Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful statement. The time for our special order is ending. The bonds between our two countries have never been stronger. As we prepare for the new millennium, we look forward to building on our partnership for democracy in our own countries and throughout the world. I thank my colleagues for participating in this special order.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in America today that might seem somewhat paranormal. It might be something we would see on ``Ripley's Believe it or Not'' or maybe ``The X Files.'' Ten million Americans have become invisible. And even more will disappear if this Congress fails to act. I am talking about the 1990 census. That is when ten million people were not counted, they were simply overlooked. It was as if the population of Michigan or Ohio simply fell off the map. Many of those who were missed are people who most need the things that being counted in the census brings, representation in government and inclusion in government's Federal funding formulas. The 1990 census was the first to be worse than the census before it, and the difference between the undercount for whites and minorities was the worst ever recorded. About 4\1/2\ percent of all African Americans were missed, as were 1 in 20 Latinos, 1 in 14 children, and 1 in 10 black males. But the problem does not end with the undercount. In 1990, over 6 million people were counted more than once and most of them were white. That makes the undercount even more unfair to minorities and poor people, because not only are they missed, but their proportional representation, the basis for House seats and Federal dollars, is further diminished by double-counting. The 1990 census cost 20 percent more than the 1980 census and was 33 percent less accurate. In fact, unless we make some fundamental changes, there is every reason to believe that the 2000 census will cost even more and be less accurate. As we enter a new millennium, our Nation needs an accurate census that includes everybody. We cannot be satisfied with the census that continues to miss millions of people. But that is exactly what will happen 2 years from now unless we use the best knowledge and technology available to fix the problems of the past. There is some good news. Some people have been thinking about this problem already. In 1992, a bipartisan coalition of representatives pushed legislation to ask the National Academy of Sciences to review the census. They chose the National Academy of Sciences because the Academy is fair and independent of political influence. Using the recommendations from that independent review, the Census Bureau has developed a comprehensive plan for the 2000 census that will produce the most accurate census in our Nation's history. It includes using the latest technology, shorter forms, more ways to respond, a paid advertising campaign, better address lists, and closer partnerships with both local governments and community-based organizations. All of these things will improve the response rate and improve accuracy while containing costs. After extensive efforts to count absolutely everybody, the plan for the 2000 census calls for the application of basic statistical methods to establish the number and characteristics of the people who still do not respond based on those who do. Congress recently approved a test of these methods in 2 of the 3 dress rehearsals for the census that starts this spring. Under the Census Bureau plan, everybody counts. All Americans will be included in the census. But the bureau faces one obstacle, and that is this Congress. Those who oppose the Census Bureau's plan for the 2000 census say they are willing to spend whatever it takes to count everybody the old way. But everybody knows that no matter how much you spend, the old ways will not count everyone. Dr. Barbara Bryant stepped into the breach for President Bush to direct the 1990 census. The Republican appointee knew all too well the problems with the plans for 1990. But she was brought on board just 4 months before it was to begin. It takes 24 hours to turn around an aircraft carrier. Four months was hardly enough time to stop the momentum of an operation as massive as the census. Recently Dr. Bryant wrote, and I quote, Throwing more money and more temporarily hired census takers at the job of enumeration will not find the missing. She echoes what everybody knows. The old methods are as worn out as the arguments that keep them. One of those arguments being used by the House Leadership is that we are under a Constitutional mandate to physically count everyone, nose by nose. That is an impossibility, and it gives the illusion that the census can reach everyone directly, which it cannot and does not. However, it can reach many people directly. And it will--because the current plan calls for the Census Bureau to make an unprecedented effort to count most Americans directly, either through the mail, by telephone, or by going door-to-door to find those people who don't respond. This is not a ``sample census'' of ``virtual Americans'' as some have claimed. In fact, it is the most extensive effort to count everyone in the history of the census. Every household will receive 4 mailings between the middle of March and the middle of April. Questionnaires will be available in public places such as libraries, post offices, and churches. People can even call in their responses by telephone. The plans for the 2000 census are on solid legal ground, despite the rhetoric. The Department of Justice under the Carter, Bush, and Clinton administrations has consistently ruled that the Constitution doesn't bar sampling or statistical methods to improve a good faith effort to count everyone directly. We can listen to the experts to get the best count possible. Or we can let politics rule the day, and end up with a census that costs too much and misses millions of Americans. We must put an end to the injustice census.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues from the Women's Caucus as we work to bring greater attention to the issue of economic equity for women. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her valuable leadership, both of the Women's Caucus and on this critical issue. I do want to note that, in her notice for this special order on economic equity for women, she cites a quote from the United States Bureau of the Census. And I would like to read this quote into the Record. It says, ``The median earnings of women with a strong commitment to workforce were $23,710 while those of men were a substantially greater $32,144.'' I would like to bring notice to this, not only for the important data that is below that points out the discrepancy between the earnings between men and women, but as an example of how we use census data over and over again in our everyday lives to know where we are as a Nation, where we are going as a Nation. Without good data, we are just another opinion. This is one example of how the census data helps us track the progress or lack thereof of women in the workforce and that we, likewise, need to work for a fair and accurate census that is coming up. Mr. Speaker, the Women's History Month is traditionally a time to highlight women's achievements and an opportunity to increase public awareness of the unique contributions women have made throughout history. It is true that American women have made great strides. Women break through more personal and professional barriers every day, and we all should take pride in these many accomplishments. But we cannot afford to rest on these laurels, because the facts also show that there is a great deal of work that needs to be done. The sad reality is, almost 35 years after the Equal Pay Act was passed, there is still a huge wage gap. In fact, women earned equal pay in only two out of 90 jobs tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1995. While the wage gap has narrowed by 15 percent since 1981, white women still make just 74 cents on the dollar to a male dollar. The situation is worse for the women of color. The wage gap for African-American women is 64 cents to the male dollar. For Hispanic women, it is 53 cents. This fact should make us all angry. We should all be indignant when women are not paid the same as men for the same exact same job, comparable work. Pay inequity is yet another example of the lingering sexism and racism that is still in our society. Most of the wage gap cannot be explained away by differences in education, experience, or other legitimate qualifications. Even among recent college graduates, women earned 15.7 percent less than male graduates. While there has been some real progress, there is still a cultural bias against, in some cases, women workers. There are still antiquated perceptions that women possibly do not need as much money as men, but they do. Women support their families. Their income is very much an important part of a two-wage family income. Yet, great women are supporting their families alone. As many as one in five American families are headed by women. Many two-parent families could not make it without both incomes. Clearly, economic equality is a fundamental issue for women. It goes straight to the heart of how we care for our families and the roles we play in our communities and the security of our retirement years, which my colleague is focusing on and mentioned earlier. Women continue to battle the glass ceiling, and virtually every profession is now open to us. But women have not yet broken the wage barrier. The notion of equal pay for equal work is so basic to the values of this country. If we genuinely want an equal society, we need to show women we value their work. This country can do better. We must do better. And we are working to achieve it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record ``101 Facts On The Status of Working Women'', which is important information that we need to look at during this Women's History Month: 101 Facts on the Status of Working Women Women and the labor force 1. In January 1997, there were 105 million women age 16 and over in the U.S. Of that total, 62.7 million (59.7%) were in the civilian labor force (persons working or looking for work). 2. The U.S. Department of Labor is projecting that between 1994 and 2005, women's labor force participation will increase from 46 to 48%--nearly double the growth rate for men. 3. In 1995, 3.6 million women held more than one job. 4. In 1995, 60% of all employed women worked in traditionally female dominated occupations. 5. Two out of every three temporary workers are women. 6. Women comprised 44% of the total number employed in executive, administrative and managerial positions in 1996, up from 39% in 1988. 7. In 1996, 42% of women in executive, administrative and managerial positions were employed in the service industry, compared to 31% of men. Women are also much less likely than men to be employed in manufacturing, construction, transportation and public utilities. 8. Of the 1,960,000 engineers in the U.S. in 1996, only 167,000 (9%) were women, up from 2% in 1976. pay equity 9. Since 1981, the wage gap has narrowed from 59% to 71% in 1996--a decline of less than a penny per year. 10. The wage gap for African American women is 64 cents to a white man's dollar; for Hispanic women it is 53 cents. 11. The average woman loses approximately $420,000 over a lifetime due to unequal pay practices. 12. The total amount of wages lost due to pay inequity was over $130 billion in 1995. 13. About 60% of the improvement in the wage gap during the last 15 years can be attributed to the decline in men's real earnings. 14. According to a recent report, between one-third and one-half of the wage difference between men and women cannot be explained by differences in experience, education, or other legitimate qualifications. 15. Demonstrating that there is still not equal pay for equal work, in 1995 female sales workers earned 43.1%, female managers 32%, female college professors 22%, administrative support 22%, health technologists and technicians 18%, female elementary school teachers 12%, and female nurses 3.1% less than their male colleagues. 16. At all educational levels, women suffer from a wage gap compared to male workers. College educated women earn $14,217 a year less than college educated white men, and only $794 more than white men who have never taken a college course. 17. College educated African American and Hispanic women annually earn $17,549 and $14,779 less, respectively, than their white male colleagues, and college educated African American women earn $2,558 less than white male high school graduates. 18. Even among recent college graduates, women earn 15.7% less than men. 19. While women constituted 46% of the work force in 1995, over 63% of all workers earning the minimum wage or below were women. 20. The median weekly earnings for all men in 1996 was $557, compared to $418 for all women, $362 for African American women, and $316 for Hispanic women. 21. Women in unions in 1995 earned weekly wages that were 35% higher than women who were not union members. 22. Poverty rates are higher at every age for women who live alone or with non-relatives than for their male counterparts. women-owned businesses 23. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, there are nearly eight million women-owned businesses in the U.S., employing over 18.5 million people and generating close to $2.3 trillion in sales. 24. In 1996, women-owned firms accounted for over one-third (36%) of all firms in the country, and provided employment for one out of every four (26%) U.S. workers. 25. The growth of women-owned businesses is outpacing overall business growth by nearly two to one, with an average of 1,400 starting each day. 26. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms increased by 78% nationwide, employment by these firms increased by 183%, and sales grew by 236%. 27. Women-owned firms are more likely to remain in business than the average U.S. firm. Nearly three-fourths of women- owned firms in business in 1991 were still in business three years later, compared to two-thirds of all U.S. firms. 28. An estimated 3.5 million women-owned businesses are home-based and employ 14 million full- and part-time workers. 29. Women business owners are more likely than all business owners to offer flex-time, tuition reimbursement, and profit sharing, and are more likely than men to volunteer and to encourage their employees to volunteer. 30. Women will own 40 to 50% of all U.S. businesses by the year 2000. women in the fortune 500 31. According to a 1996 Catalyst study of the Fortune 500 companies, 1,302 out of 13,013 (10%) corporate officers are women, up from 8.7% in 1994. 32. A total of 394 companies (78%) have one or more women corporate officers, up from 77% in 1994, and 105 companies (21%) have no women corporate officers, down from 23% in 1994. 33. Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) is the only company with women in more than half (57%) of corporate officer positions. 34. Women comprise 57 (2.4%) of the 3,430 highest corporate rank positions (chairman, vice chairman, CEO, president, COO,

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, our bipartisan amendment clarifies the intent of Congress that the Government Performance and Results Act should apply to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve has disputed this legal interpretation, but has so far agreed to voluntarily comply with all requirements of the Results Act. This amendment would simply make the congressional intent on coverage clearer. This Congress, when they enacted this, intended it to cover all agencies. The Federal Reserve has claimed that they are unique because they are off-budget and so-called independent, yet all other independent agencies are covered, such as, to give two examples, FDIC and Social Security. The statutory language and history surrounding the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 makes it clear that the Federal Reserve is a creature of Congress and a Federal agency for all intents and purposes. I believe, as well as the Office of Management and Budget and the General Accounting Office, that the Results Act does cover the Fed and, if fully implemented, would help improve Fed operations. We have drafted our amendment to very carefully exclude monetary policy, yet a GAO report in 1996 said that approximately 90 percent of the Fed's activities and functions are not directly related to monetary policy. In fact, according to this report, 93 percent of the operating budget accounts for salaries and costs associated with supervision and regulation of banks and provision of payment services in the banking industry. That amounts to approximately $2 billion to $2.5 billion annually. Earlier, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) argued very eloquently that the Results Act should apply to all agencies, even if they were smaller than the threshold. I support him in that interpretation, and I appreciate his support in expanding this amendment to cover the Fed. I would like to enter into the record this statement that clarifies our intent with the advice and consent of the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen); myself; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). I want to make the intent of Congress completely clear. In no way should these reporting requirements be used to influence in any way monetary policy, and it expressly exempts monetary policy. OMB, with the language of this amendment, shall not dictate the way in which the Federal Reserve makes its report to Congress. And, thirdly, by this amendment we do not mean that each Federal Reserve Bank submit a separate report to Congress, but that the organizations submit unified reports, organization-wide reports. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for his support, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his leadership and support, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for cosponsoring this amendment with me.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment resubmission requirement. The underlying bill, unfortunately, is the antithesis of the Results Act. Rather than streamlining government, it will require agencies to repeat the work they have just completed. This bill will create the very waste and duplication in our government that the bill purports to eliminate. In 1993, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration began an effort to reinvent our government--to make it more efficient and responsive to the American people. As a part of that effort, we passed the Government Performance and Results Act, or ``GPRA.'' This legislation had overwhelming bi-partisan support. We asked agencies to undertake strategic planning and timely performance evaluations so that we could streamline government and make it more efficient. This bill, unfortunately, is the antithesis of GPRA. Rather than streamlining government, it will require agencies to repeat the work they've just completed. Those agencies covered by GPRA--over 100 of them--have submitted their strategic plans to Congress and the Administration. According to the General Accounting Office, a non-partisan Congressional office, ``On the whole, agencies' plans appear to provide a workable foundation for Congress to use in helping to fulfill its appropriations, budget, authorization, and oversight responsibilities and . . . for the continuing implementation of the [GPRA].'' And the Office of Management and Budget testified before the Government Management, Information, and Technology subcommittee that they agreed with the GAO's assessment. If the GAO and OMB believe that these are workable strategic plans, why are we considering a bill that would require these agencies to submit new plans just a few months after the original plans were submitted. The Republicans claim that the agencies' plans are not sufficient. I have no doubt that some of the agency plans can be improved, but scrapping all of the plans is a blunderbuss that would waste taxpayer dollars. We should not ``fail'' these agencies just because we don't like what they have to say. If we have problems with these plans, then we should work with these agencies to bring their plans up to speed. We should not just tell them we don't like it and tell them to do it over. That will accomplish nothing: the majority is liable to not like the new plans, either. What are they going to do then? This amendment addresses these problems. It strikes the bill's requirement that all federal agencies revise and resubmit their strategic plans to Congress by the end of FY 1998, thereby giving Congress and the agencies sufficient time to work on improvements before the next plan must be submitted in two more years.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam 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. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for yielding me this time. And I would likewise like to thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for working in a truly bipartisan fashion throughout this year on so many concerns, and for adopting and accepting several amendments put forward by the minority both in amendment form and in the underlying language of the bill, specifically changes in the roles of the IG, and broadening the bill's language to include legal authorities other than just statutory authorities. It is, therefore, very unpleasant that I must oppose this bill, given the long history that we have had in this subcommittee of bipartisan cooperation and truly the long history that we have had of bipartisan support for the Government Performance and Results Act. It began truly under the Bush Administration. The Office of Management and Budget began working on it. Vice President Gore's Task Force on Reinventing Government contributed substantially to the formation of this language, and it ended up being the Democratic Congress' and President Clinton's first major step to reinvent government when it was passed in 1993. And it truly was the first bill that I managed on the floor of the House of Representatives, being elected in that year. GPRA was intended to improve government management by requiring the executive agencies to set measurable goals for themselves and then report annually on whether or not those goals were met. Federal managers are just beginning to set the program goals and performance measurements which GPRA requires. GPRA will provide new ways of getting things done. Implementing it will be difficult, but its benefits will be great. Despite the difficulties of implementing GPRA, OMB reports that about 95 percent of covered agencies submitted timely and compliant strategic plans by September 30, as required by the act. This should be an ``A'' in anyone's book, not the ``F'' that my colleague and chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), spoke about on the floor. Both OMB and the General Accounting Office are on record as opposing statutory changes to the bill at this time. The General Accounting Office has further noted that the strategic plan provides, and I quote, a workable framework for the next step of GPRA. So the basic premise of the bill that is before us today, that the strategic plans were so universally poor in quality that they must be done all over, has yet to be demonstrated. I would like to put into the Record a letter from the General Accounting Office really stating that; that it is working fine now, should not be redone, and has a workable framework. More in the ``A'' category than the ``F'' that the gentleman from Indiana mentioned. And also a letter from OMB really disputing the grading mechanism or so- called scores put forth by the Republican majority. If the basic premise and approach of this legislation is doubtful, when one turns to the specifics of the legislation, even more questions arise. This bill requires the resubmission of strategic plans by September 30th of '98. Even if the Senate were to act with record speed, that would give the agencies only 4 to 5 months to redo plans that they have already done. The bill provides no additional funding for this time-consuming and burdensome process which will take agencies away from other really needed work that they need to do. The resubmission of plans 6 months after they were originally done is not consistent with the goals of reducing duplication and waste. Mr. Chairman, I would really urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. And I would like to say that I will be supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to apply GPRA to Congress. We can learn by doing, not just by reviewing others. And this committee's campaign finance investigation is a prime example of the waste and duplication in Congress that could be eliminated by the Results Act, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) spoke about. So I hope my colleagues will support the Kucinich amendment, having GPRA apply likewise to Congress. Mr. Chairman, I include the letters referred to for the Record: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, March 4, 1998. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Waxman: I am writing to clarify what I understand may have been an inaccurate characterization of our position with respect to ``scores'' associated with agency strategic plans that are required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). To be clear, the Office of Management and Budget believes strategic and annual plans need to be evaluated but we have never developed or endorsed a scorecard approach to that evaluation. In particular we have never endorsed specific scores, specific scoring techniques, or the weight given to different factors contained in the scorecard used by the House Majority leadership. While I do believe the dialogue between agencies and Congress and other stakeholders is useful and will result in better, more usable plans, I do not believe the utility of a plan can be fairly captured using a scoring process similar to that used by the Majority leadership to grade the strategic plans. I hope this clarification is helpful to you. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, G. Edward DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director for Management.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I've come to the floor on many occasions to talk about women's issues--most of the time it involves the women of this country. I've often said that there is much work to do on behalf of the women of this country. However, we have made much progress, that we should not take for granted, especially today as we commemorate ``International Women's Day''. Fifty years ago in Paris Eleanor Roosevelt--working as the US representative to the UN Commission on Human Rights joined her fellow delegates in crafting the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document has set the standard for basic Human Rights for the last five decades. That declaration is what the world's courts and governments look to to set policy regarding the human condition. Unfortunately, some nations' governments do not include women in their definition of ``human'' because they are denied the basic rights that should be afforded any individual. There are women in some countries who are routinely beaten. They are sold to men as sex slaves. They are made prisoners of war where rape becomes a weapon. It is these women who cannot speak out, that my colleagues and I are remembering today. We speak for the millions of women in Africa who are subject to genital mutilation. We speak for the women in Mexico who are forced to take pregnancy tests and answer questions about their sexual habits as part of their job interviews. We speak for the women of Afghanistan who are not permitted to go to school or to enter the work force. They cannot leave their homes without being covered from head to toe. They are denied care in hospitals simply because of their gender. We speak for the tens of thousands of women in China who have been abducted or lured with promises of work or travel, then raped and beaten and forced into slavery. We speak out for the women in Peru where three cases of sexual violence occur every hour. We speak for these women because their voices deserve to be heard. One voice which is being heard is that of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has met with women from every corner of the world and heard their horrific stories. Fifty years after First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was crafting the language of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, the First Lady is taking up her cause. At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights the United States made its position clear with these words: ``Violence and discrimination against women don't just victimize individuals they hold back whole societies, guaranteeing human rights is a moral imperative with respect to both women and men. It is also an investment in making whole nations stronger, more fair, and better.'' However, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has been bogged down in the Senate for 17 years. The United States must make its position on this issue clear. Fifty years ago a first lady of the United States was able to help shape opinions about the rights of women in countries around the world. Now, the United States is obliged to do as much. It must join the other 161 nations in ratifying this convention, for the women of other countries and its own.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, earlier today one of my colleagues came to the floor of the House and complained about the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce not providing information about the 2000 Census. I am here to put the facts of the matter before the Members of the House so that they can make up their own minds about the openness of the planning for the 2000 Census. First, let me remind my colleagues that the process of planning the 2000 Census has been the most open planning process of any census in history. The only thing that is closed in this process is the minds of those who are opposed to sampling. First, a few of the facts. As I have pointed out before, the planning for the 2000 Census has involved an Advisory Committee of over 50 organizations, including House and Senate members who sit on the authorizing and appropriations committees and subcommittees. In the 102nd and 103rd Congresses, there were several hearings on the 2000 Census. Unfortunately, there have been very few since then. The Census Bureau Director and the Secretary of Commerce have held dozens of town hall meetings to involve the public in the planning of the 2000 Census. There have been no secrets in the past about planning the census and there are no secrets today. Last week, there was much ado about the plans for a nonsampling census and some Members have complained because one has not been produced. Mr. Speaker, there is a plan for the 2000 Census and it is a good one. Here it is: The Congress has asked for yet a second plan to be developed and that is being done. But there was no staff at the Census Bureau to develop a second plan for a census when that request was made. Every available staff member of the Census Bureau was hard at work trying to get the 2000 dress rehearsal under way, or working on the Economic Census, or working on one of the many current population programs the Census Bureau is responsible for. To develop a second plan for the 2000 Census means that they have to hire new staff. That takes time. Once that staff has been hired, they have to be trained before they can be turned loose to design a census. If Members think that plan should be ready today, they either badly misunderstand the complexity of the task, or do not care about the quality of the product. I for one, want to make sure that the next census is the best possible. I fear that some of my colleagues will settle for a census that leaves out millions of Americans, as long as it suits their own political purposes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that there is inappropriate and appropriate oversight. The opponents of sampling have repeatedly claimed that the use of sampling left the census open to political manipulation by the political officials at the Commerce Department. Now, it is my understanding that the Census Subcommittee staff has requested to interrogate the staff at the Census Bureau doing some of the most sensitive statistical work, before that work is completed. Why I ask? The Census Bureau offered to give the subcommittee staff full access to any documents or individuals once the research was completed. Why is the subcommittee insisting that they must have access during the research process? Congressional staff has no more reason to interfere with this statistical process than do officials at the Department of Commerce. If the political officials at Commerce asked for the kind of access requested by the subcommittee's staff, they would be turned down. That is as it should be. The subcommittee staff needs to learn the difference between oversight and interference. The Census Bureau is an agency of impeccable integrity. I, for one, stand here ready to defend their integrity against any who attack it, be they Congresspersons, Congressional staff, or officials in the administration. The subcommittee staff are not being stonewalled, they are being told that there should be no political interference with the statistics of the census. That is correct, and I will defend it to the end.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Irene Klementowicz, a resident of my district who has fought hard to protect the environmental health of her community. Ms. Klementowicz has actively worked to improve her community since she first arrived in Greenpoint. Among her many activities, she helped ensure that a local factory started implementing pollution controls. This was especially important since it was situated directly across from two schools. This early activism led to an appointment to Community Board 1, where she continues to champion the health and safety of her district. Among her accomplishments, she can be credited with a hard-fought and successful campaign to shut down the Greenpoint incinerator, long a source of pollution and nuisance. Ms. Klementowicz's efforts have been recognized by numerous civic organizations. The City Club of New York honored her with an award for grass-roots leadership to the Concerned Citizens of Greenpoint, of which she is president. This group was formed to address environmental conditions that are detrimental to the health of Greenpoint citizens. Her selfless efforts on behalf of the Greenpoint community have earned her the respect, and in some cases trepidation, of numerous public officials. She is both a tireless opponent of environmental degradation, and a committed activist for improving the quality of life in her district. The efficiency and effectiveness Irene Klementowicz has displayed in Greenpoint should serve as a model for all community activists. Without people like Ms. Klementowicz working to improve communities on the local level, our work as Members of Congress would be compounded tenfold. It is the hardworking people like Ms. Klementowicz who keep alive the small-town feeling which could so easily be lost in a big city. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Ms. Irene Klementowicz, a woman who has worked very hard to improve her community.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Pancyprian Association of America Women's Issues Network on the occasion of their first annual dinner dance. I would also like to honor the Pancyprian Women's Issue Network's first 1998 Woman of the Year Award honoree, Mrs. Yianoulla Vassiliou. Mrs. Vassiliou, who is visiting the United States for several weeks, is a former principal and elementary school teacher in the occupied part of Cyprus in the village of Rizokarpaso Cyprus. Yianoulla Vassiliou has devoted the past 24 years to educating these enclaved children. For selflessly leaving her family and dedicating her time to ensure that these children in the occupied area receive an education, Mrs. Vassiliou is a worthy recipient of the first Pancyprian Women's Issue Network 1998 Woman of the Year Award. The Pancyprian Association of America Women's Issues Network was established in the spring of 1996 by a group of dedicated women as a division of the Pancyprian Association of America, Inc. in an effort to bring together women of Hellenic origin. The Founding President, Dr. Florentina Christrodoulidou, has spearheaded the organization to be a significant component of the Hellenic women's movement. The Pancyprian Women's Issues Network is a network group providing information and services to women within the Hellenic communities. It helps raise awareness about social, health, economic and other issues as they relate to women's roles as mothers, daughters, wives, breadwinners and homemakers. The philosophy of the Pancyprian Women's Issues Network is one of extending a helping hand to others, and which is deeply rooted in efforts to develop mutual prosperity and steering lives towards family fulfillment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the Pancyprian Association of America Women's Issues Network, a group of dedicated Hellenic women who have successfully integrated the Hellenic spirit with American ideals and values. I also ask my colleagues to rise in tribute to the Pancyprian Association's Woman of the Year honoree, Mrs. Yianoulla Vassiliou.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last week one of my colleagues came to the House floor and said that the planning for the 2000 census was done in secret. I am here today to put the facts on the table so that the American people can decide for themselves. Designing the 2000 census has been one of the most public processes in the history of the census. Dr. Barbara Bryant, the director of the Census Bureau for President George Bush, began the process in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the 1990 census. She took over the Census Bureau less than 4 months before the 1990 census began, and she knew that it could be improved. The results from the 1990 census reinforced that decision. In partnership with Congress, Dr. Bryant began the process that resulted in the census design we are debating today. To achieve a better census design, Congress turned to the National Academy of Sciences. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) testified before the House Subcommittee on the Census in 1991 and said there is a need for ``an independent review of the census that is fundamental in nature, a back- to-basics, zero-based study that begins with no preconceived notions about what we collect or how we collect it. For that reason, I have pursued the idea of having the National Academy of Sciences conduct such a review. The Academy is credible, experienced, and more importantly, independent. Plus, I have been satisfied they can pull together a panel of fine minds, capable of blending fresh policy viewpoints with an understanding of statistical methods.'' In 1992 Congress passed H.R. 3280, ``a bill to provide for a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences on how the government can improve the decennial census of population, and on related matters.'' That study laid out the blueprint for the 2000 census. It has been alleged that there has been no congressional involvement in planning the census. But how can that be, when the design for the census is based on a study mandated by Congress? In addition, between 1991 and 1994 there were 15 House and Senate hearings on the 2000 census. If there has been any neglect, it has been since 1995 when Congress abolished the Subcommittee on the Census. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 there were only 4 hearings on the 2000 census. My colleagues have suggested that there has been no public involvement in designing the census. Again, I would like to have the facts speak for themselves. In 1992 the Secretary of Commerce established an Advisory Committee on the 2000 Census made up of nearly 50 organizations. I would like to put a list of those organizations into the Record. The list referred to follows: The National Governors Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Statistical Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, these organizations met over 20 times since 1992 and each meeting has been open to the public. The activities of public involvement were not just here in Washington. The director of the Census Bureau and the Under Secretary for Economic Statistics at the Department of Commerce have gone to scores of cities and held town meetings to get public involvement. At each of these town meetings they have solicited public input on the plans that they have put before the public for conducting a fair and accurate census for 2000. My colleagues have criticized the administration for developing a census designed by the experts. I wonder why they would want a census designed by amateurs. The facts are that developing the design for the 2000 census has been one of the most public processes in the history of the census. The process has included major constituent groups, Congress and the public. The design for the census has been endorsed by experts and nonexperts alike. It is very simple. In 1990 the census had an error rate of over 10 percent. Those who oppose a more accurate census want to go back to the way it was done in 1990, even if it costs more, because they believe that the errors in the census work to their advantage. The administration has put forward a plan to reduce the errors in the census and make it more fair and accurate. The choice is simple. Do we move into the 21st century with a census that uses modern, scientific methods to count absolutely everyone? Or do we do it the old way and pay more to get a census that has millions of errors in it? I say we follow the plan of Dr. Bryant and the National Academy of Sciences. Organizations That Support Sampling American Jewish Committee, National Association of Counties, American Statistical Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, Children's Defense Fund, Arab American Anti- Discrimination League, American Sociological Association, National League of Cities, and Cuban American National Council, Inc. National Association of Business Economists, Japanese American Citizens League, Association of University Business and Economic Research, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Association of Public Data Users, Americans for Democratic Action, National Community Action Foundation, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Consortium of Social Science Associations, and AFL-CIO. Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Urban League, Organization of Chinese Americans, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, California Rural League Assistance, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Archimandrite Father Pavlos on the occasion of his ordination and enthronement as Metropolitan Pavlos. On Sunday, March 1, at the ordination ceremony, the Holy Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece announced the creation of a new Metropolis of America, which will absorb the former Diocese of Astoria. The newly enthroned Metropolitan Pavlos will rule the Metropolis. Metropolitan Pavlos is a life-long resident of Astoria, which I represent. He was born Petros Strategeas in 1955 to Panagiotes and the late Maria Strategeas. He completed his elementary and secondary education in the United States and Greece and graduated from the American Community School in 1977. He graduated from the College of Theology of the National and Kapodistriac University of Athens with a degree in theology in 1978. In 1979, he was ordained Deacon by the late Metropolitan Petros of Astoria and renamed Pavlos. Six years later, in 1985, Pavlos was ordained Presbyter by the same Metropolitan and received the title of Archimandrite. Over the years, Archimandrite Father Pavlos provided himself to be dedicated to the Astoria community. At his church, Saint Markella Cathedral, Father Pavlos' dedication to Astoria's children is strongly evident. He began a day care program for young children at the church which he hopes to increase; his after-school homework assistance program has helped many students. His magnanimous nature extends far beyond Astoria's young people. Father Pavlos provides comfort for the sick, refuge for those in need and assistance to people who are new to and unfamiliar with Astoria and the United States. Since 1987, he has maintained direct contract with the Greek community through a television program on National Greek Television. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to the newly enthroned Metropolitan Pavlos of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of America. His tireless efforts for Astoria residents and the Greek community is outstanding. I am proud to have Metropolitan Pavlos as a constituent.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 235, the War Crimes Disclosure Act. His name was added inadvertently due to a clerical error, while the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) should have been added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the folks at the Census Bureau must be getting a pretty thick skin. This is certainly not the first time they have been criticized. Guess who lodged the first complaint about an undercount? George Washington. He complained to Thomas Jefferson, who was the Marti Ritchie of the 1790s, that the numbers were too low. Washington knew that even back in 1790 when there were only about 3.9 million people living in the colonies, that there was no way to accurately count each American by simply going door to door. The Census has been surrounded by controversy ever since. In 1920, the party in power was so dismayed by the Census numbers, they simply dismissed them. For the first time, the Census showed that urban areas held a greater proportion of the population than did rural areas. The shift was so devastating to the majority, that Congress just failed to act, claiming that these numbers could not possibly be right. The 1930 Census affirmed the shift and Congress was forced to act. In 1940, the impact of the undercount simply could not be denied. The War Department was depending on the Census to determine the number of young men eligible to serve. Turns out there were many more men ready to defend their country than the count had indicated. Specifically, young black men were greatly underestimated. Over 5 percent of the population was left out of the 1940 Census. As a result, the Census Bureau began a program to measure and understand the undercount. The undercount in the Census declined steadily across the decades until 1980 when the Census counted 98.8 percent of the population, an undercount of 1.2 percent. However, while the total undercount grew smaller across time, the difference between black and nonblack undercounts did not change much. In fact, between 1940 and 1970, the difference actually increased slightly. In 1990, things really got bad. The net undercount went from 1.2 percent in 1980, to 1.6 percent, and the difference between black and nonblack was the highest ever measured. The real story was even worse. The General Accounting Office estimated that there were over 26 million errors in the 1990 Census. About 10 million people were missed, 6 million people were counted twice and 10 million were counted in the wrong place. That is an error rate of over 10 percent. We might ask why the Census Bureau has not done something about that problem. Well, the answer is that they have tried. But the efforts of its statisticians have been blocked by politicians trying to preserve their domain. The Census Bureau was under pressure to correct the errors in the 1980 Census, but at that time the technology for measuring and correcting those errors was not well enough developed to do the job. However, following the 1980 Census, the Census Bureau developed a research program to be ready to correct the 1990 Census. The research went forward, but when time came to put the system in place to correct the 1990 Census, the Under Secretary for Economic Statistics at the Department of Commerce, an appointee of President Reagan, blocked implementation. New York City, and several others, sued the Secretary to force the Secretary to implement the measures necessary to correct the 1990 Census, but before the case could be heard by the courts, the Commerce Department settled. The settlement called for a scaled down survey to measure the errors and an evaluation panel of eight experts, four appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, four appointed by the plaintiff. In the end, they split 4-4. The four experts selected by the Secretary of Commerce recommended against correcting the Census. The four experts selected by the plaintiffs recommended in favor of using the survey to correct the Census. The experts at the Census Bureau voted 7 to 2 in favor of the correction and the director of the Census Bureau recommended to the Secretary that the Census counts be corrected. The Secretary, however, refused to follow that advice and in the end the Supreme Court upheld his power to do so. Dr. Barbara Bryant, President Bush's Director of the Census Bureau in 1990, set in place a research program to develop plans for the 2000 census that were above reproach. She called on the National Academy of Science for help, as well as talented statisticians and demographers throughout the country. That research program led to the design for the census that we are fighting over today: A design to correct the 26 million errors. A design to reduce the cost of the census. A design that is fundamentally more fair and honest. That is the design that our colleagues want to tear down. If they succeed, they will take the whole census down with them. Our colleagues who oppose correcting the mistakes made in 1990 have no credible alternative. Their only response to fixing the problem is to throw more money at it. We will give the census a blank check, they cry. Friends, money will not solve this problem. Counting noses didn't work for Thomas Jefferson when there were less than 4 million persons in the United States and few of those were west of the Allegheny Mountains. Counting noses certainly will not work when there are over 260 million people spread across the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii and the territories. Every expert and scientific panel that has studied this problem has agreed with the Census Bureau. To fix the 10 percent error in the 1990 census you have to go beyond traditional counting techniques. The opponents of an accurate census are quick to claim the plan for the 2000 census is unconstitutional, but none of the constitutional scholars they claim to support their views has yet to put pen to paper. There has yet to be published a serious scholarly article that makes their case. The opponents of an accurate census are quick to scream that the plan for the 2000 census is against the will of Congress. However, Congress ceded its authority to design and run the census to the Secretary of Commerce. The opponents of an accurate census know they cannot pass a veto proof bill that rescinds that authority. The plans for the 2000 census are sound. However, the opponents of an accurate census are doing everything in their power to make sure those plans fail. If the next census exceeds the error rate of the last one, it will not be the fault of the employees at the Census Bureau. If hundreds of Americans are left out of the democratic process because of flaws in the census, it will not be the fault of the Clinton Administration. If the next census is a failure it will be the fault of those here in Congress who are doing everything they can to block a fair and accurate count.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the events of recent years have taught us time and again that we should rely as much as possible on the private sector functioning in the competitive marketplace to provide commercial-type services, particularly services sold to business firms. Where there is a Federal agency that provides those types of services, we must closely examine its activities to determine if it is competing fairly with its private-sector competitors. This becomes more important when the agency both competes directly with private-sector firms and regulates those competitors. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve is using its role as competitor and regulator in the check processing system to unfairly undercut the private sector. They are using an accounting device called the ``pension cost credit'' to subsidize the prices they charge banks, resulting in an unfair handicap to the private sector. When people hear the phrase ``Federal Reserve,'' they think about interest rates, inflation, and other aspects of monetary policy. However, the Fed is not just about monetary policy and banking supervision. Much of what the Fed does simply involves the processing of paper checks. The Fed charges its banks a fee for the service it provides. In 1980, Congress passed the Monetary Control Act so that private sector companies could fairly compete with the Federal Reserve in providing banks with these and other services. Accordingly, the Fed must fully recover the cost of its services, which means it cannot use subsidized prices. The Act specifically orders the Fed to establish the prices it charges based on the costs which it incurs in providing its services plus the costs a private company would also have to consider, such as the taxes it would have to pay. But instead of following the intent of the Monetary Control Act, the Federal Reserve is using the ``pension cost credit'' to lower the prices it charges banks for these services. That is, it is effectively using a portion of the large surplus in its pension fund to reduce the operating costs of its priced service activities, which in turn enables it to charge lower prices than it otherwise would. Let me explain specifically how it works. At the end of 1996, the pension fund for the employees of the Federal Reserve System had excess funding of $1.9 billion. This incredible excess, nearly double its pension liability, is due primarily to the so-called irrational exuberance of the stock market. The Fed then uses an accounting device to effectively take a portion of this excess funding in the pension fund to create an expense offset. This is the pension cost credit. Instead of sending the whole of this cost credit back to the Treasury, the Fed uses approximately one-third of it to reduce the expenses of its priced services. That reduction then allows the Fed to charge lower prices than it otherwise would. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter that Federal Reserve Vice-Chairwoman, Alice Rivlin, sent to me. The letter referred to is as follows: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC, October 3, 1997. Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, House of Representatives Washington, DC. Dear Carolyn: I am pleased to forward additional materials in response to your letter of September 5 regarding payments system issues. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Alice M. Rivlin, Vice Chairman. Enclosures. Federal Reserve Board Staff's Additional Responses to Congresswoman Maloney's September 5, 1997, Questions 1. Please send a monthly record of ITS cost-recovery matching before and after the application of the private sector adjustment factor for the years 1990 to date. Internal reports from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that showed monthly cost recovery numbers for 1987 through early 1995 were enclosed with Chairman Greenspan's letter of April 28, 1995, to Congressman Gonzalez. Attachment 1 shows monthly cost recovery for commercial check portion of the ITS network from 1995 through the first half of 1997. The Federal Reserve does not typically allocate imputed costs and revenues to input components of its services. As requested, the cost recovery data are shown with and without imputed expenses. 2. Please supply a breakdown of prices services income, by Federal Reserve Bank for 1996. The breakdown should include revenue by specific commercial check product, such as NCS, RCPC, fine sort, consolidated shipments, and direct sends. The priced services income for 1996 and the first two quarters of 1997, which you requested in question 5, was provided in Vice Chair Rivlin's letter of September 16, 1997. Attachment 2 shows the Reserve Banks' revenues for the Reserve Bank check products you requested. Revenue for consolidated shipments includes only transportation revenues based on ITS surcharges. Consolidated shippers, that is, banks that use ITS to ship checks to a nonlocal Reserve Bank office for processing, use a wide variety of checks products. We do not separately track and identify the products into which these shipments are deposited and, therefore, cannot provide the associated revenue data. Similarly, we do not separately track the check processing revenue associated with ``direct send'' deposits shipped to the Reserve Banks by banks that arrange for their own transportation. 3. How is the Federal Reserve's pension cost credit ($140.57 million for 1996) reflected in (a) measurement of priced services profitability and (b) in the pricing of specific priced services, such as check processing and transportation? What accounts for the $63 million difference in 1996 between operating expenses for priced services, as reported on page 271 of the 1996 Annual Report of the Board of Governors and the sum of the operating expenses reported in the 1996 PACS Expense report. Please supply financial reports for the Federal Reserve pension plan(s) for 1992 through 1996. The System endeavors to capture all of its costs applicable to the provision of priced services into its pricing formula and measurements of its profitability through explicit recognition in the Reserve Banks' cost accounting systems or through implicit allocations where appropriate. For transactions relating to the provision of priced services, the Federal Reserve System applies generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP). Prior to changes in GAAP in 1987 and 1993 for employers accounting for pensions and retiree medical benefits, respectively, the System accounted for these costs on a cash, or ``pay as you go'' basis. The System, like other services providers, changed accounting practices to conform to GAAP. This change resulted in the recognition of a pension asset that generates net credits and a retiree medical liability that generates net expenses for the System. As with any accounting change, the System compared the effect of the GAAP changes with the effect on the largest bank holding companies used in determining the PSAF. We believe that the System's pricing formula properly recognizes the effect of these changes to GAAP. My staff can provide you or your staff with additional detail on the technical issues involved with these GAAP changes at your convenience. The table below shows a reconciliation, for 1996, of operating expenses as reported in PACS with the pro forma financial statement in the Federal Reserve's 1996 Annual Report. PACS Expense to Pro Forma Expenses for 1996 PACS operating expenses (Millions) Cash (3020)........................................................$5.1 Funds (3250).......................................................71.6 ACH (3260).........................................................83.9 Check (3360)......................................................551.4 Book-Entry (3520)..................................................43.3 Non-Cash (3810).....................................................4.6

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Philip J. Garone, a beloved member of the Greenpoint, Brooklyn community who recently passed away. Mr. Garone, a lifelong resident of Brooklyn, was one of six sons born to Angelina and Angelo-Charles Garone in 1911. When Philip's father passed away, Philip began working after school to help support his family. This dedication to his family continued throughout his life. Philip Garone also had a passion for music. He began playing the saxophone at an early age and was soon sought after by music great Tommy Dorsey. After working as a lithographer in the printing industry, Philip would play the sax at Greenwich Village clubs with famous musicians such as Gene Crooper and Sam ``the man'' Taylor. In 1936, Philip married Virginia Torre at St. Francis De Paola Church. Together they had three daughters, Angela, RoseAnn and Phyllis, and lived on Lombardy Street in Greenpoint. Throughout their 23 years marriage, Philip was urged by many musicians to go on the road with his music. Again, his dedication to his family kept him close to home. Philip and Virginia were married for 23 years until Virginia's tragic death from cancer in 1959 at the age of 42. Five years later, Philip met and married Angie DeLuca. In Philip's 60 year musical career he played for community events, politicians, feasts, dances, block parties, and neighborhood weddings. In recent years he began playing for senior citizen groups at the Garity Post and the Swinging Sixties. On April 13, 1997, Philip Garone died of a massive stroke at the age of 86. The silence of his saxophone is felt throughout the Greenpoint community. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Mr. Philip Garone, a very talented and devoted man who contributed to his community with the beauty of his music and his devotion to his family and neighbors. He is greatly missed.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Turtle Bay Association as it celebrates its 40th Anniversary. In 1957, when a volunteer group of tenants, home owners and small businesses in Manhattan's Turtle Bay area joined forces to oppose a plan to convert 49th Street into a major traffic corridor, the Turtle Bay Association was born. Forty years later, this active and committed group of community members is still working to ameliorate the Turtle Bay neighborhood. Over the years, the Turtle Bay Association has initiated many efforts to preserve and beautify the neighborhood. The Association has spearheaded major renovations of several area parks, including: Peter Detmold Park and Dag Hammarskjold Plaza and MacArthur Playground. As a result of the Turtle Bay Association's efforts, free concerns were held in Detmold Park this summer. This past spring, the Association spruced up Second Avenue by planting trees and filling the avenue's tree boxes with flowers. The Turtle Bay Association also works closely with the local police precinct on neighborhood security concerns; with the sanitation department on matters of cleanliness of the streets; and with the United Nations to limit disruptions caused by demonstrations. One of the Association's earliest and most famous members is the renowned actress Katharine Hepburn. In 1957, Ms. Hepburn fought vigorously with other Association members to halt the destruction of trees and prevent the city's plans to widen Turtle Bay streets by cutting back sidewalks. In 1987, she lent her name to the successful campaign to re-zone Turtle Bay's mid-blocks for low-rise construction limitations. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleague rise with me in this tribute to the Turtle Bay Association as they celebrate 40 years of commitment to their community. This dedicated group does a tremendous job in creating a small town feel in such a large city like Manhattan. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Carolyn M. Greenberg, a resident of my district whose term as chair of Community Board 8 in Manhattan has just ended. In taking on this position, Mr. Greenberg committed herself to a year of hard work as a leader, trouble-shooter, and diplomat. In this capacity, Ms. Greenberg has gone above and beyond the call of civic duty. Carolyn Greenberg has long been an advocate for the Upper East Side and, in fact, for all of the residents of the City of New York. During her time as chair and as a member of Community Board 8, she has demonstrated an unyielding dedication to the quality of life in the City. Carolyn has devoted hours of her free time monitoring local sidewalk cafes, researching community issues such as zoning regulations and environmental hazards, and attending public hearings. She has been a member of the Environment. Parks, and Pedestrian Affairs Committees, demonstrating that her spirit of public good extends to a variety of areas. She has many areas of expertise and has been very influential in diverse community issues through the years that I have worked with her. Ms. Greenberg served as a member of Community Board 8 from 1979 through 1985, and again from 1986 to the present. She served as first and second vice chair, then as chair from 1996 to 1997. The efficiency and effectiveness Carolyn Greenberg has displayed in her role as chair of Community Board 8 should serve as a model for all community activists. Without people like Ms. Greenberg working to improve communities on the local level, our works as Members of Congress would be compounded tenfold. We should not only remember, but gratefully acknowledge the credit well-deserved by civic leaders. It is the hardworking people like Ms. Greenberg who keep alive the small-town feeling which could so easily be lost in a big city. Ms. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Ms. Carolyn Greenberg, a woman who has worked very hard to improve her community. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, but first I would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Shays], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], for all their help on the Census issue. And to the rest of my colleagues, if they believe in a fair and accurate Census, they simply cannot vote for this bill. Getting a fair and accurate count is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. If my colleagues are not counted, they are not represented. If they are not counted, they are not part of the Federal funding formulas. This deal, as many have said, funding is provided for statistical sampling through September of 1998, yet at the same time it stacks the deck against achieving it by helping to build a case for those who plan to kill it in 1999. And the Speaker has vowed to kill the sampling issue in 1999. This legislation aids this plan by putting into place a campaign to smear it. First the deal allows opponents to file multiple lawsuits to tie the Census up in court. The deal also allows the Speaker, using the House general counsel, to sue on behalf of the House to block sampling. In other words, the Speaker, representing the viewpoint of the RNC, will be using taxpayers' funds to block sampling. Second, it asks the bureau to run two censuses at once; and, thirdly, it confuses the public by issuing four sets of numbers instead of just one. The opposition simply does not want to count our Nation's poor in our rural and our urban areas. If this legislation becomes law, we are sending a message that we are willing to purposefully disenfranchise millions of Americans in the name of politics; in other words, we are willing to count them out of democracy. The Republican leadership is on record over and over again in their design to kill sampling. This language gives them the tools for the execution either by a thousand cuts in the courts or through spreading confusion about the results. We cannot allow this to happen. I urge a no vote against the Commerce-Justice-State conference report.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Commerce, Justice, and State bill is fatally flawed, and because of that, later today I will urge my colleagues to vote against it. Earlier today we changed the House rules so that the Republican leadership could create a new subcommittee to investigate the census. Is the reason that we need this new subcommittee, is it because the current one is so overburdened that it cannot get all of its work done? No. There has been only one hearing in this Congress on the census, and that hearing had only two witnesses. This new subcommittee is the latest effort by the leadership to politicize the census and make sure that millions of minorities and poor are left out of the count. They try to hide behind the Constitution, but they do not care whether sampling is constitutional or not. Look at this quote from one Republican leader. He admits that they do not care if sampling is constitutional, and then later he says if the court says it is constitutional, we simply will not fund it. During the negotiations over the census language in this bill, the White House lawyers tried to improve the language to assure that the case would make it to the Supreme Court. Those improvements were rejected by the same people who claim to be worried about a constitutional census. Their concerns are not constitutional; they are political. The scientific and professional support for sampling is overwhelming. Over 175 studies from the General Accounting Office, the Commerce Department, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Census Bureau have shown that sampling gives results that are more fair and accurate. Still, the Republican leadership opposes it. Why? They fear the political consequences of a fair and accurate census. The opponents of sampling say they are worried about the administration using sampling to manipulate the numbers. However, when the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] proposed a blue ribbon commission to guard against manipulation, they rejected it on a party- line vote. The opponents of sampling have raised one false claim after another to try and discredit sampling because they do not want a fair and accurate census. The language in the Commerce-Justice-State bill is one more attempt to stop a fair and accurate census. This time, their tactics are to tie the Census Bureau up in the courts, to force them to run two censuses at once, and to confuse the public by issuing four sets of numbers instead of one. This will not work and we should not let it happen. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Commerce-Justice-State conference report, but to vote for the rule.