Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not make a habit of defending the Contract With America. But when this House passed the line-item veto last Monday night, important language from the contract was not included. And that is bad news for the American taxpayer. The bill gives the President broad power to veto any spending provision. But the bill's authors gave the President very narrow authority to veto tax benefits or tax loopholes for special interests. This excludes the vast majority of tax breaks-- worth hundreds of billions. The Contract With America said the President should be able to veto any tax benefit. My Republican colleagues breached their contract by voting against a version of the bill containing the contract's exact language. Apparently, they dislike tax loopholes for special interests only when they are the minority party. Mr. Speaker, let us remember another pearl of wisdom from the Contract With America. It says, ``If we break this contract, throw us out!''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], for offering this amendment. Time and again she proves why she is a national treasure in protecting the safety and welfare of women, children, and families. Throughout the week we have been talking about fighting violent crime, Mr. Chairman. I think murder would fall into that category. Roe versus Wade was handed down 22 years ago, but over the past 23 months, five people have been killed and countless others injured at abortion clinics. Mr. Chairman, anti-choice extremists are attempting to accomplish through intimidation and terrorism what they cannot accomplish in a court of law. As a result, the constitutionally protected right to choose is being eroded away. A large majority of the American people support a woman's right to choose, but the right to choose is meaningless without the access to choose. In 83 percent of the counties across America, Mr. Chairman, not a single physician is willing to provide abortion services. Why? Because they fear for their very lives. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether we are pro-choice or anti-choice, it is a question of whether we are pro-violence or anti- violence. It is a question of whether we truly believe in law enforcement, or only enforcement of the laws we agree with. Support this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the most outstanding religious institutions in the United States, Congregation Emanu-El, which will soon be celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding. This remarkable temple, which is located on Fifth Avenue at East 65th Street in the heart of my district, has tended to the spiritual needs of its congregants as well as the social and philanthropic needs of the greater community for a century and a half. I want to first congratulate Dr. Ronald B. Sobel, who has served as the temple's senior rabbi since 1973. Rabbi Soebl is a world-renowned scholar and spiritual leader who deserves enormous credit for helping to make Emanu-El into one of the largest and most respected synagogues in the world. In fact, Temple Emanu-El is physically the largest synagogue in the world and boasts the largest membership of any reform temple. But its origins were indeed quite humble. In 1845, a handful of German immigrants pooled $30 and rented a small room on the Lower East Side, thus becoming the fist reform Jewish congregation in the city. As the congregation grew, its members found new locations, first a former Methodist church and then a former Baptist church. In 1868, Emanu-El congregants raised over half a million dollars and built a new facility on Fifth Avenue and 43rd Street. Finally, in 1925, construction began on the Temple's final and current home. In 1930, this magnificent structure was dedicated. The history of Temple Emanu-El is the history of New York, the Nation, and indeed the entire World. Early in this century, the temple founded a committee to assist victims of the Russian massacres. Seven members of the congregation were killed serving in World War I and 22 were killed during the Second World War. During this war, the temple established a recreational canteen which ultimately served 1.3 million American men and women in uniform. In recent years, the temple instituted programs to address the pressing needs of New York City. The Sunday lunch program--developed in 1983--provides 140 homeless citizens with a hot lunch each week. In 1988, the temple opened a homeless shelter which has become one of our city's most successful facilities of its kind. Over the years, the leaders of Congregation Emanu-El has read like a ``Who's Who'' of American civic leadership. Emanu-El members have included Adolph Ochs, publisher of the New York Times; Oscar S. Straus, the first Jewish Cabinet Member, who served as President Theodore Roosevelt's Secretary of Commerce and Labor; and Irving Lehman, who served as chief justice of the New York State Court of Appeals. More recently, Emanu-El president Maxwell Rabb served as U.S. Ambassador to Italy. Mr. Speaker, for 150 years, Congregation Emanu-El has served as a beacon of community spirit and religious commitment. It is an honor to represent this institution in the U.S. Congress, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Temple Emanu-El on this auspicious occasion.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been much rhetoric in this House about helping working families. Yet that rhetoric rings hollow when there is vocal opposition to raising the minimum wage. Where I come from, if you work full time making only $4.25 an hour, you are living in poverty. The current minimum wage offers little incentive to go off welfare and find a job. Some say that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs, but study after study shows that is just not true. The minimum wage is at its lowest real level in 40 years. But some in the majority seem out of touch with just how little the minimum wage buys. If I were to propose that Members of Congress make only $4.25 an hour, people would call that proposal ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Members of Congress cannot live on $4.25 an hour, and neither can anyone else. Have a heart, raise the minimum wage.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague that this would not apply to the middle-class income tax. It specifically states in the Contract With America, ``Such term does not include any benefit provided to a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general conditions such as income, number of dependents or marital status.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise very strongly in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues from the great States of New York and Wisconsin. The line item veto bill addresses the deficit by giving the President the power to cut pork-barrel projects out of appropriations bills. It gives the President broad authority to line item veto any spending, regardless of the amount, from the entire spending to only one dollar of spending. Yet the authors on the other side of the aisle of this legislation have left the job half done. It gives the President very narrow authority to line item veto tax provisions, only those which benefit 100 or fewer people. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be tough on spending, should we not likewise be tough on a tax giveaways? In the committee, and I was a member of the committee, in the original text of H.R. 2, we addressed the problem of targeted tax benefits only in the most limited way. It allowed the President to rescind these sweetheart tax deals, but defined them as provisions which benefited five or fewer people. The Democrats on the committee worked with some of the Republicans and managed to raise the limit to 100 in the markup. But the fundamental problem remains. The artificial numerical number can easily be fudged. Any smart lawyer will easily write tax loopholes to avoid the President's veto. It will simply benefit 101 or 102 people. Then the President will not be able to strike it out. As we have heard, the Republican Party has long been the champion of a much broader definition, right up to the point that they gained the majority. Now we see a sudden switch. The Republicans' Contract With America, signed by practically every Member on the other side of the aisle, contained the very same language being offered in this amendment today. Make no mistake, this is a critical vote. Many would view this amendment as the first step on the slippery slope of selling out to special interests. If you are for special interests, then vote against this amendment. I challenge my Republican colleagues to support the amendment and to keep the promises they have made to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], who has worked on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the good work of United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York. This week marks UJA-Federation Week, a program featuring activities at community agencies, synagogues, and schools to promote awareness about UJA-Federation and the services it provides. Sunday, February 5, UJA-Federation will hold its annual Super Sunday development event. The funds raised during Super Sunday will enable UJA-Federation to help 4.5 million people in New York, Israel, and over 50 countries around the world. UJA-Federation helps the Jewish community and New Yorkers from all backgrounds, including children, the aged, the poor, immigrants and refugees, single-parent families, the sick, the disabled, the homeless, and people with AIDS. Mr. Speaker, it has been my great pleasure to work with UJA- Federation to help those in need, and I would ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating UJA-Federation Week as well as Super Sunday.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] for organizing this special order and for her hard work on the welfare reform task force of the Democratic Party and the Child Enforcement Act along with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that raising a child is the responsibility of both parents, so it is a national disgrace that we collect only 18 percent of all child support cases. Everyone knows that establishing paternity will increase accountability. So it is unacceptable that we identify only 18 percent of the AFDC children without a legal father. Everyone knows that increasing child support collection is very doable, so it is simply wrong that we collect only $14 billion out of a potential $48 billion every year. That is a $34 billion gap that could be collected and be part of the Federal Treasury. Mr. Speaker, enforcing comprehensive child support should be high priority of Congress. We can and should expand the penalties for child support delinquency. We can and should simplify the procedures for establishing paternity. We can and should set up a national registry of child support orders. We can and should institute more performance- based incentives. However, Mr. Speaker, I have looked, and I cannot find these provisions in the Contract With America. Mr. Speaker, any welfare reform should also have reforms for child support enforcement. Improving the current child support systems is not only cost effective, but it will also enable many families to avoid welfare. Penalties such as denying professional, recreational, and drivers licenses to a delinquent deadbeat parent will cut down on teenage pregnancies and help increase enforcement. Penalties such as enforcing liens on real property and reporting delinquency to credit bureaus will send a strong message about responsibility. When these penalties are adequately enforced, a deadbeat parent will think twice about avoiding payments. Those who are hurt most by deadbeat dads are our children. They are our most vulnerable citizens. They cannot vote, cannot speak for themselves, cannot spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress, yet one in every five children is poor. Even worse, one out of every two children in female-headed households are poor. These children need child support payments to literally put food into their mouths, yet time after time these same children receive little or no support from their deadbeat parent. This financial abandonment creates untold hardships for our children and for the American public. Child poverty has been linked to higher education and medical costs and to increased crime rates. According to the Children's Defense Fund, child poverty costs this Nation between $36 billion and $177 billion in reduced future worker productivity and employment. The deadbeat parent who has not paid their child support has not only neglected their legal responsibility to their child, but has also neglected their responsibility to their country. We all know that the present child support system is in shambles. For many single parent families child support payments are irregular, late, missed, and often not paid at all. Those who do receive payments find them wholly inadequate. The average child support payment for a poor woman is only $5 per day. That is not even enough for a family meal at McDonald's. No wonder so many children are living in poverty. Every day single parents struggle to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, and health care. Why should children be punished for the sins of their deadbeat parent? Why should the American public foot the bill for the irresponsible parent? Already 17.6 million children live in single-parent homes. As more and more children live in single-parent homes, the need for stronger child support enforcement will only get worse. Child support programs more than pay for themselves. For every $1 spent, $4 more are collected. Child support instills responsibility. Child support prevents welfare. Child support raises children from poverty. Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Let us address this issue now. Our country and our children deserve nothing less, and again I ask you to include this in the welfare reform package.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my reluctant opposition to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. I am reluctant to oppose H.R. 5 because I think that its basic purpose is sound and important. Almost everyone in this body agrees that something must be done about the increasing burdens that the Federal Government places upon the States and local governments. Let there be no mistake--I support unfunded mandates reform legislation. I proudly voted for a well-crafted, bipartisan bill in the last Congress, and I voted for the substitute to H.R. 5 offered by Representative Moran today. Those efforts were designed to allow Congress to make informed decisions about the burdens the Federal Government places on the States. They required the House to be fully informed about those costs before passing legislation. It is unfortunate therefore that H.R. 5 has so many serious problems, starting with the abuse of the legislative process which brought this bill to the floor. It is ironic that this was the first bill to be reported out of the newly renamed Government Reform and Oversight Committee, for it did not receive 1 minute of hearings in that committee--a bad omen for the new era of openness called for by the Contract With America. The partisan power play which brought this bill to the floor is all the more disturbing given the fundamental ways in which it will affect the intrinsic nature of American government. A bill of this importance deserved better. As it is written, H.R. 5 is an invitation to paralysis designed to prevent us from requiring the States to do anything unless we fully pay for it. Proponents of this bill argue that it allows us to impose mandates if, by a majority vote, we choose to do so. However, the same proponents would, I think, agree that this bill establishes the principle that the Federal Government should not impose mandates on the States unless it is prepared to pay every dime of the costs of the new requirements. That is not a proposition that I can agree with. Many amendments were offered to this bill which would have added to the list of exemptions from this legislation. I offered one which would have exempted legislation to protect the health of children. I voted for others which would have exempted banking regulations, environmental legislation and bills to protect work-safety standards. Other amendments designed to protect private enterprise and to require an analysis of the benefits of specific bills as well as their costs, were offered and rejected. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the bill before us, however, well- intentioned, will roll back the progress that the Federal Government has made in protecting the most fundamental rights of the American people. These include the right to breathe clean air, the right to drink pure water, the right to eat healthy food, and the right to work in a safe workplace. Those are all national problems which require national solutions and national standards. Interstate problems are one example of this need. Air and water pollution know no boundaries. The smoke from incinerations blows easily from Ohio to New York. Sewage flows just a easily down the Mississippi from Missouri to Louisiana. The Federal Government must also set standards of decency and compassion. It must stand against efforts by the States to cut off food stamps to needy children or reduce standards in nursing homes. Welfare reform is something everyone agrees needs to be done, but as a Federal legislator I would fight attempts by the States to abolish it. By imposing the point of order contained in this bill, H.R. 5 is a mandate for gridlock on these and other national priorities. Gridlock that the American people have rejected time and time again. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the goals of this bill. But it is abundantly clear that H.R. 5 was hastily written--and badly written at that--and that it was forced out of committee and onto the floor with an authoritarian heavy hand more interested in partisan politics than good policy. A reform bill should push forward, not set us back. By building on the bipartisan efforts of the last Congress, I believe that a good bill could have been presented to the Congress, one that helped, rather than potentially harmed, the people we were sent here to represent. It is unfortunate we did not have the opportunity to vote for that bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the President called for a smaller, leaner, smarter government. I think we all agree. So today I am introducing a bill to eliminate the dumbest program in the entire Federal Government, the Civilian Marksmanship Program. This piece of petrified pork was put in the budget in 1903 during the Spanish-American War, Mr. Speaker, to teach Americans how to shoot straight. Ninety years later high-tech weapons have replaced rifles. It is time to declare victory and delete this wasteful program. While we are fighting very hard to get guns off the street, Mr. Speaker, this program hands out 40 million rounds of free ammunition, sells surplus guns, and conducts an annual shooting match. We have too much debt and too many needs to subsidize recreational shooting. This program is nothing more than a special interest boondoggle. Any Member who has ever campaigned against special interest politics should be embarrassed to vote for it.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article written by a great American and a great friend named Col. Bernard Wray. Colonel Wray has spent his entire career advocating the needs of America's soldiers, both active and retired. In this article, Colonel Wray writes about the 50th anniversary of the passage of the GI bill of rights. I salute Colonel Wray for his commitment to America's military, and urge my colleagues to read his account of the passage of this landmark legislation. United-Manhattan Post No. 9 American Legion Salutes the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Passage of the GI Bill of Rights The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, was signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on June 22, 1944, in his office in the White House, flanked by Legionnaires John Stelle, former Governor of Illinois, and Commander Harry W. Colmery of Kansas, who drafted the GI Bill of Rights in December, 1943. The American Legion Posts at the Grass Roots level, from all over the USA, demanded that Congress should provide for returning Veterans, unlike the dark days after World War I, when thousands of war veterans returned, homeless and helpless, with few places to turn for help. The American Legion rank-and-file members around the 48 states demanded a GI Bill, which was drafted entirely by the American Legion. The GI Bill of Rights proved to be the most revolutionary piece of social and economic legislation ever enacted! It has educated over 20 million GI's, men and women Veterans, who served their Country with honor. It their own homes. Veterans who came from the poorer socioeconomic areas were given educational opportunities at the best colleges. Vocational and on-the-job training for technicians were provided. Loan guarantees to help Veterans purchase homes, farms and small businesses were provided; as were the 52-20 payments to Veterans who were looking for decent permanent jobs. Veterans Administration hospitals were built, and offered war heroes like Senator Bob Dole, and Senator Dan Inouye, top rehabilitation medicine, near their home towns. The American Legion had to use every bit of its political clout to insure that members of the House and Senate, who told the veterans that they supported the GI Bill of Rights, kept their word and voted for it. Senator George Bennett ``Champ'' Clark, a World War I Veteran, who served with Captain Harry Truman, and who was the original founder of the American Legion in 1919, managed the GI Bill through the US Senate; where it carried unanimously. In the House, and in the US Senate, on February 16, 1944, for reasons only they could understand, the VFW, Disabled American Veterans and Military Order of Purple Heart, requested of the Senate Finance Committee members, that they kill the GI Bill of Rights. Committee Chairman ``Champ'' Clark, to his great credit, brought the GI Bill to a Committee vote. It passed unanimously. The House version of the GI Bill of Rights passed by 387 to 0. But minor differences in the House and Senate versions had to be worked out by a joint conference committee. Representative John Rankin of Mississippi tried, at the last minute, to block the GI Bill of Rights. The American Legion found the deciding vote, Representative John D. Gibson, a member of the Joint Conference Committee recuperating from an illness, down in Douglas, Georgia. On the morning of June 10, 1944, Representative John D. Gibson was flown, thanks to the efforts of the American Legion, to Washington DC where he stormed into the Joint Conference Committee room and cast the vote that broke the tie. Millions of taxpayers who became doctors, lawyers, businessmen, clergymen, teachers, professors, entrepreneurs and responsible members of the Middle Class can thank the American Legion for their efforts, for lobbying for American Veterans. The GI Bill of Rights paid for itself by generating hundreds of billions of tax dollars paid by GI's over the next 50 years. Now, the American Legion recognizes, through its over 3,000,000 grass roots members that the original GI Bill of Rights, just as strong as the 1944 version in strength and stature, is needed. Post No. 9 will be in the front ranks in fighting for a stronger GI Bill of Rights.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, once again, Members are forced to take to the floor to rectify serious errors and omissions in H.R. 5. All of the major banking regulators have indicated that H.R. 5 might seriously impact their ability to protect the safety and soundness of America's banking system. You may have heard this before, but it bears repeating: The largest unfunded mandate of the past 20 years was inflicted by the States on the Federal Government in the form of the S&L crisis. Federal taxpayers have had to pay out tens upon tens of billions of dollars to bail out the mess created, in large part, by State banking laws that left the Federal Government paying the tab. I would like to quote the comments offered by the Republican Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on this very issue: ``I am concerned that imposing the requirements of unfunded mandates legislation on these Federal financial institution regulatory agencies could delay the issuance of prompt safety and soundness rules that affect federally insured financial institutions and credit unions and their deposit insurance funds.'' The other body then unanimously adopted an amendment that is even more sweeping than the one that is before us today. Do we in the House really want to possibly sow the seeds for a future banking crisis by possibly preventing or delaying the ability of our banking regulators to take action to protect the integrity of our banking system? We can dispel all concerns and protect the taxpayers simply by passing this well-considered amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] very briefly.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendments would add to the list of exemptions, children. Surely if we are exempting seniors and social security, we should give the same support protection to our children. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that a bill of this magnitude was not given one single public hearing before being rammed through the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Few people in this Chamber today would dispute the need to provide for relief from unfunded Federal mandates to our cities and States, but instead of taking a scalpel to this problem, we are attacking it with a meat cleaver. No one knows exactly what the consequences may be, particularly for our most vulnerable citizens, our children. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to exempt auditing and accounting procedures, treaties like NAFTA, and special emergency legislation such as flood relief, and not provide an exemption for children. Our children cannot vote, cannot speak for themselves, cannot spend millions of dollars to lobby Congress. Maybe that is why our children are in such a deepening crisis. According to the Children's Defense Fund, every day in America three children die from child abuse, 9 children are murdered, 43 children are either murdered or injured by guns, 207 children are arrested for violent crimes. In 1992, 2.9 million children were reported as abused and neglected. We will debate this legislation at least for 3 days, and during that time 10 children under the age of 5 will die of abuse and neglect. Despite this urgent crisis, Mr. Chairman, this House is about to pass legislation that could make it much more difficult to address the severe health and safety threats facing our children. How much more must our children suffer until we decide that the costs of assisting them should enjoy the same exemption as accounting? Mr. Chairman, my amendment would rectify this deficiency by adding legislation and regulation directly affecting the health and safety of children to the list of exempted categories. Are children not as worthy of protection as accountants, treaties, and flood relief as a national emergency? In our haste to pass a bill within an arbitrary time without an exemption for children and not knowing the ramifications of the impact of this legislation on children we could seriously jeopardize the health and safety of millions of American children. Mr. Chairman, a Member of the other body referred to this bill as an experiment. Do we really have the right to make our children the guinea pigs of that experiment? I do not think so. The health, safety and general welfare of our children should be a national priority. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree very much that we should know the costs of mandates and programs. I voted for a bill last year in the committee that required a cost analysis for every single program. But if the gentleman is so certain that the waivers and the procedural hurdles that one must overcome are flawless, then why did the authors of this bill find it necessary to create any exemptions at all? Obviously the authors are not so sure that the waiver will work for national security, auditing and accounting, emergency legislation, and Social Security. Mr. Chairman, I am just asking that children, our most vulnerable resource that cannot vote, cannot speak for themselves, be added to this list of exemptions.

Mrs. MALONEY. I withdraw my point of order.

Mrs. MALONEY. I request a recorded vote, a rollcall vote.

Mrs. MALONEY. I withdraw it.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that my amendments be considered en bloc.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this was my amendment, and it is a printing record error. The Republicans voted against exempting the most vulnerable citizens in our society, children, that cannot vote, cannot speak for themselves in the unfunded mandates bill. But it is a printing error. They did not vote for it.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose H.R. 5, because I think that its basic purpose is sound and important. Gone are the days when Congress can heap miles of mandates upon State and local governments without regard to what these requirements cost. Let there be no mistake, I support unfunded mandates reform legislation. Last year, I proudly voted for a well-crafted bill in Congress. But this bill has many serious problems. My first problem is one of process. It is ironic that the very first bill to be reported out of the newly renamed Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was forced through the committee in a very heavy- handed way without a public hearing, even though this bill has the potential of affecting the basic environmental, health, and safety regulations afforded the American people. That is not Government reform, Mr. Chairman. It is simply a partisan power play. But this debate should not be one about process. It should be about progress. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the bill before us, however well-intentioned, will roll back the progress that the Federal Government has made in protecting the fundamental rights of the American people, the right to breathe clean air, drink pure water, eat healthy food, work in a safe workplace. I am sympathetic to the need of States and localities to know how much they are required to pay to meet Federal mandates, but I cannot support a bill which would effectively remove the Federal Government as the safety net of last resort for the average American and one that was pushed through the process in a way that would have made Huey Long very proud.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a wonderful woman who recently marked her 15th year with the Brick Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. Since 1979, Associate Pastor Leslie Merlin has devoted her considerable talents and deep compassion to the Brick Church as Associate Pastor. As a parishioner at the Brick Church, I have enjoyed her sermons and been a beneficiary of her wisdom many times. When she arrived in 1979, Pastor Merlin brought with her to the Brick Church a longstanding commitment to helping others, and a devotion to making the world around her a better place. After graduating from Wagner College in Staten Island, she served as a volunteer teacher in Papua New Guinea. Shortly thereafter, she blended her interest in teaching with a calling to the church by earning a master of divinity at Princeton Seminary. After a brief stay with the Nassau Presbyterian Church in Princeton, she came to the Brick Church, which has enjoyed her presence ever since. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating Leslie Merlin's 15th anniversary with the Brick Church. She has been both a friend and an inspiration to the parishioners of the Brick Church, and I wish her many more years of happiness and joy.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Greenpoint Lions Club, and its newest Melvin Jones Fellow, Bud Madden. The Greenpoint Lions Club was organized on December 1, 1939, and sponsored by the Brooklyn Lions Club. Past presidents of the Greenpoint Lions Club are practically a Who's Who of Greenpoint. The Greenpoint Club is one of more than 60 area clubs, comprising a district which includes Brooklyn and Queens. This district is part of a larger district covering New York State and Bermuda. The local district joins with other clubs in 178 countries and geographic areas, making the Greenpoint Lions Club a member of the largest service organization in the world. Every year the Club raises money and names a Melvin Jones Fellow to help fulfill its motto, ``We Serve.'' And who have they served? The Lions give their steadfast support to the YMCA, Greenpoint Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Little League, Polish National Alliance, churches, Scouts and the local police department, parks and playgrounds. Others in need only have to ask. The club has recently sponsored the Toys For Tots program, providing gifts, clothing and toys at holidays throughout the Greenpoint community. In addition, old eye glass collection boxes have been filled many times, adding to the club's spirit of service to the needy. Melvin Jones Fellowships continue to grow because of its outstanding contributions, especially to ``Campaign Sight First.'' I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting the Greenpoint Lions Club and Bud Madden for all the of the wonderful 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, I rise today in recognition of the 19th anniversary of the Saint Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corp. St. Nicks, as it is commonly known, came into existence in response to a catastrophic fire which left 18 families homeless. Through the spirit of volunteerism, the families were resettled and the group began looking at rebuilding on the vacant lot and rehabilitating an adjacent building. From that point in 1975, St. Nicks has flourished and grown under the guidance of the Pratt Center for Community and Environmental Development into an organization that provides comprehensive services to revitalize and redevelop the Greenpoint/Williamsburg areas of Brooklyn. Its 19 years of experience with Brooklyn's housing issues has allowed St. Nicks to accomplish some truly amazing feats. It has redeveloped or constructed over 25 units of low- and moderate-income housing, including senior housing, housing for homeless families, and two-family homes. St. Nicks also assists over 300 families and individuals each year with tenant advocacy services and homelessness prevention programs. In addition, St. Nicks provides economic development programs in an effort to revitalize the economic base of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg areas of Brooklyn. The services provided by St. Nicks include job training, security center. Mr. Speaker, the St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corp. is the type of organization that we would all like to have behind us in times of need. It is incredible to think that a horrible fire would give birth to such a wonderful organization, and I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting the 19th anniversary of St. Nicks.