Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1975, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act. I do so reluctantly because there is much to be said for many parts of this measure. The States have demonstrated that they are committed to collecting the full and fair value of Federal royalty producting revenues which by Federal law they share. Unfortunately, while the Minerals Management Service has made several cosmetic improvements to their program, my information suggests that they are not as avid in assuring that the public receives its fair due from the oil and gas industry's privilege of exploitation of public resources. The only reform enacted by this bill is a stranglehold on the Federal Government's ability to collect money owed on oil and gas royalties. H.R. 1975 would impose a 7-year statute of limitations on the Federal Government and the States for all judicial proceedings and audits regarding oil and gas royalties. So, if we uncover evidence of money owed the Federal Government from undervalued oil and gas in the future, our hands our tied--we would not be able to collect money owed the American taxpayer. This bill will enhance the oil industry's position at the public cost. My opposition is directed at those portions of the bill which establish new provisions on a statute of limitations and the ability of the Government to obtain needed records for the conduct of audits. These provisions may preclude the Federal Government from collecting millions of dollars in past due royalties owed. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee recently concluded hearings that showed that $856 million is owed in past due royalties in the State of California alone. I would like to be able to say that such uncollected debt will not happen again. Disregarding warnings that these royalties were outstanding, the Minerals Management Service entered into agreements with several of the companies that may preclude and will at least complicate any full collection. Only after I released a report with the project on Government oversight pointing out the problem and after an Interior interagency task force issued a detailed study did the department reluctantly acknowledge the underpayment in California. Without an adequate understanding of how the department has managed the royalty program under present law and a complete explanation of how it managed to overlook hundreds of millions of dollars, I believe it reckless to change the law. The hearings also indicated that the problem of undervaluation is not confined to California alone and that there is good cause to believe that even more money is owed from Federal public leases throughout and offshore the Nation. It is important to understand that half of the royalties collected by the department from onshore oil production go to the States. In California this revenue is used only for education. Chairman Calvert of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Resources Committee has taken some laudatory steps to resolve some ambiguous language in the bill through technical amendments to the effective date provisions of H.R. 1975, and has assured me that it is the intent of the drafters to apply only the provisions specified in the effective date provision retroactively. I remain concerned, however, that language in the bill may still provide fodder for creative lawyers to delay collection of the royalties owed because the industry's undervaluation even further. One source of my concern is in section 115(f) of the bill which states: Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, under no circumstance shall a record holder be required to maintain or produce any record relating to an obligation for any time period which is barred by the applicable limitation in this section. The reference to ``for any period'' is language reasonably construed to call for retroactivity and, if so construed, would disable the Department of the Interior from obtaining the information necessary to proceed on an undervaluation claim. At a minimum--to clearly avoid the retroactivity issue that Chairman Calvert has assured me was not intended--this language should be deleted. Its deletion would not undercut the bill's remaining objectives. In other words, this language is moving more toward proprietary protection of these records. More broadly, my investigation indicates that it is not the right time for us to be placing time and records limitations on the Department of the Interior. Indeed, industry's highly questionable claims of confidentiality and repeated litigation over document access has and will continue to unduly delay any efforts by Interior to collect on undervaluation claims. Provisions in this bill will only serve to strengthen industry's lack of cooperation. Finally, transfer of more authority to the States, while laudatory, will take its own toll on the timing and completion of the audits and investigations that are a prerequisite for bringing claims of underpaid royalties. Certainly the Federal Government and State delegates should be encouraged to conduct audits in a prompt manner. For the time being, however, I believe that this should be pursued administratively rather than legislatively. And, the Department has taken steps to increase the timeliness of the audit process. We should be encouraging the Department to keep abreast of changes in industry structure and operations that impact royalty collections in order to adequately respond. At this time, however, the Department is simply not capable of collecting the royalties actually owed on Federal production. It has not demonstrated an understanding of the very industry it regulates. And, it is forced to use after the fact audits to uncover basic structural data concerning the industry. Putting additional restraints on the Department, through time and record access limitations, will only bring more of the same losses in royalty revenues. We should be looking at whether there are obstacles under existing law that are hampering the Department's ability to do its job the right way. In sum, my investigations have shown that at this time we simply do not have sufficient information concerning the difficulties of collecting royalties faced by diligent auditors and administrators, and the problems the Department of the Interior faces that are hampering its ability to do what we instructed it to do--collect the full fair market value in royalties owed the public. We owe it to the public to conduct a more thorough inquiry into these matters before we leap to make changes which, in my view, will lead to further losses of needed revenues for the citizens and the States. I want to ask the chairman from California if he will hold to his testimony in front of my committee when he said, In no way is the Federal Government barred from pursuing demands for payment of royalties owed on oil and gas produced prior to the enactment of my bill. The seven-year statute of limitations affects only production post-enactment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Istook amendment. Title X is the only Federal program that prevents unintended pregnancy and reduces the need for abortion. In my State alone, 300,000 women and teens rely on title X for their only reproductive health care. The radical right is once again putting politics ahead of people by attempting to require young people to obtain their parents' consent for family planning and other health care services. This requirement will cause many teens to delay, or, worse yet, avoid seeking essential health care services--placing their health, future fertility, and even their lives at risk. I agree that ideally, teens should be encouraged to talk to their parents about all health care decisions, including those of reproductive health. But, we don't live in an ideal world, and millions of teens don't live in ideal families. Study after study has shown that when parental consent is mandated by law, adolescents will delay or avoid seeking needed care. How can anyone oppose such an essential program? Whose best interests are being served? Certainly not those of American teenagers, families, and women. Once again, the new majority has put the radical right's agenda ahead of good government. Consent to give teens the right to make good health decisions, and the right to basic health care services. Oppose the Istook amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank amendments to H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. This has been a Congress that has repeatedly talked about sending power back to the States. But now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government must step in on the issue of marriage, an issue which has always been decided by the States. Hawaii is now examining this issue, but the court case is not expected to be settled for about 2 more years. From a legal perspective, because same-sex marriage is not legal, this bill is not necessary except as a direct attack on gays and lesbians. Constitutionally, this bill is also not necessary. According to the ``full faith and credit'' provision of the Constitution, States already have the power not to recognize same-sex marriages. There is no clear, compelling reason for the Federal Government to step in now--except a purely political one. But this issue is more than a legal one--it is about civil rights, it is about fairness, and it is about equal rights for all citizens. Despite the rhetoric of the religious right, one can honor the relationship between a man and a woman without attacking lesbian and gay people or their relationships. This issue is important to me because it is important to my constituents. Over 1,000 of my constituents have contacted me to express their opposition to this blatant form of discrimination. I agree with one writer who said--this legislation is ``nothing more than an attempt to divide the country by beating up on gay men and lesbians.'' Another constituent added, ``Congress should be attending to the business of the country, not attacking American citizens.'' I couldn't have said it better. This bill is about discrimination, pure and simple. I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the food pantry volunteers of the West Side Campaign Against Hunger, a special group of people who regularly give up their time to assist in feeding the hungry of the west side of Manhattan. This group of dedicated volunteers is being celebrated by the West Side Campaign Against Hunger at the Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew on Sunday, July 14 for the enormous contribution they have made to their community. The food pantry volunteers generously donate their time and energy to staff the food pantry. Volunteers assist the pantry daily, taking in deliveries, displaying food, helping customers, recycling and cleaning up. These volunteers have contributed 7,600 hours in 1996 to this effort. Due to the steady stream of support from the volunteers, the food pantry has been able to feed nearly 3,000 people each month. Mr. Speaker, these individuals are deserving of special recognition for their tireless contribution of time and energy to the plight of those less fortunate. I am proud to rise here to honor this much appreciated but far too rarely acknowledged group of volunteers. I ask my colleagues to join with me and the West Side Campaign Against Hunger to celebrate their hard work and commitment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Under the Istook amendment, teenagers who are too afraid to consult their parents for advice will not get any advice at all. That could cost them their health, their future fertility, even their lives. We need a policy for the real world, not an ideal world. Oppose the Istook amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The Republican leadership of this Congress should be ashamed of itself. This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Despite the rhetoric we have heard today in this Hall and the rhetoric of the religious right, one can honor the relationship between a man and a woman without attacking gay men and lesbians. No matter who is being attacked, discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong. You know, I have never been called by any constituent, by anyone to complain to me that they want me to defend their marriage. If we want to have a debate about defending American marriages and American families, let us talk about the real issues affecting American families. Let us talk about the rising cost of college education. Let us talk about the ability to get health insurance, to afford health insurance, to keep health insurance for our children. Let us talk about raising the minimum wage. That is the way we strengthen our families, by looking at the real issues and taking responsible action to solve them.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle amendment. Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime bill, saying programs like shelters for battered women and rehab for drug addicts were nothing more than ``pork.'' Now, the NRA has set its sights at the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. They have succeeded in pushing an amendment to cut the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC] from the CDC's budget. This office does research on injuries, including those caused by guns, and links it to health outcomes. But the NRA says that this office engages in ``recklessly biased research and blatant political advocacy.'' I disagree. This office does vital studies to improve how law enforcement, the judicial system, and our health care system can prevent and improve assistance to victims of domestic violence. Now the NRA wants us to stop looking at the problem so they can pretend it does not exist. They can't further their extremist goals if we engage in studies and discussion of gun violence as a public health issue. In this case, the NRA and the radical right are saying, if you fear it, kill it, and in doing so, they are blocking progress in ending violence against women and their families. Vote to end family violence; support the Lowey-Castle amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle amendment. Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime bill, arguing that crime prevention efforts--like shelters for battered women and rehab for drug addicts--were nothing more than ``pork.'' Now, the NRA and members of the new majority, have aimed their assault weapons at the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. The NRA succeeded in pushing an amendment to cut $2.6 million--the exact amount budgeted for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC]--from the CDC's budget. The NCIPC does research on injuries and links it to health outcomes. They have found that there are 56,000 violence-related fatalities a year, which includes 37,000 deaths from firearm injuries. They also estimate that there are approximately 100,000 nonfatal shootings each year--and that the resulting injuries burden an already over-extended health care system. Other projects have included: Examining the effectiveness of methods like interventions with batterers, preventative education, and better enforcement of protective laws by the police and court system; and helping states to collect data on violence against women and services available to these women while evaluating training programs for health care providers in order to identify, treat, and refer victims of violence. It's clear to me that these studies don't fit the NRA's accusations that the NCIPC engages in ``recklessly biased research and blatant political advocacy.'' But, it should come as no surprise that the NRA, and members of the radical right want to kill this program--because it's the year of an all-out assault on American women and children. The NCIPC's research is vital in our efforts to learn what causes gun violence, violence against women, and what we can do to prevent it. That the NRA squeals that programs like these are ``pork'' shows their desperation--they can't further their extremist goals if we engage in studies and discussion of gun violence as a public health issue. The NRA has fought to kill NCIPC funding for one reason, they know they can't really argue against studies that will protect our children, and reduce deaths due to domestic violence. In this case, the NRA and the radical right are saying, if you fear it, kill it--and in doing so, they are blocking progress in ending violence against women and their families. Vote to end family violence, support the Lowey-Castle amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As ranking member Obey said, ``This bill puts forth systematic disinvestment in education, health, seniors, children, women, and the list goes on. Specifically, I would like to talk about the disastrous effects of zero funding the Healthy Start Infant Mortality Prevention Program. By eliminating funding for Healthy Start, this bill abandons America's children. In New York City, Healthy Start has saved lives. From 1990 to 1994, over 70,000 women and infants have benefited from this program; the infant mortality rate dropped by 38 percent; the rate of late or no prenatal care fell 32 percent; and the number of low birth-weight babies went down. We also know that Healthy Start is responsible for saving precious Medicaid dollars by producing healthier babies. Mr. Chairman, if we refuse basic health care to our newborns, what kind of priorities have we set? If we turn our backs on young mothers-to-be what kind of example have we set? If we don't prove that we care about giving every newborn baby the opportunity to have a Healthy Start, what kind of nation are we? Mr. Chairman, totally defunding Healthy Start is a sad example of a tragic reversal of priorities. No one should support this bill. The Labor/HHS bill cuts any specified funding for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, which funds each State office that trains volunteers who serve as watchdogs over nursing home abuses and serve as advocates for nursing home patients. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand up for the rights of seniors who live in America's nursing homes. Today, the war on America's seniors continues as the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program faces elimination by this Congress. Mr. Chairman, New York State's network of 51 countywide ombudsman offices have a trained team of over 500 volunteers who protect seniors who are being abused, neglected, and mistreated in nursing homes in this State alone. Long before this program was created in 1987, we saw rampant abuses in nursing homes--including patients being tied to their beds, drugged, and worse. By creating the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, many of these problems were corrected, but we still have more work to do. In total last year, New York's team of nursing home watchdogs handled over 10,000 complaints from nursing home residents and their advocates--at least 2,000 of them in New York City. For those residents of long-term care facilities who have no one to protect them from mistreatment, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman is their only hope. To eliminate funding for this important program in gross negligence on the part of this Congress. As responsible legislators, we must provide a voice to those who are silenced by abusive conditions in our States' nursing homes.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the parish and school of St. Stanislaus Kostka which is celebrating its centennial year of devoted service to the residents of Brooklyn, NY. As immigrants have continued to flow into the community, St. Stanislaus Kostka has been a vital component in establishing a flourishing neighborhood. St. Stanislaus Kostka Church and school have been at the cornerstone of community revitalization by providing ongoing refuge and education and by continuing to meet the needs of a diverse populace. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor the parish and school of St. Stanislaus Kostka for its 100 years of contributing endless resources and demonstrating tireless dedication to a community that is an inspiration for all to follow. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this tribute to St. Stanislaus Kostka as we celebrate an institution that perseveres in maintaining community cohesion and responsiveness to neighborhood needs.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of my colleagues to a critical program which I am proud to say is based in my New York City district--The March of the Living. The March of the Living is a yearly journey in which thousands of Jewish teenagers gather from around the world in Poland and in Israel. During this unforgettable trip, these young people learn first hand about two 20th century events that changed the history of mankind forever--the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel. While in Poland, March participants tour various cities where there had been vibrant Jewish communities before World War II, including Warsaw, Krakow, and Lublin. After seeing communities where Jewish life flourished, the teens are taken to the death camps where these lives were destroyed. The teens participate in a march from Auschwitz to Birkenau on Holocaust Memorial Day, the same day that Members of Congress gather in the Capitol Rotunda to honor the memory of those who were murdered in this genocide. I believe that this ``march of the living''--young people retracing the steps of countless innocent victims who marched to their deaths--is one of the most creative and meaningful Holocaust remembrance programs ever enacted. After showing the world that they will never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, the teenagers travel to Israel, where they visit the magnificent and vibrant Jewish homeland. Created out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the State of Israel stands as a great triumph, not only for the Jewish people, but for the cherished ideals of democracy, compassion, and enlightenment. Mr. Speaker, the March of the Living has changed the lives of over 20,000 young people. It has proved to be an effective way of teaching the lessons of the past to our next generation of leaders. At this particular moment in time, I would like to join others in the Congress in appealing to the Government of Austria to become involved in this program. Half a century after the Nazi era, it is in Austria's best interests to show the world that it is committed to Holocaust remembrance and the preservation of Jewish heritage. A few weeks ago, the world was once again saddened to hear former Austrian President Kurt Waldheim's distorted views of World War II and his denial of his own facilitation of war crimes. Waldheim's autobiography, ``The Answer,'' is not the right answer to those who survived the Holocaust and those who lost their loved ones. In my view, this would be an opportune time for Austria to commit itself to participating in the March for the Living. For this nation to assist such a worthy effort to teach the lessons of the Holocaust would be the best answer anyone could give to Kurt Waldheim's tragic assertions. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the March of the Living on its outstanding work. I want to especially praise my constituent Ernest Goldblum for his tireless efforts on this and many other worthy causes, and to thank him for bringing these important issues to my attention.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the National Arts Club's ``50, 75, 100, 125'' program during this past season. This program honors significant institutions in New York City which have celebrated major anniversaries this year. I am proud to offer this tribute at the conclusion of a very successful celebratory season. This year, the National Arts Club, through its Roundtable Committee, sponsored a series of events to recognize major institutions such as the Performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center, the United Nations, the American Academy in Rome, the New York State Bar Association, the American Museum of National History, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I am proud to report that the National Arts Club also honored the International Olympic Committee which celebrated its 100 year anniversary this year. In honor of the International Olympic Committee's anniversary and of the Centennial Games to be held in July, earlier this month, the National Arts Club commemorated the publication of ``The Olympic Image--The First 100 Years.'' The National Arts Club has contributed to the cultural, educational, and diplomatic communities of New York City since its inception in 1898. Through series such as ``50, 75, 100, 125,'' the National Arts Club seeks to reward the efforts of unique institutions making a significant difference in the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in this tribute by rising in honor of the National Arts Club for its celebration of New York City's extraordinary institutions. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if I had been here, I would have risen reluctantly in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], and in support of a 10-percent, $13 million Federal funding for the National Center for Science, Literacy, Education, and Technology at the Museum of Natural History. It was a mere 10-percent funding of a $130 million project that would have expanded science and new technologies into the homes of millions of Americans through all types of fora, not only at the museum but through computers and through the Web. I regret that I was not here to speak in opposition to his amendment, and I am sorry that this has been struck from the budget.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished ranking committee colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], to provide $174 million for new section 8 rental assistance contracts. There is so much talk in this Congress from both sides of the aisle about moving people from welfare to work, but if we deny people the tools to make the transition, we decrease their chances of making the move successfully. We all know that in real dollars housing costs have skyrocketed in the last two generations. That makes it tougher for people who are trying to work their way up the ladder. There are 5.3 million Americans; many of these people are working poor who are paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent or are forced to live in substandard housing for lack of any alternatives. Many of those Americans are young children who are at a greater risk for a host of health and emotional problems, and with these harrowing problems right at our doorstep, only 28 percent of families eligible for section 8 actually receive it, and the average time on a waiting list is 40 months. In New York City it is years. Decent housing is not a luxury, it is a necessity. So, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to back away from a 20-year bipartisan commitment to provide new section 8 rental assistance contracts, and I am pleased that the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has joined us in support of this amendment in a bipartisan spirit. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to continue it. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to end by saying that we are spending multibillions for space station, a motel in the heavens, and we do not have money here on Earth for affordable housing, so I certainly support wholeheartedly this shifting of funds from a motel in space to needed housing here on Earth. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], my colleague and sponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Gramercy Neighborhood Associates which has done so much to improve the quality of life in the Gramercy Park neighborhood of my district. The Gramercy Neighborhood Associates is primarily involved with the area from Park Avenue South to Third Avenue, and from 17th Street to 22d Street. Thanks to the hard work of the staff, members, and sponsors who make all of the association's work possible, GNA has become a model for a community-based organization. GNA works to beautify the neighborhood by holding a clean & green day each spring. Also, the association plants and maintains sidewalk trees and tree-garden fences. GNA keeps in touch with the needs of the neighborhood by holding monthly board of directors meetings at which key local issues of safety, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life are discussed and acted upon. The Gramercy Neighborhood Associates also plays a vital role in the preservation and protection of the Gramercy Park Historic District, and is presently seeking the designation of extensions to the historic district as well as the landmarking of individual buildings of architectural, cultural, or historic merit in the area. I am proud of the hard work that the Gramercy Neighborhood Associates has put into the community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in tribute to the Gramercy Neighborhood Associates and all of the hard work that they have done to improve the qualify of life in our community and throughout the city of New York.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as we speak, gigantic environmentally devastating salvage timber sales are planned or are now taking place in virtually every national forest in the country from Virginia to California, New Hampshire to New Mexico, Alabama to Alaska. This is not only a Pacific Northwest issue. In fact, 90 percent of the logging through the salvage rider is occurring outside the Northwest. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with one of the biggest environmental disasters in decades. Under the salvage program, loggers have cut down healthy green trees in old growth forests. To make matters worse, illegal timber theft has compounded this problem. A March 1996, Los Angeles Times investigation exposed rampant timber theft throughout the salvage logging program. We must stop this lawless logging now and save our national forests. Support the Porter amendment. We must stop this environmental catastrophe.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As a lover of the arts, a New Yorker, and proud Representative of a district which is a center of creativity and innovation, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which cuts the NEH by $12 million, and I also want to voice my deep concern over the intention of this Congress to phase out the NEA and NEH over the next 2 years. Far too few Members of this body protested the $11 billion unwanted increase we gave the Pentagon, but we are hard-pressed to let the NEA and NEH function on their meager budgets of $99.5 million and $110 million, which were already reduced 40 percent this year. This is a dangerous time for all educational establishments as current congressional leadership seeks to slash what Americans pride ourselves on, by placing the NEH and NEA on the chopping block. A recent Harris poll showed that 61 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $5 or more in taxes to support our cultural institutions. Knowing this, I am certain the public would be delighted to continue paying the 38 cents a year it is asked to fund the NEA and NEH at their current levels. Federal support for the NEA and NEH, although a mere token, makes the arts and humanities more accessible to all Americans. Other developed countries in the world understand how cultural institutions impact on the lives of their citizens and their advancement as a nation. Comparatively, Britain spends 3 times, France 10 times, and Germany over 12 times what the United States does. The arts give meaning to our lives while reminding us of our common history as a nation and as a world. Cutting funds to the NEA and NEH closes off access for the people who might stand to benefit the most, including at-risk youth. This relatively small Government investment generates $12 for every $1 it spends, stimulating the economy and creating jobs and at the same time offering our children one less reason to fall prey to despair. The President of the United States, Members from both sides of the aisle, and mayors from all across the country agree on the importance of the arts and humanities. In fact, 187 mayors sent a letter reminding Congress and the President, that, quote, ``funding this country's cultural resources is clearly woven into the federal government's broad national mandate'' and that the ``arts are critical to the quality of life and livability of our cities.'' Have the courage and insight to stop the further slashing of funds for these essential cultural organizations which we all know benefit our children while benefiting our economy in numerous ways.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, I am proud to be the ranking Democratic sponsor of H.R. 3184, the companion bill to S. 1579, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. I would like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], for the bipartisan spirit with which he has approached and worked on this legislation and for his leadership on this legislation. This legislation builds on the Single Audit Act of 1984, which replaced the inefficient, cumbersome, multiple grant-by-grant audits of Federal assistance programs with an annual entity-wide audit, greatly simplifying and improving the system. H.R. 3184's major reforms would enhance audit coverage; reduce administrative burdens; increase effectiveness by establishing a risk- based approach for selecting programs for audit, as opposed to auditing every single program; thereby focusing resources where they are most needed; improve reporting and simplify reporting; and increase administrative flexibility. Today, more than ever, with 20 percent of the Federal budget being passed through to the State and local governments, it is important that we have a good accounting of these funds. In 1960 the Federal Government gave 7 percent of its funds to State and local governments, $7 billion out of $100 billion budget. In 1981, when Congress began discussing the single audit concept, the Federal budget had grown fivefold, but transfers to State and local governments had grown to $95 billion, nearly a 14-fold increase. Today, nearly 20 percent of the Federal budget of $1.5 trillion goes to State and local governments. The Single Audit Act was designed to create a system of accountability for those dollars. Over the last 12 years it has served us well. The Single Audit Act of 1984 addressed a serious problem of accountability. It replaced a system of multiple grant-by-grant audits with a single entitywide audit of all Federal funds. Prior to the act, there were many overlapping, inconsistent and duplicative Federal requirements. The act eliminated this duplication and provided a set of uniform auditing requirements. At the same time, it improved accountability for billions of dollars and reduced the paperwork burden on State and local governments. The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 updates the law and makes needed and necessary changes. The threshold of $100,000 for auditing State and local governments was carefully selected in 1984 to cover 95 percent of all transfers. Because of inflation, that threshold now covers 99 percent of all transfers. This bill raises that threshold to $300,000, returning coverage to the 95 percent level. To increase the administrative flexibility, this bill also gives the director of the Office of Management and Budget the authority to adjust the threshold for future inflation. Currently, institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations of higher education and other nonprofit organizations receiving Federal funds are audited under executive authority. These amendments will codify the audit requirements for those entities. It is important to note that this bill also makes the results of these audits more useful to the officials responsible for overseeing Federal funds. The bill calls for more timely reports, reducing the time from 13 months to 9, and reports that emphasize the auditor's conclusions, the quality of internal controls, and the continuing interest of the Federal Government. This bill has been negotiated over the last year to address the concerns of a number of interested parties. The success of those negotiations is reflected in the wide support that the bill enjoys. In addition to bipartisan sponsorship in the House and Senate, the bill is endorsed by the National State Auditors Association and the administration. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David and Esther Smith, two of the most active, vibrant, and progressive activists ever to hit our neighborhoods and New York Democratic affairs. I am proud to announce that David and Esther Smith are being honored tonight at the annual dinner of the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club. For three decades David has been part of the cooperative movement. He has served as president of Penn South Co-op for more than 20 years. His services, however, goes beyond Penn South. He has reached out to help other cooperatives and has strengthened the entire U.S. cooperative movement through his incredible volunteer efforts. One of his most gratifying experiences was spearheading the successful campaign to keep Penn South a viable middle-income cooperative. From the age of 18, David has devoted his life to the promotion of human rights and to progressive causes. Meanwhile, Esther has been a force in Democratic politics. She served on the Democratic State Committee for more than 20 years, and was the chair of the reform caucus for 8 years. Presently Esther is a member of the Democratic National Committee. As a community activist, Esther served on Community Board No. 5 for 6 years on its housing and human services committee. All her life she has been a civil rights activist and a vocal and active proponent of the progressive principles of the Democratic Party. Esther is never afraid to speak out on issues she believes in, regardless of their popularity. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in honor of David and Esther Smith, who deserve great praise for their many years of service to the city of New York.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a beloved constituent, Bill Sicklick. Today, the Gouverneur Hospital Nursing Facility Diagnostic and Treatment Center in my district is dedicating a new conference area to be named the William ``Bill'' Sicklick Conference Room. This room could not be dedicated to a more worthy person. Bill Sicklick died on April 25, 1995, and his passing affected the Grand Street Cooperative Village immensely. During the years he lived among us, he was a beloved husband, father, grandfather, son-in-law, neighbor, and friend. He walked our streets looking out for his neighbors as an auxiliary policeman, and he rose to become an officer of this group, earning the respect and admiration of the New York Police Department and fellow auxiliary members. Bill also served on community planning board three for almost 25 years where he was elected as both vice chair and secretary. Despite all of his other community service positions, Bill's fondest service was the 20 years he served as a member and chairperson of the skilled nursing facility committee of the Gouverneur Community Advisory Board. He loved the patients, and they loved him. He served them well-- taking them for walks in their wheelchairs, dropping by to chat, and keeping an eye out to see that all was well in the SNF unit. Bill Sicklick was well known for his dedication and commitment to Gouverneur Hospital, its patients, and the Lower East Side community. It is only fitting that a room in this hospital should bear his name. I respectfully urge my colleagues to take a moment today to remember Bill Sicklick--a man who represented everything that is noble about community service.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Brooklyn Hospital Center's 1996 Founders Ball and the awardees being honored. The Brooklyn Hospital Center has provided a tremendous service to the residents of Brooklyn and the awardees are deserving of special recognition for their commitment and dedication to the residents of Brooklyn. The Brooklyn Hospital Center has provided outstanding care for the residents of Brooklyn for 150 years. It is committed to maintaining its position as a leader in health care delivery and medical education. One of its more recent contributions has been to take a lead in the development of the Brooklyn Health Network, a borough-wide coalition of local health care and related service providers. The Hospital Center has also distinguished among this coalition as having the largest complement of primary care physicians of any hospital in Brooklyn. This enables them to work with medical staff and physician groups to develop structures which both allow incentives and create physician support. In this way, the Brooklyn Hospital Center can continue to provide excellent care to the residents of Brooklyn. The Walter E. Reed Medal will be awarded to two physicians at the 1996 Founders Ball by the Brooklyn Hospital Center in recognition of clinical excellence and commitment to the community and the Hospital Center. I am proud to announce that one medal will be awarded to Paul Finkelstein, M.D., Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Urology and Hospital Center trustee. Dr. Finkelstein is a native of Brooklyn and has been a physician for 45 years. He was a practicing physician with the Brooklyn Hospital Center from 1956 until 3 years ago, but I am pleased to report that he remains actively involved in the Hospital Center as a member of the Board of Trustees. I am also proud to announce that Eugenie Fribourg, M.D., is the second recipient of the Walter E. Reed Medal. Dr. Fribourg, also a native of Brooklyn was a family practitioner on the Hospital Center staff for 45 years. While she no longer practices medicine, I am happy to say she continues to be actively involved in several national medical associations. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to both Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Fribourg for their dedication and commitment in providing medical care to the residents of Brooklyn. They exemplify the goals of the Hospital Center itself. I ask my colleagues to join me in this tribute to the awardees and the Brooklyn Hospital Center for many, many years of outstanding service. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. With the passage of this amendment, the House of Representatives will stand up for a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy, that countries who block United States humanitarian aid cannot expect to receive our assistance themselves. With this amendment, the House will send an unmistakable signal to Turkey that we will not tolerate its appalling human rights record and recent hostile behavior in the region. And, yes, with this amendment we are respectfully telling President Clinton, with whom I usually agree on foreign policy, that his waiver of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act was ill-advised. Mr. Chairman, I am a proud Representative of a large Armenian- American, Cypriot-American and Greek-American community in New York City. At meeting after meeting in my district, I have heard stories firsthand about the tragic personal losses of life, of torture, murder and missing relatives that have been inflicted by Turkish authorities. I have spoken with constituents who as young children survived the Armenian genocide, only to face the indignity of consistent Turkish denial of this catastrophe. My Armenian-American constituents can only watch in horror as Turkey continues its unlawful, cruel and immoral embargo of their homeland, causing the human suffering in Armenia to worsen day by day. Mr. Chairman, as the cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I have stood on this floor many times in recent months to highlight Turkey's flagrant disregard for human rights and international law. With this record, Turkey is not a suitable recipient of United States economic aid. We cannot give aid to one country and then allow them to cut off humanitarian aid to another. With this amendment and its likely cutoff of economic aid to Turkey, our message will be strong and forceful. The illegal occupation of northern Cyprus must end. Turkish illegal actions and lack of support for the proposed demilitarization of this beautiful island of Cyprus must end. The foot dragging over the final fate of the missing Greek Cypriots and Americans must end. For my colleagues who are not aware of the depth of suffering brought on by the 1974 invasion, I invite them to Astoria, Queens, in my district, where they will meet dozens of people who have not heard a word about their loved ones in over 22 years. With this amendment, we are also telling Turkey that its brutal war on the Kurdish minority is an outrageous affront to human decency. With this amendment, we register our profound dismay at Turkey's recent aggressive actions in the Aegean which challenge the internationally recognized sovereignty of our friend and ally, Greece. Mr. Chairman, it is not easy for me to support an amendment which overturns a foreign policy decision of President Clinton, but in this case we simply have no choice. Turkey's record on human rights and international law deserves our strongest condemnation. The last thing Turkey deserves is over $20 million in United States taxpayer dollars. As a matter of fundamental respect to the most profound and sincere policy objectives of this Nation, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana appears to have a noble purpose--to focus the attention of the House on human rights abuses. But despite his intentions, the amendment will do great harm to the very people it purports to help. And the timing of the amendment could not be worse. Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past. Yes, there are still incidents. But this nation--this democracy--has taken exceptionally strong steps forward. India's Human Rights Commission, headed by the former Supreme Court Justice, has been hailed by the State Department for its ``significant progress in resolving human rights problems.'' Freezing developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor in India. The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives of India's newly elected Prime Minister to improve the living conditions of the country's poorest citizens. And finally, this amendment would be an enormous blow to United States-Indian relations at the very moment when we should be strengthening ties between our two democracies. India just completed a historic election. Nearly a tenth of the entire population of the globe went to the polls in what the New York Times' William Safire called ``the most breathtaking example of government by people in the history of the world.'' This momentous free and fair election must be rewarded. It must be held out as a shining example of how democracy can work. We must not pass a punitive anti-India amendment on the heels of this election. United States-India relations are strong. American businesses are flourishing in India. Let's send the world's most populous democracy the right message. Let's vote for progress in India. Let's vote for democracy. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Burton amendment.