Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I would like to raise a point of clarification.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in friendship on this.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, we are 250 days away from the census and, as my good friend on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has pointed out, this is constitutionally mandated. We have to have a census. Whether we call it an offset or an emergency, every person in America needs to be counted. Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to fund the census at $4.5 billion, the requested amount from the administration, and I urge a very strong no vote on the Coburn amendment. The Coburn amendment would make it impossible to get a count in the census; it would create the worst census since we began counting over 200 years ago. I urge a very strong no vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the sense of Congress of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and in support of the leadership and hard effort of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) on the subcommittee who included in the census language in the bill support for counting Americans abroad. All the major organizations that represent companies and individuals abroad, including Republicans abroad and Democrats abroad, all support counting our citizens abroad. The subcommittee held a hearing on this issue, and I was very impressed by the patriotic desire and efforts that Americans abroad have made to be counted. Dr. Prewitt, the head of the Census Bureau, testified that at this late time it was too late to accurately count them, but we should get ready for the next census. I have introduced legislation, the Census of Americans Abroad Act, and this calls upon the Census Bureau to conduct a count of Americans abroad as soon as it is practicable, as soon as it is possible. We all support the gentleman's sense of Congress, the language that was put in the bill and the efforts on both sides of the aisle to count Americans abroad.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. The $1.7 billion that was added was to do door-to-door enumeration, door-to-door count because of the lawsuit that was brought by this body. That is what the $1.7 billion is. Actually to use modern scientific methods would be less costly and would actually save money. But because of this requirement from the lawsuit brought by the Republican majority on the apportionment between the States, there must be a door-to-door count on redistricting and the distribution of Federal funds. The use of modern scientific methods can take place which is a more accurate count and one that is less costly. It is unfortunate that we had to add $1.7 billion in addition for a count door to door which all the scientific data tells us will be less accurate.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I find myself in the very odd position of supporting very strongly the Republican leadership's position on the census. This amendment would cut $2.8 billion from census funding for fiscal year 2000. This amendment would make it impossible to conduct the census in 2000. Mr. Chairman, the census is mandated by the Constitution. It will be the largest peacetime mobilization in the United States history. The Bureau has to open up 520 local census offices and hire 860,000 employees in little more than 8 months. They cannot do it without funding, without the money. A cut in census funding will result in a census meltdown. The majority has repeatedly said that it would pay the full cost of the census, no matter what. It is time that they make good on this promise. This morning, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pressed several Members to assure him that funding in the bill was sufficient to conduct the census. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) referred to a promise made and a promise kept. Now the supporters of this amendment are talking about failing to keep the promise. What will be the effect? Without full funding, the quality of the census will suffer. With a cut of $2.8 billion, more than half of the year 2000 census cost, that means that shortly after the census gets started in April 2000 we will be back on the floor again pressing an emergency spending bill to keep the census going. Only then it will be an emergency and all of the destruction we normally associate with emergency spending bills will have happened. If the census shuts down in the middle of things, we will have the worst census in the 20th Century, and this Congress will bear the responsibility for that. If the census shuts down, 800,000 census takers will be laid off. If the census shuts down, the apportionment numbers will be damaged beyond repair and the census will be in the courts for the rest of the decade. Mr. Chairman, only once in the history of the census have we failed to reapportion the House. That was after the 1920 census, when Congress failed to carry out its duty not because the numbers were flawed but because they did not like what it showed. If this amendment passes, we will not have a census that can be used for apportionment or anything else. Mr. Chairman, we must defeat this amendment and prevent a large embarrassment of this institution. I strongly support the leadership on the Republican side and oppose the Coburn amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment. Here we go again. Today marks the 127th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. Each of these votes is documented in my choice report which can be found on my website. Access to abortion has been restricted bill by bill, vote by vote, and procedure by procedure. The DeGette amendment seeks to correct one of these attacks on American women. Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their health care, so, if this ban passes, it would prevent these women from seeking needed reproductive health care. Most women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women, if pregnant in prison, became pregnant from rape or abuse before they entered prison. Most women prisoners are poor when they enter prison, and cannot rely on anyone for financial assistance. These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the infant. The ban on abortion assistance for women in prison closes off their only opportunity to receive such care, it denies them their constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their dignity. Current law tragically ignores these women. Perhaps more disturbing is that it also tragically ignores children born to women in prison. These children are taken from their mothers who cannot raise them in a stable family environment. What kind of life are we providing for them? Six percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they enter prison. Recent news accounts have described cases of pregnant inmates being shackled during long hours of labor and delivery. It is unfair to rob women in prison of their basic fundamental right to choose abortion and also provide for unsafe deliveries and treatment while pregnant. Mr. Chairman, let's not intensify an already difficult situation, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, no matter what we do, we must fund the decennial census, and we have to stop putting the census in jeopardy. The Census Bureau needs full funding by October 1. The administration has requested $4.5 billion in order to count everyone in America. The bill before us contains all but about $11 million of that request, and I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform for providing that money. Almost as important, this bill contains none of the onerous language prohibiting the use of modern scientific methods which has been in previous Commerce-Justice-State funding bills that have held up two budgets and led to one presidential veto of a disaster relief bill because of the antisampling language attached to it. The Census Bureau plans to use such methods to conduct a quality check on the raw census field counts. These more accurate numbers can and will be used for nonapportionment purposes like redistricting and the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funds. Mr. Chairman, we have been debating the census for an entire decade. No one should be surprised. But Congress failed to allow for the census in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and now, we find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of declaring the census unanticipated. This is not an emergency. We have done the census every 10 years since 1790. The majority is about to put together and pass a huge tax cut. They should pay for the census out of that, rather than resorting to an accounting trick and declaring it an emergency.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am rising really in opposition strongly to H.R. 987. This is a needless delay to give American workers the protection that they need and deserve. Since 1995, this is the fourth delay in 5 years. And each year the standard is delayed, another 650,000 workers will suffer disabling injuries. In the interest of time, because many of my colleagues want to speak on this subject, I would like to put in the record case studies of constituents who have suffered from this disease and really the success stories of several businesses that have implemented their own ergonomic programs and greatly reduced the repetitive motion injury claims in their companies. We need to go forward with these OSHA rules. It truly helps businesses too, because these disorders cost employers between $15 billion and $20 billion each year in workers compensation costs. I would also like to point out that it is very much of a woman's issue. Sixty percent of the claims are women that are in these repetitive typing jobs. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record information on ergonomics from articles and studies.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the amendment offered by my friend from California. I share the concern of my friend from Florida and other supporters that we must do everything possible to reduce underage drinking, and I would be proud to vote for this bill if I thought it would achieve that goal. But in reality, Mr. Chairman, this bill will do little to stop underage drinking while potentially crippling an industry that is very important to our nation and to my home state of New York. New York, like many other states across the country, has a thriving wine industry dominated by small vineyards. These vineyards have taken advantage of the Internet to sell their products across the nation. The vast majority of these sales are to responsible adult consumers. This legislation threatens these small wineries by permitting other states to seek action in federal court to block them from distributing their wines. This bill is an unjustified intrusion by the federal government into matters that should be left to the states. It is opposed by the National Conference of State Legislatures--the very same people that this bill is supposed to be helping. Moreover, it would effectively give states the authority to regulate interstate commerce, in direct violation of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, the real purpose of this bill is not to prevent underage drinking. The real purpose of this bill is to protect the large beer and wine wholesalers from competition from independent producers, like many of the small wineries found in my home state of New York. The amendment, by contrast, will target our efforts toward preventing underage drinking, where they belong. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and to oppose this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and I thank him for his leadership and support. The best legislation is bipartisan and this has truly been a bipartisan effort over the past 3 years. I particularly congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) with whom I have worked in a constructive way on many pieces of legislation before this body and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) who likewise led on this effort and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) who led actually a task force over the last summer between the different bodies that came forward with a consensus and compromise bill. And finally the stakeholders, all of the industries involved, over 25 industries came together and signed their own contract in support of the legislation and their pledge to work to pass it. So it has indeed been a combined effort which will ultimately not only help the employers and the employees but the American taxpayer, because the cost of the jobs will go down because those bidding on them will know that the risk of not being paid will now be covered and that risk will not be built into their bid. So it has been a day where everyone benefits in our country and I am very proud to have been part of the team that made this happen. This is truly a historic day for the construction industry and their workers. Today we are passing bipartisan legislation that will restore full payment protection for construction firms and their employees who do business with the Federal Government. Thanks to this bill, subcontractors who work on Federal projects will actually be paid and will not have to worry about being paid for their work. H.R. 1219 will modernize the 65-year-old Miller Act which was passed in 1935 to provide payment protection for construction subcontractors and suppliers. Under the Miller Act, prime contractors on Federal projects are required to purchase two types of surety bonds, one, the performance bond which assures the government that the work will in fact be completed, and a second, the payment bond that provides payment protection for subcontractors and suppliers. The payment bond is critical, because it is the payment protection of last resort in the event of a default on the part of the prime contractor. Yet under the Miller Act's depression era requirements, prime contractors are not required to obtain a payment bond equal to the full value of the contract. In fact, for contracts of $5 million or more, the payment bond need not be worth more than $2.5 million regardless of the size of the project. Since 1935, Federal construction projects have changed dramatically in size and dollar value. The protections afforded by the Miller Act may have been adequate in 1935, but they are simply not sufficient for today. In fact, if the value of $2.5 million were simply adjusted for inflation, it would now be at least $30 million. With Federal construction projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars, $2.5 million is simply not enough to provide payment protection for subcontractors, particularly those working in the later stages of complex, multi-year construction projects. Earlier this year, President Clinton announced that the Federal Government, along with Senator Moynihan, would be taking the lead in renovating the Farley Building in my home city of New York as part of the Penn Station mass transit redevelopment project. It is estimated that this project will cost almost $400 million. Now, under the Miller Act, the general contractor would only be required to furnish a payment bond worth $2.5 million, clearly not enough to provide protection for subcontractors and suppliers and their workers on a $400 million project. But thanks to this legislation that we are about to pass today, the subcontractors working on the Farley Building will actually be paid and will enjoy full payment protection. I learned firsthand about the problems of the Miller Act when I was contacted by one of my constituents, Fred Levinson, in 1997. Fred owns a subcontracting firm in my district. Fred Levinson was hired to work on a project for the Federal Bureau of Prisons for over $100 million. But when the prime contractor on the building was terminated, Mr. Levinson was left without any way to collect the money he was owed for the work that he performed. As a result, he lost $9.5 million simply because the Miller Act did not provide for full payment protection. Mr. Levinson was fortunate enough to be able to save his company, but this payment problem still forced him to lay off employees and scale back his business. Other subcontractors on big Federal projects are simply not so lucky and risk bankruptcy when the prime contractor defaults. Thanks to this bill, no subcontractor in the future, including those working on the Farley Building or any Federal building, will have to suffer from inadequate payment bond protection as did my constituent Fred Levinson. This is also, I might add, a case study in democracy, an example of how one person can come to a legislator, point out a problem, and work with them to solve it and to make a difference. I would like to dedicate my work on this bill to Fred Levinson, who brought it to my attention. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has long been interested in Federal procurement policy, I can speak firsthand to the importance of full and timely payment to all segments of the construction industry. In particular, small firms face enormous risks when they are not paid for work they complete. Many firms across the country have risked bankruptcy simply because they were not paid on time or in full by a project owner. Cases in which the Federal Government is the owner of the project are certainly no exception. This bill will make three important changes to the Miller act. First, it will require that prime contractors working on Federal projects furnish a payment bond of a value equal to the value of the contract they have been awarded. This provision will ensure full payment protection for subcontractors who choose to work on Federal projects. They will no longer be a $2.5 million limit. Second, this bill will modernize the provisions of the Miller act which deal with notification of an intent to make a claim on a payment bond. Current law permits notification only by certified mail. Under this bill, notification will be permitted by any means that permits written third-party notification of delivery. In this era of overnight mail and electronic commerce, it simply makes no sense to permit notification only through registered mail. Finally, this bill includes a provision that prohibits any waiver of the right to sue under a payment bond unless that waiver is signed by the person whose right is waived after they have commenced work on the project. This will ensure that no subcontractor waives his or her right to sue before beginning work on a project. This provision is critical to protecting the rights of subcontractors throughout the bidding process and beyond. I always believe that the best legislation is bipartisan, and that is certainly true in this case. This legislation enjoys broad support from Members across the political spectrum. This bill grew out of a hearing that was held jointly by my friend from California (Mr. Horn) and my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). At that hearing we heard from several witnesses who spoke on the need to modernize the act, including my constituent Fred Levinson and one of Chairman Gekas' constituents, Micki Weaver. Mrs. Weaver, who owns a small specialty firm told of how the inadequacies of the Miller act led her to avoid bidding altogether on future Federal projects. Both the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) agreed that the Miller act needed to be modernized and joined me as an original sponsor. I am very grateful for their hard work as well as that of their staffs and my own, staff which have helped to get us to where we are today. In addition, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) both were instrumental in moving this bill through the legislative process, as were the ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). My friend from Virginia (Mr. Davis) took the lead in getting everyone involved in this issue to agree to sit down at the table and negotiate so that we could reach the agreement on the legislation we have before us today. In addition, many other Members of this House, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) have supported and worked on this legislation from the beginning and were very instrumental in moving it to the floor today. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, is the hard work that many of the industry groups have done. I am pleased that every industry group with an interest in modernizing the Miller act supports this bipartisan legislation. This bill enjoys the backing of at least 25 industry organizations, all of which have had a vested interest in the payment bond protection afforded by the act. In particular, I would like to thank the American Subcontractors Association which has spearheaded the broad-based coalition to modernize the Miller act for their hard work on this bill as well as that of the Associated General Contractors of America and the Surety Association of America, both of which played a critical role in the negotiations which led to this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, finally I am very pleased to announce that the administration has recently said that it, too, supports the bill. This bill will bring about a common sense reform that will make a tremendous difference for construction subcontractors and their workers who do business with the Federal Government. It will not cost the taxpayers anything, and in fact it might lower the cost of Federal projects. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important bipartisan bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 267, the resolution congratulating NASA on its successful Shuttle Mission STS-93, commanded by Colonel Eileen Collins, the first female space shuttle commander. Col. Eileen Marie Collins, who is originally from Elmira, New York, was selected by NASA in January 1990, and became an astronaut in July 1991. She has an extensive resume at NASA. A veteran of three space flights, Collins has logged over 537 hours in space. She served as pilot on STS-63 (February 2-11, 1995) and STS-84 (May 15-24, 1997), and was the first woman Shuttle commander on STS-93 (July 22-27, 1999). Women have come a long way since Alan Shepard became the first American man to go into space in 1961. Women have faced numerous barriers when it comes to advancing in science professions. I cam remember when women were discriminated against in employment. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII which prohibits gender discrimination in employment. I can remember when signs were put up advertising for a job but saying ``women need not apply.'' We passed the Civil Service Act in 1973 eliminating weight and height requirements in federal jobs and the EEOC ruled that employers cannot discriminate against women. Today, women have been leaping bounds in professional careers. It seems that today there are no limits to the professional success of women. The selection of Col. Eileen Collins as shuttle commander is not only a product of her own hard work and effort, but a product of the rights which women have established for themselves. Col. Collins accomplishments in the U.S. space program have made her a role model for women pursuing an education and career in scientific fields. Women continue to be underrepresented in the science, engineering, and technology fields. The statistics paint a bleak picture: Women have historically been underrepresented in scientific and engineering occupations, and although progress has been made over the last several decades, there is still room for improvement. Female and minority students take fewer high-level mathematics and science courses in high school. Female students earn fewer bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees in science and engineering. Among recent bachelors of science and bachelors of engineering graduates, women are less likely to be in the labor force, to be employed full-time, and to be employed in their field than are men. Among doctoral scientists and engineers, women are far more likely to be employed at 2-year institutions, are far less likely to be employed in research universities, and are much more likely to teach part-time. Among university full-time faculty, women are less likely to chair departments or hold high-ranked positions. A substantial salary gap exists between men and women with doctorates in science and engineering. It is for all of these reasons that Col. Collins' accomplishment is all the more historic. The selection of Col. Eileen Collins as the first female space shuttle commander has raised the level of awareness and appreciation of women's contributions in the advancement of science. I would like to congratulate the crew of Shuttle Mission STS-93 and honor Col. Eileen Collins on being the first female commander of a United States space shuttle. In recognition of the important contribution Col. Eileen Collins has made to the U.S. space program and to the advancement of women in science, I would like to invite Col. Collins and the crew of STS-93 to the United States Capitol to be honored and recognized by the House of Representatives for their achievements.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for yielding me this time and for his great leadership on this issue and so many others. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment which would cut aid to India. A similar resolution or amendment was defeated in 1997, and we should do so again tonight. The last two State Department Human Rights reports praised India for the progress the country has made in the area of human rights. And in the wake of the recent Pakistani-backed incursion across the line of control into Kashmir, India has been praised by the international community for the restraint it demonstrated and for the steps it took to ensure that the situation did not escalate out of control. The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations in recent years needs to be sustained and strengthened. It is the world's largest democracy and the world's strongest democracy should be supporting our friend and ally. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership and for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment, which if it should pass, would be surely vetoed by the President, as he has vetoed it in the past. It has no chance of becoming law. If Members support additional restrictions on family planning, they should support the bipartisan Greenwood compromise, because it has the possibility of actually becoming law. The Smith amendment is unnecessary because U.S. law, the Helms amendment of 1973, already prohibits the use of United States funds to either perform abortion or to lobby for or against abortion rights. The real target is and always has been family planning services and those organizations most qualified to deliver them. The Smith amendment's ban on speech is nothing more than a gag rule that will punish foreign organizations for engaging in public policy debate, for petitioning their government, for being involved in the democratic process, rights that would be protected under the First Amendment in our country. The Smith amendment is constitutional solely because it applies only to foreigners outside of the United States. Instead, I ask my colleagues to join me and many others in a compromise. Instead of telling other countries what they can and cannot do, let us respect other countries' laws. In the Greenwood compromise, these countries would be disqualified, any foreign nongovernmental organization, from being eligible for U.S. population assistance if it provides abortions in violation of that country's laws. I urge my colleagues to vote against the unnecessary, because it is already law, the anti-family planning, and the undemocratic Smith amendment, and to support the Greenwood compromise.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years is too long. It is too long to be kept from your home. It is too long to be separated from family. It is too long to have children have to make the decision to go to school and never see their family again. Twenty-five years is too long. It is too long for Cyprus' rich 9,000 year-old cultural and religious heritage in the occupied part to be destroyed or plundered. It is too long to watch helplessly the continual stream of atrocities and human- rights abuses. It is too long for the world to watch in silence and do nothing. Twenty-five years is too long. It is time to correct the injustice that has been occurring on Cyprus. It is time to return displaced Cypriots to their homes. It is time to reunite families. It is time to allow children to go to school. It is time try to restore the rich cultural and religious heritage of Cyprus. After 25 years, it is time for the United States to take a vocal role in speaking out against the division of Cyprus and the horrible atrocities that have happened there. That is why the Gentleman from Florida and I introduced a resolution today that urges compliance by Turkey with United Nations Resolutions on Cyprus. In the last year, the U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions regarding the invasion of Cyprus. It is time that a Cyprus settlement is reached: Based on a single sovereignty and a single citizenship with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded and compromised of two politically equal communities--a bicommunal and bizonal federation. The Republic of Cyprus has agreed to these conditions. It is time that Turkey come to the bargaining table without unacceptable preconditions and the idea of a confederation of two sovereign states. We have challenging work to do. But, with the help of everyone here, hopefully soon we will be celebrating the reunification of Cyprus instead of commemorating the invasion. Already there are 34 cosponsors of the bill. The momentum in Congress is growing. Take, for instance, the Hellenic Caucus. There are 75 members of the Hellenic Caucus this year which is up from 69 last Congress. The momentum is here in Congress and we must continue that momentum and use our influence with Turkey to push them to bring real goals to the table instead of unviable preconditions.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. India is one of our most valuable allies. The oldest democracy and the largest democracy share many things in common. India is moving forward with free-market reforms that offer tremendous opportunities for American trade and investment. U.S. assistance to India, and elsewhere, serves our national interests and is provided because it promotes our policy priorities, not as a reward for voting with us. We should not cut assistance to countries based solely on their voting practices in the United Nations General Assembly. We should consider more than just a voting record. For example, we agree on a host of other UN activities. India has sent significant troop contingents to various peace-keeping missions around the world, serving as a partner to further our mutual interests. But even if you consider their voting record, in votes identified by the State Department as ``important,'' India voted with the U.S. 75% of the time. This amendment will no nothing but damage our relations with a valuable ally by identifying India as an opponent of U.S. policies, when, in fact, we have a great deal in common. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. And now he would not respect the organization of American decision on Lori's appeal regardless of the outcome. What does that tell us? They are not going to give her a fair trial. Even if she wins in the OAA, they are saying no.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, Lori Berenson grew up in my district. Her parents Rhoda and Mark are living every parent's nightmare, the fear that their child could be taken from the streets of a foreign country and thrown into jail without American concepts of justice. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from Lori Berenson that she was never able to present her point of view in trials. She says, ``I was never a member of the MRTA.'' She was never given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against her or to provide witnesses in her support. Members of the Community of Organizations for Human Rights. Esteemed Men and Women: Through this communication permit me to congratulate you on your important work for human rights. I would like to inform you of some details about me and my case. As you know, I have been confined for more than two and a half years at the Yanamayo maximum security military prison, accused of being a member of the MRTA, and fulfilling the sentence of life imprisonment dictated by a faceless military tribunal. I have never been a member of the MRTA; I have never participated in the planning of a violent act, neither with the MRTA nor anybody else; neither have I ever promoted violence, and, what is more, I do not believe in violence and it would not be possible for me to participate in violence. I do believe in ideals of justice and equality; to share the ideals of a more just world for the poor majority does not imply that I share in the use of violence to achieve such goals. In my own way, I have worked for these ideals. In Peru, I sought to learn about and find ways to help the most poor and oppressed people. I met with, observed, and studied these people, including their history, their culture, their music. I also tried to observe how the government, the law, and the economically powerful treated the poor. I was writing about what I experienced and learned and I had legitimate journalistic credentials from two U.S. publications. I hoped to be able to help the situation of human rights and social justice for the most poor; I still believe in that, and I believe it will happen. Certainly, I have not had real justice. I am completely innocent of the horrendous charges made against me, and there could not be real evidence that shows such crimes. I hope that these details might give you a better basis to facilitate an understanding of my situation and, at the same time, I turn to reiterate my greatest respect and admiration for your important works for the good of humanity. With much respect, Lori Berenson.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Gilman-Campbell amendment, and I place into the Record a letter to the ambassador, the American ambassador at the U.N., outlining UNFPA's policy that states there will be no birth quotas, that all birth quotas are lifted, and if there is any coercion it will be investigated and the program will be suspended. And also, a letter from the State Planning Commission of China, I would like to have that placed into the Record, and I repeat that this debate is not about China. It is about helping the 149 other countries where UNFPA is saving the lives of women giving birth to children and family planning. The letters referred to are as follows: United Nations Population Fund, New York, NY, 7 January 1998. His Excellency, Mr. Bill Richardson, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, New York, NY. Dear Mr. Ambassador: I am writing to provide you with information in response to the questions and concerns raised by your Government in your letter of 2 December regarding the UNFPA Programme of Assistance to China, which will be presented to the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board at this month's session. Your questions with our responses are attached. We hope that this information will answer the queries to your satisfaction. We shall stay in close contact with you and your staff in preparation for the Executive Board, and remain available to answering further questions you may have. I remain, dear Mr. Ambassador, Yours sincerely, Nafis Sadik, Under-Secretary-General. Responses to Questions Raised by U.S. Government on the UNFPA Programme of Assistance to the Government of the People's Republic of China (1998-2000) 1. which counties will be included in the program? what is their population and how do they compare to national averages in ICPD threshold indicators? how did unfpa ascertain the commitment of local authorities to icpd goals and principles? Below is a list of the counties to be included under the program. The UNFPA field office in Beijing is in the process of preparing a detailed profile of all 32 counties. The most important input into these profiles, however, will be a baseline study which will be carried out in February 1998 with the technical assistance of an expert from Tulane University, USA. Unfortunately, it was not possible to carry out this baseline survey ahead of time owing to the fact that no UNFPA funding was available to be spent in China in 1996 and 1997. This survey will provide a clear picture of the RH situation prevailing in selected counties. ICPD indicators, while available nationally are not broken down to the county level. This is because the sources of data are sample surveys which may not be representative at the county level. The counties were selected based on criteria agreed to with the Government: the commitment of local authorities to the projects and to the principles of the ICPD and the availability and commitment to a minimum of counterpart funding toward project activities; the existence of a good working relationship between State Family Planning Commission and the Ministry of Health at the county level; counties were selected where we are optimistic that results can be obtained within the three year time frame. Hence counties that are too poor, too remote, or too lacking in counterpart funding and enlightened leadership were not chosen. For the same reason the selection process also tried to include a cross section of counties from different regions of the country. UNFPA worked with the national Government to ensure that local authorities possessed a commitment to the ICPD, political will and the availability of counterpart resources. County and province Fengnin--Hebei. Luanxian--Hebei. Wenshui--Shanxi. Aohanqi--Inner Mongolia. Guichi--Ahui. Xuanzho--Ahui. Jianou--Fujian. Yushui--Jiangxi. Dongmi--Shandong. Xinyang--Henan. Mengzh--Henan. Yingsha--Hubei. Qianjian--Hubei. Linwu--Hunan. Youxian--Hunan. Sihui--Guangdong. Lipu--Guangxi. Longan--Guangxi. Wencha--Hainan. Bazhong--Sichuan. Yilong--Sichuan. Pingba--Guizhou. Zhenfen--Guizhou. Xinping--Yunnan. Xiangyu--Yunnan. Luonan--Shaanxi. Xixiang--Shaanxi. Yuzhong--Gansu. Datong--Qinghai. Pingluo--Ningxia. Kuerle--Xinjiang. Rongcha--Chongqing. 2. will birth quotas remain in effect in these counties, and will women face sanctions if they become pregnant or bear a child outside the quota? No birth quotas or targets will be applied in the counties participating in the project. Funds will be released only after the UNFPA field office has received official written commitment from the provincial authorities that quotas and targets have been removed in each of the participating counties. In the project counties couples will be allowed to have as many children as they want, whenever they want, without requiring birth permits or being subject to quotas; however, they may still be subject to a ``social compensation fee'' if they decide to have more children than recommended by the policy. State Family Planning Commission has indicated that it is the Government's intention to gradually eliminate incentives and disincentives from the family planning programme. 3. Will foreign observers, including NGO's and diplomatic personnel, have access to project counties and to relevant county officials? It has been agreed with the Chinese Government that the project will follow all UNFPA procedures for monitoring an evaluation. In addition, the government has agreed that the project counties will be open to monitoring and evaluation visits by foreigners and that county officials would be available to talk to foreign delegations. As evidence to this openess it should be noted that recently (28 November-3 December 1997) a delegation of foreign diplomats representing 17 countries on the UNFPA Executive Board participated in a field visit to project counties to gain a better understanding of the prevailing situation in the field and of the proposed project activities. The delegation which included 6 ambassadors was composed of representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Libya, Malaysia, Norway, Romania, Tanzania, Thailand, Ukraine and the U.S.A. 4. What procedures will be in place to see that there are no coercive practices in the counties assisted by UNFPA? Frequent and rigorous monitoring visits and activities will be undertaken by UNFPA and independent consultants as part of the project work plan, which includes inter-alia, surveying client satisfaction, surveying FP service provider skills, and qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made under the project. The first important crucial step is the written commitment of the local Government authorities to the principles of ICPD, and specifically to ensuring that no coercion takes place in the selected counties. As mentioned earlier, no funds will be released until written commitment has been received from each of the local authorities of all the participating Provinces. 5. What will be the role of the Chinese government? What will be the role of UNFPA? The Chinese Government at the central and provincial levels will be in charge of coordination, internal monitoring, guidance and evaluation, all of which will be conducted in accordance to ICPD principles. The local government will be in charge of the actual implementation of project activities at the county level. UNFPA's role will include monitoring and evaluation at the county level (as discussed above). The projects will be executed by UN agencies and international NGOs. 6. What procedures would UNFPA follow and what recourse is available if physical, psychological or economic coercion is reported in project areas? Under what circumstances would UNFPA consider termination of all or part of its program? If UNFPA finds that there have been violations of the project guidelines in any county UNFPA will suspend operations of the project activities until the situation has been corrected. If the situation is not corrected it will be reported to the Executive Board. The State Family Planning Commission of China, Beijing, June 30, 1998. Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director, United Nations Population Fund, New York,