Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, four words sum up this health care bill: Thank you, Mr. President. President Clinton made health care reform a top priority of his administration. His original bill did not pass, but it cast light and forced voluntary reforms on insurance company practices that put profits ahead of people. The President's focus on health care pressured insurance and drug companies to voluntarily hold down their rising costs. Above all, it challenged Congress to act. Over time, this bill will give more health security to millions of American families. It allows people to change jobs or lose jobs and keep their health insurance. It reduces discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. But our work is not finished. We need parity coverage for mental health and universal coverage, especially for all children. Democrats have fought for years for health care reform. We never gave up. The Republicans finally gave in. It is an important step forward. Vote for this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Rep. Horn and I introduced the administration's bill on statistical confidentiality. This bill is the culmination of years of work by both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Statistical Confidentiality Act is the foundation for moving the Federal statistical system into the 21st century. Two independent forces join to make this bill timely--balancing the budget and the National Performance Review. Federal spending on statistics has grown steadily over the last two decades. Over the next 5 years that trend is likely to be reversed. At the same time, there is a general belief that the Federal Government should be smaller and less intrusive. This idea was given life in the Clinton administration through the National Performance Review which has the goal to create a Government that works better and costs less. It is clear that our statistical system must develop new ways of providing the information we need that are less expensive and less intrusive. At the same time the statistical system is being asked to do more with less, it is criticized as no longer providing an accurate reflection of our society or economy. Economic statistics are routinely criticized because they emphasize the manufacturing sector, and pay little attention to the service sector. The 1990 census was roundly criticized as a failure, and for some communities it was a disaster. In May the Wall Street Journal reported on a Kansas town that lost 84 percent of its population because of an error in the census. That error, acknowledged by the Census Bureau last year, will not be fixed until next year. More objective indicators also point to increasing expense and declining quality. Survey response rates have declined steadily since the early 1980's making them more expensive and less accurate. Nowhere is this more evident than the decennial census, where every 1 percent of the public that does not mail back the form costs an additional $25 million. While the statistical system is being asked to do more with less, and criticized for declining accuracy, it is also subject to greater scrutiny than ever before. The 1990 census was notable, in part, because of the intense media coverage--more intense than ever before. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, pushed the Consumer Price Index to the front pages when he testified before Congress that errors in that index were costing the Government billions. Last month on the Mall, citizens demonstrated to get the Government to change the way it measures race. This confluence of social and political currents pushes the Federal statistical agencies to find new ways to measure our social and economic indicators, as well as define new measures. In short, these agencies need to find new ways of doing business. But to do so, they need new tools. The administration's Statistical Confidentiality bill provides the opportunity for agencies to begin charting new ground. This bill provides the framework for the research and experimentation that will define the statistical system for the new millennium. The stated purpose of the bill is ``to provide uniform safeguards for the confidentiality of information acquired for exclusively statistical purposes, and to improve the efficiency of Federal statistical programs and the quality of Federal statistics by permitting limited sharing of records for statistical purposes under strong safeguards.'' In short, this bill allows statistical agencies to share information collected from the public to improve statistical measures. It also provides strong safeguards that the privacy of those individuals will be protected, and that the information, once drawn together, will be used only for statistics. This bill will enable agencies to redesign surveys to incorporate administrative records from other agencies. It will permit agencies to develop joint surveys and share the resulting information. It will make the development of samples more accurate. But not all of the advantages of this bill are speculative. Just this year we passed legislation transferring the authorization for the census of agriculture from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Agriculture. The major difficulty in writing that legislation was crafting language that would allow these two agencies to share information. If the Statistical Confidentiality bill were law, that effort would not have been needed. The administration has put together a bill that lays the foundation for developing new, less burdensome, and less expensive ways of developing statistical information. This bill, for the first time, begins to take a system-wide view of Federal statistics. I congratulate my colleague Rep. Horn for introducing this bill, and I look forward to working with him to make it law.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a beloved Congress- man from New York, Hamilton Fish. Congressman Fish's death is an extraordinary loss to a community he faithfully served for over 25 years, and to all of us in this House and around the world who knew him well. Although I only had the privilege of serving with Rep. Fish in the 103d Congress, I quickly saw his impact on this institution, and on me. His warmth and openness made a junior Member feel welcome and confident in an organization that can be overwhelming. Even though Rep. Fish worked hard as one of the busiest members of Congress, he always had time to serve as a teacher and mentor to other Members. I will always remember him as the example of how to serve New York State and how to serve our country in a truly bipartisan manner. Hamilton Fish died on July 23d, but his service to the mid-Hudson Valley constituency will ensure that he has an everlasting memory to all. During the years he lived among us, Congressman Fish was a pioneer and supporter of Civil Rights legislation. He was the principal Republican sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and also worked with Democrats to sponsor amendments to the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, his concern for others was not limited to the borders of this country. He was an outspoken advocate for human rights around the globe and worked on behalf of Soviet Jews who for years were battling to emigrate from tyranny to freedom. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Fish worked to expand refugee assistance programs. He wanted to ensure that all people, no matter from what background, had an opportunity to fulfill the American dream. Rep. Fish was born to a family whose political legacy dates back to the Revolutionary War. One of his ancestors Nicholas Fish fought with George Washington during the birth of our nation. His great- grandfather, Hamilton fish, served as governor of New York before serving in the Senate and as Secretary of State to Ulysses S. Grant. His grandfather, of the same name, served in the 61st Congress after a long career in the New York Assembly. Congressman Fish's father, Hamilton Fish, Sr. served in Congress from 1920 to 1945. Thus, Congressman Fish brought a legacy that was 200 years old the first day he sat in his seat in 1968. He received his B.A. from Harvard, and his LL.B. from the New York University School of Law. His college career was interrupted twice. Once in 1944 by World War II, and the second time by Fish's enlistment to the Foreign Service. Despite these interruptions, Fish was admitted to the New York Bar in 1958. Hamilton Fish's dedication to seeking the truth can never be questioned. As a member of the Judiciary Committee during Watergate, Fish was one of the first Republicans to vote in favor of impeaching the President. His action went against the beliefs of many in his party, including his father, but Fish recognized that the need for truth and justice was greater than party and individual loyalties. This is the legacy of Hamilton Fish. The legacy of a man who carried the responsibility of representation with grace and dignity. He was a kind and gentle mentor I am proud to have served with in Congress. Always seeking the truth and compassion for those who were less fortunate, he will truly be missed.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, domestic terrorism is becoming the greatest threat to our domestic tranquility. It marred the Olympics, it horrified us in Oklahoma City and with the World Trade Center, and it may have destroyed TWA Flight 800. That tragedy touched me deeply and personally. Three nights before the tragedy I spent the evening with my neighbor and friend Judith Connelly Delouvier, who was on that flight. Three days later she was dead. She will never see her two children and husband again. Her family deserves action now. We should not recess until we take legislative action on tracing explosives; we must take on the NRA; we must work on programmatic changes. Mr. Speaker, we should not recess until we act on terrorism. We cannot wait until September.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is dangerous and unrealistic. I do not believe the American people will tolerate a policy of ending support to a single mom who has played by the rules, tried to find a job for 2 years and could not. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent, and that does not include millions of welfare recipients. This conference report does not require the Government to create jobs. The result will be the world's wealthiest nation putting families out on the street to fend for themselves. Will we tolerate destitution and call it reform? Republicans say the States will solve these problems. Already Philadelphia, as reported yesterday in the paper, has stopped providing shelter beds for single homeless people due to Federal and State welfare cuts. I am not predicting that Republican welfare reform will put people out on the street. I am pointing out that it already has. Oppose this conference report.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of several measures that will benefit veterans in my district and around the Nation. Today, the House considers veterans health care eligibility reform, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, and the honoring of Filipino veterans who served during World War II. The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act will strengthen veterans' preference and increase employment opportunities for veterans with the Federal Government. I am pleased to have supported this bill when it came through the committee on which I sit, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I believe in the importance of preventing Federal agencies from unfairly stripping veterans of their preference rights during a reduction in force. By ensuring that veterans have the right to take their cases to Federal court when their other legal avenues have been exhausted, this bill is a step forward for America's veterans. Another bill that I am happy to see come to the House floor is a bill to reform veteran's health care eligibility. After veterans have put their lives on the line for America, we need to do everything we can to provide the health care veterans need. The eligibility reform measure will change the way veterans health care is provided in the future. The new system will include a clinically appropriate ``need for care'' test to ensure that medical judgment is the fundamental criteria in determining the level and amount of care to be provided. However, although I agree that the eligibility rules must change to accommodate our veterans, we also need to provide the necessary funding to achieve these goals. Finally, the House also considers a bill to honor the military contribution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines during World War II. These Filipino forces were instrumental in helping the United States defend our democratic ideals during the war. We should be proud of all the contributions made by our Filipino neighbors on the Pacific front. The contributions made by veterans during times of war, is what allows us to enjoy these times of peace. We must continue to support and honor our veterans. America will always be grateful to its veterans for the sacrifices made for this great Nation.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the new majority was talking about encouraging work. Now with this bill they seem to be encouraging taking time off. Mr. Speaker, despite strong economic indicators, millions of Americans, many of them single mothers, are working harder and longer for less money. This bill strips them of even that right. The majority of low-wage workers are women. They count on their overtime pay to feed their children and to make ends meet. The underlying bill allows employers to offer comp time to workers instead of overtime pay. It requires a voluntary agreement with the employee, but we all know that in the real world employers may bully employees into accepting whatever the employer wants. The practical effect of this bill will be to allow employers to force an employee to take comp time instead of paying overtime. While that person is using comp time, the employer can pay another employee regular wages instead of time and a half. The bottom line is, employees could get paid less. Mr. Speaker, this is not progress, it is a step in the wrong direction. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, we have another session of Congress and another failed effort at campaign finance reform. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We could shrug our shoulders and give up or we could put our shoulders to the wheel and work on the only viable option left for this Congress, a comprehensive commission on campaign finance reform. I have introduced a bipartisan bill to do just that. It is modeled after Congressman Armey's Military Base Closing Commission. The Commission would consider all relevant aspects of campaign finance reform and present a comprehensive bill for an up-or-down vote on the floor. President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole all have publicly endorsed the concept. Let us take advantage of this rare consensus. Mr. Speaker, it is either an independent commission or more of the same.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Democratic bill, the Farr bill, which voluntarily limits expenditures, contributions, and soft money. We have before us today two bills that are dramatically different in philosophy and direction. One allows more money in politics; one limits money in politics. But in reality, both bills are dead because the Senate has already acted. Congress has tried to reform campaign finance by itself since 1974. Unless we change course dramatically, all we will have is the same old shell game that Congress continues to play with campaign finance reform. Now you see a bill; now you do not. Now you pass one in the House but not in the Senate. Now you pass them in the House and the Senate but it does not get signed. Realistically, Mr. Chairman, the only way, the only way to enact meaningful campaign finance reform in the 104th Congress is to enact an independent commission that will come forth with a principled plan that will be voted up or down, similar to the Army suggestion on base closing. I have introduced such a bill, H.R. 1100, which has bipartisan support, including the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and many others. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker is the only one who could make it happen. I hope he will move to pass a campaign finance reform independent commission.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I stand in strong support of this rule. This is the so-called Reform Week, but the most important reform, campaign finance reform, will not be reformed. We have before us today two drastically different approaches to campaign finance. The Republican bill puts more money in the system. The Democratic bill limits the amount, voluntarily limits contributions, expenditures, and limits soft money. The two bills are miles apart, and really dead on arrival. This rule is an extremely interesting one. For the first time in recent memory, the Committee on Rules reported out a bill that does not urge the adoption of the rule. I commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, for this legislative innovation. I believe the Republicans are pulling out all stops to save the Republicans from the major embarrassment of having to vote on their radical, out of touch, more money, more special interest in politics. We need a vote on this rule. We need to let our constituents and the American public know whether their Congressperson supports more money in the system or less money in the system, so that when they go to vote this fall when we are up for election they will know how their Congressperson voted on campaign finance reform: More money, more special interests or less money and less special interests. I truly believe that given the fact that these bills, campaign finance bills, died in the Senate that both of these bills are dead on arrival. The only real chance for campaign finance reform in this session is an independent commission. Mr. Speaker, you publicly endorsed it. You shook hands on it. Let us turn the promise of your handshake into the reality of a law.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, today Speaker Gingrich has an opportunity to do something truly positive for the American people, to save a dying effort for real reform. Basically the Republican bill puts more money into the system, the Democratic bill favors less money in politics. The two bills are miles apart and dead on arrival. The only way to revive campaign finance in the Senate and to pass a viable bill here in the House is to create an independent strong commission that will come forward with a principal plan for an up-or-down vote. Madam Speaker, Speaker Gingrich and the President shook hands on it and publicly endorsed the concept. An independent commission is reform's only chance in this Congress. Madam Speaker, only Speaker Gingrich can make it happen.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I announce to my colleagues the unanimous passage Of H.R. 1281, the War Crimes Disclosure Act, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. As the sponsor of H.R. 1281, I am pleased that this bill is quickly making its way through the legislative process, and I am hopeful that is will soon be passed by the House. A companion bill will be introduced by New York Senators Moynihan and D'Amato, and I am confident that this measure has a solid chance of becoming law during this session of Congress. I introduced H.R. 1281 to close what I perceive is a tremendous loophole in the Freedom of Information Act. Under current law, the FOIA allows Government agencies to block the release of information for a wide variety of reasons, including outdated ``national security'' arguments that are no longer valid in the post-cold-war era. Because of this circumstance, researchers investigating Nazi war criminals like Kurt Waldheim are denied information that is sitting in U.S. Government files. I'm indebted to A.M. Rosenthal, the New York Times columnist, for his series of articles which brought this problem to light. The Waldheim case is the most celebrated example. For years, the CIA was keeping its information on Waldheim a secret, even as other Government agencies, namely the Department of Justice, were placing Waldheim on the Watch List of individuals forbidden to enter our country. Waldheim was given the dubious distinction because of his direct involvement in the deportation and murder of Jews and others during World War II. It is not difficult to imagine how history might have been changed if Waldheim's secret past had become public. Most notably, Waldheim would probably 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 Mr. Waldheim's shameful story continues. Just recently, we learned that in his brand new autobiography, ``The Answer'', he whitewashes his Nazi past, and blames the American Jewish community for his banishment from the United States. Waldheim's book is a dishonest answer to the overwhelmingly credible charges that he persecuted and facilitated the murder of Jews, Italians, Serbs, and others in World War II. It is almost incomprehensible that he calls himself a victim, when it was his murderous activity that helped make victims of so many innocent people. 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 would help those who research the horrors of the Holocaust ensure that cases like Waldheim do not occur in the future. My bill is narrowly drawn. It would exclude from disclosure requirements any material that is strictly private and personal. Similarly, information pertaining to current or future intelligence, national security, and foreign relations issues could remain secret if there is clear and convincing evidence that disclosing the files could cause substantial harm to our national interests. My bill also takes great care not to impede the important work of the Department of Justice's Nazi hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations. I am a fervent supporter of the OSI. Just last month, for example, I called upon the Lithuanian government to extradite two Nazi war criminals living in the United States that were exposed by OSI's long and painstaking work. I was pleased to work with the OSI to craft the final version of the bill so that it can accomplish its purpose of disclosing Nazi war crimes files without hindering OSI's valuable investigations and prosecutions. The Justice Department firmly supports my bill. The Clinton administration is moving in the right direction with respect to classifying hidden documents. The President's Executive Order of April 20, 1995, will, in 4 years, declassify many documents that are 25 years old. But I believe, when it comes to Nazi war crimes files, we can and should move more swiftly. On June 14, Chairman Stephen Horn and I presided over a hearing of our subcommittee, during which we heard excellent testimony from three witnesses. We heard from Congressman Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to be elected to Congress, and a moral mentor to me and to all of our colleagues. Elizabeth Holtzman also testified. As an outstanding Member of this body in the 1970's, Liz was a pioneer in the efforts to expose Nazi war criminals. Finally, we received valuable insights from Robert Herzstein, a distinguished scholar and professor of history at University of South Carolina. His efforts to uncover the secret files of Kurt Waldheim have played an instructive role in the formation of this legislation. There are a number of organizations which support my bill. These groups include the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the World Jewish Congress, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, the Orthodox Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Agudath Israel of America. Mr. Speaker, the Second World War ended 51 years ago. It's finally time for the entire story of this, the most horrible era in the history of man's inhumanity to man, to emerge. It is time to take a stand against those who insult humanity by denying what took place half a century ago. The great philosopher George Santayana taught us that ``those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' I hope that the passage of the War Crimes Disclosure Act will play a small role in helping us heed Santayana's warning.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, once again as I have every year that I have been a Member of Congress, it is my distinct honor and great privilege to stand with the gentleman from Florida and commemorate the tragic invasion and occupation of Cyprus. I am sure Mr. Bilirakis will agree with me when I state that a lot has transpired in the year since we stood in this well to discuss the fate of this beautiful island. First, I am pleased of the success that the gentleman and I had in the formation of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues. This has become a large and active organization. We now have 50 Members from both parties from all regions of the country and from all political ideologies. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives have all joined together to pursue our common objectives of justice, human rights and stronger ties between the United States and its strong democratic allies, Cyprus and Greece. The Hellenic Caucus has organized important and informative meetings with Greek President Stephanopoulos and Ambassador Tsilas, with Cypriot President Clerides, as well as a touching and very special meeting with this Eminence Archbishop Iakavos, who retired this year after 37 years of service to the community. In addition, the Hellenic Caucus members have strongly urged President Clinton to forcefully condemn hostile Turkish actions regarding the Greek Islands of Imia and Gavdos and other aggressive actions in the eastern Mediterranean. Many members of the Hellenic Caucus wrote to the Turkish foreign minister in protest of his country's attacks on the human rights foundation of Turkey which treats victims of torture. Mr. Bilirakis and I joined with Senator Sarbanes in a successful effort to stop the proposed sale of 12 deadly Super Cobra helicopters to Turkey. Several of us have kept up the pressure on Turkey to stop its persecution of Christians and Kurds. Hellenic Caucus members are well represented on the list of cosponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 42, which passed the House. This bill puts the United States on record in support of the demilitarization of Cyprus and highlights Congress' continuing interest in achieving a solution to the Cypriot situation. This brings me to perhaps the greatest victory for those of us who support Cypriot and Greek causes. On June 5, by a resounding vote of 303 to 115, the House passed the Visclosky amendment, which would end United States economic aid to Turkey unless it ends its inhumane blockade of Armenia. Mr. Speaker, we all know what Turkey's response was to this House action. Turkey announced that it would rather forgo our generous assistance than end the suffering caused by this cruel and callous blockade. Tragically, it is the same intransigence that has marked Turkey's attitude on the Cyprus issue. Let us not forget the facts: 22 years ago, Turkey brutally invaded Cyprus. 200,000 Greek Cypriots were expelled from their homes, their property was confiscated. Worst of all, 1,614 Cypriots and 5 American citizens were seized by Turkish troops and remain missing to this day. Mr. Speaker, it has become somewhat of a cliche to refer to these so- called missing, but to me this phrase has a distinctly human face. I have met many, many times with constituents of mine in the Astoria neighborhoods whose family members are still among the missing. I have seen the great pain on the faces of the families of Chris Loizoi, Andrew Kassapis, and George Anastasiou. I resolved never to give up my quest to see that the fates of their family members are accounted for. Human decency demands that we use all the means at our disposal, including special orders like this one in this great Hall of democracy, to hold Turkey accountable for all of the missing. The simple cause of justice demands that Turkey pull back from the third of Cyprus that it now illegally occupies with 35,000 troops who are armed to the teeth. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton dispatched our able U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright to Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey to restart talks on resolving the dispute. I wish my friend the Ambassador the best of luck in this extremely important mission, and I look forward to hearing her report and that of the Special Envoy Richard Beatty--22 years of brutality, human rights buses and illegal occupation is far, far too long. I commend my colleagues who are speaking this evening for taking the time to go on the record in opposition to war and suffering and in favor of peace and justice. All of us owe it to those who have endured a terrible fate on this beautiful island to speak up and speak out. Tonight we say to the people of Cyprus and the families of the missing we will never forget you. We will always continue working for peace and justice on Cyprus. I want to conclude by thanking my dear friend Congressman Bilirakis for his extreme effort on the Cyprus issue and on all Greek causes. He not only supports it with his rhetoric, with his legislation, with his heart, but also with his physical time. He is the only Member of Congress that has initiated a voyage to the island if Imia, who has gone into the enclaves on Cyprus and has attended almost every CECA conference in Cyprus. I thank you for your strong, strong commitment to these issues, your hard work and for organizing this special order tonight. My constituents thank you. The families of the missing thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, tragedy hit close to home last week for my family when one of our neighbors on our block fell victim to the crash of TWA flight 800. Let us be clear, we do not know whether or not terrorism was the cause, but, either way, the crash is one more wake-up call that terrorism can happen in America. We must all take care not to politicize this tragedy, but we must also not forget that we made a promise to the American people when we enacted the antiterrorism bill to develop more advanced bomb detection systems, stronger cargo holds on airplanes, more sensitive sensors to identify biological and chemical agents, and new technology that will allow our swat teams to enter buildings silently and deal with hostage situations more quickly. The Schumer-Schiff amendment makes sure we have some of the funding that is necessary to fulfill this promise. If we can afford the space station or star wars, I know we can afford $10 million more to protect ourselves against a real danger within our shores, terrorism. This amendment alone is not the answer to terrorism. We need to do much more. My colleagues from New York and New Mexico have been fighting for more money and for this cause all year, but this amendment is one large step in the right direction. Let us not wait for the next wake-up call, the next tragedy without enacting it. I strongly support the Schumer-Schiff amendment and I commend both of the gentleman for their hard work on this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton amendment. A member of the new majority says that they plan to outlaw abortion, ``procedure by procedure.'' Today's votes prove they are sticking by their word. If the Radical right has its way, passage of the Commerce/State/ Justice bill will include the 30th and 31st votes on choice in this Congress. The Norton amendment seeks to correct one of these attacks on American women. Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their health care. So, if this ban passes, it would prevent these women from seeking needed reproductive health care. In this bill, the new majority has attacked women who are often poor, uneducated, isolated, and beaten down. Most women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women, if pregnant in prison, became pregnant from rape or abuse before they entered prison. Most women prisoners are poor and cannot rely on anyone for financial assistance. These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the infant. The ban on reproductive health services for women in prison closes off their only opportunity to receive such care, it denies them their constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their dignity. Mr. Chairman, don't intensify an already difficult situation; support the Norton amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the proposed irresponsible cuts to the Legal Services Corporation. The Legal Services Corporation acts as a founding principle of this country--equal justice under law--by supplying legal representation to those who would not otherwise be able to afford it. Those affected by the loss of legal services are the same people the Contract With America has made a career of attacking: seniors, women, children, and low-income Americans. This bill renders the Legal Services Corporation ineffective because it so strictly limits what they can do. It cuts their funding and prohibits their ability to bring class action suits. This is just another way for the Republican majority to systematically disinvest in the poor. Mr. Chairman, we should fully fund the Legal Services Corporation. If we don't make equal justice under the law a reality for all Americans, who will?

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Republican reform bill on campaign finance attempts to solve the problem of too much money in politics by putting much more money in politics. The Republican bill raises the amount that wealthy contributors can give to Federal candidates to $72,500 a year. The average American family of four makes $48,000 a year. Clearly, the Republicans are out of touch with the average working American families. In sharp contrast, the Democratic bill limits the amount of money in politics by voluntarily limiting contributions, expenditures, and soft money. We need a vote on this bill. This fall, when the American people go to vote, they need to know whether their candidate supports putting more money into politics or limiting the amount of money in politics.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine that less than a decade ago, the world was a very different place. We were in the icy grip of the cold war. The Soviet Union was the menacing patron of repression across the globe. The winds of democracy and freedom had not yet begun to sweep over Eastern and Central Europe. All that has now changed. And with this change, we should change NATO. The bill before us recognizes that three Eastern European countries-- Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--have made the most progress with the criteria necessary for NATO inclusion. As the Representative of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, one of the largest and most dynamic communities of Polish-Americans in the Nation, I am particularly pleased that this bill acknowledges Poland's extraordinary transition to democracy. The bill also authorizes up to $60 million to these countries to facilitate the NATO expansion process. It is critical that we recognize Poland's strategic value to the West. The admission of Poland into NATO will enhance United States interests in Europe by bringing more stability and security to the region. I urge the adoption of the bill, and I urge the administration to work with our allies to bring about the swift admission of Poland into Europe's most important political and military institution--NATO.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, reform week is here. The most important reform--campaign finance, will not get reformed. Everyone knows that money plays too much of a role in politics, everyone except the Republican Congress. Under their extreme bill, a wealthy contributor can give three times what current law allows to Federal candidates. Three times the current limit to each national party committee. And, this bill allows over 10 times more money to State party committees. The Republican bill would allow $12.4 million in contributions from one family in a single election cycle. This isn't election reform, it's an auction. I support the Democrat bill, the Farr bill, which voluntarily limits contributions and expenditures. The contrast between the two bills is staggering. But, as much as we need campaign finance reform, I predict that partisanship will live and campaign finance reform will die. We don't need a Democratic bill or a Republican one--we need a workable one. The only way to do that is to create an independent commission to agree on general principles and develop a plan for a vote. Over a year ago, the Speaker and the President shook hands on it. Mr. Speaker, let's turn the promise of your handshake into the reality of a law.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, the American people do not want to hurt children. The Republican bill is so removed from reality, it punishes children and penalizes working families. The bill would hurt millions of innocent children by making deep cuts in benefits, especially during economic downturns, by limiting the contingency fund to only $2 billion. The Tanner-Castle substitute has an uncapped contingency fund for use during these troubling times. When we completely eliminate the Federal guarantee, those of us who have worked in city and State legislatures know that given the financial pressures, the poor will often fall through the cracks. This Republican bill just tells defenseless children, tough luck. This bill will not put people to work. CBO says that it needs $10 billion more for the program, for their work program. It will put families with children out on the street. That is not welfare reform, it is a blueprint for disaster. Say yes to welfare reform, and no to this cruel and senseless bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, the American people do not want to hurt kids. The Republican bill is so removed from reality. It punishes children, penalties working families, and denies benefits to virtually all legal immigrant children. The bill would worsen poverty and hunger for 9 million innocent children by making deep cuts in benefits, especially during economic downturns by limiting the contingency fund to only $2 billion. The Castle-Tanner substitute has an uncapped contingency fund for use during these troubling times. Working families, who play by the rules, will see their food stamp benefits cuts by as much as 19 percent. When you completely eliminate the Federal guarantee, those of us who work in State and city legislatures know that, given the financial pressures, poor people often fall through the cracks. The Castle-Tanner bill provides State vouchers for needed support for families. But the Republican bill we're considering today would make a bad system much worse by allowing only State funds. This Republican bill just tells defenseless children, tough luck. This bill won't put people to work. According to the CBO, the bill is $10 billion short of what they need to carry out their work program. It will put families with children out on the street. That's not welfare reform. It's a blueprint for disaster. Say yes to welfare reform Castle-Tanner. Say no to this cruel and senseless bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, last winter I received a notice in the mail that my health insurance coverage, by law, would no longer cover abortion. It was one small notice in the mail but a giant step backwards for a woman's right to choose. As a Member of the other side of the aisle has said repeatedly, ``We intend to repeal choice procedure by procedure, little by little,'' and they are doing it. In this Congress they have passed 23 antichoice bills. With the Hoyer amendment, we are attempting to correct one. Support the Hoyer amendment. As a member of the new majority said, ``We intend to outlaw choice procedure by procedure.'' And they are doing it--so far, they've passed 16 antichoice measures. We are trying, with the Hoyer amendment, to correct one tonight. Last winter, I received a notice in the mail that my health insurance coverage, by law, would no longer cover abortion. It was one small notice in the mail, but one giant step backward for a woman's right to choose. Federal employees can no longer purchase, with their own money, insurance coverage for abortion services. The Hoyer amendment, the Supreme Court, and the majority of the American people support choice--and they support Federal employees' right to choose--with their own money. Defeat this assault on personal freedom, Support the Hoyer amendment.