Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. There has been a great deal of talk on the floor about what UNFPA does to save lives, to save mothers giving birth, to save children. But I want to talk about what is not in the bill. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to imply that this is an abortion vote. But let me say very clearly, this vote is not a vote on abortion. It clearly states in the text, page 2, line 6: ``The UNFPA does not fund abortions.'' Also, not a single cent goes to China. But let me tell my colleagues that they do not need to take my word on it. I would like to quote the Houston Chronicle. It says: The sad irony is that the population program would actually do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and abortions than its critics are willing to admit. If the motivation for opposition to this measure is truly to halt abortion, then those who would kill it are actually doing the legislative equivalent of throwing gasoline onto a fire. In other words, UNFPA prevents abortions by family planning. In my own hometown paper, the New York Times, they said last week: Last year Congress disgracefully cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports voluntary family planning services, maternal and child health initiatives, and AIDS and sexually transmitted disease prevention programs in over 150 countries across the world. The Population Fund does not provide or pay for abortion services in any country and can actually reduce the need for abortions. The House has no excuse for not financing family planning efforts that can improve the lives of women all over the world. Let me tell my colleagues another thing that this vote is about. It is about the fact that we are going to be six billion people on the planet. The Courier-Journal from Louisville, Kentucky, says: The good news is that population growth has, in fact, slowed in many places, thanks in part to the U.N.'s efforts. But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. The House of Representatives will be able to do something about that by restoring funds for the U.N. population program. There are other editorials from papers such as The Kansas City Star, the San Francisco Examiner, the L.A. Times, and others. Well over 150 of my colleagues joined us on a bill in support of funding for UNFPA and, likewise, many organizations, non-governmental organizations, such as the Audubon Society and many others. I would like to put the list into the Record of the nongovernmental organizations supporting this funding effort. It is important to save women's lives.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), for yielding me this time and for her great leadership on this bill and so many important issues before this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in support of the work of the chairman and the ranking member for their prudent and farsighted response to the threat of terrorism to our embassies across the world. I applaud their efforts and support this bill. I likewise support the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) in their funding of UNFPA. Regrettably, last year the funding was deleted from the budget, $25 million, although our country had been a leader for well over 30 years in world population concerns both through the UNFPA and in the world. This vote for the funding of UNFPA is a vote for maternal health and this is a vote for children's health. UNFPA serves women, children, and families in about 160 countries around the world where health care structures are fragile and, therefore, unable to address the specific health needs of mothers and children. It is a multilateral approach to a problem that is shared in our world, that of many, many hundreds of thousands of deaths of women every year. Over 500,000 women every year die in childbirth. And, in fact, half of the funding for UNFPA goes to maternal and child health needs. This is also a vote for the environment. This October, the world's population will reach 6 billion and is expected to reach 9 billion only 50 years from now. Let me put this in perspective. It took hundreds of millions of years to reach the first billion in 1804 in our country, and it doubled to 2 billion in 1927, when my parents were young. It reached 3 billion in 1960, when I was a teenager, and doubled again in just 30 years. Without addressing family planning needs across the world, human population growth will overwhelm even the most dedicated successful work of any environmental organization. I think that one of the best examples of what UNFPA is doing is this birthing kit, the safe delivery kit. It costs only $1.15 but it can save the lives of women. In the refugee crisis in Kosovo, UNFPA was the only one there helping women with their maternal needs, with their childbirth needs. It has sanitary uses; it contains a plastic sheet, a bar of soap, a surgical blade, a gauze, and razor. It is a tremendously important investment that can save the lives of mothers, save the lives of children, and save our natural resources. Since there is a great deal of disinformation out there about what UNFPA does, I want to tell my colleagues what it does not do. Clearly, it is not an abortion vote and, it says so on page 2, line 6: The UNFPA does not fund abortions. Secondly, no money goes to China. In the Gilman-Campbell-Maloney amendment not one cent goes to China, and it clearly states, and I quote page 2, line 6 in the bill, ``The UNFPA does not fund abortions.'' But what it does do is save lives, and editorials across this country agree and say that a vote for UNFPA is a vote for maternal health, for child health, and a safer world. The Houston Chronicle says, and I quote: The sad irony is that the population program would actually do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and abortions that its critics are willing to admit. If the motivation for opposition to this measure is truly to halt abortion, then those who would kill it are actually doing the legislative equivalent of throwing gasoline onto a fire. And today, from my hometown paper, the New York Times: Last year Congress disgracefully cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports voluntary family planning services, maternal and child health initiatives, and AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases prevention programs in 150 countries. The Population Fund does not provide or pay for abortion services in any country, and can actually reduce the need for abortions. The House now has no excuse for not financing family planning efforts that can improve the lives of women all over the world. Let me tell my colleagues what this vote is about. In October, there are going to be six billion people on the planet, And as the the Courier-Journal from Louisville, Kentucky says: The good news is that population growth has, in fact, slowed in many places, thanks in part to the UN's efforts. But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. . . . the House of Representatives will be able to do something about that, by restoring funds for the UN populations program . . . There are other editorials from papers such as the Kansas City Star, the San Francisco Examiner, the LA Times, and others. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting to fund UNFPA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to applaud the chairman for his leadership in funding UNFPA. This is a smart vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in very strong support of the bipartisan Gilman - Campbell - Greenwood - Porter - Horn - Johnson - Kelly - Morella - Shays - Boehlert amendment, and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for his leadership. Our amendment has deep and strong bipartisan support. What it says is that we want to do something to help women and the 149 countries receive maternal health care and child health care. Over 500,000 women die in childbirth each year. That is equivalent to one or two jumbo jets crashing every day. When there is just one crash, it is headline news for weeks; but the slow toll on women around the world is hardly on our radar screen. It is about giving out safe delivery kits as were handed out to the women refugees in Kosovo. These are handed out to poor women and children, and it saves lives. It is health care. Mr. Chairman, 179 countries support UNFPA. Let me tell my colleagues what it is not about. It is not about China; no money goes to China. And it is not about abortions, because no family planning money can be spent for abortions. If we continue the UNFPA cutoff, it will not hurt China. What it will hurt are women and children and lead to more abortions in the other 149 countries in which UNFPA works. It is about saving lives; it is about health care. There is a solution to the suffering, and that is family planning support. Support the Gilman-Campbell amendment, cosponsored by many, many others of our colleagues. I thank the deep, bipartisan coalition that has worked to correct the action of our country cutting off funds when 179 other countries have supported that effort. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this time documentation in support of my position. [From the New York Times, July 15, 1999] Vote Today To Support Maternal and Child Health--Family Planning Under Fire support the gilman-campbell-maloney-crowley amendment to state department reauthorization (Submitted by Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress) Last year Congress disgracefully cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports voluntary family planning services, maternal and child health initiatives, and AIDS and sexually transmitted disease prevention programs in 150 countries. In April the House International Relations Committee wisely voted to restore $25 million for the program in 2000. A House vote on the State Department authorization bill containing that contribution is expected today. Once again, however, this worthy program is under attack by anti-abortion forces. The Population Fund does not provide or pay for abortion services in any country, and can actually reduce the need for abortions. Yet Representative Christopher Smith, a fervent abortion opponent, is expected to offer an amendment to block funds for the program. He and others have argued that the United States should contribute no money to the agency unless it ceases all family planning activities in China. This is senseless, because the fund's pilot project in China is actually designed to end coercive population policies. Under the program, the Chinese authorities have agreed to abandon quotas like the one-child policy in 32 areas covered by the pilot project, and adopt instead new strategies to slow birth rates, such as better contraception, health care and expanded economic opportunities for women. Even so, as a tactical move, the program's supporters have agreed to deduct any amount the Population Fund spends in China, which is expected to be $5 million a year, from the $25 million United States contributions. The House now has no excuse for not financing family planning efforts that can improve the lives of women all over the world.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership on this issue and so many others. I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-Morella amendment. I would like very much to be associated with the comments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Maryland, when she spoke of the discrimination against female Federal employees because of the action of this Congress which the DeLauro amendment would address. I would like to put this vote in perspective. It is the 122nd vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. This Congress has acted again and again to eliminate a woman's right to choose, procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction. Mr. Chairman, it was only 3 short years ago that I received a notice in the mail that my health insurance coverage, by law, would no longer cover abortion. It was one small notice in the mail but one giant step backward for a woman's right to choose. A Federal employee no longer gets a choice. Federal employees cannot purchase, with their own money, insurance coverage for abortion services. This amendment would not require coverage for abortion, it would simply allow an insurance company to cover abortion. This amendment also does not require a Federal employee to choose a health plan which offers abortion coverage because a Federal employee may choose a plan that does not cover abortion. This amendment is about making a choice and letting the marketplace work without interference from the Federal Government. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I agree with what many of my colleagues have said about the cuts in this bill, and for that reason I cannot support it. Still, it is difficult for me to oppose this bill because it was essentially a good bill before it reached the full committee. And as a strong advocate for cleaner elections and vigorous enforcement of election laws, I am particularly pleased by the provisions in this bill dealing with the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission, in the words of a former Member of this body, is the ``one agency that Congress loves to hate.'' For too long, Congress has failed to give the FEC the resources and tools it needs to do its job. So, I am very pleased that the committee has elected this year to fund the FEC at a level that is nearly equal to the agency's budget request. For the first time in years, the committee has decided to give the FEC the money it needs to enforce the law. But not only does this bill fully fund the FEC, it also contains several provisions that will help the agency operate more efficiently. This bill will mandate electronic filing by campaign committees that reach a certain threshold set by the agency. In addition, it creates a system of ``administrative fines''--much like traffic tickets, which will let the agency deal with minor violations of the law in an expeditious manner. Finally, it will permit campaign committees to file with the FEC on an election-cycle basis, as opposed to the current system which requires calendar-year reporting. These are all common-sense, bipartisan reforms that will give the FEC more time to investigate serious violations of the law. All of these reforms were recommended by an audit conducted by the independent firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers and are supported by the FEC itself. Mr. Speaker, a strong FEC is critical to the integrity of our electoral process. Our election laws are meaningless if we are not willing to give the FEC the tools and the resources it needs to enforce them. While I continue to believe that we must do more to clean up our elections--and I call on the leadership to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor as soon as possible--I do applaud the committee for taking this one small step that will enable the FEC to operate more efficiently. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their leadership on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this committee and in so many ways and particularly Mr. Hoyer for his assistance on this particular amendment. I am pleased to offer it on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) and many, many others. Our amendment is very simple and family friendly, as American as motherhood. Our amendment will protect a woman from being escorted off of Federal property when she is breast-feeding her child. We originally put forward our right to breast-feed legislation because our offices were contacted by women across this country who are ashamed or ridiculed or ordered off of Federal property merely because they choose to breast-feed their child. We have many, many examples from across the country. In one particular case, a woman in Virginia was ordered to stop breast feeding and the incident led to the passage of Virginia's legislation exempting breast feeding mothers from indecent exposure statutes. Thirteen other States have enacted similar laws. Instead of citing all these examples and the State legislation and the medical reports, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Arizona will be accepting this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman. Our amendment is very simple, and is as American as motherhood. The language of the amendment states: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition on women breastfeeding their children in Federal buildings or on Federal property. Our amendment will protect a woman from being escorted off of federal property when she is breastfeeding her child. As you may know, a similar amendment was adopted by the full Appropriations Committee on the Interior Appropriations bill, allowing breastfeeding at federal parks and in the Smithsonian and other federal museums. I would like to point out that the amendment on Interior passed unanimously by voice vote. Our amendment, which was also introduced as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 1848, the Right to Breastfeed Act), would extend this policy to all federal property covered by the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. We initially introduced H.R. 1848 because we have heard from many women across the country who have been shamed and ridiculed when they have chosen to breastfeed their children in federal buildings, and other federal property. Often, the are simply asked or told to leave a federal building, park, or office. We would like to share with you a few of these examples: A New York woman was to leave a Post Office while she was breastfeeding her child. A New Jersey woman was stopped from breastfeeding when she visited a federal park in New Jersey. She was ordered by a tour guide to go outside to continue breastfeeding. Another woman was waiting for several hours in a court house to present her case when she began to nurse her son and was told to leave the holding room. Another woman was asked to stop nursing in Yosemite by a park ranger. Her husband, a pediatrician, cited all of the medical benefits to breastfeeding, and eventually the ranger backed down. Many other women would have simply backed down and decided that breastfeeding was not ``acceptable'' in public. A Delaware woman was visiting a Washington, D.C., museum and began nursing her son in the back corner of the bookstore. She was harassed by the bookstore clerk and 4 security guards before being allowed to leave. A Virginia woman visited Wolf Trap Farm Park's Theatre-in-the-woods (a federal park) in the summer of 1993 with her children. She began nursing her then 10-month-old daughter, Amy, and was approached by park rangers who told her to stop breastfeeding because the breast milk ``attracts bees.'' This incident led to the passage of Virginia's 1994 legislation exempting breastfeeding mothers from indecent exposure statutes. Thirteen other states have enacted similar laws. Another woman was visiting the U.S. Capitol where she was observing a session of Congress with her 3 daughters. When the youngest daughter became hungry, she began to nurse her discreetly. A guard approached her and asked her to ``do that somewhere else.'' The same thing happened outside in the hallway. While visiting the National Museum of Natural History, a guard instructed a Maryland woman who was breastfeeding her child to leave because there is ``No food or drink'' allowed in the museum. A woman nearby was feeding a child with a bottle. When public breastfeeding is restricted, so is a breastfeeding woman's access to public facilities and functions. Many states have already enacted similar legislation. They include: Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Others are still working to pass such legislation. Why is this such an important issue? Many of you are aware that breastmilk is the first line of immunization defense for infants and enhances the effectiveness of vaccines they receive. Research studies show that breastfeeding can reduce the risk of allergies, meningitis, some types of cancers, juvenile diabetes, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and ear infections. And the benefits flow both ways. Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the mother's risk of breast and ovarian cancer, hip fractures, and osteoporosis. In fact, in 1997, the United States had one of the lowest breastfeeding rates of all industrialized nations and one of the highest rates of infant mortality. I would like to point out that while there are no laws specifically against breastfeeding, a woman asked to leave federal property has no recourse, and that is why we hope this Congress will send the message to women in America: Breastfeeding is an important choice that many women make. Breastfeeding is natural. And breastfeeding is welcome on federal property. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this common-sense, bipartisan amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his strong leadership on so many issues. I rise in support of the Nadler amendment. The Religious Liberty Protection Act is a well-intentioned bill with a noble purpose. No State or local government should be able to restrict legitimate religious practices such as the wearing of a yarmulke or a crucifix or the celebration of certain religious holidays. But if we are not careful, then this well-intentioned bill may be used to weaken our Nation's civil rights laws. Without the Nadler amendment, this bill could threaten the rights of single mothers, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and even perhaps members of certain religious groups. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court retreated from Sherbert in 1990, and since then the courts and the Congress have engaged in a decade-long dialog over how to properly guarantee that all of our citizens are able to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This is not an academic debate being conducted in ivory towers and judicial chambers. Rather, this is a real-world issue of deep concern to my constituents and to Americans everywhere. For example: The Jewish principle of kavod hamet mandates that a dead body is not left alone from the moment of death until burial. For this reason, autopsies, in all but the most serious situations, are forbidden. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in 1990, courts in both Michigan and Rhode Island forced Jewish families of accident victims to endure intrusive government autopsies of family members, even though the autopsies directly violated Jewish law. In Los Angeles, a court declined to protect the rights of fifty elderly Jews to meet for prayer in the Hancock Park area, because Hancock Park had no place of worship and the City did not want to create precedent for one. In Tennessee, a Mormon church was denied a permit to use property which had formerly been used as a church. The city of Forest Hills, Tennessee decided it would not be in the best interests of the city to grant the church a construction permit and a local judge upheld the decision. This bill could be used to deny housing or employment or otherwise discriminate against individuals based on their race, sexual orientation, disability, or marital status. Mr. Speaker, there is no justification for discrimination. Our Nation has made enormous strides in the past 30 years toward offering equal opportunities for all, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. We must not undo that progress under the guise of protecting religious freedom. But we also need to protect religious freedom. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). First, I would like to speak in support of the underlying bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have put forward a very balanced and thoughtful bill. I commend them for keeping the horrible anti- environmental riders and many other commercial riders that were attached to the Senate version off, and I commend them on putting forward this product. I would like very much to be associated with many of the comments of my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who pointed out that the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities has been cut dramatically since 1994 and is now at a mere $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and that I strongly support my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has come forward with a thoughtful amendment, a very modest one, to increase the funding to the NEA and NEH by $10 million each. Right now, Mr. Chairman, we spend more on the Marine Corps Band than we do on the NEA and NEH. In fact, we give less to the arts than any other Western country. Even during the Middle Ages, the arts were something to be protected. The humanities were supported and preserved. Their importance was understood. Mr. Chairman, we have heard many testimonies from my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on the other side of the aisle that the arts are good for the public. He is a former professor, and he cited study after study that shows that children who are exposed to the arts and humanities do better in school and have higher self-esteem. Mr. Chairman, the money for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities touches the lives of millions of Americans. In my own home district, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands and thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the grace of ballet to every area of our country. Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in the country. Today there are more than 1,000, and I am building on the comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on how the seed money from the NEA spurs the arts in communities clear across the country. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in America. Now there are over 300. Before the NEA, only 1 million people attended the theater each year. Today over 55 million attend regional theaters. Mr. Chairman, many of these institutions that have grown are there because of the support from the NEA, which then attracts private dollars. I would like to mention that the new director of the NEA, Mr. Ivey, has come forward with an innovative program that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) spoke on called Challenge America, which reaches out to neighborhoods across America through community-driven grants. I would like to be associated, really, with the fine analysis that my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) gave about the economic benefits of the arts to communities, and how the investment grows to more dollars in our economy, more tax dollars coming back to the Federal treasury. She also pointed out very forcefully that all of the additional monies that she included in her amendment are direct grant monies. None of it will be used for administration in either the NEA or the NEH, but will be going to community groups through the challenge grant across America. In closing, in addition to the economic benefits, the impact the arts have on our culture and the development of our children and our society is priceless. It is a small part of our budget. I fully support the Slaughter amendment, I support the underlying bill, and I am opposed to the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Crowley amendment. It is thoughtful. It will benefit arts in urban areas. I also rise in support of the entire bill. I applaud the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member. I was concerned of how the committee would operate after my dear friend and colleague, Mr. Yates, left. But I see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is continuing with the chairman in a very firm and strong way. I particularly applaud the committee for wisely rejecting efforts to load this bill up with controversial anti-environmental riders. Unfortunately, the version of this bill passed by the Committee on Appropriations in the other House contains numerous riders that would never pass on their own and have absolutely no place in this legislation. One of these riders, in particular, robs the American taxpayer of over $66 million per year. This rider would permit big oil companies to continue to underpay the royalties they owe to the Federal Government, States and Indian tribes--cheating taxpayers of millions and millions of dollars. It would do this by blocking the Interior Department from implementing a new rule which would require big oil companies to pay royalties to the government based on the market value of the oil they produce. Currently, the oil companies are keeping two sets of books, one which they pay themselves, market value, and one which they pay the taxpayers, the Federal Government, which is greatly undervalued to the true value of the oil. Earlier this year, I released a report demonstrating how these companies have cheated the American taxpayer of literally billions of dollars in the past several decades. They do this by complex trading devices which mask the real value of the oil they produce. By undervaluing their own oil, these companies can avoid paying the full royalty payments they owe. The Justice Department investigated these practices and decided they were so wrong that it filed suit against several major oil companies for violating the False Claims Act. As a result, one company settled with the government and paid over $45 million. Numerous other companies have settled similar claims brought by States and private royalty owners for millions, and, in one case, billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, the rule that the Interior Department is proposing is simple. It requires that oil companies pay royalties based on the fair market value of the oil they produce, just like everybody else when they sell their product to the Federal Government. But these oil companies that have been cheating the American taxpayer for years are now trying to block the Interior Department from implementing a rule using every excuse imaginable. Mr. Chairman, this rider robs money from our schools, our environment, our States and our Indian tribes. It does this to benefit the most narrow special interest imaginable, big oil companies with billions of dollars in profits. I applaud the Committee on Appropriations for leaving this issue to the experts at the Interior Department and for not loading it up with other unnecessary and wrong antienvironmental riders.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the World Cup Soccer champions, I want to present this soccer ball to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), my colleague, and to former Member, Edith Green. In 1972, they offered and enacted the landmark Title IX legislation, the Bill of Rights for women in education and sports. It said that any university that secured Federal funds must open up all programs on an equal basis. Prior to enactment of Title IX, female athletes had very little and limited opportunity to compete. I know that when I was in school, there were no women's sports programs. Mr. Speaker, the Statue of Liberty has become a symbol of freedom to the world. Now when a woman or anyone holds up a soccer ball, this has become a symbol of opportunity, of equality in sports, and really the opportunity for women to achieve great things. Thank you, Title IX. Thank you to the women and men in this body that enacted it.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting sporting events of all time took place in Pasadena's famed Rose Bowl. Over 90,000 spectators, a record attendance for a women's sports contest, saw the United States women's soccer team defeat China on penalty kicks. Many millions more around the world saw this thrilling match on television. In this country television ratings were higher than for the National Hockey League finals and most of the National Basketball Association playoffs. I congratulate all the wonderful young women who participated, not just those from the victorious U.S. team but also the fine athletes from the Chinese squad and representatives from the other 14 nations that participated in this wonderful Women's World Cup. Marla Messing and Donna de Verona deserve everyone's gratitude for staging this magnificent tournament. I would also like to praise ABC and ESPN for showing every match in its entirety, without commercial interruption, and live, except when two contests were being played at the same time. The opportunity for the American public to see the action is something I have long fought for. When the American women's soccer team won the world championship in 1991 in China by defeating Norway 2 to 1, the final was only seen in this country by tape delay several weeks later. In contrast, the same match was shown live on two stations in Norway. Consequently, I protested strongly when Americans were denied the right to see on television any of the soccer or women's softball matches in the 1996 Olympics. This was inexcusable, particularly since both American teams won the gold medal. I also objected at the poor treatment received by television viewers who wished to watch the U.S. men's and women's hockey teams at last year's winter Olympics. Since the U.S. Olympic committee is chartered by Congress, I am urging the House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform, of which I am a member, to exert strong oversight so that the American public will receive better treatment at next year's Olympics. I know that Americans are anxious to see their beloved soccer team perform once more, and I am sure they will also enjoy our wonderful women's softball athletes when they get the opportunity to see them in action. I think it is important to call attention to the important role that Title IX, enacted into law in 1972, played in preparing our women's team for the World Cup, and I congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for having authored and enacted that law in this House. Prior to the enactment of Title IX, female athletes in this country had limited chances to compete. I know when I was in school if I wished to be involved in athletics the only opportunity was to be a cheerleader. Donna de Verona, an Olympic gold medalist in swimming in the 1964 Olympics, was unable to obtain an athletic scholarship at an American University despite her considerable outstanding talent. We must not heed those who complain that Title IX is responsible for the elimination of college men's basketball, wrestling and other so- called nonrevenue sports teams. In fact, we must find ways of extending the philosophy of Title IX to other areas where women are discriminated against in the sports world. In this regard, I refer to professional sports. In this respect, 27 years after the introduction of Title IX, women are drastically discriminated against in the professional sports world. As of now, the women who won the world championships for the United States in women's soccer have no opportunity to play as professionals in this country. On the other hand, the members of the men's soccer team that finished last in France at the Men's World Cup last year have ample opportunities to play professionally in the United States and abroad. I do not wish to demean our American men's soccer athletes. I am confident they will do much better at the next world cup. I think it is important to point out that virtually all men's professional sports teams receive significant government assistance in the form of subsidies and substantial tax breaks for whatever venue they play in. Many of the stadiums are actually constructed by municipal governments and either turned over to a team or leased at a very low rent. I believe that we must see that these facilities and tax breaks are available to women's professional teams on an equal basis.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Randolph Guggenheimer, a beloved member of the New York community who recently passed away. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring the memory and contributions of Mr. Guggenheimer, whose dedication to public service has improved the lives of countless individuals. Mr. Guggenheimer was a man with vast and varied accomplishments. A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, he earned a partnership in the law firm of Guggenheimer & Untermyer. During World War II, Mr. Guggenheimer answered his nation's call to service, enlisting in the U.S. Air Force and serving as an executive officer of a fighter squadron in Europe. Mr. Guggenheimer's philanthropic activities were extensive and impressive; he believed passionately in contributing to the community. He was active in many organizations, including the Mount Sinai Hospital School for Nursing and the Jewish Child Care Association. Mr. Guggenheimer also held the position of Chairman of the Board for North General Hospital, a hospital he saved from closing after championing the movement to insure adequate hospital service to the people of Harlem. Without Mr. Guggenheimer's dedication and perseverance, Harlem would have had only one hospital. Randolph Guggenheimer dedicated himself to getting the necessary funding to keep North General meeting the needs of the community. Whenever North General faced financial difficulty, it was always able to rely on Mr. Guggenheimer's efforts to help secure the needed financing to weather the storm. Through Mr. Guggenheimer's oversight, North General grew even as other small community hospitals were forced to close. Mr. Guggenheimer's dedication to the public good was well known in the New York community. Mr. Guggenheimer was awarded the United Hospital Annual Distinguished Trustee of the Year award. In 1991, he was honored by the Mayor of New York, David Dinkins. North General established the Randolph Guggenheimer Community award to acknowledge hospital staff that displayed excellence for community service. Mr. Guggenheimer leaves behind a wife, Elinor, who shares his passion for philanthropy and community service. He is also survived by two sons, Charles and Randolph Jr., three grandchildren and six great- grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, for all his good work and for his compassion and commitment to his community, his city, and country, Mr. Randolph Guggenheimer is deserving of a special tribute. I ask that my colleagues join me in acknowledging Randolph Guggenheimer's years of accomplishments as an inspirational leader to the community at large and as a devoted friend to the people of New York City. He will be deeply missed.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. It is long past due that we have a bill that brings our financial services into the 21st Century. We should be able to compete with other industrialized nations where financial institutions have been allowed to merge and bring a wide variety of products and services to their customers. The bill allows the law to catch up with the reality of the international merger movement. Some of these mergers have taken place on the probability that Congress will finally act so that financial services will no longer be hamstrung by outdated restrictions of the 1930s. The bill allows financial institutions to merge, but prevents banks from merging with commercial businesses, and it requires functional regulation. The Committee on Rules has changed what came out of our Committee on Banking and Financial Services with tremendous bipartisan support. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for their leadership. Many of these changes are inappropriate and wrong, such as the medical privacy provision, and they should be changed in conference. While I will vote for this bill so that it can go to conference, my final vote will be contingent on a bill that has strong privacy provisions. Also, we should be cognizant that the President will veto any bill that does not contain strong CRA provisions, which I also fully support, and are in the House bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I am certainly sympathetic to the privacy concerns being raised during this debate. And I voted for the amendment during the Banking Committee mark-up of H.R. 10 which eliminated the newly proposed ``Know Your Customer'' rules. This amendment, however, will seriously curtail the efforts of law enforcement in curbing fraud and stopping drug traffickers. The Bank Secrecy Act requires certain forms . . . the Suspicious Activities Report and the Currency Transactions Report to be filed when certain triggers are met. This amendment would make this system voluntary . . . not basing these reports on any of the triggers which may be hit, and probably resulting in banks becoming the favored launderers of fraudulent funds and drug money. Yet these reports have been crucial to uncovering all sorts of fraud and drug rings. In New York City last year, the FBI's office received a Suspicious Activity Report which indicated that a former vice president of a large bank had embezzled funds. The investigation discovered that the embezzlement reached $20 million. Another New York City case in July 1997 used these reports to uncover a fraudulent loan scheme worth $20 million in losses to area banks. These cases most likely would not have been discovered without the triggers in the Bank Secrecy Act. Join with the Justice Department, the Treasury Department and the Customs Service in helping law enforcement fight fraud and the drug trade. This amendment is anti-law enforcement. Oppose this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, last year H.R. 10 passed this Chamber by one vote. In that version of Financial Modernization, there were no privacy provisions. This year things have changed. There are privacy provisions in the base text and there is this amendment which, if adopted, will make this one of the strongest privacy bills to involve the financial services industry. I would like to thank all of the members who have worked on crafting this amendment, including Representatives Frost, LaFalce, Pryce, and Oxley. A few days ago I submitted to this informal privacy working group a suggested amendment. My proposal would make certain that if an affiliate in a holding company were sold to another entity, only the information about their own customers could be transferred. No information about customers in the original holding company are allowed to be shared with the sold entity's new affiliates unless they were already a customer. This is an important privacy protection and I was pleased that the authors agreed to add it into this amendment. Perhaps the most important part of this amendment are the strong disclosure provisions. This bill requires financial institutions to annually disclose to their customers their policies practices for collecting and protecting the customer's private information. Financial Modernization means more choices for consumers, and part of that choice should include the privacy policies of the firm which is trying to attract their business. If a customer is unsatisfied with a privacy policy of a firm, they can choose another. But this form of competition only works with strong disclosure requirements. This amendment will also prohibit financial institutions from reselling a consumer's private information to a third party and will prohibit them also from sharing a customer's account numbers in order to market to that customer. This should prevent many of those unwanted telemarketing calls resulting from a relationship with a bank or other financial firm. There are still some problems with the base text, including the problems with the privacy of medical information. But I am pleased with the colloquy between Mr. Ganske and Mr. LaFalce and I am confident that these issues will be worked out in conference. These are the best privacy provisions to ever appear in a draft of H.R. 10 and I am supportive of this effort. To be sure, during this debate many good issues have been raised about these privacy issues. Chairman Leach has announced hearings on privacy for the end of July and I am sure the Banking Committee will continue to examine the issue and consider appropriate legislation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time and for her leadership on the Children's Caucus and so many other important issues. This bill sounds like a good idea. In an ideal world, parents would always be the first person that teenagers would go to with their problems. But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Some parents abuse their kids. Some parents kick them out of the house. Some parents are not capable of taking care of their own children. This bill is not about protecting young women. It is about antichoice politics. I would like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 121st vote against a woman's right to choose since the beginning of the Republican-led 104th Congress. I have documented each and every one of those antichoice votes in a Choice Report which is available on my web site. The Republican-led Congress has acted again and again to eliminate the right to choose, procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction. Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act of taking a minor across State lines for an abortion without parental consent if the State in which the person resides requires it. As the mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple issue. Of course, I would hope that my daughters would include me in making such an important decision. Unfortunately, many young women do not live in normal families. They are in severely dysfunctional families. I would hope that any young woman who refuses or cannot involve her parents would have another trusted adult from whom to seek guidance and support. However, this bill would make criminals out of such adults. It would make criminals out of loving grandparents, siblings, counselors, friends, aunts and uncles who have nothing but the safety and well- being of the young woman in mind. If a young woman refuses to involve her family and the law prohibits her from looking to another responsible adult for support, then essential parental support and adult support is stripped away from this young person. This bill does not protect young women from undue influence. On the contrary, it strips them of essential support. This bill is not about protecting our young women. It is driven solely by the divisive nature of abortion politics. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and put the safety and well- being of America's young women before the political agenda of antichoice legislators. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It sure sounds like a good idea. In an ideal world, parents would always be the first person their teenagers would go to with their problems. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Unfortunately, some parents abuse their kids. Unfortunately, some parents kick their kids out of the home. Unfortunately, some parents are not capable of taking care of their kids. I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 121st vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Republican Congress. I have documented each of these votes in a Choice Report, which is available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney/choicereport.htm Congress has acted again and again to eliminate procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction. I find it particularly ironic that at the same time when some are trying to restrict access to contraception for young people through Title X--which will prevent unwanted pregnancies--they are also restricting access to abortion. Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act taking a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent, if the state in which the person resides requires it. As a mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple issue. Of course, I would hope that my children would include me when making such an important decision. Unfortunately, many teens live in severely dysfunctional families. I would hope that any young women who refuses to involve her parents would have another trusted adult from which to seek guidance and support. However, this bill will make criminals of those loving grandparents, siblings, counselors and friends who have nothing but the safety and well-being of the young woman in mind. It sends the message to young women that an abortion is something they must go through alone. This is a dangerous bill, and should perhaps be called the Teen Endangerment Act. It will succeed only in making it more difficult for a young woman to get a safe, legal abortion. If she refuses to involve her family and the law prohibits her from looking to another responsible adult for help, then essential support is not there. This is also an unnecessary bill. For those who worry about young women being forced or coerced by an adult into having an abortion against their will, let me remind them that we already have laws, such as informed consent laws or prohibitions against kidnaping and statutory rape, which protect against this. This bill doesn't protect young women from undue influence. On the contrary, it strips them of essential support. This bill is not about protecting our young women. It is driven solely by the divisive nature of abortion politics. I urge you to oppose this bill and put the safety and well-being of America's young women before the political agenda of anti-choice legislators. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced two important pieces of women's health legislation--H.R. 890, The Tampon Safety and Research Act of 1999, and H.R. 889, The Robin Danielson Act. The research and reporting called for in these bills will finally give women the accurate information they need to make informed decisions about their health as it relates to tampon use. Why is the issue of tampon safety important? Because tampons are used by 73 million American women--that's 53% of American women and almost a third of the total population. A woman may use as many as 16,500 tampons in her lifetime. Given these numbers, shouldn't we be certain that these products are safe? I introduced two tampon safety bills because there are two separate issues that must be addressed. Why is The Tampon Safety and Research Act important? Because tampons and other related products often contain additives, synthetic fibers, and dioxin. Dioxin is a toxic by-product of the paper manufacturing process. Wood pulp, as well as the rayon used in nearly all tampons, undergo several production processes, including bleaching. The majority of pulp and paper producers use a chlorine bleaching method that results in the formation of dioxin and other contaminants. As a result, trace amounts of dioxin are present in most paper products, from toilet paper to tampons. Dioxin is also found in varying levels throughout the environment, but are women being subjected to additional and potentially avoidable exposures to dioxin through tampon use? Let me put dioxin in perspective, because we only have to consult recent history to know of the potentially disastrous effects of this substance. Dioxin is a member of the organochlorine group, which includes the contaminants found in Agent Orange, the Vietnam War-era defoliant, and at Love Canal. But let's consult the experts as well. According to a 1994 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, dioxin is a known cancer-causing agent in animals, as well as a probable human carcinogen. My bill is specifically concerned with the possible links between dioxin in tampons and ovarian, cervical, and breast cancers, as well as other potential hazards. A 1996 EPA study has also linked dioxin exposure with increased risks for endometriosis, an often painful menstrual-related condition that is a leading cause of infertility. Further, the EPA has concluded that people with high exposure to dioxin may be at risk for other effects which could suppress the immune system, increase the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, reduce fertility, and possibly interfere with normal fetal and childhood development. The EPA conclusions regarding dioxin exposure are particularly alarming in light of a 1989 Food and Drug Administration report, which stated that ``possible exposures from all other medical device sources would be dwarfed by the potential tampon exposure.'' Why? Because the average woman may use as many as 16,500 tampons during her lifetime. If dioxin is putting women at risk, could the long-term use of tampons increase that risk? What makes these toxic residues in tampons even more disturbing is they come in direct contact with some of the most absorbent tissue in a woman's body. According to Dr. Philip Tierno, Jr., director of microbiology and immunology at New York University Medical Center, almost anything placed on this tissue--including trace amounts of dioxin--gets absorbed into the body. According to researchers, dioxin is stored in fatty tissue--just like that found in the vagina. And women have more body fat than men, possibly allowing them to more efficiently store dioxin from all sources, not just tampons. Worse yet, the effects of dioxin are cumulative, and can be measured as much as 20 or 30 years after exposure. This accumulation is cause for particular concern, because a woman may be exposed to dioxin in tampons for approximately 55 years over the course of her reproductive life. The question, of course, is why it is acceptable to have this toxic substance in tampons--despite the advice of an FDA scientist to the contrary. A 1989 agency document reported that ``the most effective risk management strategy would be to assure that tampons, and menstrual pads for good measure, contain no dioxin.'' Why has there been far more testing on the possible health effects of chlorine-bleached coffee filters than on chlorine-bleached tampons and related products? My bill seeks to address this inadequacy, and finally give women the most accurate, up-to-date information available regarding this critical health concern. Although the FDA currently requires tampon manufacturers to monitor dioxin levels in their finished products, the results are not available to the public. When I--as a Member of Congress--requested the information, the FDA told me it was proprietary and therefore could not be released. It should be noted the dioxin tests relied upon by the FDA are done by the manufacturers themselves, who, not surprisingly insist their products are safe. Some of my constituents have written to say that this is the equivalent of the fox guarding the henhouse. How much dioxin exposure is considered safe for humans? And does the fact that tampons are in direct contact with absorbent tissue, and for extended periods of time, make whatever levels of dioxin tampons possess even more dangerous? Is this the equivalent of a ticking time bomb, capable of increasing women's risks for several life-threatening or fertility-threatening diseases? Unfortunately there are no easy answers. We simply don't have instructive, persuasive evidence either way. Many experts believe, however, if the slightest possibility exists that dioxin residues in tampons could harm women, the dioxin should simply be eliminated. I also believe we should err on the side of protecting women's health. Tampon manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients to consumers, although many have taken the positive step of voluntarily disclosing this information. Unfortunately, women are still being forced to take the word of the industry-sponsored research that these products are completely safe. I should also not that this is not the first time a Member of Congress has expressed concern about this issue. In 1992, the late Representative Ted Weiss of New York brought the issue up in a subcommittee hearing of the Committee on Government Operations. He did this after his staff had uncovered internal FDA documents which suggested the agency had not adequately investigated the danger of dioxin in tampons. My bill, The Tampon Safety & Research Act (H.R. 890), would direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct research to determine the extent to which the presence of dioxin, synthetic fibers, and other additives in tampons and related menstruation products pose any health risks to women. An NIH study would provide American women with independent research, so they will not have to rely solely on research funded by tampon manufacturers. The second bill I have introduced, The Robin Danielson Act, calls for a program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to track instances of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). This bill is named in memory of Robin Danielson, a 44 year-old mother of two who last year of TSS. This bill addresses the many potentially harmful additives in tampons, including chlorine compounds, absorbency enhancers, and synthetic fibers, as well as deodorants and fragrances. Most people are surprised to learn these additives are commonly found in these products. Toxic Shock Syndrome is a rare bacterial illness which caused over 50 deaths between 1979 and 1980, when the link between tampons and TSS was first established. According to a 1994 study, of the Toxic Shock cases occurring in menstruating women, up to 99% were using tampons. Obviously Toxic Shock Syndrome is still a women's health concern, and its link to tampons has become more clear. We do not know enough about the potential risks associated with such additives. Independent research has already shown synthetic fiber additives in tampons amplify toxins, which are associated with Toxic Shock Syndrome. Reporting of TSS to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently optional and uneven. No one knows the actual number of TSS occurrences or deaths. Because doctors do not report all cases of TSS and because local health departments are swamped with other higher- ranking concerns, Toxic Shock is greatly under-reported. My bill establishes a CDC program to implement mandatory collection of Toxic Shock Syndrome data. I want to share an excerpt from a letter written to me by a TSS survivor addressing the importance of The Robin Danielson Act and TSS research: ``I think women are misinformed about the dangers and risks that go with using tampons. I know that I remember hearing about it years ago but had always thought that tampons now were very safe to use. Apprently this is not true and many women today are dying from this disease and it goes unreported. Women, like Robin Danielson, are still dying from this terrible disease. It is imperative that we are able to accurately inform women of the risk of Toxic Shock associated with tampon use, and that women are well aware of that risk. We know there is a dangerous link between tampon use and TSS. What we don't know is how prevalent the disease is among tampon users. The only means to determine the current risk of Toxic Shock and to raise awareness of the disease is to require systematic reporting through the CDC. Currently, the CDC believes that women are at increased risk for developing Toxic Shock due to a false sense of security, believing that there is no longer a risk for developing the disease. To make matters worse, the diagnosis of Toxic Shock is difficult because the symptoms are flu-like and can be easily mis-diagnosed or ignored. Knowing the continued risk for contracting Toxic Shock is the only way to raise awareness among women and their physicians. More knowledgeable women and physicians will recognize TSS symptoms earlier, diagnose Toxic Shock more readily, and prevent needless deaths. The fact is, women do not have the information they need to make sound decisions about their health. For the sake of women's well-being, we need accurate, independent information. American women have a right to know about any potential hazards associated with tampons and other related products. It is only when women fully understand the consequences that they can make truly informed decisions about their reproductive health. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in this fight to get accurate health information to the women of America. Their future fertility, and perhaps their lives, may depend on it.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Transportation Appropriations Bill. Unlike the bill on the Senate side, the House version understands that each State has different needs. The Senate bill placed a cap on transit spending for a State. This cap, if enacted, would mean a loss of over $160 million in transit aid to New York City and State alone. In a country which is trying to emphasize the importance of using public transportation these caps are counterproductive. The House bill uses a funding formula which takes into account the number of mass transit riders a region handles. The same Senators who may support caps for mass transit I would assume would be opposed to similar caps on highway spending. The House bill shows an understanding that funding for mass transit is equally as important as other transportation funding. I commend both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for constructing a bipartisan balanced bill. I do wish to raise one concern: In this bill there is money earmarked for the East Side Connector, which will allow commuters from Queens and Long Island to end up in New York City. This project is worthy and important, but it only makes sense if at the same time we institute a plan to finish the Second Avenue subway in New York City. When the estimated 50,000 new commuters wind up in Grand Central in New York most of them will have to continue on an additional commuter line, the Lexington Avenue line. Currently the Lexington Avenue line is the only one that goes up the East Side of Manhattan, and it is already terribly crowded. Adding thousands of additional commuters will only add to the already overburdened state of this line. The solution is to create a line along Second Avenue in Manhattan, which has been in the works on and off for over 30 years, and part of it has already been constructed. This subway line will allow the city's economic growth to continue and make the subway system an asset and not a hindrance. The Senate bill allows for funding to continue the process of building the Second Avenue subway, and I do support this bill, but I hope that in conference the appropriators will follow the Senate version.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the E.J. Electric Installation Company in honor of their membership on this, their centennial anniversary, in the One Hundred Year Association of New York. For a century, E.J. Electric Installation has been a leader in its field, growing from an era of paper and wood-line conduits and gas/ electric lighting fixtures to one of the leading full-service electrical contractors in the world. Jacques R. Mann, the first of three generations to run the company, joined E.J. Electric in 1912, going on to pioneer the electrification of the entertainment industry, including almost every large East Coast studio. Jacques Mann designed and installed the Paramount Astoria motion picture studio, which was modernized 40 years later by his son and current E.J. Electric president, J. Robert Mann, Jr. The company's credits now include such renowned venues as the Rockefeller Center complex and the Metropolitan Opera House. E.J. Electric was an important contributor to the World War II effort by introducing lightweight, pressed steel watertight panels and outlet boxes to the U.S. Navy, an innovation now used throughout the Navy. The Navy recognized E.J. Electric with five ``E'' awards. Under Bob Mann's guidance, E.J. Electric is the expert electrical firm on installation of nationwide computerized airline reservation systems. The company is also a leader in design and installation of complicated and specialized electrical systems for hospitals and health care facilities. Noteworthy communication installations include the Merrill Lynch primary data center at the World Financial Center, AT&T World Headquarters in Manhattan, and American Airlines, as well as installation and maintenance of all voice, data, audio, video, satellite, security, and fire safety systems for U.N. buildings in New York. New York City's 911 Police Command Center, utilizing advanced business communication expertise, the New York Public Library, and a $10 million Telecommunications and Multimedia system for the United States Tennis Center are among E.J.'s credits. Important repowering projects include the Museum of Modern Art, NBC, CBS, Delta Airlines, Tower Airlines and British Airways at JFK Airport. The tradition of hands-on leadership continues with the Mann family's third generation. Tony Mann oversaw the $22 million expansion of the Long Island Railroad car repair facility, spread over 15 acres with one of the most advanced robotic systems in the world. He was also responsible for the intricate and sensitive Rockefeller University co- generation high tech laboratories and computer facilities. Continuing an E.J. Electric tradition, Tony Mann enjoys an excellent working relationship with Local 3 I.B.E.W. and the community. Tony sees value engineering as a principal strength of E.J., leading to cost savings for customers. E.J. Electric Installation Co. is committed to early identification of advanced trends in equipment and systems design and industry ramifications of these innovations. The company brings to its projects the highest degree of service, professionalism, and technology. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring to your attention the century of outstanding work offered by the E.J. Electrical Installation Company.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hunter amendment. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the DC subcommittee, I join my colleagues in strong opposition to this amendment. I cannot understand why, in the wake of the tragedies in Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia, this Congress would even consider a measure that would roll back gun laws in our nation's capital. But even more importantly, I cannot understand why some members of this body, who pride themselves on their commitment of honoring power to states and local governments, would deliberately thwart the will of the people of the District of Columbia. My home city of New York has enacted its own tough gun-control laws, and I am proud to support them. But even if I didn't, I would defend the rights of New York to pass laws that are binding on its own citizens. This Congress should accord the same respect to the residents of our nation's capital. This amendment is about more than gun control. It is about local control, and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to enact their own laws. I applaud my colleague from the District of Columbia, and my colleague from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), my good friend and colleague. This amendment is a simple gun safety provision that will save the lives of numerous victims of gun violence each year. Mr. Chairman, 13 children in this country die every day because of gun violence, far, far more than have died in Bosnia and Kosovo. We require childproof locks on aspirin bottles. It is absurd that we do not require child safety devices on handguns. I applaud my colleague for clarifying the definition of gun safety devices to ensure that it incorporates new devices such as the safety hammer, which is not a lock, but an integral part of a gun that can be removed to prevent unauthorized use. Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not prevent every incident of gun violence, but it will save lives and it will make the children of America safer. Child safety locks and other devices can reduce the unauthorized use of handguns by children at play or by teens looking to commit crimes. Many youth look no further than their own homes to get their hands on a gun. It is estimated that a third of all privately owned handguns are loaded and unlocked. Sixteen States have already passed child safety laws. Every year, many children are fatally injured when a child finds a loaded pistol, removes the ammunition magazine, and then mistakenly believing the gun to be empty, fires a bullet at his or her head or the head of a playmate. A magazine disconnect safety, a 50-cent device, could prevent such tragedies. Just to give some examples: In Florida in 1999, an 11-year-old boy got angry with his 13-year-old sister. He went to a closet at home, took out a gun his parents kept there, and killed his sister. The gun was in an unlocked box and was next to the ammunition and had no trigger guard. In Tennessee, in May of 1998, a 5-year-old boy found a loaded gun on his grandfather's dresser and carried it to school threatening to kill his teacher and classmates. In Cleveland in 1996, a 13-year-old boy took his father's unsecured handgun and killed himself while playing Russian roulette. The city prosecutor brought charges against the boy's father for violating the city ordinance that prohibits minors from having access to a gun. The language that we have before us is similar to that that passed the Senate. It passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 20. This House should do the same thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not prevent every incident of gun violence, but it will save lives, and it will make our children safer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition for debate purposes, although I support the amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, guns are out of control. Tonight, this House should not turn a deaf ear to the families and victims of Littleton, Colorado. This Congress should strengthen the bipartisan Brady Bill by passing the McCarthy amendment to expand background checks to gun shows. Five and a half years ago, this body debated the Brady Bill. The gun lobby and its supporters in this body said it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work, they said, because criminals didn't buy their guns in stores. Well, they were wrong. Since that time, over 400,000 illegal gun sales were prevented. Thanks to the Brady Bill, 400,000 fewer guns are on our streets and in the hands of criminals. Thankfully, we will never know how many lives would have been lost if those guns had been sold. We will never know how many children would have died if this Congress have failed to take action and pass the Brady Bill. Mr. Chairman, some have suggested that the waiting period should be changed from three business days to only 24 or 72 hours. But the vast majority of gun buyers complete their checks in a few hours. It is only those who are convicted of felony charges, or have a record of domestic violence or drug abuse who are denied their guns, and we need those extra days to conduct a thorough check. So now, when the NRA comes back to Congress to argue that we shouldn't close the gun-show loophole, that we shouldn't subject gun buyers at gun shows to the same background check as gun buyers in stores, I urge my colleagues not to be swayed by their deception. If we accomplish nothing else in the name of gun safety, we must close the gun-show loophole. I applaud my colleague from New York for her courage and her determination, and I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy amendment, and Mr. Conyers' substitute.