Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate all who have been so involved in this effort--especially Chairman Clinger and Ranking Member Congresswoman Cardiss Collins. The Paperwork Reduction Act has been unauthorized since 1989. Some look at that fact as justification for the permanent authorization that was included in the House version of this bill. I disagree, and offered amendments both in committee and on the floor to limit the period of reauthorization. Happily, the Conference Committee agreed with me and placed a 6-year sunset on this legislation. We have made a number of new initiatives in this bill--a new and higher goal on reducing paperwork; specific paperwork reduction goals for each agency; new information dissemination policy; new policy on statistics; and increased responsibility for agencies in incorporating public comment. The 6 year authorization included in this conference report will allow us to revisit these initiatives to determine their effectiveness. Frankly Mr. Speaker, there are a number of groups that are not to particularly happy with this bill. Statisticians feel that the section on statistical policy should be stronger. Librarians are concerned that the principles of public access to government information could be stated more strongly. Businesses that specialize in repackaging government information want their access to that information more clearly defined. For each of these groups and many others, reauthorization will provide the opportunity to make their case again. It assures a continuing role of and by the public in the legislative process. Furthermore, as technology improves, this legislation may well become seriously outdated. We cannot predict the impact of the information revolution. Reauthorization will force us to keep information policy up with technology. I am pleased that the conference committee agreed to a limited authorization for this bill. The Paperwork Reduction Act is a crucial piece of our public information policy and it is important that we not let it get out of date.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. This amendment undermines the bipartisan spirit of the compromise which was worked out by myself, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman. This amendment would require prior written consent for surveys or questionnaires with Federal funding. This issue was carefully considered in our subcommittee and rejected. Several professionals testified that prior written consent would do one of two things: Block these surveys from ever being performed, or render their conclusions useless, because of skewed data. This rejection was confirmed at the full committee, where this issue was raised. I think the committee's unanimous, bipartisan decision should stand. This amendment addresses no real problem that anyone can identify. It would also considerably increase the cost of conducting surveys. Requiring parental consent may make some sense for surveys conducted through the school system, but expanding it to all federally funded surveys makes no sense at all. Some who argue in favor of these changes will talk about what goes on in schools. Let me make it clear right now, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not apply to schools. We already have legislation that does that. Our bill as reported requires that any survey or questionnaire using Federal funds must get parental consent before interviewing minors. We asked OMB for a list of Federal surveys that did not get consent. There are not any. Our bill protects minors to the full extent possible, but does not destroy information vital to solving some of the most important problems facing our country today. We are told that this amendment is to bring this bill back into line with the contract, but that is just a smokescreen. I believe the changes offered in this amendment are designed to block surveys from ever being performed, specifically, surveys of teenage behavior, including the causes of rising teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and suicide. Members of both parties are sincere in their desire to solve these problems, but pretending a problem does not exist will not make it nonexistent. By rendering these surveys worthless or eliminating them altogether, that is what some Members hope to do, that will not work. It has never worked. It is naive. In order to solve a problem, we first have to research it. We cannot cure a sick patient without asking the patient what is wrong. This amendment will not cure anything. It will only make it more difficult for researchers to study the problem and gain information, and information is the most important commodity to any social scientist or legislator. This amendment would also undo the thoughtful solution the committee reached on judicial review. As a result of the hearings, the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], added to the bill a private right of action with a limit to $500 of damages in cases where parental consent was not obtained. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] would remove that limit. That seems particularly ironic to me. Just a few weeks ago the Republicans fought very hard for tort reform to limit damages. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is the best compromise attainable. In that bipartisan spirit, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Souder amendment, and support the Republicans and Democrats who have carefully considered the issues raised by this bill and addressed them responsibly in H.R. 1271.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, all too often outstanding members of our respective communities work extremely hard to make our towns, cities and States better places without receiving the recognition they deserve. On Sunday, April 2 this situation will be remedied for one man who has given so much to my district in Brooklyn, NY. Every year since 1959, the Pulaski Association has recognized one prominent Polish-American for his or her outstanding contributions to the community. On April 2, I will have the great pleasure of being present when the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men honor Vincent Brunhard as a friend, I can think of no one who is more deserving of this great honor than Vincent. Vincent's involvement with the community is longstanding. He has served as the past president of the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men, and is currently chairman of the its board of directors. Since its inception, the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men has lent its strong support to charitable organizations, both through financial and non-financial means. Vincent has been at the forefront of these efforts, as well as spearheading many of the organization's other worthy causes. He has helped raise and administer scholarship money to students of Polish descent, organized educational seminars for its members, and promoted the achievements of outstanding Polish-Americans throughout New York City. In addition to his involvement with the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men, Vincent also serves as vice-president of the General Pulaski Memorial Parade Committee and national delegate to the Polish American Congress. He is also a member of the Greenpoint Lions Club, the Polish and Slavic Center of Greenpoint Brooklyn, and is a board member of the Greenpoint YMCA. In 1994, Vincent served as Grand Marshall of the Pulaski Day Parade, a marvelous event that I have had the honor of attending. As incredible as it may seem--given amount of time he spends helping others--Vincent is also a devoted husband and father. He and his wonderful wife Gloria are the proud parents of four children and four grand-children. Active members of the church, he and Gloria are parishioners of St. Josephat's Catholic Church in Bayside, Queens. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy that we are not about to let the achievements of another outstanding citizen to go unnoticed. I would ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Vincent Brunhard for his undaunting commitment to the Polish-American community, and I thank the Pulaski Association of Business and Professional Men for honoring him with their Man of the Year award.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an outstanding constituent of mine in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Leon P. Klementowicz represents the best of what Brooklyn is all about: Community, public service, and love for family. In recognition of his accomplishments, the Pulaski Association has selected Leon P. Klementowicz as its 1995 Pulaskian of the Year. In order to truly appreciate Leon's long list of achievements, it helps to know a little bit about his upbringing. Leon is the youngest of three children born to Joseph Klementowicz and Stophie Sokolowska who had emigrated from Poland to the Melrose section of the Bronx, New York. After Leon's graduation from high school, he was drafted into the U.S. Army and served proudly during World War II. Rising to the rank of Combat Sergeant in the Third Infantry Division, Leon served on the front lines in Italy at (Anzio), France, Germany and Austria. During that time his bravery earned him the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and the Combat Infantry Badge. After returning home from the war, he entered the funeral profession and married Irene Nieminski. Together they raised four wonderful children: Joanne, Claudia Marie, Monica and Paul Leon. In 1958, they purchased the John Smolenski Funeral Home in Greenpoint, Brooklyn and became active members of the SS. Cyril and Methodius Parish. Leon is also an active member of many other organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Polish legion of American Veterans, the Fidelity Council of the Nights of Columbus, the Kosciuszko Foundation, the Smolenski Democratic Club and the Green Oaks Citizen's Club. He is also a director of the Polish and Slavic Center, an organization of over 35,000 members located in his beloved Greenpoint. His work with Polish immigrants newly arrived in Greenpoint is well known throughout the community. His work earned Leon recognition by the Polish Government, which presented him with a medal at their consulate in Manhattan. One of the most important community activities Leon takes part in every year is the Pulaski Day Parade. He took part in the very first Pulaski Day Parade in 1987 and has been an active member of the parade committee for over 35 years. He currently serves as a vice president on the committee and has been involved for many years in the coordination of the Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Parade Day. Leon has also helped to reorganize the Greenpoint Parade Committee which has become one of the largest and well prepared groups in the parade. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to help Leon Klementowicz celebrate his selection as 1995's Pulaskian of the Year. He exemplifies what is best about America, and I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Leon for his years of service to New York City and the Polish-America Community at-large.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honor to join my friend, Mr. Bilirakis, and important special order. This is my third year in Congress and the third time that I have stood together with the esteemed gentleman from Florida to celebrate Greek Independence Day and to discuss a few of the pressing issues on the Hellenic agenda. The presence of the various Members on the floor today proves that support for Greece and Greek-Americans is an issue that unites Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and Members from all across this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday I will be humbled to receive one of the greatest honors to be bestowed on me in my entire career in public life. I will be the grand marshall of the annual Greek Independence Day parade on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. There are a number of reasons why this honor means so much to me. First, because I will be joined by thousands of my neighbors and constituents. I am privileged to represent one of the largest and most vibrant Greek-American and Cypriot-American communities in the Nation. In the wonderful neighborhood of Astoria, Queens, where tens of thousands of Greek-Americans reside, I have always been overwhelmed by the warmth and enthusiasm with which the community has welcomed me. Marching side by side with my Greek-American friends on Sunday will once again instill me with respect and admiration for this special people and their remarkable heritage. And it is this heritage that we celebrate today. March 25 marks the 174th anniversary of the day when the Greek people won back their independence after nearly 400 years of cruel domination by the Ottoman Empire. One hundred and seventy-four years ago, the Greek people were able to resume their rightful place as an exemplar of democratic ideals to the rest of the Western world. In fact, our own American revolution and fight for independence was inspired by the ancient Greek paradigm of democracy and individual liberties. Perhaps the American philosopher Will Durant put it best when he said ``Greece is the bright morning star of that Western civilization which is our nourishment and life.'' Mr. Speaker, in the year that has passed since our last special order, my colleagues and I who advocate for Hellenic issues have been heartened by some important victories and challenged by other developments. I would like to take a few minutes to touch on some of these issues. First, a great victory. Many of us in this Chamber worked long and hard on behalf of the Omonia Four, ethnic Greeks who were unfairly and unjustly imprisoned by the Albanian Government on trumped up charges of espionage. Month after month, week after week, Members of Congress and others, like Mrs. Kathryn Porter of Illinois and the writer Nicholas Gage, lobbied our State Department and the Albanian Government for a resolution of this problem. Finally, just a few weeks ago, the Albanian Supreme Court ordered the release of these long-suffering individuals. I commend Albanian President Berisha for this gesture, but I also want to let him know that we in Congress will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation of the Greek minority in Northern Epirus. And now to another important issue. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: Macedonia is Greek. Over the past year, there have been important developments concerning the controversy over the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Unfortunately, in a move that I strongly opposed, the U.S. Government recognized FYROM. But to date, thanks in large measure to the strong opposition of many of us on the floor tonight, we have refrained from establishing formal diplomatic relations with this republic. I had the opportunity to visit Greek Macedonia, the real Macedonia. On this trip, I was able to witness firsthand the much justified passion that this issue engenders. This is not just about a simple name. In fact, when Tito changed the name of the republic to ``Macedonia'' in 1944, the United States strongly opposed this action as ``unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality.'' It should be the policy of the United States not to weigh in unilaterally on one side of this dispute but to support honest negotiations between Greece and FYROM to resolve these issues. It is for this reason that I am proud to report that Mr. Bilirakis and I have reintroduced our bill, House Concurrent Resolution 31, which calls on the United States to support Greece in its efforts to reach a solution which promotes a solid, cooperative relationship between the two countries. And just as significantly, our resolution--which is cosponsored by dozens of pro-Greek Members of this House--would delay any establishment of formal diplomatic relations with FYROM until this just and fair relationship is established. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we cannot celebrate the magnificent occasion of Greek Independence Day without touching on the tragic situation on Cyprus. You do not have to be a Greek-American or a Cypriot-American to feel the outrage and pain felt by Cypriots who have had their land brutally and illegally occupied by Turkish forces for over 20 years. But it helps immeasurably to go to Cyprus like I have and look into the eyes of the people whose lives and families have been hurt, even destroyed, by this dark moment in world history. And I have shared the pain of some of my own constituents in Astoria whose beloved family members are still missing from the Turkish invasion. Twenty years is far too long for the families of the 1,619 missing to wait. But even if it takes another 20 years, we can never turn our backs on those who suffered in the invasion and those who continue to suffer on that beautiful island even today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of a resolution authored by Mr. Engel and Mr. Porter which will put this House on record once again in insisting that this intolerable situation come to an end. In fact, last year, these two gentlemen and several of us passed a bill that will hopefully, finally, bring about an accounting of the five Americans missing from the invasion. Later this spring, I will welcome to Astoria the Honorable Richard Beattie, President Clinton's Special Emissary to Cyprus, who will brief the community on the ongoing negotiations between the Government of Cyprus and the Turkish Government. And under the leadership of Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, several of us have introduced a bill which would prohibit United States aid to Turkey unless and until the Turkish Government begins its withdrawal from Cyprus, improves its abysmal human rights record, and removes its unconscionable blockade of Armenia. And this bill will call on the Turkish Government to cease its military operations against Kurdish civilians. Suffice it to say that many of us in this House are very, very concerned about the current Turkish operation in northern Iraq and the reports that civilians are being killed. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that a special order dedicated to celebrate the birth of Greece and the democratic ideals and institutions that Greece has bestowed upon the world must also inevitably turn to the activities of the Turkish Government. But it is our duty to ensure that United States taxpayer dollars do not go toward subsidizing Turkish human rights abuses. In conclusion, I simply want to wish all of my Hellenic friends and constituents, and any who may be watching, a very happy Greek Independence Day. I pledge to you that every year that I am privileged to serve in Congress, I will come to the well of the House in March and extol the indomitable, life-giving spirit of the Greek people.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 30th anniversary of the New York City landmarks law, as well as the efforts of Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel and the New York Landmarks Preservation Foundation. On April 19, 1965, after years of seeing New York's building heritage destroyed, Mayor Robert Wagner signed the landmark law. It is because of this milestone legislation that New York City leads the Nation in the preservation of its landmarks. number of organizations and individuals have collaborated to arrange over 75 diversified programs, and activities scheduled over the next several months, with Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel and the New York Landmarks Preservation Foundation coordinating these efforts. The number and variety of these projects vividly demonstrates that preservation is not just the province and concern of a limited constituency. This anniversary brings into focus over 30 years of awareness on the part of historians, preservationists, architects, appointed and elected officials, and concerned citizens that New York is a city of enormous architectural resources. Because of the landmarks law, these landmarks resources are being held in trust for the use, pleasure, and instruction of future generations. In the last 30 years the landmarks law has preserved 1,021 of the city's individual landmarks, 66 historic districts, and 93 interiors. Though this may sound like a lot of property, it is actually less than 2 percent of real estate in New York, and there is still much that must be accomplished. I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting the 30th anniversary of the New York City landmarks law. May we all take this opportunity to renew our commitment to the past 30 years of preservation and to see that our commitment to future preservation of these landmarks continues for the next 30 years.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the former speakers keep talking about how they are not cutting money and then they start talking about how they are cutting the deficit. So which is it? Mr. Speaker, the current welfare system has created a culture of dependency. The system offers several incentives for welfare clients to shun independence and stay on the dole. A single mother who goes to work could lose here child care, forcing her to leave her children home alone. She could lose Medicaid benefits and go without health insurance. And she could lose the food stamps that help her feed her children. And for what? To get a low-paying job that will leave her worse off financially, uninsured, and unable to supervise her children during the day. You might ask, what could possibly be worse? The answer is, H.R. 4 the Republican's Personal Responsibility Act. The Republican bill would worsen poverty and hunger for innocent children by making deep cuts in benefits, especially during economic downturns. It would do far too little to empower welfare recipients to rejoin the work force with education and training. It would scale back the very child care funding that would liberate welfare recipients to go to work. The plan is punitive, irresponsible, and cruel to children. The Republican plan could render millions of Americans with nothing to lose. No cash assistance, no housing, no day care, no medical care, and no jobs. In New York City alone, experts are projecting that by the year 2000: 76,000 poor children will lose AFDC benefits, an allowance they need for food, shelter and clothing; 300,000 more children will require child care slots so their mothers can work. However, the Republican plan cuts child care spending by $1.6 billion; 60,000 children would be dropped from the school lunch programs; 640,000 children would see their food stamps decrease by 30 percent. Simply saying, ``No more welfare, go get job'' is not welfare reform. The Republicans want people off of welfare. The Democrats want people to get a job. The Deal substitute is not perfect. But it is far better than the Republican plan. Although it was defeated tonight parts of it should be a model when the Senate takes up the bill. At least, the Deal substitute operates in the real world. It recognizes that for welfare recipients to go to work, child care is essential. So it invests in comprehensive child care. It recognizes that for welfare recipients to go to work, they need skills and training. So the plan invests in comprehensive training, education, and workfare programs. The Deal plan's Work First Program supplies a vehicle of real assistance for recipients to move into the work force. And once they do find a job, the Deal plan would extend their medical coverage for 1 to 2 years. These are the tools of economic empowerment which are tragically absent from the Republican plan. But make no mistake: this is a tough plan. People must develop and carry out comprehensive plans to get back to work or they lose their benefits. The Deal substitute requires teenage recipients to stay in school and make the grade or they lose their benefits. It calls for punitive measures for deadbeat parents, like direct income withholding, revoking their drivers' license, or revoking their professional licenses, thus paralyzing their careers until they do right by their children. And the Deal substitute targets a major source of welfare dependency--teen pregnancy--with major prevention. The Republican plan contains no prevention plan except to cut off benefits, and hope less children are born. It could be described as tough love. The Republican bill just tells children, ``tough luck.'' The Democratic bill requires work and demands responsibility. I would like to put this into the map illustrating the children cut off of school lunches. Mr. Speaker, I include the following information for the Record. CRS Report on Child Nutrition--Talking Points CRS released a report Tuesday comparing 1996 estimated state funding levels for the child nutrition programs under current law and under the Republican block grant. The numbers in the report are calculated differently for the school based block grant that we have seen before, showing a $73 million increase in school lunch and breakfast funding under the block grant when compared to USDA's 1996 baseline. The Republicans are using these numbers to show that they do not cut school meals even when compared to the USDA baseline projection in 1996. The report supports Democratic statements about total cuts: Over $800 million CUT in the total amount available for child nutrition programs in 1996 CRS supports CBO's estimate of a total child nutrition cut of $7 billion over 5 years (this is not stated in this report but is the CRS stated position) The report assumes a cut in school meal service to children: Because the block grant provides so little ($1.5 million per state, on average) over what schools will need to serve their students just lunch and breakfast, the CRS chart assumes that schools will not use these funds to operate summer food or after school food programs. The report compares projected spending for lunch and breakfast under current law in 1996 to the Republican's entire school meal block grant. The block grant is supposed to be used for lunch, breakfast, summer food, and after school food. It compares apples to oranges. The summer and after school/child care food programs serve some of our nation's poorest children. Summer food programs, in particular, have proven essential to the health and safety of children in high poverty areas--these children get what may be their only nutritious meal of the day and become involved in planned community group activities. Summer food keeps kids off the streets and in the school yards. Furthermore, the report states the, ``FY 1995 and FY 1996 estimates of spending under current law are likely to be understated. The amounts shown in the tables do not reflect the actual amounts of funding that States will receive either under current law or under the proposed block grants. They should be used only for the purpose of comparing the likely shifts in spending among the States under the proposed block grants.''

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

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues two of my constituents who exemplify what it means to be concerned, community activists--Julian and Elise Wager. Mr. Speaker, contrary to some people's belief, great neighborhoods don't just happen. They are created through the hard work of hundreds and thousands of community members joining together in common cause. Astoria, Queens, is just such a neighborhood, and Julian and Elise Wager are two of the most dedicated, most caring members of the community. My field Julie, as he is known to his legion of friends, is currently the extremely capable chief of staff at the Western Queens Gazette--without a doubt one of New York's finest newspapers. But Julie's contributions to the community don't end at the workplace. Julie has also been president of the Steinway Street Merchants Association since 1976 and president of the Central Astoria Local Development Coalition since 1984. Under his able leadership, these two organizations have supported local Astoria businesses, preserved local jobs, and helped make Astoria the vibrant, wonderful community it is today. Elise Wager also has a remarkable record of community involvement. In fact, until just recently, Elise was the executive director of Queens Overall Economic Development, a capacity in which she served for almost 15 years. She has now returned to Adelphi University where she is pursuing her masters in social work. I know that Queens Overall Economic Development was sad to lose her leadership, but Adelphi has truly gained a special person. [[Page E660]] Of course Julie and Elise's greatest contributions to the world came in the form of their two lovely daughters Adrian and Stacey. Both Adrian and Stacey are now married and have moved away from Astoria, but I know they have brought their parents' commitment to community betterment to their respective homes in Arlington, VA, and Hannacroix, NY. In fact, I am particularly pleased to announce that the Wager family has recently grown by two members. Adrian Wager-Zito and her husband Michael Zito, are the new parents of a baby girl, Francesca Barrett Zito; Stacey Wager-Pacuk and her husband Edward Pacuk, are also the parents of a baby girl, Rebecca Grace Pacuk. Therefore, it seems appropriate to me, as the Wager family has embarked upon a new generation, to request that my colleagues take a moment to salute two members of my community who have given so much of themselves for the betterment of others: Julie and Elise Wager-- community activists, caring professionals, committed citizens, and, of course, proud grandparents.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal school-based nutrition program is not like welfare, which cries out for fundamental change. On the contrary, the New York Times calls the school lunch program ``a rousing success in boosting health and academic achievement.'' It feeds 25 million American children each day. But the new majority is willing to slash and burn a program serving America's hungriest and most vulnerable population. They want to use them as guinea pigs for the revolution. But one bad thing about a revolution is that a lot of people starve in them. Under this proposal, New York State could lose as much as $373 million in funding. They could cause 60,000 New York City children to be dropped from the school lunch program. The Republicans say they are just handing over the program to the States who are bound to do a better job. But let us take a hard look at their proposal. They are going to dismantle an entire nutrition infrastructure that successfully feeds 25 million children, hand it over to 50 new State bureaucracies, sharply cut funding for the program from projected levels of need, and eliminate minimum nutrition standards. They say this will provide better lunches to more kids at lower cost. I cannot speak for other Americans, but I do not have any great confidence that the majority of Republican governors nationwide will make school lunch programs for poor children a high priority. I do not think our State bureaucracy is any more efficient than the Federal one. And the fact is the school-based nutrition block grant will create more bureaucracy, not less. It is written into the bill. The administrative cost currently in Federal child nutrition programs, excluding WIC, is 1.8 percent. The school-based block grant proposal increases the administrative cap to 2 percent. It retains most Federal administrative burdens such as meal counting and income verification. It imposes an additional bureaucratic procedure to establish citizenship, and it requires States to create 50 new bureaucracies of their own. Child nutrition bureaucracies will be a growth industry nationwide. The new majority denies they are cutting school-based nutrition programs. They say they are increasing it by 4.5 percent per year. But that would cause decreases in child and adult care food programs, the summer food program, and after school programs, as my colleague the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] pointed out. That simply is robbing from Peter to give to Paul. They also fail to account for the 3.5 percent rise in food inflation, or the 3 percent growth in school enrollment. And they fail to mention that they will allow States to transfer 20 percent of funds to programs for purposes other than food assistance to school children. They say, ``Only in Washington would a 4.5 percent increase be considered a cut.'' Well, most American families do not see it that way. Assume an American family is financially breaking even this year. The next year their daughter's school tuition goes up by 9 percent, but their family income only goes up by 4.5 percent. The fact that their income went up is irrelevant to them. Their concern is only that they do not have enough. The alleged 4.5 percent increase is a phony number, and even if it were accurate it would not be enough. The bill strips school-based nutrition programs of their entitlement status. It makes no allowance for the growing number of children who live in poverty. The new majority knows this full well, but apparently does not care. In 1987, one in five American children lived in poverty. By 1992, it was one in four. The new majority talks about flexibility, but capped block grants are totally inflexible. Ultimately school-based nutrition programs will face dramatic shortfalls. Under President Reagan, a smaller cut led to 3 million fewer children being served a school lunch. But these new State bureaucrats will not just reduce the number of children served, they have a cost-saving instrument that today's Washington school lunch bureaucrats do not. They will not have to meet strong Federal nutritional standards that have been refined and developed over 50 years by scientists and nutrition experts. By abolishing these standards we effectively throw out the window half a century of expertise in feeding our children so they can learn, so they can think, so they can grow, so that they can succeed. The child nutrition program is a health care program, it is necessary to our children, it is an education program, and it is an important part of our country.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system has created a culture of dependency. It is not working and needs to be changed. The system offers several incentives for welfare clients to shun independence and stay on the dole. You might ask what could possibly be worse. The answer is the Republican bill before us tonight. It is a harsh, heartless, extremist proposal. It would worsen poverty and hunger for innocent children by making deep cuts in benefits that provide food and shelter. It is weak on work and long on punishment of children. It would cut back the very child care funding that would allow welfare recipients to go to work. Simply saying no more welfare is not welfare reform. It is a recipe for disaster. A real reform plan would get welfare recipients to go to work. A real reform plan would provide child care and skills, training to move people off the dole and on a payroll. Reason and compassion demand a ``no'' vote on the extreme Republican plan. Let us pass a bill that rewards work and protects our children: the Democratic substitute, the Deal plan.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1. I voted against H.R. 5, the original House-passed version of this bill, and would like to explain to the House why I support this bill. The basic purpose of unfunded mandate relief legislation is sound and important. Almost everyone agrees that something must be done to address the increasing burdens that the Federal Government places on State and local governments. I was proud to support unfunded mandate legislation in the 103d Congress and I voted for the Moran substitute to H.R. 5. And now, I support this bill, because it has been stripped of the excesses of the original House version. One of the major problems that I had with H.R. 5 was the abuse of the legislative process which brought the bill to the floor. We didn't have 1 minute of hearings in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which had primary jurisdiction over the bill and on which I serve. It is largely because of this abuse that the conference committee took 7 weeks to come to agreement. On a noncontroversial bill such as this, the conference usually takes days, not weeks, and I am pleased that the conference process was a deliberative one. Mr. Speaker, several major changes were made by the conference committee which have made S. 1 truly bipartisan legislation and much closer in content to the bill reported out of the Government Operations Committee last year. First and foremost, the conference severely limited the right of judicial review applicable to regulations falling under this act. This is a vital difference. Under the House version of this bill, special interests and industries would have been able to tie up those regulations and rules for years. Executive agencies would thus have been unable to carry out the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other laws that protect public health and welfare. Another major change is the acceptance by the conference of the so- called Byrd amendment, which gives Congress a role when annual appropriations do not fully cover State and local costs in complying with a mandate. Under the report, agency determinations as to how to rachet-down the mandate are now subject to congressional approval, preserving an important power of the legislative branch. The conference committee on S. 1 is to be commended for its diligence and bipartisanship. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act has been cleansed of many of its more extreme provisions and I urge its adoption.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment to slash funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In many ways the Contract on America is a declaration of war. A war on children, a war on consumers, a war on the environment, a war on senior citizens. In their budget-cutting zeal, the new majority has proposed $17 billion in rescissions for 1995, almost entirely from programs that make the lives of ordinary Americans a little safer, a little brighter. The Republicans have structured this rescission bill to eliminate any chance that we could even debate cuts to the bloated Defense budget. The Pentagon, of course, has returned to its exalted status as a sacred cow. While they have taken defense off the cutting board, they're making mincemeat out of the arts. The new leadership invests in that which destroys, but destroys that which creates. The contract may sound good on the surface, but its cost cutting rhetoric masks policies that are heartless and mean-spirited. And the contract's war on the arts is nothing short of primitive. The NEA budget for this year is $167 million. Cultural funding is a mere two ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the Federal Government's $1.5 trillion budget. Arts funding costs approximately 64 cents per capita, or the same amount as two postage stamps. According to a recent Lou Harris poll, 60 percent of the American people believe that ``the Federal Government should provide financial assistance to arts organizations.'' According to the same poll, more than half the American people would support paying up to $15 a year to support Federal arts funding. Speaker Gingrich has attacked the NEA as providing patronage for an elite group. In fact, the NEA increases access to arts and culture for all citizens. In the 30 years since the endowments were created, the number of theater, dance, and opera companies across America has increased from 120 to 925. NEA grants work as seed money. They make it easier for recipients to raise money from other sources. Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey have both stated that the Federal Government has no business making grants to artists and artistic organizations. They say this at a time when violence continues to increase and, in our inner cities, human lives are cheaper by the dozen. I cannot imagine a worse time to cut programs that exalt the human experience, when all around us we see it degraded. Arts advocates who visited my office this week described NEA grants they had received which were used to create arts programs for inner city children. We should be celebrating the contributions of the arts endowments to our country today, rather than trying to destroy them. We should be congratulating the endowments for encouraging creative ideas that help poor children rise above their cruel circumstances. As Christopher Reeve said Tuesday in his speech at the Arts Advocacy Breakfast: There is no leading nation in the world that does not support the arts, usually two, three, ten times as much as we do. Why should we be different? Public arts funding is a concept that stands beside public education as an obligation a government has to its people and to history.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, the underlying rescissions bill is a bad bill. The $17 billion in cuts fall most harshly and heavily on the neediest in our society: Women and infants who depend on WIC funding for simple sustenance; Senior citizens who rely on LIHEAP funding to stay warm in the winter; Young men and women who need the Summer Jobs Program to give them the skills to work and the incentive to stay off the streets. But let me briefly point out why the rule itself must be defeated. We will have no opportunity to make this bill better by restoring the devastating cuts in critical domestic programs and paying for them from the defense budget. The American people should understand, for example, that for the cost of one B-2 Stealth bomber, we could fully fund the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program for 30 years. But while the rule before us will take food off the tables of working class Americans, it keeps Pentagon pork off the table for those of us who wish to offer further budget cutting amendments. This rule doesn't even allow me to try to cut one of the most ridiculous programs in the Federal budget--the Civilian Marksmanship Program. This is a $2.5 million boondoggle which hands out free ammunition to gun clubs to subsidize recreational shooting, mainly for children. It's a sad day in the House when we pass a rule that will force Congress to vote to take food and education away from our children while making sure that we can still give them free bullets! Let's defeat the rule and put together a bill that cuts programs that need to be cut, rather than programs which will cut down the needy.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, if passed, the Republican contract's war on children will have a devastating impact on New York City. The Republican contract would cut assistance for children across the board including large reductions in: school lunches and breakfasts, nutrition programs, food stamps, medical care, education, and housing programs. In the contract's plan to cap the food Stamp Program, New Yorkers would lose $300 million in the first year alone. A food stamp reduction of that magnitude could prevent as many as 190,000 children from receiving assistance. In the contract's plan to lower child nutrition costs, New York State stands to lose $70 million in assistance by 1996, and $600 million by the year 2000. This contradicts the overwhelming evidence that child nutrition programs lower the possibility of low birthweight and anemia in children. In the contract's plan to eliminate the school lunch and school breakfast programs, over 800,000 children in New York City will be forced to pay more for breakfast and lunch. I would really like to know where are they going to get that money to eat. Schools will have to choose either to cut back on the quality of food or simply not provide lunches for children who need to eat. There is even talk that the Summer Meals Program might be eliminated altogether. Mr. Speaker, even President Richard Nixon supported school nutrition programs when he stated, ``A child ill fed is dulled in curiosity, lower in stamina, distracted from learning.'' These cuts are callous and mean-spirited. They not only affect child nutrition programs, but they also affect many other well deserving programs. The contract would cut Medicaid and Medicare by $33 billion over the next 7 years. In an effort to dismantle Federal nutrition programs, the Republicans voted to expand the profits of four U.S. drug corporations of up to $1 billion by elminating a competitive bidding process for infant formula. As a result, these four companies can raise their prices and pad their profits. What does that say about our family values? The Republicans voted to cut $1.3 billion in heating assistance to needy families while at the same time voting for a $6.5 million pork- barrel visitor center with a complete heating system for a Republican's district in Oregon. What does that say about our family values? The Republicans voted to eliminate 185,000 meals a day for children in family day care homes while at the same time voted to continue spending tens of billions of dollars on the F-22 fighter. What does that say about our family values? It has become very clear that the Republicans are forcing children to pay Mr. Speaker, the Republican recently proposed budget cuts inflicts even more damage to programs for children. Their plan has proposed: A $10 million cut for Healthy Start--a program which gives needed pre-natal care to expectant mothers. A $25 million cut for the Women, Infant, and Children [WIC] program that would knock 100,000 expectant women and newborn children out of a program which provides badly needed nutrition assistance. A $100 million cut for foster care. Mr. Speaker, why was there not a single Defense Department or pork barrel project considered? The petrified pork civilian marksmanship program still wastes $2 million a year for free ammunition and recreational shooting. What ever happened to America's family values? This plan is headed in the wrong direction.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important event which will take place in my district on Saturday, March 4th. On that day, the Kardamylian Society of New York will honor noted philanthropist and industrialist George Chimples. He will be honored during the society's 60th annual dinner dance that will take place at the Grand Prospect Hall in Brooklyn. Mr. Speaker, George Chimples is a prominent member and leader of the Greek-American community and is closely involved with the affairs of the Greek Orthodox Church. He serves as an Archon of the ecunemical patriarchate of Constantinople, and for the last 17 years, he has chaired the Finance Committee of the Archdiocese of North and South America. He also serves as the national vice chairman of the United Hellenic American Congress. George is a great friend to the Greek- American community and his kindness and generosity inspires us all. George Chimples has been granted many awards for his tireless efforts on a variety of needy causes and has been a major benefactor to the establishment of countless churches and educational institutions. I am very impressed with George's achievements on the behalf of others. George Chimples has truly earned recognition for his distinguished philanthropy, and I hope all of my colleagues here will join the Kardamylian Society of New York in congratulating him for his tremendous accomplishments.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple and straightforward. H.R. 450 should make clear that regulations governing the basic safety of our Nation's drinking water are exempted from the moratorium. Last night we voted to exempt duck hunting. At the very least we should vote to exempt water quality and testing for the safety of our citizens from this moratorium. The parasite Cryptosporidium is in our water. As my colleague, Mr. Barrett, noted, however, 40 people died in Milwaukee recently and over 400,000 became ill. Recently Cryptosporidium has been detected in New York City's water supply and no one yet knows how widespread the danger is in New York City and in other cities across this country. This bill would halt efforts to find out. Cryptosporidium is not taking a moratorium. Parasites do not take a moratorium and public safety should not take a moratorium. Vote for the motion.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an extreme bill; while calling for a moratorium on new Federal regulations may sound good, it will have unintended consequences that will put millions of Americans at risk. Our amendment is simple and straightforward: It will allow the Federal Government to continue its efforts to ensure the safety of our Nation's food and water. For example, this amendment will allow the Federal Government to continue its efforts to protect our citizens from the threats posed by cryptosporidium in our water and E. coli bacteria in our meat. In my district, in my home of New York City, people are very worried over recent discoveries of the cryptosporidium parasite in our water supply. They have good reason to be worried: Recent outbreaks in Milwaukee of the disease caused by this parasite, cost over 100 people their lives and made hundreds of thousands sick. The medical evidence clearly demonstrates that for our most vulnerable populations this illness can be fatal. Only in 1994, was the EPA able to issue rules about collecting data on the dangers posed by this disease. And now the experts at EPA tell us that this bill will halt testing for this deadly parasite. We cannot allow that to happen. Mr. Chairman, the safety of our drinking water is precisely the type of problem that the Federal Government is best equipped to combat because it affects the residents of all 50 States. Water does not respect State boundaries; neither do parasites or bacteria. As currently drafted, this bill could present a threat to every American who eats or drinks. Our amendment would simply remove any ambiguity about the continuing ability of the American Government to combat these deadly threats. Parasites don't take a moratorium; microbes don't take a moratorium, and safeguards shouldn't take a moratorium. Please support this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Paperwork Reduction Act provides for permanent authorization for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. My amendment will place a limit on this authorization, by sunsetting the agency after 5 years. This should not be a controversial amendment. Both Democrats and Republicans support the intent of this legislation: to reduce the unnecessary paperwork for businesses, citizens, and government. My amendment would force Congress to re-evaluate the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by a date certain. After 5 years, Congress could decide if it, too, is creating unnecessary paperwork. We should force the agency to prove to Congress and the American taxpayer that it is actually meeting its objective, and based on our conclusions, we could reauthorize it, or decide that the agency has completed its mission and is no longer needed. Or decide that it is just another Federal bureaucracy in need of a mercy killing. This body should have the option to make those decisions. But if we give this agency a permanent authorization, we will make it more difficult to make those decisions. And if proponents of term limits have their way, many of us may not be here to participate in those decisions. If some of my colleagues support sunsetting a Member's elected service after 6 years, why wouldn't that person support sunsetting a Federal bureaucracy after 5 years? Mr. Chairman, sunsetting this agency will also allow Congress to take into account new technologies developed over the next 5 years. Information technology is moving very quickly. It's impossible for us to anticipate the new means by which data will be collected and made available to the public. Five years from now, the technology that we use today might be obsolete. It might even make paperwork obsolete. Consider how out-of- date technology from 1990 appears today. like the Internet or America Online, so we must be flexible. Mr. Chairman, just yesterday the Committee on Government Reform held a hearing on reinventing government--how to make it work better, smarter, and with less resources. We heard how hard it was to replace regulations and bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness. The administration received bipartisan praise for trying to get rid of the useless redtape. On the House floor, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist there is too much Government, and too many Government bureaucracies. So I ask my colleagues, why create yet another Federal agency with a permanent authorization? It just does not make sense. I'll give you an example: In the coming weeks and months, my Republican colleagues may promote legislation to abolish enormous Federal agencies, like the Department of Education. They might win. They might lose. But either way, they are going to have a titanic battle on their hands. All my amendment says is let us install a simple mechanism to make eliminating this new Federal agency much easier. If my Republican colleagues truly believe in reducing the Federal bureaucracy, they should welcome this amendment with open arms. I urge my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support it.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 867.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to convene tonight's special order to discuss dramatic improvements in how the Federal Government does business. These improvements have come thanks to the Clinton administration and the 103d Congress' efforts to reinvent government. The American people's faith in government is at a historic low. Recent surveys show that only 17 percent of Americans believe in the ability of their government. Outcries for change in both the 1992 and 1994 elections speak for themselves. But stump speeches denouncing government have successfully obscured the fact that government is changing. It is getting smaller, more efficient and more user friendly. For the past 2 years, we have been working to implement the recommendations of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. Implementation of these major reforms involves hard and patient work in the nuts and bolts of government management. It is not flashy or eye-catching, but it is getting results. Tonight my colleagues and I will offer real-life examples of how government for the first time in a generation is actually working better with less people and fewer resources than it did the year before. As I mentioned earlier, the restructuring was first announced by Vice President Gore in a report of the National Performance Review from redtape to results, creating a government that works better and costs less. This ongoing initiative has four main themes: customer service, procurement reform, eliminating obsolete programs, and reducing the Federal workforce. Think back for a minute to a memorable sporting event, the Super Bowl or the World Cup. Think about the size of the stadium, like the Rose Bowl, one of America's largest, filled to capacity. That is the net number of people, over 100,000 to date, that the Clinton administration has taken off the Federal payroll, 100,000 people whose salaries and benefits the taxpayers no longer have to pay. Madam Speaker, 2 years from now, that number will grow to 272,000, enough people to fill nearly three Rose Bowls. This year, Penn State won the Rose Bowl, but Vice President Gore deserves the national championship for leading this downsizing effort. Today the number of employees of the Federal Government is at the lowest level since the Kennedy administration. Because of this action taken by President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress, there are fewer Federal employees than under the so-called Republican fiscal conservatives: Presidents Nixon, Ford, Bush, and even the Gipper. This, Mr. Speaker, is an amazing accomplishment. I just want to show it on this chart. This was in 1963, the Kennedy years; it has gone up, and for the first time it is going down, and we have reduced government by over 100,000 employees. Due to other initiatives in reinventing government. Employees still working for the Federal Government are able to interact with the public in a more intelligent and friendly manner. I will give one example from my district in New York City. For years, the Veterans Administration has carried a terrible reputation among veterans. Notorious even within the VA was the New York regional office. Before Clinton and Gore, an application for veterans benefits would be handled by at least 12 employees working in 4 separate operations. However, if a veteran actually showed up in person, they would not meet with any of the 12 people who handle the application. Instead, he or she would meet with a benefits counselor, employee No. 13, but the benefits counselor would not have access to all the necessary information. The counselor would have to go to yet another unit of the office on a different floor and get the file from another clerk, employee No. 14. That is the way it used to work. Today the application is handled by a single team responsible for processing, filing, and dealing with the veteran face to face. When a veteran comes in, he or she deals with someone who knows their file, their history, and can tell the veteran exactly what is going on. This change has brought a tremendous increase in customer satisfaction for the veterans. We have reduced the Federal workforce, and we are doing more with less. But taxpayers should be most excited about procurement reform. I know that the word ``procurement'' can put a lot of people to sleep, but there are more than 200 billion reasons for taxpayers to stay awake and be very concerned about procurement. That is because the Federal Government spends over $200 billion on procurement every year. That is $800 for every American spent on goods and services. There is no more important area in which to control spending and better manage our limited resources. The Federal Government's record on procurement before 1993 was terrible. We all remember stories about the $600 hammer or the $2000 toilet seat, but one you may not have heard occurred during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. During the Gulf war, the Air Force needed 6,000 standard, commercial Motorola radios for the troops, like this one. They wanted to order them so they could communicate with each other. But even in that emergency, the Government could not just buy commercial products at competitive prices. Under the regulations at the time, Motorola would have had to supply records of what it cost to make these, and documents, proving they had never charged anyone less for them. For quite a while, the U.S. Government could not purchase these radios. It is hard to believe, but finally, Japan had to buy the radios from Motorola and give them to the Air Force. That is how bad it was. Last year's procurement reform legislation solved this problem by eliminating requirements that the Pentagon obtain cost and pricing data for commercially available items. In other words, if they are commercially available, you can buy them and cut out the redtape. I am certain that this historic law will simplify and streamline the Federal procurement process, while ensuring fairness, accountability, and integrity. Let me give you another example about how procurement reform is making the Government work more intelligently and effectively. For a long enormous amounts of time and money developing its own specifications for easily available products, like salad dressing. Instead of being able to buy commercial brands of salad dressing, like this one, off the shelf, like every other American, the Government ended up buying products like this one, paying more for less quality, but this salad dressing was designed for Government specs. No more. If it is available on the shelf, you can buy it off the shelf. As a result of changes initiated by the Vice President and the 103d Congress, the Defenses Personnel Supply Center, which buys all the food, clothing, and medical supplies for our troops has been able to undertake common-sense procurement techniques that make ordinary commercial products like this Wishbone dressing available to the troops like it is to every other American. To date, the supply center has realized savings between 5 and 10 percent, and for those lower prices, our troops get better tasting, nationally recognized products. Lastly, we also save money because we now get our commercial products delivered when they are needed, so there is no longer any need to warehouse enormous quantities of Government-designed salad dressings. In addition to this commonsense program, this new law will reduce paperwork, especially for contracts under $100,000, and encourage the Federal Government to buy commercial products at the fairest prices. It will strengthen oversight and procurement, improve integrity, and standardize the procurement code by eliminating obsolete and redundant laws. It incorporates many of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review recommendations, such as providing for multi-year contracts, promoting excellence in vendor performance, and allowing State and local governments to use Federal supply centers. In a nutshell, the law is going to save the taxpayers billions of dollars. This is what is projected to be saved: from the downsizing, $46 billion; procurement reform, $12 billion; and in other areas, five, coming to a total of $63 billion. However, President Clinton plans to reform the procurement process even more. Today there was a hearing in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to outline the administration's plans for more improvement to America's procurement laws. I would like to enter the entire record of that committee hearing today into the Record, so that the American taxpayers can have easy access to read everything that took place in this hearing today. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, reinventing government means one more thing, abolishing obsolete programs. Senator James Byrne once said ``The closest thing in this world to immortality is a government agency.'' But President Clinton has demonstrated that immortality for Federal programs is no longer a sure thing. For example, more than 50 years ago, wool and mohair were deemed important for making Army and Navy uniforms, so a Government subsidy was started. That program survived and grew under every President from Roosevelt to Bush until Bill Clinton. In 1993, the President and Congress affirmed eliminating the wool, mohair, and honey subsidies, thus saving the taxpayers $695 million. That is a lot of money. We are just getting started reviewing other obsolete programs. That was just 1 of the more than 300 programs that have been eliminated so far. What does this reform add up to? It adds up to $46 billion in savings to the American taxpayer, and an estimated $60 billion over the next 2 years. Madam Speaker, we have more obsolete programs to abolish, and more procurement reforms to achieve, but thanks to the Reinventing Government program, the American people have reason to believe that their Government can work again, and America can compete and win again in the world economy. We have taken important first steps toward the day when business as usual in Washington will actually have positive connotations. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Steny Hoyer].

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman so much. Madam Speaker, our next speaker is Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mrs. MALONEY. Our next speaker is a member of the committee, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].