security Council is not an agency. This is contrary to 20 years of freedom of information practice and contrary to the way Congress has treated the National Security Council in other legislation. I hope the courts will correct this error; but if they do not, I am sure that we will address it in the 105th Congress. To summarize, Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that facilitates the dissemination of public information. It makes the Freedom of Information Act for the 1990's instead of for the 1960's. It helps make Government truly for the people, not just for Government insiders. In passing it unanimously, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has proudly lived up to its name. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, former Senator Dole, now the Republican candidate for President, said in his radio address: The Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that last year 66 countries had economic growth rates that surpassed ours. The president may think that when it comes to economic growth, 67th place is good enough, but I do not. I want America to lead the world again in terms of economic growth, rising incomes, and greater job opportunities. As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I want Mr. Dole to know what my side of the committee thinks. In building his bridge to America's past, Mr. Dole must have overlooked the present. Just look at the good news about the economy that came out in the 2 weeks before he spoke. One week before his speech, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis revised the second quarter growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product upward to 4.8 percent. Exports and business investment showed strong upward movement. Tuesday, before he spoke, the Conference Board reported the index of leading economic indicators, which projects the economy's health for the next 6 to 9 months, reached a record high. And last Friday, before the Joint Economic Committee, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 250,000 jobs were created last month. This builds, on the nearly 200,000 jobs we created in July, and on the 10.5 million in the President's first 3\1/2\ years in office. A report in the June issue of the Monthly Labor Review, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes, showed that between 1993 and 1995, jobs in relatively higher-earning occupations and industries grew at almost twice the rate as jobs in comparatively lower-earning occupations and industries. In August, the share of women with jobs reached a record high of 57.2 percent--the highest employment record for women in our Nation's history. In part, this is a result of changes in the Earned Income Tax Credit that lowered the taxes for most single mothers, and therefore made work more desirable. A Democratic-controlled Congress passed that tax cut without a single Republican vote. And part of the good labor market outcome for women is a result of the Family and Medical Leave Act signed by President Clinton after President Bush stalled its passage. That act made sure a woman would not have to choose between having a job and taking care of a sick child. Mr. Dole promises fiscal responsibility. However, look at the record we Democrats have delivered. Before leaving office in 1993, President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers left an economic report for the President. In it, they forecasted how well the economy would perform, and what size the size of the Federal budget deficit would be following President Bush's economic program. Their most optimistic forecast was for the deficit to be $201 billion in 1996. Under President Clinton's leadership, the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit to be $116 billion in 1996. That's $85 billion less than the rosiest projection President Bush promised. And remember there was not one single Republican vote for the President Clinton deficit reduction plan. After 3\1/2\ years under President Clinton, we have the lowest combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and mortgage rates since the 1960's--which is the biggest tax cut of all for working Americans and retirees on fixed incomes. And the listen to the words of Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Testifying before the Joint Economic Committee in January 1994, Dr. Greenspan clearly stated what he felt was the cause of the speedup in economic growth: The actions last year to reduce the federal budget deficit have been instrumental in creating the basis for declining inflation expectations and easing pressures on long-term interest rates. . . . What I argued at the time is that the purpose of getting a lower budget deficit was essentially to improve the long-term outlook, and that if the deficit reduction is credible, then the long-term outlook gets discounted up-front. Indeed, that is precisely what is happening . . . . I think a substantial part of the improvement in economic activity and the low rates of inflation can be directly related to a changing financial expectation that we might finally be coming to grips with this very severe problem. That was in 1994. He is not crediting shutting down the Government, and holding needed Government services hostage to unfair budget deals, for making financial markets believe that new and better fiscal management was finally in place. Dr. Greenspan was crediting the President's 1993 budget plan with the substantial part of the improvement in economic activity and the low rates of inflation. While the rest of America that is experiencing steady job growth, increased consumer confidence, and a Federal deficit that has been cut in half, Mr. Dole is contending that he has policies that would have made the economy perform even better. What are these new ideas? In fact, they are not new at all: they are the same policies that ballooned our deficits in the first place. Except for the interest on the debt created during the Reagan and Bush years, our current budget would be running a surplus. So as for retreading these failed policies of the 1980's, in the language of the new generation: ``Been there, done that, don't want to go there again.'' Still, Mr. Dole promises growth that could generate more jobs. Again, look at the record. President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers predicted that, following President Bush's economic policies, the unemployment rate would be 6.2 percent in 1994 and 5.7 percent in 1995. President Clinton's policies delivered actual unemployment rates of 6.1 percent in 1994 and 5.6 percent in 1995. And while the Bush administration was going to be satisfied with an average unemployment rate of 5.4 percent in 1996, we have already lowered unemployment this year to 5.1 percent. Americans want to see wages and take-home pay rise. Since January 1993, we at least have seen the 12-year decline in real wages come to a halt. We Democrats fought to lower the tax burden of low-income, working families by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, and raising the wages of low-income workers from the 40-year low in terms of purchasing power that they were experiencing through passage of a minimum wage hike. It was only fair. It was a hard fight. But we Democrats never gave up, and the Republicans finally caved in. I am proud of the economic record we Democrats have accomplished in the last 4 years. We still have a great deal more to do, but Americans now know we are on the right track. As President Clinton says, we must build a bridge to the future. It is not a toll bridge because it will be a bridge paid for by careful planning. We don't need a bridge to the past, built with IOU's and growing deficits that mortgage our future. We don't need to go back to slow job growth, and fewer opportunities. We need to look forward.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Nicholas Polonski, the founder of the Northside Community Development Council in the Greenpoint-Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, NY. Mr. Polonski has been a tireless advocate for the residents of the Northside neighborhood of Brooklyn for over 40 years. The Northside Community Development Council was formed by Nick Polonski after he had led a successful fight against a large paper machinery company located in Greenpoint. His experience in community advocacy is vast. He has successfully advocated for tenants' rights, for welfare for needy people, and against the planned closure of a firehouse, among many other causes. As a serviceman in World War II he was awarded the Silver Star for Gallantry in Action for having saved the lives of wounded officers during enemy combat. He repeated such valiant acts following his return to civilian life by saving the life of a police officer in a motorcycle accident many years later. The Northside Community Development Council celebrated its success on September 6, 1996 by holding its annual dinner and dance. At that dinner-dance, the council honored Brooklyn Borough president Howard Golden; Monsignor David Cassato of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; Pat Ferris, district coordinator for senator Martin Connor; John Talmage, executive assistant to councilman Ken Fisher; David Sweeney, executive director for Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center; James Mallon, executive director for Northside and Peter McGuiness Senior Citizen Centers; Tillie Tarantino, executive director of Swinging 60's Senior Center; Captain Fries, commanding officer of the 94th Precinct; and John McDonough, vice president of Republic Bank. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in tribute to Nicholas Polonski for his commitment to the well-being of his community. I also want to stand in recognition and appreciation of the success of the Northside Community Development Council and to the talent and dedication to public service of those honored at its annual dinner dance celebration.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, former Senator Dole, now the Republican candidate for President, said in his radio address, ``The Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that last year 66 countries had economic growth rates that surpassed ours. The President may think that when it comes to economic growth 67th place is good enough, but I do not. I want America to lead the world again in terms of economic growth, rising incomes, and greater job opportunities.'' In building his bridge to the past, Mr. Dole must have overlooked the present. Just look at the good news about the economy that came out in the 2 weeks before he spoke. One week before his speech, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis revised the second quarter growth rate of the gross domestic product upward to 4.8 percent. Exports and business investments showed strong upward movement. Tuesday before he spoke, the conference board reported the index of leading economic indicators, which projects the economy's health for the next 6 to 9 months, reached a record high. Last Friday, before the Joint Economic Committee, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 250,000 jobs were created last month. This builds on the nearly 200,000 jobs we created in July, and on the 10.5 million in the President's first 3\1/2\ years in office. A report in the June issue of the monthly Labor Review, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes, shows that between 1993 and 1995 jobs in relatively higher earning occupations and industries grew at almost twice the rate as jobs in comparatively lower earning occupations and industries. In August, the share of women with jobs reached a record high of 57.2 percent, the highest employment record for women in our Nation's history. Mr. Dole promises fiscal responsibility. However, look at the record. Before leaving office in 1993, President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers left an economic report for the President. In it they forecasted how well the economy would perform and what the size of the Federal budget deficit would be following President Bush's economic program. The most optimistic forecast was for the deficit to be $201 billion by 1996. Under President Clinton's leadership, the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit to be $116 billion in 1996. That is $85 billion less than the rosiest projection President Bush promised. After 3\1/2\ years under President Clinton, we have the lowest combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and mortgage rates since the 1960's, which is the biggest tax cut of all for working Americans and retirees on fixed incomes. Now, let us listen to the words of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. Testifying before the Joint Economic Committee in January 1994, Dr. Greenspan clearly stated what he felt was the cause of the speedup in economic growth. He said, and I quote, ``The actions taken last year to reduce the Federal budget have been instrumental in creating the basis for declining inflation expectations and easing pressures on the long-term interest rates.'' ``What I,'' and again I am quoting Dr. Greenspan, ``argued at the time is that the purpose of getting a lower budget deficit was essentially to improve the long-term outlook, and that if the deficit reduction is credible, then the long-term outlook gets discounted up front. Indeed, that is precisely what is happening.'' ``I,'' and again I am quoting Dr. Greenspan, ``think a substantial part of the improvement in economic activity and the low rates of inflation can be directly related to a changing financial expectation that we might finally be coming to grips with this very severe problem.'' That was in January 1994. He is not crediting shutting down the Government and holding needed Government services hostage to unfair budget deals for making financial markets believe that new and better fiscal management was finally in place. Dr. Greenspan was crediting the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, with the, and again I quote him, ``substantial part of the improvement in economic activity and the low rates of interest.'' I agree with Dr. Greenspan. I am proud of the economic record President Clinton and the Democrats have accomplished in the last 4 years. We still have a great deal more to do, but we are on the right track. As President Clinton says, we must build a bridge to the future. It is not a toll bridge, because it will be a bridge paid for by careful planning. We do not need a bridge to the past built with IOU's and growing deficits that will mortgage our future, and we do not need to go back to slow job growth and fewer opportunities. We need to look forward.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in a special tribute to Doris Rosenblum, a resident of the west side of Manhattan who dedicated over 35 years to improving the quality of life in her community. I am saddened to report that with her death on August 29, 1996, we lost an energetic and spirited activist who had a measurable and permanent impact on the neighborhoods and residents of Manhattan through her service to the public good. Doris Rosenblum's activism was not limited to specific issues. She worked tirelessly to provide housing for poor and low-income people, for education, for schools, for cleaner streets, for the construction of community centers, and for many other causes throughout the 35 years of her dedicated advocacy work. Notably, Doris was the founder of the Stryker's Bay Neighborhood Association. She also helped organize West Side High School as a community-based alternative school and acted as the school's administrator from 1972 until 1979. Doris served her community in an official capacity as well. From 1971 until 1990, Doris was a member of community board 7, and the board's district manager from 1983 to 1990. I am also proud to report that Doris received special recognition for her years of hard work when Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger appointed her the official historian for the borough of Manhattan. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to celebrate and pay tribute to the life's work of Doris Rosenblum, a person to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. She is an example to each of us who have chosen to serve in the public interest and I ask my colleagues to join with me in honor of her relentless dedication to the good of her community.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to support the bill, H.R. 3864, as amended. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] has wisely incorporated an amendment striking title I of the original bill, and I appreciate his taking into consideration the views of the minority. That title contains certain controversial provisions such as changing the term and pension of the Comptroller General and establishing an oversight board for the GAO, thereby possibly restricting some of its necessary independence. The integrity, independence and quality of the GAO are well established and relied on by the public and Members of Congress. We must be extremely careful not to do anything which might damage that practice, reputation and independence. This bill as amended is almost identical to the one ordered reported unanimously by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The GAO worked closely with both the majority and minority in helping to draft this statute. Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates many unnecessary congressionally mandated reports. In some cases, the GAO needs flexibility rather than being bound to a fixed reporting schedule. In still other cases, the function eliminated would more properly be performed by some other entity like the inspector general or an independent auditor. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill allows the GAO to be governed by common sense, not statutory and bureaucratic mandates that waste the GAO's time and taxpayers' money. It eliminates procedures instituted for reasons that few people even remember, and it ends pencil pushing for pencil pushing's sake. The GAO itself estimates that this bill will save between $6 and $10 million. Given the GAO's track record, that estimate is probably accurate. Given the recent cuts eliminating these mandatory reports makes common sense and good sense. The GAO is Congress's and our Nation's primary watchdog agency, responsible for providing credible objective and nonpartisan reports and evaluations of the programs and management of the executive branch. The GAO has done an excellent job in fulfilling this mandate in a timely and professional manner and despite recent staff and funding cuts. This bill makes its job easier, saves taxpayer money and allows the GAO to be much more efficient. The bill has broad bipartisan support, and I am proud to support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis of fairness in this country. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In real terms, the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 40 years. Where I come from if one earns the minimum wage and work full-time, they live in extreme poverty. More than 600,000 New Yorkers will benefit from this increase. This is also a woman's issue; 5.7 million women earn the minimum wage. That is 59 percent of all minimum wage earners. Raising the minimum wage promotes families. If we want to encourage work and make it pay, we need to do this for the American people. Unfortunately, it took a Democratic uproar in Congress and 80 percent of the American people to get the Republican Congress to give in and do the right thing. The current minimum wage is indefensible, it discourages work, it demoralizes workers, and it makes a mockery of fairness.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning we were going to hold a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee to hear the July jobs report. It was canceled. And that's a shame--because the President has an economic record any President could be proud of. After 3\1/2\ years of President Clinton, the economy continues to grow stronger and stronger. We've created more than 10 million new jobs--a faster rate of job growth than under any Republican administration since the 1920's. In our global economy, job creating exports have increased by one-third--up $162 billion. And today's job report, issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that we added 193,000 more jobs in July. We have the highest rate of new business incorporations since World War II, with the Commerce Department reporting that our Nation's economy grew at an extremely healthy 4.2-percent annual rate from April through June, and with the lowest combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and mortgage rates since the 1960's. Best of all for both working Americans and our fixed-income retirees under President Clinton we've sustained this growth while keeping inflation stable and low. Mortgage rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years. The result: Millions of Americans have been able to purchase their first home, giving us the highest homeownership rate in 15 years. Mr. Speaker, the current issue of Money Magazine reports: ``The majority of Americans are better off on most pocketbook issues after 3\1/2\ years under [President] Clinton, who's presided over the kind of economic progress any Republican would be proud to post.'' Barron's reports ``In short, Clinton's economic record is remarkable. Clinton also rightfully boasted that, `our economy is the healthiest that it has been in 30 years.' '' This record is no mere happenstance. It is the result of tough decisions. Under President Clinton, the deficit has been cut to $117 billion this year--the lowest deficit as a percentage of GDP of any major economy--and less than half of what it was when he took office. In fact, were it not for the interest on the debt accumulated during the Reagan and Bush years, we would be running a surplus. Alan Greenspan said earlier this year that the deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan was ``an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' On that other side, some are still talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest. President Clinton has proven that responsible deficit reduction that maintains our investments in research and development, in our cities, our kids, our schools, and infrastructure can work. I do not believe the American people want a return to the pie-in-the- sky promises that built up this deficit in the first place. Today's jobs report is another indication that the President's economic plan is working. The question the American people are facing is do we stay the course, or do we go back to the budget-busting policies of the 1980's. I, for one, truly believe the American people are beyond being fooled by false promises. Yes, there is work to be done, but they know we are headed in the right direction.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Michael Stern, a renowned war correspondent who today celebrates his 86th birthday. Mr. Stern has led a distinguished career as an outstanding journalist who has also used his expertise as both a historian and an educator. He is deserving of special recognition here today in honor of his vast contributions to America's understanding of the realities of war. Mr. Stern, the author of seven books and the producer of five feature motion pictures, has written extensively about his wartime experiences. His story on the B-17 flying fortress, Memphis Belle, America's four- engine bomber, has served as the basis for motion pictures and was selected by the World Publishing Company as one of the 100 best stories of World War II. Additionally, his story ``Nuts,'' written on the European front, has been an integral tool for historians writing about the Battle of the Bulge. To document his own vivid account as a war correspondent, he published his memoir, ``Into the Jaws of Death.'' Mr. Stern has not only documented the events he has witnessed, but has also made every effort to educate Americans through his personal accounts of his wartime experiences. He has served as a lecturer at the Newhouse School of Communication at Syracuse University and has made countless appearances on television to expose the American public to the realities of war. In addition to his role as educator, Mr. Stern currently acts as a trustee of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, a trustee of the Fisher House Foundation, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research at Rockefeller University, and the editor-in-chief of Fisher House Magazine. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in honor of Michael Stern, who has dedicated his life to bringing the reality of war home for Americans to understand and appreciate. I ask that my colleagues join with me in this well-deserved tribute to Mr. Stern and in celebration of his 86 years of experience and dedication to wartime journalism and education.