Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, a large majority of the American people support a woman's right to choose. But the radical right in Congress wants to deny U.S. service people the same freedoms they enjoy in the United States, the freedom to pay out of their own pockets to have an abortion. Legal or not, American women will exercise their right to choose. Don't force service people and their families into dangerous black market abortions overseas. This is senseless public policy. For the health, safety and freedom of those who serve our country, support the DeLauro amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly discuss the amendment-- included in the en bloc amendment--of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. Mr. Speaker, although the Civilian Marksmanship Program is but a minuscule piece of the Federal Government, I think this is a historic occasion. It is noteworthy because as the leading opponent of the Civilian Marksmanship Program in Congress over the past 3 years, I now support much of what the leading proponents are trying to do--change and reform this long out-dated program. My colleagues, it has taken 92 years to begin to do the right thing. Founded in 1903 after the Spanish-American War, the program was intended to teach our new recruits how to shoot straight. We won that War. And it is long past time to declare victory and get rid of this program. But for nearly a century, U.S. taxpayers were called upon to spend their money--last year it was $2.5 million--on a program which the Department of Defense said serves absolutely no military purpose. Instead, the program gives away 40 million rounds of free ammunition, along with cut-rate guns to rifle clubs to use in target practice competitions. It simply make no fiscal or military sense. And lately, the Civilian Marksmanship Program took on a more sinister appearance, which the gentleman's amendment acknowledges. Investigative reporting uncovered clear links between participants in this program and extremist militias. I am pleased that Mr. Gillmor's proposal moves us in the right direction on a number of these issues. First and foremost, the annual $2.5 million giveaway of taxpayer money is gone. The program will cease to be an instrument of the military--where it serves absolutely no purpose--and instead will become a private nonprofit corporation associated with the U.S. Olympic Committee. I have always stated that I have no problem with teaching rifle safety and sharpshooting. But I consistently objected to the taxpayers footing the bill under the guise of military preparedness. Mr. Speaker, I do have some very serious concerns about the amendment. I am not at all comfortable with its provision to turn over an inventory of 70,000 M-1 rifles to the new corporation, and to allow a new type of weapon--.22 caliber rifles--to be sold as well. It seems to me that we need less, not more, excess Government weaponry spread around our country. I will be watching this program very closely over the coming months to ensure that these weapons are not being abused. As troubled as I am by this provision, it is clear that the gentleman from Ohio has the votes, and he and my friend from Texas, Chet Edwards, have made a good faith effort to reform this pork-ridden boondoggle. The amendment, while not perfect, it a vast improvement over current law.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend in New Hampshire, a shake of hands promised to shake up a system in dire need of shaking up. With a handshake, the President and the Speaker implicitly endorsed a bill that Representatives Johnson, Meehan, and I introduced earlier this year to reform campaign finance laws. For 20 years, Congress has failed miserably in its efforts to reform Federal elections, to level the playing field between challengers and incumbents. Americans want elections instead of auctions. Our bill is modeled closely after the law which created the military base closing commission. The commission would be mandated to examine all key principles of campaign finance reform. The commission would present Congress with a bill for a straight up- or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, it is time to turn the promise of a handshake into the reality of law.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Collins amendment. This amendment preserves the standard of full and open competition in Federal procurement, but it does so while adding needed reforms to the process, which bring Government acquisition closer to commercial buying practices. Full and open competition is at the heart of the free-market system. In the Federal procurement process, it guarantees that the Government gets the best value for the goods and services that it purchases. The full and open competition standard has been law for over a decade. It was enacted as part of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. That bill was a response to the fraud and abuse which characterized Federal procurement at the time. We all are familiar with the scandals of the late 1970's, the $1,000 hammers, the $500 scarves. Chairman Clinger's amendment would replace the full and open competition standard with something called maximum practicable competition. What is that? In fact, not one witness at the only hearing held on the legislation could define what maximum practicable competition meant. I find this lack of definition extremely troubling. How can we debate something when we do not even know what it means? Mr. Edward Black at our hearing on this amendment called this lack of definition, and I quote, ``a breeding ground for litigation.'' Which is hardly simplified procedure. Doing business with only a few well-known firms is certainly easier than considering all responsible sources, but such a system would certainly cost the American taxpayer money in the form of higher prices. Adopting the proposed standard of maximum practicable competition would also make it much harder for small businesses to compete for Government contracts. Small businesses make up the heart of our economy, generating 85 percent of all new jobs. Putting small businesses at a disadvantage in the Federal procurement system is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I share the chairman's commitment to modernize and streamline the procurement process, and I share his desire to dramatically improve the way the Federal Government spends more than $200 billion of the taxpayers' dollars in private contracts. But there are at least two fundamental problems with the substance of this amendment. First, it would weaken the requirement for full and open competition for Federal contracts, which has been Federal law since 1984. These requirements are the taxpayers' best protection against waste, fraud, and abuse. That the Clinger amendment weakens these taxpayer protections is extremely disturbing. The inspector general of the Department of Defense agrees with my objections and so stated in a letter to the chairman dated yesterday, and I am including that letter at this point in the Record, as follows: Inspector General, Department of Defense, Arlington, VA, June 13, 1995. Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Although we recently provided the Department our views on H.R. 1670, ``Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995,'' the enclosed comments on sections we support or find troublesome are forwarded for your consideration. We were especially troubled by proposals in Sections 201 and 203 to reduce the number of contracts subject to the Truth In Negotiations Act. The proposals reduce the ability of contracting officers to ensure the Government receives a fair price for items purchased on noncompetitive contracts. I hope the information is helpful as the Congress continues consideration of this important issue. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John R. Crane, Office of Congressional Liaison, at (703) 604-8324. Sincerely, Eleanor Hill, Inspector General. Inspector General, Department of Defense, Comments on H.R. 1670, Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 Section 101, Improvement of Competition Requirements. Subsections (a) and (b) would amend 10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 253, respectively, to establish a statutory preference for the use of ``maximum practicable competition'' rather than ``full and open competition.'' The proposed amendments would eliminate the statutory exceptions to competition and authorize DoD and civilian agencies to exclude a particular source in order to establish or maintain an alternative source of supply for a particular item or service. The proposed amendments further provide that when noncompetitive procedures are used to procure an item or service, the procurement shall be justified in writing and approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. We disagree with the proposed amendments. Contracting officers have flexibility to exercise sound business judgment under the current statute in determining the appropriate acquisition strategy for a procurement. There is no preference for sealed bids. Further, there are legitimate reasons, which the current statutes identify, that preclude the use of competition for some contracts. The exceptions were included in the statutes because in some agencies, there was an institutional bias against competition or a proclivity for sole-source contracting. We believe that the exceptions to competition should be retained in the statute to avoid abuse of sole-source contracting. Subsection (c) would amend 41 U.S.C. 416 to eliminate differences in requirements for publicizing procurements between DoD and civilian agencies and the requirement that contracting officers consider each responsive offer that is received. We support amending the statute to establish uniform procurement notice requirements for DoD and civilian agencies. We do not support deleting the requirement that contracting officers consider all responsive offers. The purpose of the preaward notice is to open competition to all offerers who can meet an agency's needs. Subsection (d) would amend 15 U.S.C. 637 to delete provisions that duplicate 41 U.S.C. 416. We support the amendment. Subsection (e) would amend 41 U.S.C. 414 to incorporate the proposed statutory preference for ``maximum practicable competition'' in the executive agency responsibilities. It would also amend 41 U.S.C. 418 to delete the reference to the date of enactment of the Competition in Contracting Act. We do not support the amendment of 41 U.S.C. 414 for the reasons discussed above in Subsections (a) and (b). Also, competition is not a procurement procedure, but an objective that a procedure is designed to attain. Therefore, the word ``achieve'' is preferable to ``promote.'' We do not object to the proposed amendment of 41 U.S.C. 418. As an alternative, we like the words in Section 1012 of S. 669, ``Federal Acquisition Improvement Act'' that amend 10 U.S.C. 2305(b) and allow the contracting officer to limit competition to the top 3 contractors bids. The provision allows all contractors to compete initially and then narrows the field. Section 102, Definition Relating to Competition Requirements. The section would amend 41 U.S.C. 403 to replace the definition of ``full and open competition'' with ``maximum practicable competiton'' and make and 41. We do not support the amendment. The current statutory preference for ``full and open competition'' requires contracting officers to use competitive procedures to the maximum extent practical. Also, see previous comments on Section 101. Section 103, Contract Solicitation Amendments. The section would amend 10 U.S.C. 2305 to delete the provision stating that specifications included in contracts shall permit full and open competition and will include restrictive provisions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law. Specifications express agency needs and serve as the baseline for the evaluation of offers. The current language was included in the statute because agencies used specifications to restrict competition by unnecessarily defining their needs too narrowly. Thus, we do not support the change. Section 104, Preaward Debriefings. We agree with the proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2305(b) to clarify the policy for debriefing unsuccessful offerers prior to the award of a contract. The change may also eliminate some needless protests. The contracting officer should have discretion whether a debriefing is required, particularly, for actions that do not involve significant judgments about factors other than price. Section 105, Contract Types. The section would amend 10 U.S.C. 2306 to delete the prohibition on payment of contingency fees to obtain contracts; the 15 percent fee limit on performing cost-plus-a-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract for experimental, developmental, research work; the 10 percent fee limit for any other CPFF contract; the 6 percent fee limit for performing a CPFF contract for architectural or engineering (A&E) services; the requirement under cost reimbursable contracts for the prime contractor to provide notice of certain subcontract awards; and references to Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA) provisions and multiyear contracting authority. We do not support deleting the prohibition on payment of contingency fees or the elimination of the limits on fees on CPFF and architectural or engineering contracts. As a matter of public policy, contractors should not pay contingency fees to someone for soliciting or brokering for them to obtain Federal contracts. We disagree with deletion of the 6 percent fee limitation for a CPFF contract for architectural or engineering services. The statute serves its intended purpose because it limits how much the DoD can spend designing projects and prevents overspending on design efforts to the detriment of actual construction. The statute also helps to limit the Government's risk of investing in an expensive design for a project. We have audited hundreds of military construction projects and have never seen a lack of competition for the design work or higher construction prices due to the fee limits. We also disagree with the proposed elimination of the 15 percent and 10 percent fee limits. The fee limitations provide a reasonable framework for the contracting officer to use in negotiating CPFF contracts and still allow the contracting officer flexibility to reward contractors according to different risk situations. Contractors have less financial risk on level-of-effort and completion type CPFF contracts than any of the other contract types. Eliminating the statutory limitations on fees for CPFF contracts would likely result in varying interpretations by contracting officers and higher fees on some CPFF contracts. Also, contracting officers often apply the 10 and 15 percent limitations to maximum fees on cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) and cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts. In 1993, there were $112 billion in contracts by the DoD and $47.7 billion (42 percent) were cost-type contracts, of which $16.6 billion (14 percent) were CPFF contracts. Thus, a lot of contracts will be affected. The Section 800 Panel recommended eliminating the 6 percent limitation for architectural and engineering contracts but did not recommend eliminating the other fee limitations. We have no objection to deleting the references to the TINA provisions or multiyear contracting authority since the provisions are in other statutes. Section 106, Contractor Performance. The section would add a new Section 35 to 41 U.S.C. 401, et seq., that provides for a contractor verification system for the procurement of particular property or services that are procured by executive agencies on a repetitive basis. Procedures for the system would be defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The section would also repeal 10 U.S.C. 2319, which provides policies on encouragement of new contractors and qualification requirements. We do not support the proposed change to eliminate the qualification requirements. Allowing new contractors to qualify helps competition in contracting, reduces costs, enhances industry responsiveness, and maintains integrity in the expenditure of public funds by ensuring that contracts are awarded on the basis of merit rather than favoritism. Under the current statute, contracting officers should also consider quality of product and contractor performance in addition to price before awarding a contract. This proposal goes away from trying to add new vendors to DoD supplier lists and appears to limit suppliers to the past DoD contractors. Section 201. Commercial Item Exception to Requirement for Cost or Pricing Data and Information Limits. We disagree with the proposed change to the TINA, 10 U.S.C. 2306a (b)(1)(A), which deletes the section that allows the use of established catalog or market prices of commercial items that are sold in substantial quantities to the general public as an exception to the requirement for cost or pricing data. The proposed change allows the exception under (B), which is for acquisition of a commercial item. Placing the exception under commercial items allows the exception without first determining whether enough information is available to determine whether the item is actually commercial and the fairness and reasonableness of the contractor's proposed price for the exempted commercial item. Section 1204 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) recently amended 10 U.S.C. 2306a (d)(2)(B) to allow a commercial item exemption when contracting officers are able to obtain information on prices for which the same or similar items were sold in the commercial marketplace to determine price reasonableness. We disagree with the proposed rule that would allow an exemption simply because the definition of commercial item is met. Without restrictions to only allow the exemption after the fairness of the proposed price has been determined, there are no control mechanisms to prevent the Government from being overcharged. The proposed change in this Bill to Section 2306(c) of 10 U.S.C. would eliminate the right of the head of the procuring activity to request cost or pricing data because the item is now called commercial. The proposed change to Section 2306a(d) of 10 U.S.C. would eliminate the right for contracting officer to request limited data for commercial items and for auditors to have 2 years after award of the contract to audit the data. The proposed change also eliminates 10 U.S.C. 2306a(h), which states the FAR will contain provisions on the types of information a contracting officer can request to be submitted to determine if a price is reasonable when the procurement is under $500,000. We disagree with the changes, which create intolerable loopholes to the TINA. The FASA changes enacted last year to allow the current 10 U.S.C. 2306a exemption for commercial items has not yet been implemented and its effect cannot be judged. Also, the ability to request limited data for commercial items and allow 2-year audit rights was placed in the FASA as a compromise last year to allow for limited tests or reviews, without penalties to contractors, to determine whether fair prices were being received under the commercial item exemption. Without this audit provision, there is no way to evaluate properly the FASA change related to commercial items. We believe that changing the provision of a law designed to streamline the purchase of commercial items before the law has been implemented is premature. The Defense Contract Audit Agency and this office identified $2,017 million in FY 1994 in direct monetary benefits related to the TINA. Those benefits were from identified contract over-pricing that resulted in price reductions or administrative and criminal collections for overpricing. The Coopers and Lybrand/TASC study on contract cost drivers stated that TINA adds about 1.3 percent to contract costs. If this cost driver estimate is near accurate, then TINA added about $660 million in costs to DoD contracts in FY 1994, but there were $2 billion in benefits. This is a benefit to cost ration of 3 to 1. However, the greatest benefits from TINA are intangible, and we cannot estimate the intangible but positive effect of the TINA on keeping contract prices fair for the Government. Just the fact that the law exists and there are audit and investigative agencies creates an atmosphere of voluntary contract compliance. Section 202. Application of Simplified Procedures to Commercial Items. The proposed change to 10 U.S.C. 2304(e)(1) would amend Sections 101 (a) and (b) of this Bill to specify that simplified acquisition procedures may be used for purchases of commercial items regardless of dollar value. The section would also amend 41 U.S.C. 416, as amended by Section 101(c), to conform notice requirements for commercial items to the use of simplified procedures. We strongly support the concept of making the purchase of commercial items easier. The Deputy Inspector General, DoD, testified last year that because of the restrictive acquisition laws, the Department purchased very limited quantities of common commercial items, such as clothing and textiles, wood products, meat and seafoods from the top 10 commercial producers. The Department purchased these commercial items from smaller companies that specialized in satisfying the Department's acquisition rules and selling to the Department. To really reduce costs, you need to exempt commercial item purchases from all Buy- American, small business and other socioeconomic statutes. Section 203. Amendment to Definition of Commercial Items. We disagree with the proposed change. As written in Part (F) of the FASA (41 U.S.C. 422(f)(2)), the procurement of commercial services is limited to established catalog prices for the services. At present, the statute Part (E) provides for acquisition of installation, maintenance, repair and training services as commercial services. The proposed change in Part (F) allows a definition of commercial services as services based on established prices. There is no definition of ``established prices,'' and the terms are much broader than the current terms ``established catalog prices.'' The new [[Page H5928]] terms could result in almost any service fitting that description and, thus, being considered a commercial product. Established prices may merely represent prices traditionally offered the Government and may not reflect lower prices offered affiliates and commercial customers for sales of like quantities under similar terms and conditions. Unless the prices for the specific tasks are published in a catalog, the Government would be unable to determine whether standard commercial terms, conditions and prices are offered. According to a March 1993 OMB report, service contract costs were $103 billion for the Government and $61 billion in the DoD for 1993. The proposed change would permit the acquisition of all professional and technical services as a commercial service and exempt $100 billion of service contracts from contracting officer and auditor requests for a contractor's catalog, pricing data or cost data to perform pricing or cost analyses. Without any restrictions or exclusions, the language is too broad and is very likely to result in increased prices and a reduction in competition. The DoD has not yet implemented the (D) and (F) provisions of the FASA to judge their effect. We believe it is too early to change a provision of law designed to streamline the purchase of services before the law has been implemented. Section 204, Inapplicability of Cost Accounting Standards to Contracts and Subcontracts for Commercial Items. We disagree with excluding the requirement to comply with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) if the contract for commercial items provides for Government financing through progress payments or public vouchers. In order to receive financing, the contractor must demonstrate that his accounting practices adequately assign costs to contracts. Therefore, any contract for commercial items that provides for Government financing should include the provisions of the CAS. Section 301, Government Reliance on the Private Sector. The section would add a Section 17 to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act that states it is the policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply its needs. We have no objection to the amendment. The policy is already stated in Executive Order and administrative regulations (Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76). Section 302, Elimination of Certain Certification Requirements. We do not agree with the proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2410 to delete the certification requirement for contractor requests for equitable adjustment and relief under Public Law 85-804. The claims are subject to audit and inaccurate, incomplete or misleading data could be a basis for denial of the claim and other sanctions. We also do not agree with the proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2410b to delete the certification for contractor inventory accounting systems. Contractor representations are one of the basis that help DoD personnel decide whether to reduce the need for systems audits to establish whether the systems meet standards. We do not object to the amendment of 31 U.S.C. 1352(b)(2) to delete the certification requirement regarding the prohibition on use of appropriated funds for lobbying (Byrd Amendment) and 41 U.S.C. 701 to delete the certification requirement from the Drug-Free Workplace Act. We do not support the proposed requirement in subsection (b) that not later than 210 days after the date of the enactment of the Act, any certification required of contractors or offerers by the FAR that is not specifically imposed by statute would be removed from the FAR or such agency regulation unless written justification for such certification is provided to the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) by the FAR Council and the Administrator approves in writing the retention of the certification. Instead, we support a provision that would vest agency heads with nondelegatable authority to decide when agencies may impose such certifications. We believe there is a need for certifications from contractors where funds or safety are involved because they enhance the efficiency and trust in the contracting process. Section 303, Amendment to Commencement and Expiration of Authority to conduct Certain Tests of Procurement Procedures. The change is to subsection (j) of Section 5061 of the FASA. Section 5061 covers the OFPP Test Program for Executive Agencies. The OFPP test programs were limited by the FASA to under $100 million in procurements, allowed OFPP to test innovative procurement polices, and waive any nonstatutory rule in the FAR and 13 statutes. Subsection (j) does not allow use of the test programs in any agency until the agency certifies to Congress full Federal Acquisition computer Network (FACNET) capability. We agree with the change because it allows use of the test programs prior to full Facnet capability. The DoD does not project obtaining full FACNET capability until late 1997. Section 304, International Competitiveness. The proposed change deletes the requirement for recoupment of a proportionate amount of nonrecurring costs for research, development and production of major defense equipment. The premise is that doing so will facilitate the transfer of technology between Government and commercial markets; aid integration of contractor's Government and commercial operations; increase U.S. competitiveness in worldwide markets; and enhance national security by preserving the industrial base. We disagree with the change and offer an alternative. The current law and regulations allow the change to be waived if the charge is an impediment to the sale. Requests for waivers are invariably granted. Some personnel refer to the charge as a tax when, in fact, it is a refund to the U.S. Treasury of a proportionate amount of research and development funds provided to the contractor to develop the item. The nonrecurring cost collections added about $181 million to the U.S. Treasury in FY 1994 and the Defense Security Assistance Agency projects that an additional $1 billion will be collected during FYs 1995 to 2000. If the provision of noncollection applies to only new sales, then $148 million ($25 million in 1998, $48 million in 1999 and $70 million in 2000) of the $1 billion will not be collected during these years. However, between 2001 and 2005, nothing will be collected. If recoupments are stopped, another source of revenue will be needed to offset the noncollection. It has also been stated that repeal is needed to improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies selling military hardware. Recent sales figures show that in 1993 the U.S. accounted for 53 percent of all military hardware sold to other nations. During the 1991 to 1993 period, the U.S. supplied about $34 billion of military equipment to foreign countries and all other nations combined provided $34 billion. Since the U.S. sales of military hardware exceed all other countries combined, there is no need for additional across-the-aboard help when it can be done through waivers, on a case-by-case basis, to help competitiveness. Section 305, Procurement Integrity. We agree with the proposed repeal of 10 U.S.C. 2397, Employees or former employees of defense contractors: reports; 10 U.S.C. 2397a, Requirements relating to private employment contacts between certain Department of Defense procurement officials and Defense contractors; 10 U.S.C. 2397b, certain former Department of Defense procurement officials: limitations on employment by contractors; 10 U.S.C. 2397c, Defense contractors: requirements concerning former Department of Defense officials; and 18 U.S.C. 281, Restrictions on retired military officers regarding certain matters affecting the Government. The provisions of Title 10 relate solely to the Department of Defense and impose various post-employment restrictions and reporting requirements. The provision of Title 18 imposes criminal penalties for violations of post- employment restrictions by retired military officers. It is currently suspended. The complexity of the current restrictions have frustrated the ability of the contracting work force--in Government and industry--to abide by them The current statutory certification requirements are unlikely to deter conduct to be proscribed. Moreover, the certifications create considerable administrative burden. Section 306, Further Acquisition Streamlining Provisions. We do not support amending 41 U.S.C. 404 to define the purpose of the OFPP and repealing 41 U.S.C. 401 and 402, which currently define the purpose and responsibilities of the OFPP. The change replaces specific language with vague, general language and we see no benefit to the change. We also disagree with the repeal of the reporting requirement in 41 U.S.C. 407(a), which requires the Administrator of OFPP submit an annual report to the Congress on the major activities of his office. We believe this requirement should be retained because it assists the Congress in carrying out its oversight responsibilities. We agree with the repeal 41 U.S.C. 407(b), which requires the Administrator to transmit a report to the Congress on proposed policies and regulations. Repeal would reduce the administrative burden created by this reporting requirement. We agree with repeal of the obsolete provisions in 41 U.S.C. 409 and 410, which cover the 1983 appropriations and rules for the OFPP. Section 401-452, Establishment of the United States Board of Contract Appeals. The new consolidated Board will be established in the executive branch and be composed by judges from all the Boards of Contract Appeal (BCAs) and assistant general counsels from the General Accounting Office (GAO) that now hear bid protests. The proposed change terminates all of the existing BCAs in the different departments. Functions of the new Board include the following: 1. Required to provide alternative disputes resolution services for contract disputes. 2. Adjudicate contract disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). 3. Resolve bid protests through use of the following procedures: may consider all relevant evidence; preponderance of the evidence standard; has authority to suspend procurement pending protest; costs can be paid to U.S. on frivolous protests; successful protestor can be awarded costs; and nonexclusivity of remedies. A contractor can still protest to an agency, a District Court or a Court of Federal Claims. However, it repeals authority of the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) and the GAO to hear protests. We have no opinion on these sections since it is unclear if efficiency or costs savings will result from this proposed legislation, and we have no basis to make such a determination. Second, the Clinger amendment allows a simplified acquisition procedure for the purchase of these so-called commercial products no matter what the dollar value. Last year we passed a landmark bill with bipartisan support that raised the threshold for simplified purchase basic goods like salad dressing or paperclips without undue red tape. This amendment would eliminate the threshold altogether, and while I might, in fact, support raising the threshold, I cannot in good conscience support eliminating the threshold and thereby depriving the taxpayers of the assurance that when it buys a multimillion-dollar product the American people are still getting the best possible product at the best possible price. The Department of Defense's inspector general has strong reservations concerning the Clinger amendment's definitions of commercial items because there is no definition for established prices for commercial services afforded other customers, a determination of lower prices cannot be made and, therefore, may end up costing more for the Government. The IG's concern underscores mine that waiver of full and open competition is available for products and services within the broad spectrum of the term commercial items. The term simplified procedures only tells procurement agents that they need to have competition to the maximum extent practicable. This is a far cry from a requirement for full and open competition when buying a multimillion-dollar item. Waiving a requirement of full and open competition may be fine for small purchases, but I believe that allowing contracting officials to spend as much taxpayer money as they want with limited competition may lead to serious problems. Also of major importance is the process under which we are considering the Clinger amendment on the floor today without a markup or even a committee report explaining the provisions of this legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, when a bill of this magnitude and complexity is brought directly to the floor, it can only raise the suspicion in the minds of the public that we might be trying to push something through that cannot stand the scrutiny of public debate. I am certainly confident that everyone concerned has the best interests of the Nation at heart, but strange procedures like this will lead to questions however unjustified, when the subject is how $200 billion will be spent. Let me be clear that there are many provisions of this amendment that I do support, including those that I drafted to improve the acquisition work force. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and his staff for working closely with the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and myself and for accepting many of our amendments. The acquisition work force, a major thrust, is needed because a major thrust of almost all recent procurement reform is placing more responsibility and decisionmaking power with the front-line procurement official, the contracting officer. But at the same time we are giving more responsibility to those officials, we are also witnessing a significant downsizing of the work force. Therefore, these reform initiatives will be successful only if we have a highly trained and motivated corps of professionals. Currently, there are no professional requirements for contracting officers; in fact, one need not have a college education even though they are making decisions about how to spend millions of taxpayer dollars. For the first time, we will have mandatory qualifications that include a requirement that contracting officers, at a minimum, possess a college degree. But while these changes will make this a better amendment than before, the fact that the Clinger amendment weakens full and open competition for Federal contracts makes it impossible for me to give my support. As I said earlier, the simple fact is that the best protection that the taxpayers have against the danger of waste and corruption in procurement is the requirement that contracts be awarded using competitive procedures. This ensures that the American people get the best product for the lowest price, but by removing the requirement for competition and replacing it with some nebulous definition of ``maximum extent practicable,'' we are only inviting lawsuits and other trouble for the American taxpayer. I will discuss some of these issues further in supporting the amendment which the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will offer to the Clinger amendment to remedy some of these flaws. Under different circumstances and with a few fundamental changes, the Clinger amendment could represent an excellent second step to follow the changes made last year by Congress and those made by Vice President Gore, but until those changes are made, I must oppose the amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to New York's 13th Police Precinct and its valiant efforts on behalf of the Kenmore Hotel, its tenants and the surrounding community. The Kenmore is the largest single room occupancy hotel in New York City. On June 8, 1994, it was seized by the Federal Marshalls and police officers, thereby becoming the largest building ever seized under the Federal Forfeiture Act. During the 9 years prior to its seizure, the Kenmore had steadily fallen into disrepair and become a haven for crime and drugs. The sad fact was that a once great landmark of New York, a place where Nathaniel West and Dashiell Hammett once lived and wrote, had become a crime-ridden residence. Drug dealing, prostitution, robberies, burglaries, and serious assaults are common in the building. The problems of the Kenmore became a source of concern not only to its residents, but to the surrounding community. Due to the efforts of the personnel of the 13th Precinct and, in particular, one community policing officer, Scott Kimmins, major efforts were taken to inform and involve other local and Federal agencies regarding these developments. Officer Kimmins, whose beat included the Kenmore, walked the halls of its 23 floors daily for several years. On July 11, 1994, I was joined in front of the Hotel by Attorney General Janet Reno, New York Governor Mario Cuomo and others to personally honor Officer Kimmins and his colleagues at the 13th Precinct for their courageous efforts in cleaning up the Kenmore. Nearly a year after that auspicious day, the 13th Precinct continues to maintain a presence at the Kenmore, ensuring greater safety for its residents and neighbors. Thanks to Federal intervention and under the auspices of the Federal marshals, the Kenmore is now under new management. Though still far from perfect, conditions are improving. Indeed, I am hopeful that the U.S. Attorney's office will be successful in stripping the current owner of his ownership and reversing this sad chapter in the Kenmore's history. It is because of the extraordinary efforts of Captain Michael Darby, Officer Scott Kimmins, and others at the 13th Precinct that the conditions at the Kenmore have improved so dramatically. Indeed, I am pleased to report that all incidents of drug and non-drug-related crimes, including assaults, have dropped substantially since the seizure. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the 13th Precinct and its officers for their courageous effort to improve conditions at the Kenmore and to make New York City a safer, better place in which to live.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to commend President Clinton for vetoing a bill that took food out of the mouths of children, heat out of the homes of the elderly, and trees out of national forests. The bill cut student loans and summer jobs for young Americans trying to do something with their lives. It used money for those programs to provide timber barons with massive Government subsidies. This is a clear-cut case of clearcutting. The new majority has taken a chain saw to education funding and to our disappearing natural resources. But the President's pen was mightier than the chain saw. His first veto was a defining one. He stuck up for education and the environment. The Republicans stuck up for corporate welfare and environmental destruction. Mr. Speaker, the new majority has passed some awful legislation. I hope the President's veto pen has plenty of ink.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to alert my colleagues to an exciting community development project that has taken place in my district. Mr. Speaker, we are daily confronted with the news of the breakdown of our country's infrastructure, of crumbling communities that have ceased to care. Across this Nation, the most basic city institutions, such as parks and playgrounds, have seriously declined in recent years, as drug dealers and the homeless move in and residents and their children stay away. That's why I think it is important to herald the kind of community action that has resulted in a stunning turnaround for Gen. Douglas MacArthur Playground in New York City. Over the past year, the Turtle Bay Association, with the overwhelming support of neighborhood residents, has effected a revitalization for the embattled playground. The new MacArthur Playground should serve as a shining example to all those who doubt that communities can rally to bring about substantive change. Beginning in 1994, the Turtle Bay Association organized badly needed renovations to the park, such as replacing contaminated sand in the sandbox and repairing damaged park equipment. Recently, the City Parks Foundation donated substantial funds for the construction of a state-of-the-art modular play system. To reduce installation costs, neighborhood residents actually raised money to purchase the equipment themselves. Now MacArthur Playground stands ready for its official ribbon-cutting ceremony on June 6th, a monument to community action as well as an oasis for hundreds of children and their parents. The Turtle Bay Association and local residents should be commended for their devotion to this extremely worthy project. Richard and Amy Harary, and David and Susan Post Jensen in particular deserve special recognition and thanks for their efforts to turn MacArthur Playground around. I would also like to salute 860 and 870 UN Plaza, Chemical Bank, The Family School, Post Jensen Inc., Richard's Interior Design, the City Parks Foundation, and the Tenants of 301 East 47th Street. Finally, local merchants who donated food for volunteers at the project deserved recognition for their generous part in this revitalization. These people and organizations are a reminder to us all that urban decline is not irreversible, that caring neighbors can effect a world of good. They give us hope for the future of our troubled cities. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report such good news to my colleagues, and to be able to congratulate all those who made it possible for New York's children to play in MacArthur Playground again. I am confident that their efforts will be enjoyed by generations to come, and I am hopeful that they will inspire others to do the same for their communities.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of America's finest musicians: Morton Gould. Morton Gould ranks among the most prominent members of the American music community. He has attained international recognition as a symphonic composer and conductor; a composer of film, television, Broadway and ballet scores; and recording artist. This year Mr. Gould was recognized with one of the music world's highest honors, the Pulitzer Prize for music composition. This is not, however, the first time that Mr. Gould has been honored in such a way. Mr. Gould's many honors include a Grammy Award and 12 Grammy nominations; the 1983 Gold Baton Award, presented by the American Symphony Orchestra League; and the 1985 Medal of Honor for Music from the National Arts Club. In 1986, Gould was elected to the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, and was presented with the National Music Council's Golden Eagle Award. This past December, he was a Kennedy Center honoree. Morton Gould's music has been commissioned by symphony orchestras all over the United States, as well as by the Library of Congress, the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, The New York City Ballet and the American Ballet Theatre. His compositions have been performed worldwide and by almost every American orchestra, large and small, under the direction of both today's eminent conductors as well as many notable conductors of the past including Arturo Toscanini, Leopold Stokowski, Dimitri Mitropoulos, and Fritz Reiner. On April 30, 1986, he added leadership of the United States foremost performing rights organization to this list of achievements, when he was elected president of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, He has served on ASCAP's board of directors since 1959, and has been a member since 1935. Mr. Speaker, another great American composer, Aaron Copland, once observed, ``The greatest moments of the human spirit may be deduced from the greatest moments in music.'' Morton Gould has spent a lifetime portraying the greatest moments of the human spirit through his music. I am happy to have this opportunity to honor one of this country's greatest musicians, and I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. Gould on receiving the Pulitzer Prize.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 100th birthday of the New York Public Library. The New York Public Library was started during the latter part of the 19th century when several of the city's citizens had the foresight to realize that it was imperative that New York have a great library if it was to become a prominent urban cultural center. Many eminent New Yorkers played an important role in getting the library started, but three in particular stand out: Governor Samuel J. Tilden, John Jacob Astor, and James Lenox. Samuel Tilden bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, approximately $2.4 million to ``establish and maintain a free library and reading room in the city of New York.'' John Jacob Astor left $400,000 in his will to establish a reference library in New York. The Astor Library opened its doors in 1849, becoming a major source for reference and research. James Lenox founded the Lenox Library, consisting primarily of his personal collection of rare books, which included the first Gutenberg Bible to come to the New World. In 1892 the Astor and Lenox Libraries were both experiencing financial difficulties. A trustee of the Tilden Trust, John Bigelow, devised a plan whereby the resources of the Tilden Trust, the Astor Library, and the Lenox Library would be combined to form the Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations--what would become known as the New York Public Library. Dr. John Shaw Billings, considered one of the most brilliant librarians of his day, was named director of this new library. Billings goal was to get the library's resources into the hands of all those who requested them as quickly as possible. He designed what has now become a landmark building, with its Beaux-Arts design and the largest marble structure ever attempted in the United States. The Cornerstone for the library was laid in May 1902, at the same location where this landmark library now stands. In February 1901, the library consolidated with the New York Free Circulating Library and established its circulating department. In construct a system of branch libraries throughout the city. Later that year, the New York Public Library contracted with the city of New York to operate the 39 Carnegie library branches in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. This was the beginning of a tradition of partnership and cooperation between the New York Public Library and the city of New York which continues to this day. With more than a million books in place, the library was officially dedicated on May 23, 1911, by President William Howard Taft, with Governor John Alden Dix and Mayor William J. Gaynor present. The response was overwhelming, with between 30,000 and 50,000 visitors coming through the library on that first day. Today, the New York Public Library is the largest public library system in the country, serving more than 10 million people a year, and over 1.9 million cardholders. There are now four special research libraries: the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center; the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, the Center for the Humanities; and the Science, Industry and Business Library, which will open in its new home at the site of the former B. Altman building during this centennial year. The branch system of the library has grown to include 82 libraries, with collections totaling over 10.5 million items, the collection expanding by approximately 10,000 items a week in dozens of different languages. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the New York Public Library on the occasion of its 100th birthday, and wish it great success as it, ``continues in its mission to inform, inspire, entertain and challenge all who enter its doors--be it between the guardian lions on Fifth Avenue, its 82 branches, or via the information superhighway.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 961, a revision of the Clean Water Act that will for the first time in decades help make the Nation's water dirtier rather than cleaner. I strongly and emphatically opposed this legislation. Sometimes you show what you stand for by what you vote against. This is one of those times. The provisions of H.R. 961 seem to indicate that the new majority has a case of special interest amnesia. Just because a few corporate polluters claim they're overregulated. So the majority willingly forgets the days when our rivers burned, when fish and wildlife floated dead in out lakes and streams, and when our drinking water was in imminent danger of contamination. More than 20 years ago, the Clean Water Act began to remedy that situation. But this week, the new majority voted to gut that landmark law. Mr. Speaker, the implications of this legislation are especially grim for New York City. Thanks to the original Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, New York City's water supply needs no additional purification, a remarkable accomplishment for the largest city in the Nation. But the weakened standards in H.R. 961 on pollution runoff will severely jeopardize the drinking water of the more than 8 million people who live in New York City. The cost to New Yorkers to create a water purification system that we have never needed is estimated at more than $10 billion. Second, just as New York City is about to achieve, at great expense, secondary treatment at all of its sewage treatment plants--including the large Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant located in my district--H.R. 961 relaxes the basic Clean Water Act permitting system to allow more toxic discharges of industrial and sewage waste into New York Harbor. This will not only roll back years of success in making New York Harbor cleaner and safer, but will also negatively impact bodies of water near cities all over the Nation. Third, dredging and disposal of toxic contaminated sediments will be expanded, with far less consideration of health and environmental impacts. This will make it harder to protect the thousands of people who swim and fish in New York Harbor from the negative impacts of ongoing dredging projects in New York Harbor. When is the new majority going to realize that some Government regulations actually do some good? Will we have to wait until we all have to drink from and bathe in bottled water before that realization occurs? I hope not. But this week, the new majority isn't just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They're throwing out the drinking water, too. I hope that as this bill goes to the Senate and to the conference committee, that my colleagues will think about what we drink. I hope that we will not lose this chance to pass a bill that truly deserves the title, ``Clean Water Act.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before my distinguished colleagues today to honor Ms. Loretta Ponticello. Its has been my observation that we are so consumed with the problems and negativism that plague our Nation that we sometimes forget about those who are working to solve these problems. We ignore the heroes who are right in our midst, choosing instead to talk about the the bad news that dominates the news. This situation needs to be corrected. That's why I take this opportunity to honor one of these heroes. She may not be featured in a movie or on television, but there can be little doubt that Loretta Ponticello is a hereo to all who know her. First, let me talk a little bit about Loretta's remarkable business career. By combining her great aptitude for business with a high standard of integrity and diligence, Ms. Ponticello has brought success wherever she has gone. After graduating from the New Jersey College for Woman--now Douglas College--she [[Page E1063]] worked for Chemical Bank in the foreign department. Eventually, Loretta left the bank and went on to become secretary to the president of Cooke International, and import/export firm in New York. Upon leaving Cooke International, Loretta began working for Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. where she will be retiring after 26 years. She began her career at Rosenthal as manager of the International Operations Office in their Foreign Department. Later she joined the Rosenthal Group's Law Department as an administrative manager and legal assistant and after years of service with Rosenthal & Rosenthal was appointed an officer in the company. She is one of the best liked and well respected members of the company, and her fellow workers will be sorry to see her go. Loretta's outstanding achievement in the business world may only be overshadowed by her exemplary work in her community. For over 41 years, Loretta has been an active resident of City & Suburban's York Avenue Estate Landmark. When eviction notices were sent to all tenants of her building, it looked as if Loretta and her neighbors would be forced to leave their homes forever. Her interest in the preservation of historic buildings in New York City persuaded her to lead the fight to make the building a New York City landmark. Loretta helped organize fundraisers, spoke at hearings and met with legislators in New York City and Washington, DC. Her persistence was rewarded when City & Suburban was made an official New York City landmark. Ms. Betty Cooper Wallerstein, chairperson of Coalition to Save the City and Suburban, and Marie Beirne, Tenants Landmark chairperson, both agree that the landmarking of City & Suburban's York Avenue Estate could not have been accomplished without Loretta. Now the Loretta is retiring after 26 years with Rosenthal & Rosenthal she will be able to devote even more time to her community service. She plans to be the keeper of the massive City & Suburban archives and intends to do volunteer work in the field of historic preservation. Ms. Ponticello will also continue her work with the East 79th Street Neighborhood Association, caring and working with the community that she loves. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the heroics of Loretta Ponticello today. I hope that my colleagues will join me in thanking Ms. Ponticello for her ongoing generosity, and wish her a long and happy retirement.

Mr. MALONEY

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the efforts of an extraordinary individual who lives and works in my district, Rob Walsh. Mr. Speaker, too often, the stories of those who make a difference in their communities are drowned out by the tragedies which split our community. Pick up any newspaper on any given day. Headlines will scream of the latest crime; columnists will lament the many foibles of our society. The quieter success stories largely go unreported, unremarked upon. I believe it is critically important that we do a better job of telling the success stories, that we do a better job of being role models for our Nation's youth. I therefore take the House floor today to recognize the efforts of a man who has done so much for so many. I would also like to say that I am extremely pleased that Rob Walsh will be receiving the prestigious Annual Cancer Care Community Service Award this Sunday. Before I go into Bob's many achievements, I want to take a moment to congratulate Cancer Care for its dedication to providing free and comprehensive clinical services, education, and financial assistance to patients and their families at any stage of illness. Cancer Care works cooperatively and effectively with the many hospitals and health institutions in my district and New York in general, to provide critical services to those who are most in need. I cannot say enough about the compassion and commitment of Cancer Care to its mission. I also want to commend Cancer Care on their judgment. Each year, Cancer Care bestows it's Community Service Award to someone who makes significant contributions to the community. This year's recipient will surprise no one who has spent any time over the past 5 years in the 14th Street-Union Square area. In 1989 Rob Walsh became the executive director of the 14th Street- Union Square Local Development Corp. and business improvement district. Rob came prepared. Rob's service in New York City government had been as varied as it was successful. In fact, it seemed that there was no bureau of government which had not benefitted from Rob's considerable energies. He had served in the mayor's office of operations as a voter assistance coordinator, the transportation department, the parks department the personnel department, and the general services department. In addition, Rob has a master's degree in public affairs from Fordham University, where he also relieved his undergraduate degree. Since taking the helm of the 14th Street-Union Square LDC/BID, Rob has overseen unprecedented efforts to revitalize a community which has fallen on hard times. During the 1980's, 14th Street had become a drug infested areas, people by prostitutes, and covered with graffiti. Union Square, once one of New York's greatest public spaces, was now best known for its nickname ``Needle Park.'' Rob Walsh, thankfully, is not a man who shrinks from a challenge. With his remarkable energy, intelligence, and can-do attitude, Rob has led the efforts to turn the neighborhood around. Stop by Union Square on a sunny spring day and you will see the difference. New businesses move into this thriving neighborhood every day. Children and workers on their lunch break pack into beautiful and accessible Union Square. Stuyvesant Square Park is now the kind of well maintained open space that every member of the community can enjoy. The streets are cleaner and safer and there exists the kind of communitywide pride which is so characteristic of the best neighborhoods of New York and any city. As Rob will be the first to say, this turnaround was the product of efforts by hundreds and thousands of caring members of the community. But I am not sure it could have happened without Rob's leadership. As the ``Mayor of Union Square,'' Rob has directed the efforts, and led the battle at the front lines. He can always be found, walking the streets, checking on his latest brainstorms. There is, of course, much work left to be done. But Rob's commitment to the values which make this community great--affordable housing, opportunities for our kids, safe streets, and economic growth--will certainly guide his future efforts in the right direction. I should also point out that Rob also volunteers his time to a number of important groups in our city including New York Cares, the Vanderbilt YMCA, Beth Israel Medical Center community advisory council, Cabrini Medical Center advisory council, NYC Urban Fellows advisory board, Washington Irving High School business advisory council, and the mayor's Voluntary Action Center. And with all of his efforts, Rob remains a devoted husband to his lovely Terry and is a doting father to his beautiful daughter Cara, perhaps the most important job of all. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Cancer Care for giving me this opportunity to tell a true New York success story. Rob Walsh deserves our most sincere thanks for all of his efforts on behalf of his community, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating him at this time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 44th International Convention of the Polish Singers' Alliance of America which will take place in New York City from May 25 through May 28, 1995. As the Representative of one the Nation's strongest and most active Polish-American communities, I am proud to welcome them to New York. Founded in 1889, the Polish Singer's Alliance is dedicated to promoting goodwill and Polish culture by performing the very best in Polish music. Every 3 years the Alliance sponsors a convention for Polish choral groups from all over North America. The convention acts to acquaint the public with the works of Polish composers, and foster a love for a country which has given so much to the rest of the world. This year, the event is being hosted by the District VII of PSAA, based in the New York City metropolitan area, including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. District VII will welcome 33 other singing groups from as far away as Arizona, and Ontario, Canada. Together, over 1,000 people will join together to celebrate the rich history and the promising future of the Polish musical tradition. Judging from past conventions, a high point should be the choral competition. This even provides a unique opportunity for the choruses to demonstrate their talents in Polish classical, religious, and folk music. The theme of this year's convention, Salute Free Poland, is particularly poignant. It honors not only the country's historical contributions to world culture, but recognizes Poland's long struggle to embrace freedom and democracy. Mr. Speaker, I would request my colleagues join me in welcoming the Polish Singers Alliance of America to New York. I thank them for bringing their wonderful music to New York and for keeping this tradition alive for future generations to enjoy.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the sad passing of Hugo DeCiutiis: A great American, a life-long educator, and community activist. Mr. DeCiutiis grew up in Manhattan's Lower East Side until the outbreak of World War II, when he dutifully joined the 8th Army Air Force in England. After the war, Hugo returned home to continue his education; an ongoing pursuit that was destined to encompass the rest of his life. With help from the GI bill, he graduated from City College of New York, Brooklyn College and Adelphi University with three different masters degrees in chemistry, earth science, and education. Convinced that there could be no higher calling than passing his knowledge on to future generations, Mr. DeCiutiis spent the next 32 years in the classroom, teaching chemistry and science at W.T. Clarke High School in Westbury, Long Island. Mr. DeCiutiis' passion and devotion to education did not stop at the classroom door. He was an extremely active member of the Westbury School Board, where he distinguished himself as a tireless advocate for funding for public education. He will always be remembered for his efforts to achieve equitable State funding in public schools. As a former school teacher, I have the highest degree of respect for those who choose to make education their life's work. Mr. DcCiutiis' accomplishments in the field of education exemplify what it means to be to be a teacher, and like all good teachers, he never stopped trying to become a an ever better educator. In addition to his direct involvement with education, Mr. DeCiutiis' was also devoted to the betterment of the entire community. He was a tutor at the Family Services Association of Hempstead, a member of the Westbury Historical Society, NAACP, Central Westbury Civic Association, LIFE--Learning is for Everyone--and co-founded the summer day camp GIFT--Great Ideas For Tomorrow--at the Lutheran High School in Brookville. [[Page E1034]] Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Hugo DeCiutiis, and extend our sympathy to his children and family. His life represents the best of American values, and his tireless dedication to educational achievement and public service are an example to us all. Mr. DeCiutiis understood that one person can make a difference in the lives of others, and with that simple tenant, he has left a legacy that we should all hope to emulate.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. The new majority has a case of special interest amnesia. The special interests and polluters claim they are overregulated. So the new majority is forgetting the days when our rivers burned, when fish and wildlife floated dead in our lakes and streams, and when our drinking water was in imminent danger of contamination. The Clean Water Act remedied that situation. Now, the new majority wants to gut the Clean Water Act. The New York City water supply needs no additional purification, thanks to safeguards in the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water. Weakened standards on pollution runoff under this bill will severely jeopardize the city's drinking water and our rivers and lakes. So will loosened restrictions on sewage treatment plants that operate in watershed areas. When is the new majority going to realize that some government regulations actually do some good? This time, they are not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They are throwing out the drinking water, too. I implore my colleagues to think about what we drink and to reject this Dirty Water Act.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand before my distinguished colleagues to honor the invaluable work of Tudor City Greens. Tudor City Greens is a not-for-profit organization that maintains two parks within the Tudor City complex; one of New York City's most densely populated neighborhoods. Surrounded by the steel and glass of towering skyscrapers, these two parks have provided tranquility and beauty for the public's enjoyment since the late 1920's. The importance of the parks to New York's quality of life was brought to the forefront when the very existence of the parks were threatened in 1972. That year a real estate developer bought the Tudor City complex and planned to build apartments on the parks. The community rallied against the developer and vehemently battled to save the parks. After a 15-year legal battle, the properties were sold to Time Equities who donated the parks to the Trust for Public Land. The parks were deemed only for recreational and cultural use and in 1988 Tudor City and its parks were designated an historic district by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1988. Tudor City Greens was founded in January of 1987 by residents of the complex to preserve and maintain the parks. Since its conception, the organization has worked diligently to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to restore and maintain the parks. They have cultivated new gardens, initiated a tree care program and organized annual events such as Easter egg hunts, caroling and a Halloween parade. On May 10, Tudor City Greens, will sponsor its Parks Celebration to focus the city's attention on the beauty of the parks, and the continuing efforts to preserve them. I would like to personally thank the directors of Tudor City Greens for their dedication and outstanding work in preserving one of New York's cultural treasures. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Tudor City Greens for providing the citizens of New York with this emerald isle deep within the heart of New York.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today the Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning held oversight hearings on title IX and its effect on college sports. These hearings are particularly timely in view of the recent district court ruling that Brown University violated title IX when it eliminated its women's gymnastic and volleyball teams. Title IX has had an impact that goes beyond the limited effect of expanding women's opportunities to participate in sports at the college level. It has also expanded opportunities for women to attend college through sports scholarships and to develop skills they will use after college, such as teamwork, responsibility and self-confidence. Since title IX became law in 1972, participation of women in sports at the secondary and college level has increased dramatically. Much of that growth has come since Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988, requiring compliance with title IX by any college that receives Federal funds for any purpose. Women now comprise 37 percent to 43 percent of athletes in college sports. Women have come a long way, be we still have a long way to go to achieve parity with the men's sports programs. Sports have long been used as a vehicle for young men from disadvantaged backgrounds to attain higher education. Since the enactment of title IX, sports have opened doors for their sisters as well. Top high school women athletes are actively recruited by colleges. As the competition for positions on the best teams increases, the level of play increases. Better equipment and better coaching, made possible through title IX, enables women athletes to improve their game to a level thought impossible just a few years before. By offering women opportunities in a variety of sports, more women choose to become involved in sports. Those who are not interested in field hockey or tennis, can try rugby or hockey or volleyball. Greater variety encourages greater participation. The excitement surrounding women's achievement in sports in some cases has equaled that of their male counterparts. This year the undefeated University of Connecticut's women's basketball team played to a sellout crowd of over 18,000 in Minnesota, winning the NCAA basketball championship in a come from behind victory that thrilled sports fans of both sexes. Women's ice hockey has reached a level of play sufficient to permit women goalies, such as Manon Rheaume and Erin Whitten, to be recruited by the National Hockey League's minor league teams. I believe that more women would choose to participate in sports if there were more opportunities for women to continue their athletic careers after college. Men's star basketball players can look forward to lucrative careers in the National Basketball Association. The women must hope for a place on one of the teams playing women's basketball in Europe if they wish to continue to play ball seriously. This year women baseball players can hope to be selected by the new professional baseball league will begin competition in Southern France, Italy and Spain. The enormous profitability of women's ice skating, not to mention the sellout crowds for NCAA basketball, demonstrates that there is an audience for women athletes. Participation in sports provides women with something beyond mere achievement in the athletic realm. They acquire confidence and assertiveness which works to their advantage in their careers. Those who participate in sports such as basketball, baseball or even rugby report a heightened sense of teamwork and responsibility. Title IX has given rise to a growth in the number of young women who achieve the kind of training that only sports can provide. Title IX does not require schools to eliminate men's teams in order to offer women's teams. That is not to say that schools do not use title IX as a convenient excuse when men's teams are dropped. We should look beyond the reasons schools give for cutting men's teams and focus instead at the many benefits colleges receive from the inclusion of men and women in their athletic programs.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Carnegie Hill Neighbors, Inc. on this, its 25th anniversary. On May 1, Carnegie Hill Neighbors celebrated two and a half decades of outstanding service to the city of New York. For over 25 years, the group's record of achievement in community service has been outstanding. Carnegie Hill Neighbors has been a major force in protecting thousands of New York City's most important buildings, and improving the aesthetic surroundings that we in New York have come to enjoy. Carnegie Hill Neighbors represents a district that traverses from Museum Mile up to Third Avenue and from 86th Street to 98th Street. As the proud Member of Congress from this area, I know first-hand how Carnegie Hill Neighbors has strived to preserve 19th century brownstones, museums, prewar limestone apartment buildings, and other institutions that make up one of New York City's most unique architectural districts. zoning laws which protect the architectural magnificence that exists in the city, and ensure that future buildings only add to the city's charm and beauty. In the first 3 years of its existence, Carnegie Hill Neighbors fought to tighten zoning laws on all avenues and streets, which had previously been the same liberal regulations for First, Second, and Third Avenues. In 1985, Carnegie Hill Neighbors won rezoning to limit mid-block structures to size of brownstones. Almost 10 years later, they won an expansion of the Carnegie Hill Historic District which brought the total number of landmark buildings in the area to 400. Along with these distinguished achievements the group continues to serve its neighborhood through ongoing programs such as the Community Car Patrol Program, street cleaning, tree care, and environmental education. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to help Carnegie Hill Neighbors celebrate its 25th anniversary. I would like to personally thank and honor Elizabeth Ashby, the current president, and Fred Papert and Ron Spence, the organization's first two presidents, for their exemplary work and devotion to the preservation of our city's heritage. On behalf of the constituents of New York's 14th Congressional District, I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to the Carnegie Hill Neighbors for preserving our district's heritage and I wish them continued success over the next 25 years.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute ``The Fantasticks,'' the longest running show in American theater history, and the longest running musical in the world. The creation of Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt, ``The Fantasticks'' is celebrating its 35th anniversary at the Sullivan Street Playhouse in New York's Greenwich Village today, May 3, 1995. Approaching its 14,500th performance, ``The Fantasticks'' speaks to the most basic human emotions with an eloquence and style that transcends international and generational boundaries. Not only is ``The Fantasticks'' the longest running show in American theater history, but there have been over 8,300 productions of the musical performed in all 50 States. In addition to these college, community, and amateur productions, there have been no less than 15 national touring companies who have performed this wonderful show for tens of thousands of people throughout the country, and on dozens of U.S. military bases abroad. ``The Fantasticks'' has also enjoyed extended popularity on the international stage. Each year, thousands of visitors from abroad visit the Sullivan Street Playhouse to take in a performance. ``The Fantasticks'' has also spawned more than 500 productions in 67 foreign countries in such places as Canada, Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The original cast recording of the play's music has sold more copies around the world than any other show. And yet, it is not the incredible statistical records accumulated by this unique piece of theater that make it so extraordinary. ``The Fantasticks'' is special because for 35 years it has brought a countless number of people together to share an experience that they will take with them for the rest of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute ``The Fantasticks'' on this, its 35th anniversary, and I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing it another 35 years of continued success.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding organization in my New York City district that has been committed to improving the lives of children for 40 years. The Variety Boys and Girls Club of Queens has worked with generations of young people in that special borough to realize their dreams and grow into upstanding members of the community. The Variety Boys and Girls Club of Queens was established as the number of youth gangs around the country had risen dramatically during the late 1940's and early 1950's. In response to the growing number of gangs, Meyer ``Moe'' Baranco and attorney Charles J. Vallone, both of Queens, decided to establish a place for local youth to spend their time off the streets in a wholesome atmosphere. In 1949, the club got its start when a fundraising testimonial was held to assist Charles Vallone's family take a trip to Italy. Instead of paying for the family trip, the $1,500 raised at the testimonial became the first major contribution toward the founding of the Boys Club. In the years since, the club has been extremely fortunate in attracting leading members of the community from every profession, all of whom have made valuable contributions to the club's growth and success. When it first opened in 1955, the club acted as a home away from home to hundreds of boys. These boys would come from all over the Queens community to watch movies, play games, and participate in sporting events. Recognizing the need to serve all future citizens, in 1981 the board of directors decided to offer services to young women in the community. Redoubling its commitment to the area's girls, in 1985, the club resolved to expand all of its services to girls. Money was raised for an auxiliary gymnasium, and for additional recreational and support services to girls between 6 to 17 years of age. Soon, the Boys Club became the Boys and Girls Club of Queens. Mr. Speaker, the basic problems that existed among this Nation's young people in the 1940's are still the same ones that we grapple with today: Too many youth who have too few role models. The Variety Boys and Girls Club of Queens provides an outstanding example of what can be done to address these problems if we put our minds to it. They say it takes a village to raise a child, and the Boys and Girls Club of Queens shows just how successful a village can be in shaping the lives of young people. Therefore, I would ask that my colleagues join me in marking the club's 40th anniversary, and help wish them another successful 40 years of exemplary service.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the accomplishments of the School Settlement Association and recognize two of its most devoted friends. First, let me say a few words about the School Settlement Association. Serving the Greenpoint and Williamsburg areas of Brooklyn, NY, since 1901, School Settlement has developed a stellar reputation for providing innovative programming and services for thousands of area residents each year. The organization's long list of community services include drug education, teen pregnancy counseling, vocational workshops, and various sports tournaments. School Settlement also provides remedial tutoring for local schoolchildren, has a very effective drop out prevention program, and distributes surplus Government food to families in need. But of course, good programs like these don't just happen by magic. They take lots of time and effort by dozens of friends and contributors. On May 5th, the School Settlement Association will take time to honor Capt. Albert W. Girimonte and Paul J. Pullo. Describing himself as a ``Local Brooklyn boy who did well,'' Captain Girimonte currently serves as a police captain of the 90th precinct in Brooklyn. Before becoming a police officer, Captain Girimonte served with the U.S. Air Force from 1966 to 1969. Becoming one of New York's Finest in 1973, he worked his way steadily up through the ranks, reaching the rank of captain in 1987. Captain Girimonte, and his wonderful wife Barbara, are the proud parents of three children: Joseph, Albert, and Mary. Like their father, the two boys have chosen to devote their lives to public service, while his beautiful daughter Mary is getting ready to graduate the fifth grade. Also to be honored is Paul Pullo, another outstanding member of the Greenpoint community, and devoted familyman. After graduating from St. John's University in 1972, Mr. Pullo worked at Dun & Bradstreet before moving on to start Apollo Petroleum and Metro Oil in 1977 with his brother. In 1975, he married Frances Cannizzaro with whom he has had two wonderful children Christina and Paul. Despite his busy schedule, Mr. Pullo has always found time to assist and improve his community. Metro Oil has received recognition from the U.S. Coast Guard for its oil storage facility, and Mr. Pullo has played an invaluable role in attracting business to the Greenpoint area. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the good work of the School Settlement Association as well as Captain Girimonte and Mr. Pullo. Their outstanding service others and undaunting dedication to the community truly represent the best of American values, and are an inspiration to us all.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important event that took place in my district on Saturday, April 29th. On that day, the Conselyea Street Block Association held a dinner dance to honor their distinguished officers. The Conselyea Street Block Association was formed within the community to provide needed child care services and a senior citizen program. The day care program began in 1975 providing pre-school and after-school programs for children in the Greenpoint community. Parents who are working, looking for work, attending school, or have a need for child preventative services are fortunate to have this residential day care center within their community. The board of directors, Ms. Agnes DiGruccion and Ms. Angela Federico, work together with the parents and staff to formulate goals and objectives for the school programs and develop activities and curriculum for each age group. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Conselyea Street Block Association for their continued dedication and service in the Greenpoint community. Their work with the children and seniors are so vital to the continued growth and development of their neighborhood. It is comforting for a parent to know that their child is being cared for and receiving a valuable education within their own community. I would like to personally thank the officers who are being honored on this occasion: Mr. Thomas Guidice, president; Ms. Elizabeth Speranza, vice-president; Ms. Marion Ambrosino, secretary; Mr. Vincent Martello, treasurer; Ms. Tillie Tarantino and Ms. Agnes DiGruccino. I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting the Conselyea Street Block Association for all of the exemplary work they do. Their tremendous community spirit and efforts to improve the lives of those in need is an inspiration to us all.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as the proud Representative of a large and vibrant community of Armenian-Americans, I rise to participate in this important and timely special order. Let me first commend my friends Frank Pallone and John Porter, the cochairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, not only for sponsoring this special order, but for all of their hard work in the area of human rights and international decency. My colleagues, this year we mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and the defeat of the Nazi killing machine. It has often been asked: ``How could the world have done nothing to prevent the deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust?'' Tragically, the answer lies in the haunting and hateful words of Adolf Hitler, who cruelly justified the Final Solution by asking, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Tonight we remember the Armenians. Tonight we recall that 80 years ago, Ottoman Turkish forces launched their brutal reign of terror which resulted in the deaths of 1\1/2\ million Armenians. When the carnage ended 8 years later, two out of every three Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey had been killed. Tonight we express our sorrow for those who died, and renew our respect for those who survived. Eight decades have passed since this hideous episode in the history of man's inhumanity to man, but tonight we must pledge that we will hold commemorations like this one 80 years from now and 80 years from then to ensure that the lessons of the Armenian genocide are never forgotten. Nothing we can ever say or do will bring back to life those who perished. But we can endow their memories with everlasting meaning by teaching the lessons of the Armenian genocide to future generations. The first lesson is the truth. The time has come for Congress to pass the Armenian genocide resolution. We must put our Government squarely on the side of the facts. I commend our colleagues David Bonior and Peter Blute for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 47, which I have cosponsored. This resolution not only represents official United States recognition of the memory of those who died, but will also put pressure on the Turkish Government to do what it has callously refused to do--to acknowledge and commemorate the atrocities committed 80 years ago. There is no statute of limitations on genocide. Congress must not condone the efforts of those in Turkey and elsewhere who seek to downplay the terrible events of 80 years ago, or worse yet, who claim that the Armenian genocide never even happened. And the second lesson is one of current international significance. We must use the commemoration of this terrible era to renew our friendship with Armenia. This valiant and struggling nation deserves and needs U.S. humanitarian and developmental assistance. And the United States must make this demand of Turkey: ``Allowing a few airplane flights in is not enough! Lift your blockade of Armenia now!'' Tonight we salute the indomitable spirit of the citizens of Armenia. We commend the magnificent contributions that Armenian-Americans have made to our own society. And we pledge to honor the martyrdom of the victims of the Armenian genocide to ensure that their sacrifices will never be forgotten and their fate never repeated.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my opposition to the tax and spending cut plan offered by the Republican leadership. There are several individual tax cuts in this bill that I support. Unfortunately, all tax cuts were lumped into one bill and could not be voted on separately, due to the procedural rule under which the bill was debated. Therefore, Members were compelled to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on the entire plan. In the final analysis, the plan as whole was fiscally irresponsible, extremely damaging to New York City, and not in the long-term best interest of our children and grandchildren. Over the next 5 years, this bill will cost more $189 billion dollars, and over 10 years--because of the corporate tax giveaways tucked into the legislation--that cost will rise to as much as $600 billion. The bill provides only the most illusory plan of how to pay for these tax breaks in the first 5 years. The specifics that the new leadership has provided are devastating to urban areas in general and to New York City in particular. Further, the plan offers no provision whatsoever to deal with budget- busting corporate tax breaks in the second 5 years, when the deficit is projected to skyrocket specifically because of those tax breaks. The plan will eliminate the corporate minimum tax and change the rules on depreciation, significantly boosting the deficit beginning in the year 2001. For example, the depreciation changes will actually increase revenues slightly between 1996 and 2000, but cause a revenue loss of more than $120 billion between the years 2001 and 2005. Only a small fraction of the tax breaks embodied in the bill--like indexing capital gains for inflation, which I support--will sufficiently stimulate the economy to begin to pay for themselves. This year, interest on our national debt totals $235 billion. It is the third largest portion of the Federal budget. By 1997, it will overtake defense spending as the second largest portion of the Federal budget, second only to Social Security. Why? Largely because in 1981, the Reagan administration sought to provide tax cuts and increased defense spending before deficit reduction. And Congress went along with it. The result was an explosion in our annual budget deficit from $40 billion in 1981 to nearly $300 billion in 1992; and an increase in the national debt from approximately $1 to $4 trillion. With the exception of tax cuts which truly pay for themselves, tax cuts should be our reward after we cut the deficit. But until we get our fiscal house in order, it is irresponsible to engage in a frenzy of tax cuts that are not credibly paid for. We have made great progress in deficit reduction since President Clinton took office. We have reduced the deficit for 3 consecutive years, thanks to the budget package that I voted for in 1993. In so doing, we are reducing the cruelest tax of all on our children. Now is precisely the wrong time to take a U-turn on our road to successful deficit reduction. That being said, there are several individual tax cuts in the package which I think are important and I might well have supported were they stand-alone bills that were responsibly paid for. It is likely that the Senate will overhaul this plan, restoring fiscal sanity to it before it comes back to the House for a final vote. If so, I will strongly consider voting for a bill or bills which include various forms of tax relief. I have always supported expanding IRA contributions, so that all Americans will be encouraged to save. I also support allowing families to use their IRA--without penalty--for purchasing their home, in the event of illness or to help pay for the education of a spouse, child, or grandchild. Since I came to Congress in 1993, I have been an advocate of reducing the marriage penalty, which charges couples more taxes than if they were two unmarried people filing independently. I have worked closely with my good friend, Congressman Jim Moran, and have cosponsored legislation that would completely eliminate this problem. In 1993, I was one of the staunchest opponents of the provisions in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act to raise the amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed on recipients earning more than $25,000 a year or couples earning more than $32,000 a year. I was very proud to play a role in changing those thresholds, thus sparing thousands of middle-class recipients around the country from a tax increase. And I continue to support rolling back the increased benefits tax on those recipients earning more than $34,000 or couples earning $44,000. Coupled with that change, I believe that we should also increase the amount that Social Security recipients can earn without losing their benefits. I think that raising that ceiling from $11,000 to $30,000 over the next 5 years is a good idea. I emphatically support a meaningful capital gains tax reduction. I strongly believe that such a cut would provide a major boost to economic investment in the country and would be beneficial to individuals of all income levels. Both individuals and corporations hold on to assets that have appreciated because they are unwilling to pay the Government almost 40 percent of the profits from their investment. This means that money that could be used for new investment or reinvestment remains locked into these assets and thus unavailable for the kinds of purposes that would help boost economic growth across the country. But as much as I support these particular items, I could not, in good conscience, vote for a tax cut bill that will explode the deficit and result in massive tax increases to our children and grandchildren. What few specific cuts that the new congressional leadership has specified to partially pay for these tax breaks will have a drastic, negative impact on New York City's economy. Overall, the Republicans intend to squeeze $62 billion from their welfare reform bill to pay for a portion of their tax cuts. In my opinion, that bill--which among many other things, cuts school lunches and takes away protection for children in foster care--is an unmitigated disaster. I voted for a Democratic welfare reform bill that offered welfare recipients the tools of economic empowerment--training, education, child care--to help them get back to work and take charge of their lives. The bill demanded work, responsibility, and child support. That Democratic substitute could be described as ``tough love.'' The Republican bill just told defenseless children, ``tough luck.'' It won't fix what is wrong with the welfare system. It won't empower people to go to work. It will only put families with children out on the street, which will increase homelessness and desperation in New York City and damage quality of life for all of its residents. The cuts from the GOP welfare plan will take more than $6 billion in Federal aid from the city and will cost tens of thousands of children-- including many in my district--their basic nutritional benefits. I recently issued a study on the welfare plan, which was reported in the New York Times, that stated the following: Through cuts to Aid to Families with Dependent Children: New York City will lose $1.3 billion because title I freezes Federal funding at fiscal year 1994 levels over the next 5 years. That will result in over 280,000 New York City children losing their AFDC benefits through the planned Republican family-cap and time-limit provisions. New York City will lose $62 million in child care assistance because of the proposal's funding level cuts for fiscal year 1996 to 2000, resulting in 10,504 New York City children losing child care. child nutrition provisions, including the school lunch and school breakfast programs, meaning that 60,000 New York City children will be dropped from the school lunch program because projected funding levels under the welfare plan won't be able to keep up with annual 3.5 percent inflation and annual 3-percent increases in school enrollments by fiscal year 2000. Of the 641,000 New York City children enrolled in the school lunch program, 522,000 of these children, the children who receive free lunches, may be forced to begin paying for lunch, with money they simply do not have. Of the 170,000 New York City children enrolled in the school breakfast program, 154,000 of these children, the children who receive free breakfasts, may be forced to begin paying for breakfast, with money that they simply do not have. New York City will lose over $35 million in funding for family-based nutrition provisions. The 316,000 children who participate daily in the Summer Food Program will see their food budgets cut by 50 percent as the result of massive cuts under the House-passed provisions. The 85,000 children who participate daily in day care food programs will also see their food funding drop by 50 percent. New York City would lose $1.75 billion in food stamp assistance through the Republican funding level cuts over 5 years. One million four-hundred thousand New York City food stamp recipients would see their food stamps allotment decrease beginning in fiscal 1996; 640,000 of these recipients are children. By the year 2000, food stamp authorizations will decrease by at least 30 percent compared to current projected levels of need. New York City would lose over $760 million in SSI benefits over 5 years under the welfare plan which means that 22,500 blind and disabled children in New York City alone would lose all benefits over 5 years, including AFDC and JOBS work training. This litany describes just one-third of how the Republicans plan to pay for this tax plan. To make matters worse, the lion's share of the cuts--$100 billion--are coming through broad reductions in spending caps. Although the individual, specific cuts are to be made later, the Budget Committee has offered some suggestions concerning what programs to cut in order to meet these new spending cap reductions. These so- called suggestions add to the damage done to New York City by the Republican welfare bill. The chairman of the Budget Committee proposes slashing mass transit, which all New Yorkers need to get from one place to another. The suggested cut will take almost $.5 billion out of New York City over the next 5 years. The Republicans suggest eliminating LIHEAP, which provides heat in wintertime to low-income senior citizens and low-income families who are among our most vulnerable citizens. This ill-advised proposal will take close to $520 million out of New York City over the next 5 years. They suggest cutting medical research by the National Institutes of Health, which will take more than $153.6 million out of New York City's research institutions like Rockefeller University, Sloan Kettering and NYU. The Budget Committee's scheme to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities will not only result in a nation that is culturally poorer and spiritually malnourished, but will result in New York City losing a total of $259.1 million in grants over the next 5 years. This is just a sample of what Republicans are suggesting that Congress cut in order to pay for this tax cut plan. And when all of these harsh cuts are made, this country will still be saddled with a growing deficit that the new House leadership does not even make a pretense of addressing. And, this bill contains one final indignity for New York City. Tens of thousands of families, including more than 6,000 in my district alone, will have to pay for a $10 billion tax increase through changes to the retirement system that will more than triple the cost to Federal workers. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, none of these spending cuts will go to deficit reduction. While it is widely recognized by both political parties that the deficit is the cruelest tax of all, the Republican plan provides absolutely no tax relief from it. We must not repeat the irresponsible tax cuts of the 1980's, which have been so disastrous for our economy. And I believe that yesterday's vote will result in greater deficit increases. I have little faith that having now passed some harsh cuts to pay for the popular part of the Contract With America, the Republican majority will not have the stomach or incentive to vote for even more unpopular cuts to Federal programs to further reduce the deficit. Reinforcing my concerns about repeating the mistakes of the 1980's is the fact that the Republicans have pledged to increase defense spending again. In all, Mr. Speaker, April 5 was a lost opportunity. A lost opportunity for those of us who wanted to vote for tax cuts that would be both prudent and beneficial to the economy. And, most importantly, a lost opportunity to help future generations of Americans who will pay for this tax folly. Ultimately, it is our children and grandchildren who will suffer the ill effects of the 104th Congress excesses here yesterday night.