Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for bringing this legislation forward under the suspension calendar, and I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for his leadership not only on this legislation, but really his ongoing efforts for many years to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. A woman living in Afghanistan may not work, attend school, be photographed or appear in public without a garment covering their entire body. They must wear a mesh mask over their eyes, they must not speak directly to a man. Certainly there is no possibility of a woman speaking out against these human rights abuses in a public forum as I am now. That is why we must speak for them, and that is why we must pass this resolution which condemns the continued deterioration of women's rights in that country. More than a year ago the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic militia group, overthrew the government of Afghanistan. Women and young girls have borne the brunt of that takeover. The Taliban has not just stripped women of their human rights, they have made women targets for criminal abuse. Just 2 months ago a 16-year-old girl was stoned to death because she was traveling with a man who was not a member of her family. Just last week one of my constituents, who is a refugee from Afghanistan, told me that her 13-year-old niece was shot dead in the street for going to school. Women are routinely raped and abused. They are persecuted for the smallest infraction; for example, allowing their ankles to be exposed or appearing in a photograph. Women cannot receive proper emergency medical care. I read recently of the case of one woman who had been severely burned. She was refused treatment because it was against the Taliban law for her to remove her clothing for treatment. Women are not permitted to work. At one time women made up a large part of the work force. Now many hospitals and schools are closed for lack of employees. The war in Afghanistan has left many women widows. If they cannot work, how are they to support themselves and their children? Many are starving to death. Perhaps the abuse that makes me the most sad is the idea that young girls, young women, are not permitted to go to school. What does it say about the future of this country? How can women recover from years of abuse and forced ignorance? I urge my colleagues to vote for House Resolution 156. We must speak out for these women who are being so horribly abused because they cannot speak out for themselves. I would also like to add my words of encouragement to Madeleine Albright, who will be traveling to this region and encouraging other surrounding countries to speak out against the Taliban.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important piece of women's health legislation--The Tampon Safety and Research Act of 1997. The research called for in this bipartisan bill will finally give women the accurate information they need to make informed decisions about their health as it relates to tampon use. Why is this issue important? Because tampons and other related products often contain additives, synthetic fibers, and dioxin. Dioxin is a toxic byproduct of the paper manufacturing process. Wood pulp, as well as the rayon used in nearly all tampons, undergoes several production processes; a common method is chlorine bleaching, a process which results in the formation of dioxin and other contaminants. As a result, trace amounts of dioxin is present in most paper products, from toilet paper to tampons. Dioxins are 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, too. According to a 1994 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, dioxins are a known animal cancer-causing agent 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 dioxins may be at risk for other effects that 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 tampons are used by up to 70 percent of menstruating women in the United States, and the average woman may use as many as 11,400 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 that they come in direct contact with some of the most absorbent tissue in a woman's body. According to Dr. Phillip Tierno, Jr., director of microbiology and immunology at New York University Medical Center, almost anything placed on this tissue--including dioxin--gets absorbed into the body. According to researchers, dioxin is stored in fatty tissue--just like that found in the vagina. And the fact is that women have more body fat than men, possibly allowing them to more efficiently store dioxins 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 40 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.'' And why has there been far more testing on the possible health effects of chlorine-bleached coffee filters that 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 availalbe to the public. When I--as a Member of Congress--requested the information, the FDA told me it was proprietary information and therefore could not be released. It should be noted that the dioxin tests relied upon by the FDA are done by the manufacturers themselves, who do not surprisingly insist their products are safe. Some of my constituents say this is the equivalent of the fox guarding the hen house. 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, that 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. However, women are still being forced to take the word of the industry-sponsored research that their products are completely safe. My bill also addresses the many other 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 that these additives are commonly found in these products. We do not really know enough about the potential risks associated with such additives. Independent research has already shown that synthetic fiber additives in tampons amplify toxins, which are associated with toxic shock. Toxic shock syndrome is a rare bacterial illness that caused over 50 deaths between 1979 and 1980, when the link between tampons and toxic shock was first established. According to a 1994 study, of the toxic shock cases occurring in menstruating women, up to 99 percent were using tampons. Obviously toxic shock syndrome is still a woman's health concern, and its link to tampons has become more clear. 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. I also note that my bill 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 on 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 would direct the National Institutes of Health 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 mean that American women could depend on independent research, and not on the word of research funded by tampon manufacturers. 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. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Despina Marangos, one of my constituents who represents the hard- working spirit of a first generation American, on her 80th birthday. Despina Marangos was born in Bethlehem, PA, on November 14, 1917. Despina's parents, Zaharias Kyriacou from Cyprus and Chrisanthy Protoulis from Lesvos, Greece, had entered the United States through Ellis Island in the early 1900's. When Despina moved to New York at age six and enrolled in P.S. 116, her English language skills were limited. yet she graduated as valedictorian of her class and went on to attend Julia Richman High school where she was an honor student. Despina's devotion to her family and community was evident in her willingness to act as an interpreter. Her devotion to her family was further exhibited during the Depression when Despina entered the work force at an early age to work with her mother in the garment industry. At age 20, Despina met Pantelis John Maragos from Cyprus. They were married just before her 21st birthday on November 6, 1938, at Zodoho Pygi Greek Orthodox Church in the Bronx. Despina and Pantelis celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary just yesterday. Despina continued to work until her daughter, mary Ann, was born in 1943. but, during World War II, Pantelis was sent overseas with the Navy. Despina was forced to move in with her parents and take a job at a defense plant in Long Island City. She worked nights and cared for her child during the day. After the war, Pantelis returned and their son, John Zaharias, was born in 1950. Despina continued to enrich her life with reading, helping her children and caring for her aging parents. She also found time to be a den mother and an officer in the Women's Auxiliary and in the Parents' Association. In 1959, a new phase of Despina's life began when she went back to work for the Christmas season at Macy's. Her work was so exemplary that Macy's retained her for 30 years. Since retiring, she has remained active in the retiree chapter of her union, Macy's Local 1S, and in the senior center she and Pantelis attend, where she is a board member. As grandparents, Despina and Pantelis often travel with their granddaughters, Cindy and Denise. Even with Pantelis recovering from a stroke a year ago, they still make short trips. They are both working hard on his recovery and look forward to the day they can travel freely again. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Despina Marangos, the daughter of immigrants who has combined the best of her hellenic heritage with the opportunities America has provided.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael Partridge as he is honored by the Taminent Democratic Club at their 66th Annual Dinner Dance. Mr. Partridge was born on the island of Cyprus on February 13, 1941. In 1947, he and his family moved to Astoria where Michael attended P.S. 4 and L.I.C. High School. From age seven through his early teens, Michael worked in his father's restaurant. After high school, Michael studied philosophy and political science at Hunter College and later studied law at St. Johns Law and Boston Law. During his law school years, he met and married Mary and became the father of Harry. Michael also joined the National Guard during this time. After practicing law for several years, Michael became disenchanted with the law and turned his attention toward other endeavors. Around this time, he met Ralph DeMarco who introduced him to the Taminent Democratic Club. Michael's involvement with the Taminent included a rehabilitation program he founded with Peter Vallone to reverse the high recidivism rate at Rikers Island. During its first year, the Rikers' program placed all of its graduates in jobs or schools. After launching his successful program on Rikers Island, Michael became involved in real estate. He rehabilitated apartment houses in Jamaica, Queens, and opened the Coliseum Mall, which helped to revitalize Jamaica Avenue. Michael's interests also brought him into the political arena where he worked on Mario Cuomo's campaign for Governor of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to Mr. Michael Partridge, a man who has worked very hard to improve his community. I would also like to honor the Taminent Democratic Club on the occasion of their 66th Annual Dinner Dance.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my condolences with the family of Walter Capps--Lois, Lisa, Todd and Laura--and with every Member of this House, because we've all lost a true contributor: A man who legislated from his soul. We are all left shocked and sorrowful at his death, but there was perhaps no one more prepared for this moment than Walter himself. Elected officials often suffer from erosion, outside forces chip away at our thoughts, and work to influence our actions. But Walter didn't work from the outside in, he worked from the inside out, his studied philosophies, his moral strength and his writings have left us with an example to follow in our professional lives. His sincerity. And that twinkle in his eye, have left us with fond memories, to carry home.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now perusing a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgments concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, after 10 months and the expenditure of $500,000, the House investigation has turned up no evidence of fraud and has wasted taxpayer money; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end and now therefore be it; Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I join people of Greek descent in Astoria, NY, the country, and the world in saluting the courageous acts of the Greeks against Mussolini and Hitler. October 28, 1997, marks the 57th anniversary of a very historic day in Greek history. On October 28, 1940, the Italian Minister in Athens gave an ultimatum to the Prime Minister of Greece, demanding the unconditional surrender of Greece. His answer was ``Oxi,'' which means ``no'' in Greek. Military success for the Italians would have sealed off the Balkans from the south and helped Hitler's plan to invade Russia. In fact, the Italian army that was fully equipped, well supplied, and backed by superior air and naval power. They were expected to overrun Greece within a short time. Fortunately, the Greek Army proved to be well trained and resourceful despite their lack of military equipment. In less than a week after the Italians first attacked, it was clear that their forces had suffered a serious setback in spite of having control of the air and fielding armored vehicles. On November 14, the Greek Army launched a counteroffensive and quickly drove Italian forces far back into Albania. On December 6, the Greeks captured Porto Edda and continued their advance along the seacoast toward Valona. By February 1, 1941, the Italians had launched strong counterattacks, but the determination of the Greek Army coupled with the severity of the winter weather, nullified the Italians' efforts. The Italians launched another offensive on March 12, 1941, but after 6 days of fighting, the Italians made only small gains and it became clear that German intervention was necessary if the Italians were going to win. On March 26, Hitler shouted ``I will make a clean sweep of the Balkans.'' It took him 5 weeks, until the end of April, to subdue Greece. It turned out to be an important 5 weeks, until the end of April, to subdue the Greeks. These 5 weeks delayed Hitler's invasion of Russia and contributed to the Germans failure in Russia. The victory of the Greek Army against the Italians astonished the world. The heroic stance by the Greeks against insurmountable odds, was the first glimmer of hope for the Allies, and today we can take great pride in those who risked their lives to defend their country.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to the motion by Mr. Rohrabacher. There are many misconceptions about 245(i) that I would like to clear up. Section 245(i) is only for people who qualify for permanent residency. It does not allow people to break in line, and it does not give them any preference. It simply allows them to stay in the country while their applications are being processed. It reduces paperwork at consulate offices abroad, and generates $200 million a year in revenues for INS, an agency that cannot take anymore cuts. These are not people who are not contributing to our society. These are people with family ties, jobs, and a stake in this country. These are people on their way to becoming legal residents. If 245(i) is allowed to expire, it will not only be a tragedy for the people who are deported, but also for the families that they leave behind.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I rise to share my condolences with the family of Walter Capps--Lois, Lisa, Todd, and Laura--and with every member of this House because we've all lost a true contributor: A man who legislated from his soul. We are all left shocked and sorrowful at his death. But there was perhaps no one more prepared for this moment than Walter himself. Elected officials often suffer from erosion--outside forces chip away at our thoughts, and work to influence our actions. But Walter didn't work from the outside in--he worked from the inside out. His studied philosophies, his moral strength and his writings have left us with an example to follow in our professional lives. His sincerity, and that twinkle in his eye, have left us with fond memories to carry home.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues, Rosa DeLauro, Anna Eshoo, and others tonight to salute October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We know, all too well, the devastating facts: With nearly 200,000 cases of breast cancer diagnosed last year, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. I was pleased earlier this year, Congress enacted, as part of its balanced budget, my bipartisan bill, the Breast Cancer Early Detection Act, to allow for annual mammograms for Medicare women. By including my bipartisan bill, this budget agreement makes a wise investment that will save women's lives. But there is more that needs to be done. Once breast cancer is diagnosed, sometimes it is too late. But sometimes, when treatment is available, a woman can undergo a mastectomy which may save her life. Unfortunately, very often, we've seen women who have been forced to leave the hospital with drainage tubes still attached. And just like the drive-thru delivery bill, a national outcry forced us to look at the safety of women who were sent home hours after a radical mastectomy. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 135, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. This bill will eliminate these so-called drive-through mastectomies by requiring insurance companies to provide at least 48 hours of inpatient hospital care following a mastectomy and a minimum of 24 hours following a lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 164, the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act, introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo. This bill would require health insurance companies to cover reconstructive breast surgery if they already pay for mastectomies. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues in support of the one out of every eight women who will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Right now, thousands of women are signing an electronic petition. The online petition drive will enable breast cancer patients to become activists on behalf of the legislation that would provide them with the kind of health care they deserve. Many have shared their personal stories. One New York woman wrote: On August 25, 1997 a lumpectomy showed that indeed, I did have breast cancer. An axillary lymph node dissection showed that the cancer has traveled to my blood stream. I am 34 years old. I am undergoing chemotherapy, and will also to have radiation. It is absolutely necessary for you in government to help women all across the country and to take this disease seriously. We depend on our government to protect us, even when a devastating illness has befallen us. My mother's two best friends died of breast cancer, one when I was too young to remember, and the other when I was 18. It was devastating for everyone and we are convinced that it was the love of family and friends that helped one friend fight 10 years with this disease. Coming from a family in which no woman has ever developed breast cancer, the pop culture leads me to believe that I am not at risk. Only through doing research on my own have I learned that every woman is at risk regardless of age, family history, or geographical location. This is a silent killer that must be stopped. Our world desperately needs its mothers, sister, aunts and friends. I was not in any high risk group for developing breast cancer. Yet I was diagnosed with breast cancer in November 1996. I was shocked and it is still very hard for me to accept this diagnosis. I opted for a mastectomy with reconstruction. I am still in the process of reconstructive surgery. I also underwent seven months of chemotherapy. We need to make sure mastectomies and reconstructive surgery are safe, and covered. I thank my colleagues for organizing this special order, and I salute the women who are facing these issues every day. You are our inspiration, and we will continue fighting for you.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the special order organized by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] and others to salute October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We all know too well the devastating facts. With nearly 200,000 cases of breast cancer diagnosed last year, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. I was pleased earlier this year that Congress enacted, as part of its balanced budget, my bipartisan bill, the Breast Cancer Early Detection Act, to allow for annual mammograms for Medicare women. This bill was first introduced in 1992 along with Barbara Vucanovich, who is herself a survivor of breast cancer. We were very pleased that it was included in the balanced budget this year. It certainly makes a very wise investment that will save women's lives. But there is much more that needs to be done. Once breast cancer is diagnosed, sometimes it is too late. But sometimes when treatment is available, a woman can undergo a mastectomy which may save her life. Unfortunately, very often we have seen women who have been forced to leave the hospital with drainage tubes still attached and just like the drive through delivery bill, a national outcry forced us to look at the safety of women who were sent home hours after a radical mastectomy. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 135, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. This bill will eliminate the so-called drive- through mastectomies by requiring insurance companies to provide at least 48 hours of inpatient hospital care following a mastectomy, and a minimum of 24 hours following a lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer. I am also very proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 164, the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act, introduced by my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. This bill would require health insurance companies to cover reconstructive breast surgery, if they already pay for mastectomies. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues in support of the one out of every eight women who will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Right now thousands of women are signing an electronic petition. The on-line petition drive will enable breast cancer patients to become activists on behalf of this legislation that would provide them with the kind of health care they deserve. Many have shared their personal stories. One New York woman wrote, and I quote, ``On August 25 of this year, I learned that I did have breast cancer. A further study showed that the cancer had traveled to my bloodstream. I am 34 years old. I am undergoing chemotherapy and will also have radiation. It is absolutely necessary for you in government to help women all across the country and to take this disease seriously. We depend on our government to protect us, even when a devastating illness has befallen us.'' I quote from another letter. I would like to put a series of them in the Record. Quoting, ``I was not in any high risk group for developing breast cancer. Yet I was diagnosed with breast cancer in November of 1996. I was shocked and it is still very hard for me to accept this diagnosis. I opted for a mastectomy. I am still in the process of reconstructive surgery. I thank government. You must do more to help women like me.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure mastectomies and reconstructive surgery are safe and covered. I thank my colleagues for organizing this special order tonight and I salute the women who are facing these issues every day. You are our inspiration and we will continue fighting for you.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, tonight we will honor the 20th anniversary of the Women's Caucus. President Clinton will join us as we celebrate the past, present, and future of the Women's Caucus. Women have always faced extra hurdles as they served in Congress. Recognizing these extra challenges, Elizabeth Holtzman, from my home State of New York, along with Peggy Heckler of Massachusetts, organized 13 Members to join them in forming the Women's Caucus in 1977. We have certainly expanded our numbers. The caucus is 53 members strong this year, but we still face many obstacles. I would like to submit this copy of achievements of the Women's Caucus during its 20 years for the Record, and just note some of the achievements for the Record. In 1978, the caucus was instrumental in the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, guaranteeing employment rights to pregnant workers. In 1979, Congress, at the pushing by the Women's Caucus, created the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department to enforce the title IX ban against sex discrimination in education. In 1984, the caucus' Economic Equity Act was the driving force behind enactment of important legislation in retirement equity and child support enforcement legislation. That year, also, a caucus member, Geraldine Ferraro, from my home State of New York, was nominated for Vice President of the United States, the first time a woman ran for that office on a major party ticket. In 1985, for the first time, legislation was introduced to provide temporary leave for parents of newborns and seriously ill children and for workers with serious health problems. This effort sparked an 8-year campaign that ended with the 1993 enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. That was the first bill that I voted for in Congress. In 1992, the media called this year the ``Year of the Woman'' in politics as hundreds of women lined up to run for office. It was a year in which many people voted for women candidates, not as a slogan but as a force to be reckoned with. A record 48 women were elected to the House and 6 to the Senate. And our presence here truly did make a difference. We passed many important bills: The Family and Medical Leave Act; we expanded the earned income tax credit; we passed the domestic violence bill; the Violence Against Women Act; we expanded coverage and funding for breast cancer and breast cancer research; and this year, in 1997, Congress passed landmark legislation to balance the Federal budget, and they included in it very important expansions for women's health provisions. One bill that I am particularly proud of is one that I worked on since 1992 with my Republican colleague, Barbara Vucanovich, which expanded the coverage of mammograms in Medicare for women over 65 and bone mass measurement. And I note the very good work of my Republican colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Connie Morella], in this area. We also enacted a child tax credit, assistance for families with children in college, and expanded health coverage for uninsured children. I would like to take this time to thank the Congresswomen who have chaired the Women's Caucus. This year the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton. This year, on Mother's Day, again with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Connie Morella, it was a symbolic victory, but after many hurdles we finally moved the only statue of women that are in the rotunda, from the basement into the rotunda. On that particular day Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, two of whom were women from New York State and who worked very hard on women's issues and for the right for women to gain the vote, they finally took their place in the Capitol rotunda, along with our other great revolutionary leaders. I would like to put the rest of my remarks into the Record and also note other great women leaders from New York State, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Geraldine Ferraro and Elizabeth Holtzman, all of whom were members of the Women's Caucus. Program Book Highlights 1977--Reps. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) and Margaret Heckler (R-MA) founded the Congresswomen's Caucus. Comprised of 15 of the 18 women in the House, the group focused its early efforts on eliminating sex discrimination and improving women's employment opportunities in the federal government. 1978--The Caucus led a successful effort to gain an extension of the ratification period for the Equal Rights Amendment. Also that year, Congress passed landmark legislation--the Pregnancy Discrimination Act--guaranteeing employment rights to pregnant workers. 1979--Double digit inflation spurred the Caucus to focus on economic equity for women, ranging from women's business opportunities to the susceptibility of women workers to unemployment. Congress created the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department to enforce the Title IX ban against sex discrimination in education. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D- CO) took over as Democratic Co-Chair of the Caucus. 1980--The Caucus called for a Congressional investigation of the extent to which women-owned businesses were gaining access to federal contracts. Congress voted to require federal agencies to report the dollar value of all federal contracts awarded to small, minority-owned and female-owned businesses. 1981--The Caucus introduced the Economic Equity Act--a package of legislation to address key economic security issues. Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Congresswomen's Caucus opened its membership to men and changed its name to the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. 1982--At the urging of the Caucus, the Joint Economic Committee convened hearings on the economic status of women and its impact on family income. Congress extended flex-time arrangements for federal workers and made former military spouses eligible for health benefits. 1983--Virtually every piece of the Caucus' Economic Equity Act was the subject to Congressional hearings, including tax and retirement matters, dependent care, nondiscrimination in insurance, and child support enforcement. In a major jobs bill, Congress enacted provisions important to working women. Rep. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) becomes Republican Co-Chair of the Caucus. 1984--The Caucus Economic Equity Act was the driving force behind enactment of important retirement equity and child support enforcement legislation. Caucus member Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) was nominated for Vice-President of the United States, the first time a woman ran for that office on a major party ticket. 1985--For the first time, legislation was introduced to provide temporary leave for parents of newborns and seriously ill children, and for workers with serious health problems. This effort sparked an eight year campaign that ended with the 1993 enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). 1986--Congress passed major legislation to increase accessibility of a college education to non-traditional students--mostly women--and to allow states to expand Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and infants. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate without first having been elected or appointed to fill a vacant seat. 1987--The Caucus celebrated its 10th anniversary as the nation marked the 100th Congress and the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. Two important Supreme Court decisions upheld the constitutional use of affirmative action plans for women and ruled that states could force all-male clubs to admit female members. 1988--An important Caucus priority was achieved when Congress restored broad coverage of Title IX and other civil rights laws. The Caucus won passage of legislation to address the impoverishment faced by many elderly women when their spouses entered nursing homes. Congress also passed the Women's Business Ownership Act aimed at ending discrimination in credit to women entrepreneurs. 1989--The Caucus continued to push Congress to approve the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as new legislation to increase the availability, quality, and affordability of child care. Congress increased funding for maternal and child health programs and required states to expand Medicaid programs to cover pregnant women and children under six, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) was the first Latina elected to Congress. 1990--Congress approved the first major child care legislation in 20 years. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report requested by the Caucus confirmed the widespread exclusion of women from federally funded medical research. Caucus members introduced the first Women's Health Equity Act and traveled to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to discuss plans for creating an NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. 1991--Congress approved civil rights legislation that expanded remedies for victims of sex discrimination, established a Glass Ceiling Commission to examine barriers to the advancement of women in management positions, and removed the statutory prohibition against women flying combat missions. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) became the first woman in nearly 20 years to chair a full committee in the House. 1992--Caucus initiatives to improve quality of mammograms and combat infertility in women were enacted. The media labeled 1992 the ``Year of the Woman'' in politics as hundreds of women lined up to run for office. A record 48 women were elected to the House and 6 to the Senate. 1993--After an eight year battle, the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law. Major women's health legislation drafted by the Caucus also became law. Congress removed the remaining statutory limits on women serving in the military. The Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded to help raise poor working families above the poverty level. 1994--With strong bipartisan support from the Caucus, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized $1.6 billion over six years for services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Congress also passed legislation to ensure more equitable treatment for women and girls in education and required federal agencies to establish a five percent goal for contracting with women-owned businesses. 1995--Congress approved legislation applying civil rights and employment statutes to itself, long a priority of the Caucus. Congress also defunded the legislative offices of House caucuses, including the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. Reps. Constance Morella (R-MD) and Nita Lowey (D-NY) were named to co-chair the reorganized Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. Three women were named to chair committees in the House and Senate. 1996--Legislation was enacted to guarantee continued health insurance coverage for workers who change or lose their jobs. Included were Women's Health Equity Act provisions barring insurers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information or evidence of domestic violence. Congress also require insurers to expand hospital stays for new mothers and approved a Caucus initiative to strengthen child support enforcement. 1997--Congress passed landmark legislation to balance the federal budget and included in it important women's health provisions which expand Medicare coverage of mammography and bone mass measurement. Also enacted were a child tax credit, assistance for families with children in college, and expanded health coverage for uninsured children. Congresswomen Nancy Johnson (R-CT) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) take over as Co-Chairs of the Caucus.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it does not allow for the consideration of campaign finance reform on the House floor. I do not oppose this bill and I would otherwise not oppose this rule, but I do not believe that we should move forward with other legislation without a commitment to campaign finance reform by this House. More than 300 Members of this House have signed on to various campaign finance reform bills. Nearly everyone has an idea and they have worked hard to turn those ideas into legislation. The evidence is before this House. There are 87 different campaign finance reform bills before this House. But not a single one of these bills has made it to the floor for debate, not a single one of these bills, not one of the 87 has even been considered in a committee hearing this year. Mr. Speaker, there are 435 Members of Congress and 311 of them have signed on to various campaign finance bills. That is 72 percent, a majority of the Members. And a majority of Americans are pleading for reform. Yet these pleas are not being heard by the majority party. Our counterparts in the Senate, they did not have much success but at least they tried. At least they brought it to the floor. Let us do the same here, Mr. Speaker. Let us bring some of these 87 bills to the floor for debate. Nearly three-quarters of this House is asking for it. Nearly three-quarters of this House is a sponsor of a campaign finance bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] in calling for and signing a discharge petition so that we can get the issue before this body for debate and before this body for a vote. We certainly owe it to our constituents to have a vote on campaign finance before we adjourn and go back to our districts.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1962, the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act, was originally included as a provision of H.R. 3452, the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, which is now Public Law 104-331. The provision was deleted from H.R. 3452 prior to final passage by the other body. H.R. 3452 extended certain labor and civil rights laws to the White House, much as the Congressional Accountability Act did for Congress. H.R. 1962, the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act, as amended, would require the appointment of a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 was landmark legislation which brought needed improvements to the executive branch by requiring sound financial management practices, automated financial systems, and annual reports to Congress. This law has resulted in substantial savings, probably billions of dollars, by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the 24 major agencies in the executive branch. Putting a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President is an improvement, and one which the White House supports. As was the case last year with H.R. 3452, the chairman has worked with the minority and with the White House to improve this legislation. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] for the bipartisan spirit with which he has approached this issue. The amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by our committee addressed our concerns with the original bill. It eliminated the requirement for a deputy chief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President as an unnecessary provision given the small size of that office. That amendment also provides the President significant discretion in implementing the act required due to the special nature of that office. In addition, that amendment provided for a separate budget request to pay for implementation. Under this legislation, the President may designate someone already employed in the Executive Office of the President as the chief financial officer. The chief financial officer may also be established in any office of the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Administration. The most logical place for the Executive Office of the President's chief financial officer is in the Office of Administration, since the financial management division of that office already performs 90 percent of the duties required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. The chairman has worked constructively with the minority and with the administration to perfect this bill and has committed to continue working in a bipartisan manner to address any remaining concerns in report language. I support H.R. 1962 and urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this oppressive, extremist legislation. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has called this ban ``inappropriate, ill- advised, and dangerous.'' I call it an outright assault on women's lives. Let's put this in perspective. There were more than 50 anti-choice votes in the 104th Congress. There have been over 20 anti-choice votes thus far in the 105th Congress. Choice opponents have said they intend to ban abortion procedure by procedure, and this bill is another step down that slippery slope. President Clinton has said he would support a ban that includes exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. Why is it so hard for so-called pro-life zealots to allow for compassionate exceptions, exceptions that could save a mother's life and perhaps her future fertility? The Rules Committee, by taking away our right to amend, refuses to allow us to include anything that would provide the safest, most compassionate way to handle a pregnancy that has no hope. Let me remind my colleagues of the recent real-life trauma suffered by Coreen Costello. She came to Congress to tell her heart-wrenching story. A conservative, pro-life mother of two, Coreen and her family were devastated to learn that a lethal disease left their much-wanted, unborn daughter unable to survive outside the womb. Coreen attempted to carry the pregnancy to term, but the fetus' body stiffened and wedged dangerously into her body. Under this bill, the critical intact D&E procedure could not have been performed. This bill would have sacrificed Coreen Costello and her future fertility to the politics of anti-choice extremists. The issue is not how many women undergo this procedure, but how many women who, like Coreen Costello, have no other choice but this particular procedure. The few women who need this procedure deserve our support and sympathy, not congressionally mandated limitations on their medical choices. By not permitting compassionate exceptions to the ban on the late-term procedure, this bill slams the door on a family's future, on a mother's health, and on a mother's life. This Congress has absolutely no business passing legal judgments on life-saving medical procedures. This Congress has absolutely no business interfering in the decisions made by a woman and her doctor. We should be outraged. This Congress dares to make criminals of doctors who have taken an oath to save lives. This Congress dares to presume it can legislate this profoundly intimate decision. This Congress dares to protect the natural death of a fetus over the life of a woman, a mother, a wife. Congress has no place in this decision, and no place in these tragedies. Mr. Speaker, we must protect women's constitutional right to choose. We must protect women's right to life. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Theodore S. Weiss, who represented New York in the House of Representatives from 1977 until his death in 1992. Earlier this week, a Federal courthouse in New York City was designated the ``Ted Weiss United States Courthouse'' in his memory. With Ted Weiss' death in 1992, New York's 17th Congressional District lost a well-loved and highly popular political leader. This district, one of the most liberal in the country, found a voice in Ted. He consistently championed the interests of the poor and the powerless, and supported civil and human rights both locally and internationally. Born in 1927 in Hungary, Ted escaped Europe one step ahead of the Nazis in 1938, which might explain his life-long opposition to oppressive dictatorships abroad. He criticized the invasion of Granada, lauded the defeat of Pinochet in Chile, and backed sanctions against China, El Salvador, and other countries that perpetrate human rights abuses. When he served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he made humanitarian aid a special concern, proposing additional food assistance to drought-stricken Africa. A long-time advocate for peace, Ted consistently voted against funding for military projects and supported a nuclear weapons freeze. Ted was also an active advocate for the rights of his own constituency. He was a leader for gay and lesbian rights; he sought aid for the mentally ill and homeless; and he fought for reparations for Holocaust victims and Vietnam veterans who were exposed to agent orange. For much of his career, Ted served on the House Education and Labor Committee, where he fought cutbacks in social programs. Ted was well-known for his concern for the health and safety of his constituents. He pressed the Food and Drug Administration to rigorously guard against dangerous drugs and food additives on the market. He also advocated increased funding for AIDS research and urged the NIH to conduct further experiments in drug treatment. Ted Weiss demonstrated true dedication and commitment to human and civil rights. It is only fitting that the ``Ted Weiss United States Courthouse'' be named in his honor, a testament to his efforts on behalf of equity and justice. I respectfully urge my colleagues to take a moment today to remember Ted Weiss, a man who made innumerable contributions to his own district, as well as to the world at large.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 474, the conference report to H.R. 2378, Treasury, Postal appropriations for fiscal year 1998, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], for their hard work on this legislation and particularly to add my words of appreciation to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] for his many years of service. We regret that he has chosen to retire from this body, and we will miss him. If we want to compete in the world economic arena, we must stand with the people who make the products which are exported. American companies need to enter the trade battle well armed, and the best way we can arm them is by allowing the Export-Import Bank to continue its work. Since 1990, one-third of the total growth in U.S. output has been in exports. In other words, if we want the tremendous growth we are seeing at this point to continue, we need to be aggressive in promoting exports. The Export-Import Bank helps to level the playing field with U.S. exporters by using specific tools to make sure our industries are able to do business overseas. These tools include export credit insurance, guarantees on commercial loans for purchases of U.S. exports, and working capital guarantees to encourage banks to lend money to small exporters. The bank only provides these tools when the private sector does not or cannot. The bank does not prevent anyone else from providing these services. It only provides them at or above market rate when no one else can or will. I know from the experience of my own State of New York just how great an impact the Export-Import Bank has had on our economy. Between 1992 and 1996, the bank supported 345 companies and financed $3.8 billion in exports. This has translated into an estimated 56,000 jobs. During this 5-year period, the bank has returned about $20 worth of exports for each dollar it has spent. I support this.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, sending the census sampling issue before the Supreme Court certainly sounds like a righteous compromise, but beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Supreme Court will decide in favor of sampling, but while we are waiting as long as a year, the stalling will kill sampling for the 2000 census. Indecision will become the decision. Missing the Census Bureau deadlines for as long as a year means certain death for a fair and accurate census. There has been a great deal of misinformation that has been bandied about, and I would like to set the record straight on the Census Bureau's plan. What the Census Bureau plans to do will be the largest peacetime mobilization ever. Ninety percent of the people will be counted using traditional methods. People will be contacted four times through the mail. They will be contacted by phone for the first time. Community outreach will include forms that are in post offices, stores, churches, malls, and TV ads are in the works. Then the Bureau will begin to knock on doors, but we know that many of these doors will remain shut because people do not open their doors to strangers, they are not there, they are at work. And only for the last 10 percent, for those people who could not be reached by mail, phone, a knock on the door, or through the media, only for that last 10 percent will statistical sampling be used. Mr. Chairman, we know that some people are more likely to be missed than others. They are our Nation's poor, our Nation's minorities. They are the people who most need to be heard and who are most often silenced. The use of sampling is the civil rights issue of the 1990's. There are hundreds of professional organizations, community groups, editorial boards across the country, experts, who all endorse sampling. The Mollohan-Shays amendment will give people the simple right to the representation that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to do what is right for all of their constituents. Make sure they can count on us not to count them out in the year 2000 census. Vote for the Mollohan-Shays bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record data from the Congressional Research Service in support of my position. The CRS report says that the Hastert amendment will just block forward-going of an accurate census. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. To: Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, Attention: David McMillen. From: American Law Division. Subject: Questions re Legislative Provision for Expedited Judicial Review of Use of sampling and statistical Adjustment in Year 2000 Census. This memorandum is in response to your request for consideration of four questions dealing with the implementation and likely impact of language added to H.R. 2267, the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Bill. By the terms of the Rule granted the bill by the Committee on Rules, H. Res. 239; H. Rept. 105- 264, the provision, set out in the cited report, was adopted upon the adoption of the Rule. Briefly stated, the provision Sec. 209 of H.R. 2267, authorizes ``[a]ny person aggrieved'' by the use of a statistical method of determining population in connection with the year 2000, or later, census, to bring a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief against the use of the method on the ground that it is contrary to the Constitution or statute. The definition of an ``aggrieved person'' for purposes of the section is stated to be any resident of a State whose congressional representation or district ``could'' be changed by the use of a statistical method, any Representative or Senator, or either House of Congress. The action authorized is to be heard and determined by a three- judge district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284. Expedited appeal direct to the Supreme Court of any decision by the district court is provided for under specified deadlines for filing. A significant provision, subsection (b), states that ``the use of any statistical method in a dress rehearsal or similar test or simulation of a census in preparation for the use of such method, in a decennial census, to determine the population for purposes of the apportionment or redistricting of members in Congress shall be considered the use of such method in connection with that census.'' Under subsection (d)(2), no appropriated funds may be used for any statistical method, in connection with the decennial census, once a judicial action is filed, until it has been judicially determined that the method is authorized by the Constitution and by act of Congress. Three of your questions relate to the likelihood of a Supreme Court decision, using the expedited procedure, either by the time of the beginning of the 1998 census dress rehearsal (approximately March 15, 1998) or prior to the census in 2000. Inasmuch as the date of the decision in any such case depends substantially on the filing date of the suit, and the beginning of the running of any period of expedition, we cannot even guess whether a Supreme Court decision would be likely before either event. Certainly, the date of the start of the dress rehearsal, if it is March 15, 1998, is less than six months from now, much less from the time of enactment of the provision, if it is enacted, and from the time a statistical method is tested, if that is sufficient to confer standing. Thus, we can be confident that a decision by March 15, 1998, is highly unlikely. A decision by the beginning of the start of the 2000 census is certainly possible, if a suit may be filed early enough. However, as we indicate below, it is doubtful that anyone would have standing by then, even in light of the section, to bring an action. We can indicate, from the time line of past cases, especially those where Congress has provided especially for judicial review and expedited consideration, that the courts are enabled to proceed promptly and in less time than with respect to the ordinary case. For example, the most recent case was handled very expeditiously. Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997). Congress in 1996 enacted the Line-Item Veto Act, which went into effect on January 1, 1997. The following day, six Members of Congress filed suit. The District Court handed down its decision on April 10, 1997. Pursuant to the Statute's authorization, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court on April 18, the Court granted review on April 23, and, even though the argument period for the Term had run, special oral argument was entertained on May 27, and the decision by the Supreme Court was rendered on June 28. Thus, the time from filing in the District Court to the issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court was less than seven months, although we must observe that the decision was based on the lack of standing by the Members, perhaps a less difficult issue than the question on the merits. Nonetheless, the time frame was significant. Other cases could be cited. For example, in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), testing the constitutionality of certain features of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the courts moved promptly, again acting within a congressional-enacted provision for expended judicial review. The President signed the bill into law on December 12, 1985,and suit was filed the same day. A three-judge district court was impaneled, and a decision was issued on Feburary 7. 1986. An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court on February 18, review was granted on February 24, oral argument was held on April 23, and the Court's decisions was issued on July 7. The time line was thus about seven months. One may assume, therefore, that a suit, properly brought, challenging the use of some form of statistical adjustment, could be processed within a relatively brief time, perhaps within seven months and perhaps within a briefer period. However, that assumption is of little importance, because the substantial question, the hard issue, turns on what party has standing to bring such a suit; that is, when is a suit ``properly brought''? That the use of statistical methods, of samplings and adjustments, is not a frivolous question is evident. The argument is whether the Constitution in requiring an ``actual Enumeration,'' Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3, mandates an actual counting or permits some kind of statistical analysis to enhance the count; the further argument is whether Congress, in delegating to the Secretary of Commerce its authority to conduct the census ``in such Manner as [it] shall by Law direct,'' has by instructing him to take ``a decennial census of the population . . . in such form and content as he may determine . . .'', 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), supplied him with sufficient authority to supplement or to supplant the actual count through statistical methods. The Supreme Court has reserved decision on both issues. Wisconsin v. City of New York, 116 S.Ct. 1091, 1101 nn. 9, 11 (1996). Courts have entertained suits arising out of these and similar issues, E.g., Wisconsin v. City of New York, supra; Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 738 (1992); Dept. of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). However, all three cases arose after the actual conduct of or official decision about a particular action that resulted in actual injury to a State or to a political subdivision. These cases, and earlier decisions in the lower courts concerning the 1990 and 1980 censuses, certainly stand for the proposition that polities have standing to sue to contest actions that have already occurred and that have injured them. They do little to advance the inquiry required by Sec. 209. All citizens, of course, have an interest that the Constitution be observed and followed, that laws be enacted properly based on and permitted by the Constitution, and that laws be correctly administered. However, this general interest, shared by all, is insufficient to confer standing on persons as citizens or as taxpayers. Schlesinger v. Reservists Com. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. (1974). See also Vallety Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 483 (1982); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Congress may not overturn this barrier to suit in federal court by devising a test law suit. E.g., Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911) (striking down a statute authorizing certain named Indians to bring a test suit against the United States to determine the validity of a law affecting the allocation of Indian lands, in which the attorneys' fees of both sides were to be paid out of tribal funds, deposited in the Treasury). Standing is one element of the justiciability standard, which limits Article III federal courts to the decision only of cases that properly belong within the role allocated to federal courts. ``[A]t an irreducible minimum,'' the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the party seeking to sue must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. E.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S., 751; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, supra, 504 U.S., 560; Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct., 2317-18, ``We have always insisted on strict compliance with this jurisdictional standing requirement.'' Id., 2317. The first element, injury in fact, is a particularly stringent requirement. ``[T]he plaintiff must have suffered an `injury in fact'--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'' Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S., 560 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the latter part of the element indicates, a party need not await the consummation of the injury in order to be able to sue. However, as the decisions combining parts of standing and of Article III ripeness show, pre-enforcement challenges to criminal and regulatory legislation will be permitted if the plaintiff can show a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the governmental action impending; a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has before it sufficient facts to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 113-18 (1976); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 81-2 (1978); Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979); Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138-48 (1974). The Court requires, though, particularized allegations that show a reasonable certainty, an actual threat of injury. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (1991); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S., 564-65 & n. 2. Critically, in any event, the certainty of injury requirement is a constitutional limitation, while the factual adequacy element is a prudential limitation on judicial review. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S., 138-48. Congress is free to legislate away prudential restraints upon the jurisdiction of the courts and to confer standing to the utmost extent permitted by Article III. But, Congress may not legislatively dispense with Article III's constitutional requirement of a distinct and palpable injury to a party or, if the injury has not yet occurred, a realistic danger of its happening. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct., 2318 n. 3. Cf. United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973), disparaged in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 159 (1990), asserting that it ``surely went to the outer limit of the law.'' The Court has firmly held that Congress, in pursuit of judicial oversight over government activity in areas of general public interest, areas that would not support standing in the first instance, may not enlarge the scope of judicial review by definitionally expanding the meaning of standing under Article III. Lugan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S., 571-78, ``Whether the courts were to act on their own, or at the invitation of Congress, in ignoring the concrete injury requirement described in our cases, they would be discarding a principle fundamental to the separate and distinct constitutional role of the Third Branch--one of the essential elements that identifies those `Cases' and `Controversies' that are the business of the courts rather than of the political branches.'' Id., 576. `` `[Statutory] broadening [of] the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury.'' Id., 578 (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 738 (1972)). Turning, then, to the proposed Sec. 209, we must observe that the precedents strongly counsel that the conferral of standing, especially in its definitional design of injury in fact, would be inadequate to authorize judicial review until the occurrence of the injury, the calculation of population figures showing the gains and losses of seats in the House of Representatives. First, the conferral of standing in subsections (c)(2) and (3) is likely ineffective. In Raines v. Byrd, supra, Congress had included in the Line-Item Veto Act authorization for ``[a]ny Member of Congress'' to bring an action to contest the constitutionality of the Act. The Court held that the Members seeking to sue had suffered no personal, individualized injury, only rather an assertion of an institutional injury to this status as Members, that was inadequate under Article III. Conceivably, Members representing a State that lost one or more seats in the House as a result of statistical re-evaluation of the census enumeration could suffer the same injury that all residents of the State incurred, but that injury would be confined as we discuss below. Second, while either the House of Representatives or the Senate may have interests that could be injured by Executive Branch action, giving either body or both bodies standing to bring an action, what interest either House could assert in the reallocation of seats in the House of Representatives is unclear at best. Third, Sec. 209(a) authorizes ``[a]ny person aggrieved by the use of any statistical method . . . in connection with . . . [a] census, to determine the population for purposes of the apportionment or redistricting of members of Congress . . .'' to bring a court action to challenge the constitutionality of or the statutory basis of the statistical method. Under Sec. 209(c)(1), an ``aggrieved person'' is defined to include ``any resident of a State whose congressional representative or district could be changed as a result of the use of a statistical method.'' (Emphasis supplied). By Sec. 209(b), it is provided that ``the use of any statistical method in a dress rehearsal or similar test or simulation of a census in preparation for the use of such method . . . shall be considered the use of such method in connection with that census.'' (Emphasis supplied). That is, any person residing in a state that ``could'' lose House representation as a result of a statistical adjustment of a census may sue as soon as there is ``a dress rehearsal or similar test or simulation of a census.'' The case law makes it clear that this authorization, if enacted, would run afoul of constitutional barriers to congressional conferral either of standing or of ripeness or both. Under Article III, for a litigant to have standing, he must allege an injury in fact to himself or to an interest; if the injury has not yet occurred, he must allege a strong basis for fear that the injury will happen, that there is a real danger of the injury being felt. The quoted provisions purport to confer standing far beyond this constitutional requirement. To illustrate, when each census occurs, it is the responsibility of the Bureau of the Census to calculate, using what is called ``the method of equal proportions,'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2a(a), the number of seats, above the one each State is constitutionally guaranteed, to be allocated to each State, and the numbers are processed by the Department of Commerce, which refers them to the President, who has the responsibility to transmit them to Congress. See generally Dept. of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992); Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, Wisconsin v. City of New York, 116 S.Ct. 1091 (1996). The allocation is not final until the President submits the figures to Congress. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S., 796-801. It is then that the loss of a seat or seats is legally final, and it seems clear that the States losing seats have suffered a cognizable injury, enabling them to bring suit to challenge at least certain aspects of the conduct of the census. Id., 801-803. Whether residents of a State that has lost one or more seats in the House of Representatives have standing to bring suit is questionable. Certainly, voters in a State in which redistricting is not accomplished through the creation of equally-populated districts have standing to complain about the dilution of their voting strength. E.g., Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Darcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). And a resident of a congressional district that has been drawn impermissibly using race has standing to challenge that districting. United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995). But in the context of a State losing a House seat, every resident of that State has a general interest that is shared by all other residents. It is not a particularized injury in fact that is what normally confers standing. Let us, however, assume that residents would have standing. The injury would not occur until the President transmits the figures to Congress. Even if one could allege the imminent likelihood of injury, a realistic danger of injury, that development is only going to mature when the census is completed and the calculations are made awarding the correct number of seats to each House. And we hear speak of a challenge to the actual census. The challenge, however, authorized by Sec. 209, is to the use of a statistical method that ``could'' change the result of the census enumeration. An injury in fact would not occur, again, until the result is reported to Congress by the President; an imminent injury in fact could conceivably occur when the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department utilize a statistical adjustment that changes the allocation of seats. But that occurs after the tabulation of the census result and the utilization of a statistical method that changes the result of the census count itself. The Supreme Court has never approved standing premised on an allegation that a particular governmental action ``could'' cause an injury. Of course, the application of a statistical method ``could'' work a change in the census, but to which States and with what results would be extremely speculative under the best of circumstances. Moreover, the definition of the ``use of any statistical method'' to include a test, or dress rehearsal, or simulation of a census would confer standing that is even further removed from the occurrence of the event that ``could'' or ``might'' result in an injury. It would be impossible to point to any result of the conduct of a test or whatever that might conceivably occasion the loss of one or more House seats. Because Congress lacks the power to create a definition of standing or of the imminent likelihood of injury giving standing that would infringe the constitutional requirement of standing--of injury in fact or of the imminent likelihood of injury--it appears extremely likely that the Supreme Court would either strike down the provision, cf. City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), or disregard it. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, supra. Finally, we must note Sec. 209(e) that purports to authorize any executive branch agency or entity having authority to carry out the census to bring a civil action to obtain a declaratory judgment as to its constitutional and statutory powers in this regard. It seems doubtful that this authority could be exercised. It would likely fall under the principle that no suit may be maintained unless there is adversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants. See Muskrat v. United States, 219 346 (1911). What government agencies have to do is to proceed on the basis of their judgment about their powers, and then they will be subject to challenging that judgment. This subsection appears to do nothing less than to authorize an agency to seek an advisory opinion. Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American Constitutional Law.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vigorous support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment, and in support of legal services organizations everywhere that provide a desperately needed legal safety net for low-income Americans. This amendment would restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation to $250 million, an amount that is still 12 percent below last year's level. The Legal Services Corporation is the embodiment of a founding principle of this country--``Equal Justice Under Law''--through its efforts to provide legal representation to those who could not otherwise afford it. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled House has long had the Legal Services Corporation in its sights. This year it has recommended a crippling 50 percent cut in a punitive attempt to curtail the services of this agency. This reduction would virtually eliminate most LSC programs around the country. In reality, this attack is just another way for the Republican majority to systematically disinvest the poor, an action which is both shortsighted and irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in my support of this desperately needed program. A recent poll conducted by Louis Harris & Associates found that 70 percent of Americans believe Federal funding should be provided for poor Americans who need basic civil legal assistance. The poll also found that 61 percent of Americans believe funding levels should be higher than have been recommended. Clearly, this amendment is not asking for any more than what the American people have decided is fair and just. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation by voting in favor of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. If we don't make ``Equal Justice'' under the law a reality for all Americans, who will?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to declare my pride at the inclusion of $160 million for breast cancer-related research in the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill. This figure represents a significant 42-percent increase over last year's appropriation. Breast cancer research has long been an important priority of mine, as well as of my colleagues in the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. I am pleased our voices are being heard. The Department of Defense's peer-reviewed breast cancer research program is well known, both for its vital work in fighting this disease and its innovative and efficient use of resources. In fact, over 90 percent of program funds go directly to research grants. The emphasis on research is crucial, for while there have been several significant advances we still know relatively little about preventing breast cancer, and treatment options are few. Unfortunately, American women still face a one in eight chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetime. With nearly 200,000 cases diagnosed last year, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women. In fact, it accounts for one of every three cancer diagnoses among women. In order to make the most of recent discoveries, and to improve the lives of future generations of women, we need measures like this that invest in breast cancer research. I am also happy to note that this bill has increased funding for HIV and prostate cancer research as well. I was especially pleased earlier this year when this Congress included my bill, the Breast Cancer Early Detection Act of 1997, in the Balanced Budget Agreement. Prior to passage of this measure, annual mammograms were covered for Medicare-eligible women between ages 50 and 65. However, after age 65 Medicare only allowed for a mammogram every other year. This policy ran counter to the research, which has found that 80 percent of all cancer occurs in women over 50. My bipartisan bill ensured that Medicare provided coverage for annual mammograms for all women. I applaud Congress on these wise investments. They provide hope to American women and their families, and will provide the ultimate return: saving women's lives.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Norton amendment. The ban on Federal funds for abortions for women in prison is one more step in a long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. The Norton amendment seeks to correct one of the more shameful attacks on American women. Despite clear legal authority establishing the right of American women to choose abortion as a viable health option, many women prisoners are denied equal access to choose whether or not to terminate their pregnancies. Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their health care, yet without this amendment women will be prevented from seeking needed reproductive health care. Prisoners have a constitutional right to health care. Congress should not interfere with this right. It is too easy to attack women inmates, women who are often poor, uneducated, isolated, and beaten down; women who are often victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women prisoners are poor when they enter prison, and therefore cannot rely on anyone else for financial assistance. These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the infant. The ban on reproductive health services for women in prison cuts off their only opportunity to receive much needed care, it denies them their constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their dignity. Mr. Chairman, we must stop this assault on women's right to choose. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Norton amendment. The ban on Federal funds for abortions for women in prison is one more step in a long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. The Norton amendment seeks to correct one of the more shameful attacks on American women. Despite clear legal authority establishing the right of American women to choose abortion as a viable health option, many women prisoners are denied equal access to choose whether or not to terminate their pregnancies. Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all for their health care, yet without this amendment women will be prevented from seeking needed reproductive health care. Prisoners have a constitutional right to health care. Congress should not interfere with this right. It is too easy to attack women inmates, women who are often poor, uneducated, isolated, and beaten down. Women who are often victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women prisoners are poor whey they enter prison, and cannot rely on anyone for financial assistance. These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the infant. The ban on reproductive health services for women in prison closes off their only opportunity to receive much needed care, it denies them their constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their dignity. We must stop this assault on women's right to choose. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Mollohan-Shays amendment. I rise to talk about and point out to this House what I think is the civil rights issue of the 1990's, the right to be counted in the census. The majority leadership has expressed concern that the data obtained in the census might be manipulated. The Mollohan-Shays amendment addresses that concern by setting up a three-member panel which would ensure that the results are tamperproof. The new language of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] which was added last night, I must point out, is no solution. Allowing the Supreme Court to rule on Census 2000 may sound like a just resolution, after all, who can argue with the Supreme Court, but what might look like a fair compromise is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. Even an expedited Court decision could take up to a year, and that is much too much time. When a year has passed and the Court rules, as courts have in the past, that statistical sampling is constitutional, it will be too late. When the Court was asked to make an expedited review on the line-item veto, it took 14 months. The flag burning expedited review took 10 months. An expedited review on the census would push preparations for the most fair and accurate count ever far past important deadlines. My colleagues who oppose an accurate count know that a lengthy delay means certain death. A fair and accurate count is the cornerstone of our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Mollohan- Shays amendment to ensure a fair and accurate census count for the year 2000.