Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, we are calling this the Patsy Mink amendment, as the first legislation was written and passed by our distinguished colleague and friend that founded the Women's Educational Equity Act. This would restore the $3 million for this program that was taken out in the mark before us, and this has no offset because the money would come out of the school improvement program that has well over $50 million in it. This is certainly needed. Some people on the other side of the aisle have said that we no longer need the Women's Educational Equity Act, but the figures that came out last week from the Census Bureau showed that the pay gap widened between men and women in 2003, and that women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, falling to 75.5 cents to the male dollar. I will include for the Record the census report that shows the gap between men and women growing, and specifically the fact that women's pay has slumped for the first time since 1999. I would like to take this opportunity to thank very much Patsy Mink for her hard work and leadership in authoring WEEA. It has made a difference in the lives of millions of girls and women for 30 years by training teachers to treat boys and girls fairly in the classroom, teaching about reducing sexual harassment, and encouraging girls to study math and science among many other things. WEEA ensures that girls and women will succeed in school, plain and simple. Unfortunately, in this tight budget year, WEEA was zeroed out in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that cutting the $3 million to girls' education is totally unfair and will not help in any way to balance the budget. Women have made great strides over the past 30 years, but these strides have not happened by themselves. It is programs like WEEA that provide the training, the materials and the support for our young girls in the educational system, but we still have a tremendous long way to go before we reach a point when WEEA will no longer be needed. In 2003, male students scored higher on average than female students in mathematics. Girls represent only 17 percent of the computer science AP test takers. Women are roughly 20 percent of IT professionals. Women receive less than 28 percent of the computer science bachelor's degrees, down from a high of 37 percent in 1984. Women make up just 9 percent of engineering-related bachelor degrees. These statistics are unacceptable, but would be worse without WEEA. As the educational needs of our society change and grow, as math and technology continue to become prominent skills of our everyday lives, gender equity in our education system is more important than ever. Girls must catch up with boys when it comes to math and technology, and WEEA can help. This amendment, the Patsy Mink Women's Educational Equity Act, will support our daughters, our sisters, our friends. Vote yes on the Maloney-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment. I also would like to cite a report that came out recently, the Dingell-Maloney report, that showed that there was a consistent gap between the earnings between men and women for the past 20 years, a consistent 40 percent gap. After making up for time for pregnancy or taking care of sick parents, there is still a 20 percent unexplained gap between men and women's pay. This translates into pensions. I would consider a vote against this amendment a vote against women, a vote against equity and opportunity for women in the workforce. It begins in the classroom. This program is as needed today as when Patsy Mink first wrote it. So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for their daughters, their sisters and their friends, and to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record the Dingell-Maloney report that shows the persistent 20 percent gap, which can only be explained as discrimination. I want to thank very much my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for her excellent leadership and help on this issue through many Congresses, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his fine help. GAO Pay Gap Report Highlights (Briefing by Reps. Maloney & Dingell) The General Accounting Office (GAO) examined 18 years of data on over 9,300 Americans for an earnings study commissioned by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and John Dingell (D-MI). The new study is a follow-up to the more narrowly-focused 2002 GAO report on the earnings gap between female and male managers. Results of the GAO study show: The pay gap is real. Women working full-time today are paid an average of 80 cents for every dollar that men are paid, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20 percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences in work patterns or histories. Differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap between men and women--suggesting that working women are penalized for their dual role as wage earners and those who disproportionately care for home and family obligations. The GAO study confirms that women in the workforce are less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, suppressing women's earnings even further. And, men with children are paid about 2 percent more than men without children, whereas women with children are paid about 2.5 percent less than women without children. The pay gap has persisted for past two decades. The GAO study confirms that the earnings gap between women and men has been consistent from 1983-2000, despite a sense of continued progress toward gender equality in the workplace. The GAO also reviewed other studies and interviewed employers and earnings experts to round out their analysis, leading to troubling questions about the persistent pay gap: Why do workplaces still maintain the same policies, practices and structures that existed when most of their workers did not have obligations to care for children and family life? Why do industries and professions dominated by women pay disproportionately less than male-dominated industries? How much does the pay gap between men and women cost families? In response to the GAO findings, Representatives Maloney and Dingell seek to establish a new Center for the Study of Women and Workplace Policy at a public university that would serve as a nationwide resource for employers, women and families. The Center would follow up on the GAO study, collaborate with businesses and women's organizations on solutions to the earnings gap, and publish yearly guides on best practices for employers and family friendly workplaces for women. [From the Feminist Daily News Wire, Sept. 2, 2004] Wage Gap Increases Between Women and Men, US Census Reports Figures released by the US Census Bureau last week show that the pay gap between women and men widened in 2003. Women's pay slumped for the first time since 1999, with women earning only 75.5 cents to every dollar men earn. The Census Bureau stated that this marks the first ``statistically significant'' decline in women's pay since 1995, AccountingWEB.com reports, with real median earnings of women over the age of 15 fell 0.6 percent to $30,724. The Institute for Women's Policy Research has stated that the 1.4 percent decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide since 1991. Though over forty years have passed since the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, at which point women earned 59 cents to the dollar men earned, progress to attain its goals has been slow. With more families becoming dependent on women as breadwinners, and with approximately half of women entering retirement alone, the wage gap is a crucial issue that affects the health and well-being of women and their families. The poverty rate for women and girls increased to 13.7 percent from 13.3 percent in 2002, increasing for the third straight year, reports Women's eNews. In addition, the uninsured rate rose more sharply for women at four percent, with the rate for men only rising one percent. The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that the typical prime- age working woman earned $273,592 over the 15 year period between 1983 and 1998, compared with $722,693 for the typical prime-age working man. In addition to the wage gap, this discrepancy occurs because women work more part-time jobs and take more time out of the workforce to raise children. However, the Asheville Citizen-Times reports that in October 2003 the General Accounting Office released a report titled ``Women's Earnings'' that examined 18 years of data. The report found a 20 percent earnings gap between men and women that could not be explained, even after accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, marital status, and job tenure.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation with Representative William Lacy Clay, D-MO, that requires the annual poverty estimate and the National Assessment of Educational Progress to be subject to certain guidelines on the release of the information to the public. I am deeply concerned at what appears to be the politicization of data by the Bush Administration on important issues ranging from worker safety to the dangers of lead paint to emergency contraceptives. Because data regarding poverty and educational progress are essential to lawmakers at all levels of government to implement policies addressing these issues, it is critical that this information is disseminated in an open and timely process. Last year, the Census Bureau decided to break with tradition to release its annual poverty estimates on a Friday in Suitland, Maryland, rather than during the middle of the week at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Because that report was expected to announce the loss of millions of jobs, the questionable circumstances regarding the release of those statistics led myself and Representative Clay to seek an investigation by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, as to why the Census Bureau made its decision. We should not be playing politics with science, which is why I believe this legislation is so important.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I have commemorated this day each year since I became a Member of Congress. PSEKA (The International Coordinating Committee ``Justice for Cyprus''), The Cyprus Federation of America, SAE (World Council of Hellenes Abroad), and The Federation of Hellenic Societies are all primarily located in the 14th Congressional district of New York, which I am fortunate to represent. These individuals believe that peace will come to Cyprus, and they have been strong advocates against the division of Cyprus and the human rights violations perpetrated by the Turkish army in Cyprus. While we must remember this black anniversary, we also have reason to celebrate. On May 1, Cyprus became a full-fledged member of the European Union along with nine other countries from Central and Eastern Europe. Cyprus's accession to the EU is a historic achievement. As an EU member, Cyprus will represent European values and policies and, at the same time, will work toward even stronger transatlantic ties with the United States. This has been a long time in coming, and I believe that Cyprus will have much to contribute to the EU. Although all of us, including the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, wanted to see the division of Cyprus end before its accession to the EU, the Annan Plan for a Cyprus settlement was justly voted down by the Greek Cypriots. Prior to the April referenda on the Annan Plan, I and several of my colleagues met with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to express our concerns and our willingness to work with him to move the process forward. I know we are all hopeful that a just resolution can be reached soon to end the division so that both sides will reap the benefits from membership in the EU. Now is not the time to give up. Earlier this month, my friend and fellow co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, Congressman Bilirakis, and I sent letters, along with more than ninety members of the House of Representatives, to President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, and U.N. Secretary General Annan urging them to respect the democratic decision of the people, to remain engaged in efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem, and to work toward a fair and lasting reunification of Cyprus. A unified Cyprus would promote stability, both politically and economically, to the entire Mediterranean region. The people of Cyprus deserve a unified and democratic country. I remain hopeful that a peaceful settlement will be found so that the division of Cyprus will come to an end. Thirty years is too long to have a country divided. It is too long to be kept from your home. It is too long to be separated from family. We have seen many tremendous changes around the world. It is time for the Cypriots to live in peace and security, with full enjoyment of their human rights. In recognition of the spirit of the people of Cyprus, I ask my colleagues to join me in solemnly commemorating the 30th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. Long Live Freedom. Long Live Cyprus. Long Live Greece.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, before the ink was even dry on the 9/11 report, before we even had a chance to read it, some were saying we should delay any action on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I have one simple question: What are we waiting for? Did we miss the point of 9/11? Remember, we cannot spell 9/11 without 9-1-1 and 9-1-1 means urgent, emergency, act now, life or death. It does not mean let us table this discussion until after the election. The bipartisan commission has called for the creation of a national terrorist center with a new Cabinet-level intelligence chief. They call for the creation of a Joint House and Senate Committee on Intelligence with budget power. I say, great, let us do it, let us act now. What are we waiting for? What part of 9/11 does the leadership of this House not understand?

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill; and if enacted, this would establish a tremendously dangerous precedent by denying the Federal judiciary the ability to review actions of the legislative and executive branches. It would eliminate the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers of our Nation so wisely established in our Constitution. Such a reckless move would cause lasting and permanent damage to our democracy. Since John Marshall, the Constitution has had superiority over the legislature. The Constitution gave us the right to speech and privacy, and even if we vote for 435 to 0, certain rights are protected in our Constitution. But if this bill were to become law, it would deny jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and all Federal courts over any cases related to the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill goes beyond merely preventing same-sex couples from seeking legal redress in our courts. It would deny judicial review to an entire class of citizens because of passing partisan passions, and it is willing to trample on our Constitution in order to do so. No issue is worth paying such a price. This is a low moment in the history of this House. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. The Republican leadership is trying to use a wedge issue to appeal to right-wing constituencies in a highly charged election year, and they are willing to trample on our Constitution. No issue is ever worth such a price. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress should be a role model for democracies around the world. Instead, with votes that are extended up to three hours to change their outcome to allegations of bribery on the House Floor to the alleged stealing of computer files by a staffer, we are increasingly becoming a model of how not to run a democracy. That is why we am introducing the Restoring Democracy to the United States. This legislation sets forth ten changes that would ensure that the U.S. Congress will continue to be a beacon of democracy. 1. This legislation would limit the time of roll call votes to 17 minutes. 2. It would require conference committees to meet and vote before filing their conference report. 3. It would prohibit germaneness requirements for conference reports from being waived. 4. It would prohibit Members from calling the Capitol Police to have a Member removed from a room. 5. It would prohibit redistricting between censuses. 6. It would prohibit a vote on legislation unless it has been available in a searchable form online for more than 24 hours. 7. It would prohibit bribery on the House Floor. 8. It would prohibit the hacking into Member's computer files. 9. It would prohibit Committees from spending more than $25,000 a year on franked mail. 10. It would guarantee the Minority a minimum of one-third of the overall committee budget. These ten measure would go a long way to ensure that democracy is upheld in the United States Congress. Unless we enact these safeguards, Members working together in a bipartisan manner will continue to see their work thwarted despite having a majority of Members in favor of their proposals. How many more abuses must there be before we say enough is enough? I urge all Member to support the Restoring Democracy to the U.S. Congress Act of 2004.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to return to private airline screeners, now is the time to continue to focus on passenger safety. This November, airports will be given the option to apply to opt-out of having Transportation Security Administration TSA screeners in favor of hiring private screeners. If this is allowed to happen, it will be a step backwards in airline security. TSA has only been in existence for a few years and has certainly suffered through some growing pains. Because of this, we should be focused on ensuring the success of TSA rather than adding the new challenge of privatization that could jeopardize their future and potentially endanger the security of airline passengers. That is why I am introducing the Passenger Safety Act which will repeal the opt-out language in the law that created the TSA. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative to protect passenger safety.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, no one talks a better game than the Department of Homeland Security. But beyond the bluster, there is reason to feel deeply insecure about this administration's efforts to protect America. Although we hear a great deal about the war on terror, no competent general in any war would leave his home defenses with so many holes. Every line of critical homeland defense is underfunded and unprepared for an attack on American soil, and we are going in the wrong direction. Unbelievably, the administration essentially froze homeland security spending in 2003. The President's budget cut port security grant funding by 63 percent, cut first responder funding within the Department of Homeland Security by 15 percent, and provided no dedicated funding whatsoever for rail security or protecting chemical plants and nuclear power plants. My question is, when is this administration going to get serious about funding homeland security.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the amendments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and me. And in opposition to this bill, I am joined with comments from Arthur Levitt, John Bogle, Warren Buffet, Allen Greenspan, John Snow, SEC Chairman Donaldson, and many others. Their comments I will include for the Record. Some of my colleagues today have said that it is necessary for companies to not show the cost of stock options to investors in order to encourage innovation. So my question is why is it necessary for companies to hide an expense to innovate? Why in the world is this good public policy? On the contrary, this accounting loophole encourages companies like Enron and WorldCom to artificially inflate the value of their stock, deceive investors, and evade corporate income taxes. Many large companies have employee stock options and expense them, including Home Depot, Microsoft, Netflix. We should continue and have one standard. In understanding stock options and their use, there is probably no greater authority than the indicted Enron president and CEO, Jeffrey Skilling. This is what Jeffrey Skilling has to say about stock options when he testified before the Senate: ``Because stock options are not required to be disclosed as an expense on public filings, corporations use them to hide expenses and inflate the balance sheet. You issue stock options to reduce compensation expense and therefore increase your profitability.'' He ought to know, and he is going to jail. Hidden stock options encourage accounting fraud. End of story. I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment preserves the full power of the SEC to determine what companies report and how they report it. This power was given to the SEC in 1934 after the accounting scandals in the 1920s and 1930s. My amendment preserves the current authority to protect investors and the public interest. Under present law, and I quote from the law, if ``the SEC determines that the public interest or the protection of investors so requires,'' it can set an accounting standard even if it has to override another law to do so, but only to protect the public interest. This underlying bill takes away the SEC's power to protect investors. It would prevent the SEC from adopting any accounting standard, except the one set in the underlying bill. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be very careful with their vote on this amendment. If you vote against this amendment, you will be walking away from accounting standards that are set on the principle of protecting the 84 million investors in our country and moving to a different standard, one that does not focus on protecting investors but gives a competitive advantage to a small number of companies. This amendment protects investors. This amendment saves independent accounting standard setting, and this amendment prevents this body from making what Alan Greenspan called, ``a bad mistake.'' And it is expressly supported by Arthur Levitt, Warren Buffett, John Bogle, the founder of the first mutual fund, and many other financial experts. So I hope that this body will listen to the overwhelming views of financial experts and professionals and protect investors by supporting my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has decided to allow my amendment to protect investors by making companies show their true earnings in their public filings, and I am pleased that they have placed this in order. This amendment keeps whole the authority of the SEC to regulate the contents of public filings by companies issuing stock. The SEC has had that authority since its inception, and for good reason, to protect investors, to protect stockholders, and to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. This bill would remove the SEC's existing power to regulate whether stock options are shown as an expense. Simply put, a stock option is either an expense, or it is not an expense. My amendment preserves present law and the policy that Congress has followed since 1934, of letting an independent agency make the rules about what information companies must tell their investors and their filings. It preserves transparency to the investing public. Accounting standards, like interest rates, should not be set by Congress, although we do have oversight. A host of the biggest names in financial policy have spoken out against this bill and in support of my amendment and in favor of preserving independent standard-setting for corporate accounting: Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, William Donaldson, Warren Buffett, John Bogle; and the list goes on and on. Many editorials across this country have come out against the bill that is before us today. I will include the statements of these individuals and the editorials in the Record. Expensing is the overwhelming view of financial experts, even before Enron. A 2001 survey of over 18,000 analysts and portfolio managers showed that 83 percent agreed that stock options must be expensed. None of these authorities stand to make a dime off expensing. They are standing up for the right thing to do for investors and shareholders in our country. On the other hand, we have the corporate views of Cisco, Intel, and others who will lose, at least on paper, a cool billion-plus each if they have to show their options as expenses. Now, whose interests do they have at heart? Is it the investors? I do not think so. It is a tragedy that these few corporations have set up a false war between investors and employees. Nothing in the FASB standard prevents expensing. Over 600 companies in America voluntarily expense. These companies tell the truth about the expense of stock options, but still give them to employees. Other companies can do the same. Is showing the true cost of stock options so damaging to these companies that no one should know how much they are spending for them? I have received several letters from employees. They say that they need these options because they do not have pension plans or health care plans; and I ask my colleagues, is this what we want to encourage? Employees deserve pensions and health care. Hidden stock options should not be used as a substitute. Expensing stock options is the right thing to do for both investors and employees; and as Arthur Levitt said, finally and plainly put, this bill hurts investors and the financial markets of America. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill and a ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her leadership on so many issues. What in the world are we worried about? If we have nothing to hide, then we should not have any concern whatsoever. Yet, today's New York Times in their article on the front page cites ``election troubles already descending on Florida.'' I truly expect that our elections will be well maintained and done in an honest and fair way, but no American should be ashamed or scared to have our democratic system observed and monitored by an international agency if voters are truly not being disenfranchised in the United States. We have all served as monitors elsewhere. Why not have the same standard in our own country? [From the New York Times, July 15, 2004] Election Troubles Already Descending on Florida (By Abby Goodnough) Miami, July 14.--Three years after Gov. Jeb Bush announced a new voting system that he called ``a model for the rest of the nation,'' Florida is grappling with some of the same problems that threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos, as well as new ones that critics say could cause even more confusion this November. The touch-screen voting machines intended to cure many of the ills of 2000 have raised a host of other concerns here just four months before the election. A new state rule excludes the machines from manual recounts, and the integrity of the machines was questioned after a problem was discovered in the audit process of some of them. Voting rights groups filed a lawsuit last week challenging the recount ban, and a Democratic congressman has also sued to request a printed record of every touch-screen vote. The controversy over the new equipment is just one of Florida's challenges, which also include confirming which voters are ineligible, training poll workers on new policies and processing a flood of new registrations. State officials announced on Saturday that they would throw out a controversial list used to remove felons from the voting rolls, acknowledging that Hispanic felons were absent from the list. Secretary of State Glenda E. Hood, appointed by Governor Bush last year, had earlier dismissed concerns from lawmakers and advocacy groups about the list of 48,000 suspected felons, which the state made public only after a judge's order. The United States Civil Rights Commission, which issued a scathing report on the last election here in 2001, will examine problems with the list of felons in a hearing Thursday in Washington. ``The most important thing is to really show the voters that there are reasons to have confidence in these systems,'' said Bobbie Brinegar, president of the League of Women Voters of Miami-Dade County. ``But the mantra has been `trust us.' And that is not good enough.'' Jacob DiPietro, a spokesman for Governor Bush, said the governor was ``taking full responsibility'' for the problem with the list, adding: ``His No. 1 priority is to have a seamless election and an election where people have confidence that their vote will be counted.'' The state, whose 36-day recount after the 2000 election stunned and divided the nation, is expected to be a major battleground again this year, with President Bush (the governor's brother) and Senator John Kerry, his probable Democratic opponent, fighting fiercely for its 27 electoral votes. Mr. Bush won Florida by 537 votes last time, but thousands of votes were discarded because of voter error on poorly designed ballots and other problems. The Republican-led Legislature quickly passed an overhaul of the voting system in 2001, banning the punch-card ballots that caused so much trouble in 2000, giving counties money for new voting equipment and setting recount guidelines. It adopted two-thirds of the recommendations from a bipartisan task force that Governor Bush appointed after the 2000 election, but stayed away from some of the more contentious issues. Most notably, lawmakers passed over recommendations to make the positions of county elections supervisors nonpartisan and to review the state's policy of permanently stripping felons of voting rights. The package that the Legislature adopted has played a role in the new turmoil. Tucked into the law was a provision keeping registration records secret. A state judge struck it down on July 2, opening the way for a close examination of the list of suspected felons to purge from the rolls. Newspapers then reported that the list had a simple but glaring flaw: it guaranteed that no Hispanics, who tend to vote Republican here, would be purged, while thousands of blacks, who tend to vote Democratic, might be purged. Governor Bush moved quickly to drop it, but he was too late to avoid accusations from Democratic lawmakers and groups. The critics have denounced the effort to keep the list secret, the touch-screen problems and other troubles as purposeful efforts by Florida's Republican leadership to give President Bush an advantage here. Unlike her predecessor Katherine Harris, who was co- chairwoman of President Bush's 2000 campaign in Florida even as she oversaw elections, Ms. Hood has publicly stayed away from politics. But critics say that Ms. Hood, a Republican and former Orlando mayor whom Governor Bush appointed, has sown doubt by dismissing criticism of the electoral system and by not answering questions sufficiently. The abrupt resignation of Ed Kast, the state's director of elections, last month--he said he wanted to pursue other interests--only deepened public distrust, said Sandy Wayland, a member of the Miami- Dade Elections Reform Coalition. While previous secretaries of state were elected, Ms. Hood was the first appointed by the governor, the result of a 2003 change in the State Constitution. She reports to Governor Bush, who is therefore more directly responsible for her office's successes and failures. ``She is dealing with some really sophisticated, aggressive partisans,'' said Lance deHaven-Smith, a political science professor at Florida State University, speaking of the Jeb Bush administration. ``She has been a good soldier, getting up and saying, `Everything is fine, not to worry.' And come to find out, some of the problems that people feared were actually there.'' The coalition asked Ms. Hood's office last month to allow an independent review of the touch-screen machines now used by 15 of 67 counties, including Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. The office said that only counties were authorized to seek such audits, and told reporters that the request was an effort to undermine voter confidence. Through a public-records request, the coalition obtained e- mail messages and other documents from Miami-Date election officials who referred to a flaw in the touch-screen equipment's ability to audit elections results, a backup way of recording votes. The e-mail messages date back as far as June 2003. Constance Kaplan, the Miami-Dade County elections supervisor, publicly acknowledged the problem this spring. This month, the company that makes the machines, Elections Systems and Software, provided software to correct the flaw, which the county and state say will not affect the machines' accuracy. ``It is important to note that the anomaly was rare, and all votes were counted as the anomaly did not affect the vote itself but rather the audit after,'' Ms. Hood's office wrote in a statement Tuesday. Nicole de Lara, Ms. Hood's communications director, said that Ms. Kaplan's office had ``unfortunately'' not alerted Ms. Hood to the problem, and that she first learned of it from an article in The Daily Business Review in late May. Some critics suspect that Mr. Kast's resignation was related to the malfunction, but Mr. Kast said in an interview it was not. Ms. Wayland is among many here who contend that counties like Miami-Dade and Broward adopted touch-screen technology too soon, swayed by aggressive lobbyists. The 52 counties that do not use touch-screen equipment use optional-scan machines, which produce records that can be manually recounted. A recent analysis by The Sun-Sentinel found that touch- screen machines in South Florida failed to record votes eight times more often than optical-scan machines in the March presidential primary. Nonetheless, Ms. de Lara said touch-screen machines were wholly reliable for tabulating votes. She added that they would never require a recount because under State law the only reason for a manual recount is ``voter intent'' when a voter makes too many or too few choices. Touch-screen machines do not allow people to vote for more than one candidate, she said. And if people do not choose any candidate for a given office, that is their prerogative, she said. The rule says no manual recounts will be conducted when votes are cast by touch-screen machine. The election reform coalition and other groups have also expressed concerns about a new policy on provisional ballots, used by Floridians if poll workers cannot verify their registration on the spot. The Legislature decided that provisional ballots cast outside a voter's home precinct can be thrown out, which voting-rights groups call unfair. Florida is one of several States where people are questioning touch-screen technology. California's Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, has prohibited the use of machines from Diebold Election Systems in four counties for the November election, and has ordered that touch-screen systems bought after July 1, 2005, produce a paper record that is verifiable by the voter. ``There's no question in my mind that ultimately there will be paper trails in every county in Florida,'' said Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat whose suits challenging paperless voting systems are on appeal. ``The only question is when.''

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today we consider appropriating $25 million that would reassure the world about the U.S. commitment to saving women's lives. The Bush administration has systematically undermined that commitment in its continued assault on UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund. Our allies watch in horror as the world's enormous need for family planning goes unmet; and meanwhile our government allies itself with Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan in opposing voluntary international family planning programs. Today, we can help to right that wrong by approving a measure that would direct $25 million to UNFPA programs to prevent and treat obstetric fistula, a devastating condition that afflicts 2 million women worldwide. No other agency works in this vital area. Let us send a message to the Bush administration that this Congress listens to the American people even if it does not. The world is waiting for us to act. UNFPA saves women's and children's lives.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership on so many issues. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not accept an extremely important amendment that I had hoped to offer today. I went to the committee because the issue of funding the United Nations Population Fund is essential to the health and well-being of millions of women around the world. Women are dying, and the U.S. has turned its back on them. I offered an amendment that would have ensured that the money in this bill will go to UNFPA and go to help young women and girls who are suffering from obstetric fistula, a terrible condition that occurs during prolonged labor and leaves the women leaking urine for life. Unfortunately, on a party line vote, the Committee on Rules voted not to protect my amendment. I assure my colleagues that I have made every effort to compromise on this issue and to break this logjam. In April of this year, I wrote a letter to the President, signed by many of my colleagues, asking him to put aside our differences and reach a compromise that would help millions of women and girls around the world by funding UNFPA's work on obstetric fistula. Sadly, I received a response ignoring the facts. Mr. Speaker, women are dying around the world, and this body can do something about it. It is time that we did.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2004, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes number 359, 360, 361, and 362. Rollcall vote 359 was on the Holt amendment to H.R. 4755, the FY05 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act; rollcall vote 360 was on the Hefley amendment to H.R. 4755; rollcall vote 361 was on the motion to recommit to H.R. 4755; and rollcall vote 362 was on final passage of H.R. 4755. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 359, 361, and 362, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 360.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this rule. Unlike most appropriations bills that this House debates, this bill will be considered by a structured rule that had blocked me from offering two amendments. Two amendments that, according to the parliamentarian, were germane and not subject to a point of order. In other words, if this appropriations bill was any other appropriations bill, I would of had the opportunity to offer my amendments. My first amendment would have prohibited the use of funds on any vote that last longer than 17 minutes. It is not bad enough that they will hold the vote open long enough to have it their way. What is worst is that they would not even let us debate the amendment in the first place. What are they so afraid of? The second Amendment would have required conference committees to meet before the House can vote on a conference report. Since they did not allow me to offer my amendment, I plan to introduce a bill to restore democracy to the House of Representative. Some of the key sections of the bill deal with what my amendments would have also addressed. In all, this legislation will offer ten specific changes to the way this House has been operating under the Republican Majority. Like my amendments, these changes will help restore democracy to the United States Congress.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, while I am a strong supporter of the Ex- Im Bank, I am voting for this amendment to prevent companies that dodge U.S. taxes from receiving U.S. taxpayer assistance. It is simple: we should not be providing taxpayer-funded assistance to corporations that set up shell headquarters offshore for the purpose of avoiding paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. The Export-Import Bank should be screening companies it funds to prevent this type of abuse. And if it does not, we should. I have consistently been a vigorous backer of the Export-Import Bank's mission to provide funding for exports produced in the United States. The bank's loans have supported American companies and provided jobs in this country, in my district of New York, and in many others. But giving loans to corporations, to expatriates, is an abuse of a good program. Not only are companies that evade U.S. taxes getting taxpayers' money, but they are taking away dollars that should be spent helping companies that pay their fair share of American taxes. And, of course, if we allow this, we are encouraging other companies to move their so- called headquarters to Bermuda to avoid taxes and abandon the American worker. This is exactly what Senator Kerry meant when he said that we must stop providing tax subsidies to Benedict Arnold CEOs. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the Ex-Im Bank from approving subsidized loans or loan guarantees for any company that sets up a sham headquarters offshores to dodge U.S. taxes. Five of the top recipients of Ex-Im funding are corporations that have set up sham headquarters in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite one example, Ingersoll-Rand. They saved $60 million in 2002 by formally incorporating in Bermuda, but they have received over $370 million since 2003 in Ex-Im financial assistance. This is wrong. It is a gross abuse of a good program. In the name of American workers and taxpayers, we should put a stop to it. I urge my colleagues to vote for American jobs, for American companies that are responsible, for American companies that pay their fair share, not those that dodge our country and their responsibilities to it. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I do claim the time on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today S. 15, the Project Bioshield Act. This bill is substantially the same as H.R. 2122, which passed this House on July 16 of last year by a vote of 421 to 2. This bill is, in essence, the conference report on the bill and includes some minor improvements made by the Senate. I urge Members to support this measure as well. Given the serious threat of bioterrorism, the development of effective countermeasures to biological agents is vital to our national security. The goal of Project Bioshield is to encourage the development of these projects. I fully support the intent of this legislation. I also agree with its premise, that when the market cannot foster the development of critical products by itself, the government must rise to the challenge. The bill before us today includes several significant improvements from earlier proposals. For example, it includes important protections against waste and abuse that are standard for government contracts, such as preserving the government's right to review contractors' books and records. The bill also permits the use of certain streamlined procurement procedures, but only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that there is a pressing need to do so. The Senate bill appropriately strengthens some of these provisions and also allows for recovery by the government in the event of grossly negligent or reckless conduct on the part of a contractor. In emergency situations, we should not impede the development of necessary products. However, any exceptions from standard procurement procedures should be made only when necessary and should be subject to review. This proposal preserves that important standard. The provisions of Bioshield authorizing the emergency distribution of unapproved drugs and devices, whose risks and benefits are not fully tested, impose an unprecedented responsibility on the government. FDA must be vigilant in protecting the public against unnecessary risks from these products. In part because of these concerns, the bill requires that health care providers and patients be informed that the products have not been approved and be informed of their risks. The bill also requires that manufacturers monitor and report adverse reactions to the products and keep other appropriate records about the use of the products. These conditions are essential for the safe use of unapproved products, and they should be imposed in all cases except in truly extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the HHS secretary is authorized to limit the distribution of the products, to limit who may administer the products, to waive good manufacturing practice requirements only when absolutely necessary, and to require recordkeeping by others in the chain of distribution. We expect the Secretary to consider the needs for these additional conditions in each case and to impose them to the full extent necessary to protect the public from the risk of these products. The bill before us today is an improvement over the original proposal and represents a bipartisan consensus of the House and the Senate and the White House. It deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) as the ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I am sure that the majority of this body agrees, like the expert panel and the FDA staff, that American women deserve the most safe and effective contraceptives available. Supporting this amendment is a vote in support of healthy women and evidence-based science. A perfect example of inserting politics into science is the recent decision by the FDA to deny over-the-counter status to Plan B or the morning after pill. On December 16, 2003, a joint panel of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee voted 28 to 0 that Plan B could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication. It then voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA approve the application to make Plan B available over the counter. Yet on May 6, 2004, the FDA rejected over-the-counter status for Plan B. The Washington Post, dated June 18, 2004, reported that a top agency scientist dismissed the reasoning that was used to justify the rejection as unfounded. Officials at FDA wrote that Acting Center Director Stephen Galson was introducing a different standard for evaluating Plan B than the FDA had applied to other contraceptives. Politics and ideology have been allowed to influence science, endangering the reputation of the FDA and having a direct and irreversible effect on the health and well-being of thousands of women. The Maloney-Waxman amendment ensures that the FDA will not deprive American women of safe and effective contraceptives on ideological grounds. Accepting the Maloney-Waxman amendment is a vote in favor of safe and effective contraceptives for American women, a vote in favor of scientific, evidence-based science. A vote in favor of this amendment requires the FDA to spend money on doing their job and making decisions based on science, not politics, and I am very grateful that the majority is considering accepting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would simply require the FDA to do the job that they are supposed to be doing. If the FDA finds the drug to be safe and effective for over-the-counter use, then the FDA cannot withhold the drug from over-the-counter status for nonstatutory reasons. Americans rely on the Food and Drug Administration to make scientific, evidence-based decisions that are in the best interests of the American public and that will help improve our health. The majority of the time this is exactly what happens. Unfortunately, a recent FDA decision on whether to grant over-the-counter status for Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill, went against the advice of the independent, expert advisory committee and the advice of FDA staff. The decision was not science-based and was not made in the best interests of American women. Instead, it was a decision influenced by inappropriate political and ideological considerations. The Maloney-Waxman amendment would basically say that the FDA would have to rely on science in making these decisions, and in this amendment we are with the world community. Thirty-three nations have approved the sale of emergency contraceptives for over-the-counter use, and five States in the United States have also approved it. The American Medical Association, the American College of Gynecologists and over 70 medical and public health groups have endorsed making emergency contraceptives available for over-the-counter because they believe that they are proven to be safe to use without any medical supervision. I would place in the Record 10 editorials from newspapers across the country stating that science should be the basis for making medical decisions at the FDA, not politics. [From washingtonpost.com, May 11, 2004] New Plans At first glance, the news that the Food and Drug Administration had decided to reject over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B seemed dramatic. As we pointed out earlier this year, the science around this drug is not controversial. In several international studies, the drug has been shown to be safe and effective if taken within 72 hours of intercourse--hence the request of its manufacturer, Barr Laboratories, to make it available over the counter. The FDA's own scientific advisory panel unanimously approved the request, and such a move would be popular. Most of the time, Plan B acts like a birth control pill, preventing ovulation and therefore conception: The greater use of Plan B therefore means fewer abortions. But because Plan B may also prevent fertilized eggs from being implanted in a uterus, it has attracted negative political attention. Some of the drug's political opponents, those who equate a fertilized egg with a fetus, have called it an ``abortion pill'' and have lobbied the FDA hard to restrict it. Both state and national legislators have spoken out against the drug, partly on those grounds and partly out of concern for its impact on underage sex, leading many to fear that the FDA would make a political rather than a scientific decision. In fact, though the FDA has banned the drug from over-the- counter use, it left open a window for future approval. ``We weren't closing the door,'' said Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Indeed, if the FDA ruling is taken at face value, the only thing required of Barr is that it either conduct more studies of the drug's impact on younger women or come up with a plan to ensure that the drug is available only by prescription to girls younger than 16: According to Dr. Galson, the FDA was bothered by the paucity of data describing the impact of the drug on girls ages 14 to 16 and the absence of data on girls younger than that, some of whom might presumably try to buy the drug. The company says it is ``months, rather than years'' away from providing precisely such information. The FDA is within its rights to remain cautious about a controversial drug. But if the agency wants to preserve its reputation for making decisions based on sound science, it will stick to this proposal and grant Barr the license to sell the drug as soon as the information or a suitable plan becomes available. At this point, the FDA should be given the benefit of the doubt--but not indefinitely.