Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against this amendment which will prohibit the FDA from testing, developing, or approving any drug that could cause an abortion. I often come to the House floor to note that this would be the 147th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. But this vote is about so much more than abortion. It is truly a chilling attack on biomedical research. We are legislators, we are not scientists. Political mandates have no place in interfering with the FDA's sound and rigorous scientific drug approval process. Approval of this amendment would be the beginning of a slippery slope where some Members of Congress hold the health of all Americans hostage. Allowing Congress to dictate which drugs the FDA can and cannot test could halt the process of testing drugs that have nothing to do with abortion. The target of this amendment, mifepristone or RU-486, has potential uses for the treatment of breast cancer, endometriosis, and even glaucoma. In fact, this kind of drug--an antiprogestin--was originally being developed for its cancer treatment potential. I tell you, if RU-486 was only a cancer treatment, this researcher would have won a Nobel prize, and I bet the drug would already have been approved. Instead, because of its pregnancy disruption use, the drug has been held hostage by the right wing. If this amendment passes, it would prevent further testing of drugs such as mifepristone that have the potential to treat millions of Americans for other medical conditions. Delaying this drug is not an option. Think of what this will do to women with fibroid tumors. Think of what this will do to seniors with glaucoma. Think of what this will do to people with brain tumors. And even worse, there is a very dangerous precedent being set today. Even those who disagree about whether RU-486 should or should not be approved, should be highly concerned by the precedent being set by this outrageous amendment. Congress established the Food and Drug Administration to be an independent agency to test and approve drugs and devices. We should allow them to do their work without interference from the Congress. Science, not abortion politics, should dictate the type of drugs the FDA tests. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Crowley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I deeply support the Crowley amendment, and I am glad to see that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also believe that we need to overturn the current FDA prohibition on U.S. citizens traveling to other countries to purchase prescription drugs manufactured in our country solely for individual use. This important amendment is to decriminalize seniors who travel to Canada and Mexico for cheaper prescription drugs. I might also add that I strongly support the bill put forward by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) which would make seniors the same preferred customers as HMOs and also the President's plan to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. These are all important measures, but this is an important amendment that addresses the issue of price discrimination being practiced by the drug manufacturers today. In my home State of New York, breast cancer medications can cost over $100 per prescription while they are available in Canada and Mexico to their residents for a tenth of that price. Many women in our home State and, indeed, across the country are forced to dilute their prescriptions that fight breast cancer, to cut their pills in half because they cannot afford their prescription drugs in order to get by financially. And many in my home State get on the bus every weekend to go to Canada to purchase American manufactured drugs because it is cheaper than in their own country. Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong. No doctor recommends it. No person deserves this type of treatment. They should be charged, at the very least, the same that the foreign governments are charging their citizens. Recently, I conducted a study on price discrimination on consumers in the district that I represent which is Manhattan, East and West side, and Astoria, Queens, and compared the prices that were paid by consumers in other Nations, Mexico and Canada. I must add I was assisted in this by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the staff of the Committee on Government Reform, and what we found was absolutely shocking. We asked them to look at a total of eight drugs and compared the average costs in my district with the average costs paid by consumers in Mexico and Canada, and the drugs included in the study were some of the most widely prescribed drugs today. To take one example, the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is sold under the brand name of Nolvadex, and it is the most frequently prescribed breast cancer drug in this Nation. It is used by thousands of women across my State, across this Nation, across the country to treat early and advanced breast cancer. In fact, in 1998, the total sales of Tamoxifen were over $520 million. Yet women in this country who need Tamoxifen must pay 10 times what seniors in Canada pay. Our studies showed that a 1-month supply of Tamoxifen costs only $9 in Canada, yet it costs over $109 in my district. This means that over the course of a year, women in my district will pay roughly 1,200 more than a woman in Canada. That is a price differential of over 10,000 percent. This is a very important lifesaving drug that thousands of women need to survive. It is simply outrageous that drug companies are taking advantage of men and women suffering from this horrible disease. But Tamoxifen is not the only drug that costs more in New York than in Canada and probably every other State in our country. In fact, all eight of the drugs which we studied costs at least 40 percent more in my district than they do abroad. The average price differential with Canada was 112 percent; with Mexico, it was 108 percent. Prilosec, which is the top selling drug in the Nation, it is used for heartburn and ulcers, in the last 10 years, according to the manufacturer, more than 120 million prescriptions have been written for this drug, yet seniors and other consumers in my district they have to pay over $800 more each year for Prilosec than the consumers in Canada. Over $1,000 dollars more than seniors in Mexico. Zocor, which is one of the most common cholesterol-reducing drugs in this country with over 15 million prescriptions in 1998, costs almost three times as much in my district as it does in Canada, and that is a difference of over $70 per month. I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Crowley amendment, it is long overdue, and also the Allen amendment, the President's plan and others to bring drug fairness into this country.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). No HMO has ever required a doctor to perform an abortion. They have never required a doctor to perform an abortion. This amendment is totally unnecessary. Come on, we all know what this is about. The Campbell-Conyers amendment, the underlying bill, is not about abortion. The Coburn amendment is irrelevant, deceptive, and transparent. Its goal has nothing to do with abortion. Its goal is to try to undermine a very thoughtful and important bill. I urge a no vote on the Coburn amendment and a yes vote for Campbell-Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Campbell- Conyers Quality Health Care Coalition Act, and congratulate both of them on their really thoughtful and creative legislation. Mr. Chairman, what this bill is really about is who do we want in charge of our health care decisions, an HMO accountant bean counter, or our doctor who knows our health needs? This bill will level the playing field between enormous health care plans and physicians and patients, allowing physicians to come together to negotiate with health care plans over contract provisions. Patients' interests should be at the bargaining table, and this bill allows it. Many doctors in my district tell me that insurers are imposing greatly unfair contract terms on them. They say they have no choice but to sign the contracts unless they want to risk losing many of their patients. The choice is very clear. The patients want it, the doctors want it. The only opposition is the HMO accountants. I urge a yes vote.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I really feel that there is not a point of order to this because it really is an incredibly important crisis in our country, and I would like to have the opportunity to compliment the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership and for bringing this to the floor. The increase for the animal and plant and health inspection service is absolutely critical. With trade has come an influx of many invasive species that if we do not adequately control them can literally destroy forests, as they have in my district in New York with the Asian Longhorn beetle, for which there is no known way to stop it except to chop down the tree and everything else around the vicinity. I feel that this is an incredibly important appropriations she is talking about, and I really support it completely, and that it is important to the health and safety and well-being of Americans and of our vegetable life and our plant life and our other areas that she mentioned. So I am here strongly in support of her amendment and strongly suggest that the rule of order not be put in place because this is so critical, really, to the concerns of this Nation.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in support of the rule. I regret that the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) was not placed in order. He should have the right to bring his amendment to the floor and have it fully debated. I am very much opposed to the Coburn amendment. The Coburn amendment is a transparent and deceptive attempt to politicize the debate on the underlying bill. The Coburn amendment is not just an anti-choice amendment, which I believe would be defeated in this House, would be definitely defeated in the Senate, and vetoed by the President, it is unconstitutional according to the court decision yesterday. But its real role in this debate is to bring down the rule so that this body does not have a chance to debate and vote for and hopefully pass the very thoughtful Quality Health Care Coalition Act of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). The bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) deserves to be debated on this floor; therefore, I support this resolution. The bill is a very creative attempt to empower doctors to make medical decisions for their patients. This bill has been before this Congress for 3 years. It has over 220 cosponsors. There have been hearings on it, markups. The committee voted favorably by a vote of 26 to 2. Time and time again, this leadership has brought bills before this body on which there have been no hearings, no committee, and no amendments allowed. This time, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and this body have played by the rules, and we deserve a vote on his bill before this House. My colleagues do not have to support the bill. If they do not like the bill, then do not vote for it. But to be fair to our colleague, let us pass this rule and allow a vote on his bill. If we do not vote for this bill, this rule, it will not get to the floor for a vote. Patients, doctors, and the health care system are depending on it. Let us bring the Campbell bill to the floor and fully debate it fairly.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Republican prescription drug plan. I want to make very clear that the 2 plans are strikingly different. As co-chair of the Women's Caucus I want to stress the importance prescription drug coverage to older women throughout the country. The average income for a woman over the age of 65 is just $14,820. Thus the Republican Leadership's prescription drug plan, which has proposed only a 50 percent decrease in drug costs, is still unaffordable to most older women. Additionally, the suggested prescription plan's catastrophic coverage is not initiated until the beneficiary's drug costs have reached $6,000. This obviously does not provide seniors with the safety net they deserve given their limited incomes. Furthermore, prescription drugs are now the largest out-of-pocket health care expense for America's seniors. On average, America's seniors fill 18 prescriptions each year, and nationally, spending on prescription medications increases 15 percent annually. But even more disturbing is the growing evidence that many of America's major drug companies are engaging in a deliberate pattern of price discrimination. Many seniors, without drug coverage, are being forced to pay prices that are significantly higher than those charged to other customers, such as large HMOs. I was so concerned about this problem that I had the staff of one of the committees I serve on work with my staff to study the problem of drug pricing in my own district. And what they found shocked me. First, they discovered that seniors in Manhattan without prescription drug coverage--and that is about three-quarters of today's seniors--pay two and a half times as much for certain prescription drugs as other consumers, such as members of large HMOs. The study looked at the five best-selling prescription drugs and found that, in each case, seniors in my district pay more than twice what other consumers pay. In one instance--the cholesterol medication Zocor--seniors in my district pay four times what consumers in HMOs pay. In addition, they took a look at the prices American seniors pay and compared them to the prices that seniors in Mexico and Canada pay. In some cases, they pay seven times what consumers in other countries pay. The conclusions of both studies were clear: drug companies are gouging America's seniors only to increase their own profits. No senior should ever have to choose between buying needed prescription drugs and putting food on the table, or heating their homes, or having a decent retirement. But with what drug companies are charging these days, those are the choices many seniors face without prescription drug coverage. Prescription drugs prolong the lives of thousands of women and men each year. Enough is enough. Congress needs to produce a prescription drug plan that actually help seniors. America's seniors deserve better than this.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, please submit the following article into the Record. East 79th Street Neighborhood Association Goes to Washington! (By Deborah de Bauernfeind) On Tuesday, October 19, 1999, 11 members of the Association embarked on a two-day trip to Washington, DC. The Association works closely with elected officials on quality-of-life issues, transportation matters, building preservation, and zoning regulations. We were particularly interested in getting a first-hand feel for how Congress works. To accomplish this, our Congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney, met with our group in a Rayburn House Office Building Hearing Room for a 30-minute discussion of our issues. Assisted by a note- taking staff member, Congresswoman Maloney fielded our questions and concerns regarding the Second Avenue Subway; the inadequacies of our bus service; our zoning battle to keep East 76th Street and other midblocks under R8B, requiring low density and low height; the rising cost of health insurance; and the necessity of maintaining rent control and rent stabilization laws. Following a productive discussion, we were privileged to sit in the Visitor's Gallery of the House of Representatives where we heard the Congresswoman from Hawaii discuss the gender equity bill, sponsored by Congresswoman Maloney. We also sat in the Visitor's Gallery of the United States Senate Chamber. We heard a portion of the debate on the bill outlawing ``partial birth'' abortions, which was passed the next day. Congresswoman Maloney's office arranged for us to have a tour of the Capitol Building that afternoon. What a thrill it was to walk through the labyrinth of Minton-tiled corridors, rubbing shoulders with legislators who have the ability to change the course of history. While the legislators deal with our Nation's future, the history of our country abounds in every corner of the Capitol Building. Congress has been housed there since 1800. The current chamber of the House was completed in 1857, and the current Senate chamber was completed in 1859. One can feel the presence of John Adams in the National Statuary Hall. The House used to meet in the space. The acoustical design allowed Adams to sit in one area of the hall and listen to conversations on the opposite end of the room while he acted as though he was dozing. It kept him well informed! The cast-iron dome of the Capitol was completed in 1863. It weighs about nine million pounds. No building in Washington, DC is allowed to be higher than the Statue of Freedom, which tops the dome. The Rotunda is the heart of the Capitol. Prominent Americans have lain in state there, including Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. A frieze depicting over 400 years of American history encircles the Rotunda. In addition, there are eight paintings covering the discovery and colonization of America, as well as illustrations of scenes from the American Revolution. Our day concluded with dinner in the Congressional Dining Room. Arranged by Association President Betty Cooper Wallerstein, we were seated at a table set for 11 and were pampered by the dining room staff. Several members of Congress came to our table to introduce themselves. It was a wonderful way to end our stay. The five-hour bus ride back to New York City provided ample time for us to reflect on everything we saw. It's difficult to determine which sight was the most compelling. The sense of history is everywhere. Being on the steps of the Capitol where Presidential Inaugurations have taken place since 1801 or being in the East Room at the White House and seeing Gilbert Stuart's 1797 portrait of George Washington, which has hung in the White House since 1800--both experiences are moving. And, being told that Civil War troops were quartered in the East Room makes the space seem quite alive. The corridors of the White House are lined with portraits of Presidents and First Ladies. The last portrait one sees when leaving is of John F. Kennedy, our slain President, with his head bowed. Memories abound. On the White House grounds is a magnolia planted by Andrew Jackson. George Washington selected the site for the White House, and it was Thomas Jefferson who began the tradition of opening the White House to the public each morning. It's exciting to be beneficiaries of this practice, but it was the Congressional letter from Congresswoman Maloney that admitted us since White House functions the morning we went restricted visitation. Memorials dot the Washington landscape. We toured six of them in the evening light, which provided a meditative atmosphere. At the Lincoln Memorial one is reminded of his legacy to freedom while reading inscriptions of the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial highlights his beliefs in human liberty. And, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, comprised of four outdoor galleries, includes Roosevelt's words of courage and optimism etched in red South Dakota granite. But, it is at the war memorials where one is vividly reminded of the blood shed by individuals to uphold freedom around the world. Inlaid in silver in a granite wall near the Pool of Remembrance at the Korean War Veterans Memorial are the words ``Freedom Is Not Free''. Life-size sculptures of soldiers surrounding the 60-foot flagstaff at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial contrast the soldiers' youth with the weapons of war which they hold, underscoring their level of sacrifice. And, tension and valor can be felt in the depiction of the men raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. But, their victory was short-lived. Three soon died in combat. Our ``responsibilities as citizens of a democracy'' continued to be reflected upon during our visit to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It was a solemn and emotional experience. One hopes the eternal flame of remembrance will preserve the memory and encourage reflection ``upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust''. The Association went to Washington to get a feel for the workings of government and for a dialogue with Congresswoman Maloney. We came away with a feeling that there are channels for our opinions. We also felt a tingle of pride in being Americans. The struggle for freedom and the preservation of it to this day is so evident in our Nation's Capital. Our trip experiences reminded us that this legacy to freedom is one of the most enduring birthrights Americans possess.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as all of my colleagues know, I am a big fan of the census, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to be congratulated for fully funding the decennial census over the past 3 years. This bill is no exception. However, the competing pressures for funds in this bill have left other programs in the census underfunded, which I hope we can address as well as one item that was not even a part of the President's request, and that is to begin to develop methods for counting Americans overseas. The bill currently funds other nondecennial programs at the current year level, but $48 million less than the President's request. That flat funding is starting to take a toll on the ability of the Census Bureau to carry out its responsibilities. If this funding level persists, it is likely that current programs and new initiatives will have to be reduced. Among those programs are the American Community Survey, as well as improvements in the survey of income and program participation. These also do not include funding for planning to renovate or replace the World War II-era building that houses the Census Bureau, which is in very serious need of repair. I certainly understand the difficulties faced by the chairman in balancing competing pressures. However, I hope that the chairman will work with us to see that some of these shortfalls in the Census budget are restored as this bill goes to conference. Finally, I would like to address briefly a subject that is not covered in this bill, the counting of Americans overseas. One of the failings of the 2000 census is a fundamental inequity in counting Americans overseas. In 1990 and again in the 2000 census, the Census Bureau has used administrative records to count Federal civilian and military employees abroad. That leaves many Americans overseas uncounted. There was not time before the Census to develop the methodologies necessary to count Americans overseas. We must make sure that the same mistake does not happen in 2010. I am proposing that funds be included in the Census Bureau budget to begin the research necessary to count all Americans overseas. It is my understanding that my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census, supports these efforts. Mr. Chairman, the current mark for the Census Bureau in this bill is $51 million less than the President's request. For the third year, the funding for salaries and expenses is funded at the same level, forcing the Census Bureau to finance the mandated cost of living adjustments, promotions, and increased pension contributions through staff attrition and cuts. That flat funding is starting to take a toll on the ability of the Census Bureau to carry out its responsibilities. If this funding level persists, it is likely that current programs and new initiatives will have to cut programs like the measurement of e-commerce and collaborative work with Canada and Mexico to improve our import and export data. These cuts include a reduction of $14 million from the President's request for periodic programs which includes cuts are reductions in the funding for the American Community Survey the survey to replace the census long form and improvements in the Survey of Income and Program Participation to improve our measurement of the well being of children, health insurance coverage, and poverty. These cuts also zero out that funds for developing plans to renovate or replace the World War II era building that houses the Census Bureau. This building is in such bad shape that the employees can't drink the water, and some parts of the building are so infested with pigeons that the health of the employees is endangered. The Census Bureau Director has been moved out of his office three times this year because water was cascading from the ceiling. I understand the difficulties faced by the Chairman. There are a wide variety of programs in this bill and each one has a constituency that argues for more funds to carry out what are useful and valuable functions. However, I hope that the Chairman will work with us to see that some of these shortfalls in the census budget are restored as this bill goes to conference. I have proposed that funds be included in the Census Bureau budget to begin the research necessary to count all Americans overseas, and while those funds are not included in this bill, it is an issue we must revolve. Counting Americans oversees is adding one more Herculean task to the already difficult job of taking the census, but it must be done. We have included some of those living overseas. We can't turn out back of those left out who also wish to be counted.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from the State of North Carolina (Mr. Coble). While I am sympathetic to the interests of the gentleman in the efficiency of the Patent and Trade Office, I must urge my colleagues to oppose it and to join the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers); the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Miller) of the Subcommittee on Census on which I serve as the ranking Democrat in opposing this measure. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) wants funds for the Patent and Trademark Office to increase the speed of processing applications. While that is an admirable goal, it cannot come at the expense of our basic ability to measure economic performance. To accomplish this goal, this amendment would cut funding for the Census Bureau's Periodic Programs account by $40 million, a cut of almost 30 percent. This is not a cut from the 2000 census budget, but rather a cut from the funds used to measure employment and unemployment, child welfare, hospitals and care providers, and the basic inputs to the Consumer Price Index. The Coble amendment will also cut $10 million, a 20 percent cut, from the funds for the Economic Statistics Administration and the Department of Commerce. Most of the ESA funds go to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which calculates the key indicators like Gross Domestic Product and measures of inflation used to track economic performance. These economic indicators are used by the Federal Reserve Board to determine interest rates and by the Treasury to adjust the money supply. Many of my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and others talked about the need to fund the patent office, because we are part of the global economy, but we need our economic indicators to help us be the leaders in this global economy, and if we do not have them, we will soon fall sharply behind. Massive cuts to these two statistical agencies will effect the quality of information in our economy and social welfare for years to come. Such cuts would make it impossible for the Census Bureau and BEA to continue their groundbreaking work in measuring the impact of E- commerce on our economy. These cuts are likely to result in massive layoffs of trained professionals. Earlier the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) mentioned that there was a freeze at the Patent Office in hiring, but if these cuts go through, the professionals that we have literally been training for years would be laid off. Statistical agencies spend most of their money on salaries and in developing personnel. It will take years to replace that work force, even if the funds were replaced next year. The Coble amendment will make deep cuts in two of the three agencies that make up the backbone of the country's ability to track and respond to changing economic conditions. The cuts in these two agencies will have effects that ripple throughout the system. It may well be important to speed up the processing of patent and trademark applications; however, if in the process of doing so, we contribute to diminishing our unprecedented economic expansion, these businesses that are supporting it will have cut off their nose in spite of their face. As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I recognize the importance of our key economic indicators, the chairman and members of the Federal Reserve Board regularly monitor measures such as the Gross Domestic Product, the Producer Price Index, the Consumer Price Index, measures of wage changes and productivity. Many have credited Chairman Greenspan's leadership in monitoring and responding to changes in these measures with the continued growth of our economy. The Coble amendment has crippling cuts to the Census Bureau, and BEA appropriations will seriously degrade the quality of these indicators. These cuts will create effects that will last well into the next decade. I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Miller) in voting no. There may be a need to increase our investment in the processing of patent and trademark applications, but this is not the way to do it. We must not sacrifice our ability to monitor our economy and our society for such short-term gains.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the DeGette amendment. Here we go again, Mr. Chairman. This time it is an amendment to lift a restriction on access to abortion for women in Federal prisons. Today marks the 146th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress when the Republican Party gained the majority in this House. Each of these votes is documented on my Choice Report which can be found on my web site, www.House.gov/Maloney. Access to abortion has been restricted by this Congress bill by bill, vote by vote. The majority is chipping away at a woman's right to choose procedure by procedure. The DeGette amendment seeks to correct one of these attacks on American women. Women in Federal prison do not check all of their rights at the prison door. Six percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they enter prison. Do they not deserve this legal medical care just like they would receive for any other medical condition? The answer is yes. Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their health care. So if this ban passes, it would continue to prevent these women from seeking needed reproductive health care. Most women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women, if pregnant in prison, became pregnant from rape or abuse before they entered prison. Most women prisoners are poor when they enter prison and cannot rely on anyone 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. Current law, tragically, ignores these women, and it also tragically ignores children born to women in prison. These children are taken from their mothers, who cannot raise them in a family environment or a stable environment. What kind of life are we providing for them? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her extraordinary leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. Why are we attacking companies trying to do the right thing? This amendment would defund the settlement reached between Smith & Wesson and HUD to reduce handgun violence. Smith & Wesson agreed to develop safer handguns, install child safety locks, and to sell only to vendors who require background checks. All reasonable, common sense gun safety actions. We have, Mr. Chairman, over 13 young people dying each day due to gun violence. We have children killing children. I guess protecting children is just too much to ask. This amendment prevents Smith & Wesson and other responsible companies from working to make our communities safer. This amendment will do nothing but appease the NRA and some members of the gun industry. I urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in strong support of the Hinchey amendment. I think the bottom line that we have heard from both sides, and there should not be any arguments here, is that we are supposed to take care of our veterans. I have been out to my VA hospital, and let me tell my colleagues, they have cut the budget as far as they can go. Yes, a lot of my veterans do go to Florida. That is where they are part of the time of the year. But they are still using the services in my North Port hospital. This should not be a fight among colleagues. We are supposed to take care of our veterans. That is the bottom line. We have made promises to our veterans. This should not even be a budget fight. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hinchey amendment; and we should certainly, in the future, start allotting more money for our veterans to take care of them. We, the government, made a promise to our veterans: you serve this country and we will take care of you. Well, I am embarrassed to say that the 3\1/2\ years that I have been here, we have not kept that promise to our veterans; and as a nurse, I can tell my colleagues, they know it.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, withdrawal from the WTO would isolate the United States from the international economy. I oppose the resolution. In today's Internet-based, lightning-fast economy, it is critical for the U.S. to have the ability to resolve trade crisis through a binding, rules-based international system. While there is room for improvement, the WTO and its dispute resolution mechanism have served the United States workers, farmers, and businesses well. Throughout the existence of the WTO, the U.S. has succeeded in winning 25 out of the 27 cases that we have initiated in the dispute resolution system. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton-Gore years have been prosperous for our country. One of the best ways to continue this success is by pursuing international markets. The WTO's rule-based approach to settling disputes will limit costly, inefficient trade retaliations, and international strife. But in today's information-based economy, it is critical that the U.S. be able to preserve our place as the world's technology leader by protecting our intellectual property. While I think the WTO has moved trade policy many steps forward, there are reforms that I would like to see. The WTO should increase the transparency of its operations and take into account the impact of its actions on workers and the environment. It should disclose more information, preferably on line. Were the WTO's operations more open to the public, I believe many of it critics' concerns could be resolved. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) which will help firefighters, public school teachers, and police obtain better housing, affordable housing. Every year the majority party underfunds affordable housing. Every year the President and Secretary Cuomo are forced to negotiate for every last family. Unfortunately, it looks like we are headed down the same road again. The VA-HUD bill is cut $6.5 billion below the President's request, and the President would be right to veto this bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), pointed out the record of this administration in balancing the budget deficits that haunted our country throughout the 1980s, deficits created during the Reagan years which he pointed out reached $4 billion. But this administration understands that the way to balance the budget is not to prevent low- and moderate-income people from having access to homes. One critical area that the bill is very bad in is public housing. The bill cuts public housing funds $120 million compared to last year's level. Nationally, the average waiting list for Section 8 housing is more than 2 years. While the administration proposed 120,000 new Section 8 housing vouchers, this bill merely holds out the possibility that 20,000 may be funded if some overly optimistic Section 8 recapture levels are achieved. This bill is especially hard on New York City and New York State. In New York City, the housing authority reports that there are over 131,000 families waiting for public housing. There are over 216,000 waiting for Section 8. These two lists combined is over 303,000 people who are waiting for low-income affordable housing in New York City alone, and this bill does them a great disservice. The turnover rate in housing in New York is minuscule, 3.8 percent for public housing and less than 5 percent for Section 8. The only way to help needy people and needy people across the country find homes is to provide new vouchers and fair funding for public housing, and I would say the passage of this amendment. We also have a huge problem in New York with expiring Section 8 contracts. In my district this is affecting thousands of people. In recent years I have been successful in working with HUD to preserve some of this housing through the mark to market programs. Thanks to HUD funding, thousands of people living in Renwick Gardens and 209 East 36th Street complexes in my district retained their Section 8 housing. Today my biggest concern is the Marine Terrace complex in Queens, where again Section 8 contracts have run out for thousands of families and thousands of families may lose their homes. Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing about compassionate conservativism in the press, but there is no compassion in this bill. Programs under VA- HUD benefit some of our Nation's most needy citizens, and this bill does them wrong. This bill provides no new increased funds for elderly housing, for homeless assistance grants, for housing opportunity for people with AIDS, or for Native American block grants. The record of this Congress on housing matters is exceptionally poor for New York State, New York City, and I would say the entire country over the past 6 years. In fact, this bill funds homeless prevention programs at a level 21 percent lower in real terms than 6 years ago, when the Democrats were in the majority. Elderly housing is funded 53 percent lower than 6 years ago, public housing is 27 percent less than 6 years ago, and home ownership counseling is funded 70 percent less than 6 years ago. Mr. Chairman, the people who benefit from these programs do not have high-paying lobbyists representing them with these secret 527 groups pushing their special interests. They are simply needy Americans who need housing assistance. So I call on my colleagues to support my colleague's bill, which is doing something to help affordable housing across the country, but overall, this bill hurts housing. It is a bad record. It has been a bad record for housing for the past 6 years. I urge my colleagues to support my colleague's amendment, but the overlying bill is just plain bad policy, especially in a time when we have surpluses.

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I likewise, rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler/Shays/Crowley/ Horn amendment to increase HOPWA funding by $18 million to $250 million. HOPWA allows communities to design local-based, cost-effective housing programs for people living with AIDS. It supports patients with rent and mortgage assistance and provides information on low-income housing opportunities. While basic housing is a necessity for everyone, it is even more critical for people living with AIDS. Many AIDS patients rely on complex medical regimens and have special dietary needs. Lack of a stable housing situation can greatly complicate their treatment regiment. We must not forget that while medical science has made important advances in treating AIDS, a cure remains elusive. In the meantime we must do what we can to help people living with this disease. Mr. Chairman, I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle who often speak about ``Compassionate Conservatism'' to support this amendment. This vote presents an opportunity for my colleagues to match their rhetoric with a small federal funding request. The people who benefit from the HOPWA program are some of our nations most needy. They are living in a very difficult circumstance. Mr. Chairman, I eagerly look forward to the day when medical breakthroughs render the HOPWA program unnecessary. However, today in the present I call on my colleagues to people living with AIDS this modest increase in support.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to speak in favor of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), for his thoughtful amendment. He is a former member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and he has worked with OFHEO for over 7 years here in this body. I want to offer my support for providing the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, OFHEO, with the full resources it needs to comprehensively regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and to regulate their safety and soundness. As my colleagues are aware, OFHEO funding comes from assessments on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, not from the taxpayers. However, approval for OFHEO assessments is tied to the appropriations bills. The GSEs play a critical role in our Nation's housing finance system, increasing the availability of home mortgage funds and increasing homeownership. In recent months, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises has led a series of hearings and oversight on the housing GSEs. During the course of our hearings, the subcommittee has come to two conclusions that I think are overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle. First, with an almost 70 percent homeownership rate, our Nation's housing finance system is the most successful in the world. Secondly, the housing GSE regulators should have the resources that they need to do the job to oversee safety and soundness. The Hinchey amendment makes an increase of $4.8 million to $26.8 in the amount of funding that OFHEO can assess the GSEs. Regulations of GSEs require highly technical analysis and this increase will give the agency the ability to hire and retain the high-level staff required to do its job. I know that no matter how my colleagues feel about GSEs, we all want to ensure that the enterprises are adequately supervised. So I really urge the support of the Hinchey amendment and appeal to my good colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from the great City and State of New York (Mr. Walsh), to accept this amendment. Again, it does not in any way come out of resources of the taxpayers. It is an assessment on the GSEs to pay for their own oversight for safety and soundness.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Every year the Majority party underfunds affordable housing in the appropriations process and every year the President and Secretary Cuomo are forced to negotiate for every last family in an omnibus bill. Unfortunately, it looks like we are headed down this road again. The VA-HUD bill before the House is cut $6.5 billion below the President's request and the President will rightfully veto this bill in its present form. Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot about ``Compassionate Conservatism'' in the press--but there is no compassion in this bill. Programs under VA-HUD benefit some of our nations most needy citizens and this bill does them wrong. This bill provides no new funds for elderly housing, for homeless assistance grants, for Housing Opportunity for People with AIDS, or for Native American block grants. Madam Speaker, the people who benefit from these programs don't have high paying lobbyists representing them on Capitol Hill. They don't have 527 groups pushing their special interests. They are simply needy Americans who need housing assistance. Furthermore, this bill cuts public housing anti-drug programs and capital and operating grants $120 million below last year's level. Madam Speaker, this country spends far too many resources on putting drug offenders behind bars. Cutting drug prevention efforts in public housing just does not make sense. Furthermore, this bill does damage to the enforcement of our nation's environmental laws by funding the EPA at $282 million less than last year. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Slaughter-Johnson-Dicks amendment and really applaud them for all of their hard work on this amendment. This would add additional funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million, the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services by $2 million. These programs help communities across the Nation develop critically important cultural resources. Through the NEA grants to local communities, support is provided for more than 7,400 K-12 arts educational programs in more than 2,600 communities all across this great Nation. Chairman Bill Ivey has listened to the concerns of Congress and responded to them. He has initiated a series of reforms, first in how grants are given, and secondly in the arts reach program, he has reached out to all of the States with the goal of making the contributions equal among the States. The Challenge America program of NEA is hoping to bring educational programs to our public schools, to our young people in the early years, which is tremendously important. Study after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self- esteem. NEA, NEH and IMLS reach out to all of our communities. They provide cultural and educational opportunities to our children and families that enrich each and every one of us. At the same time, these programs generate an enormous amount of revenue, approximately $3.6 billion each year for our local economies across this country. The NEA is useful to all our communities and comes at very little cost to taxpayers. Funding for the arts is much less than 1 percent of our Federal budget, and funding for these extremely beneficial programs has been frozen for several years. In fact, funding is now 40 percent lower than it was 10 years ago. So it is time to do more for students and communities across our Nation. In my own city of New York, I cannot even imagine what it would be like without the arts. It is such a vital and important part of the enrichment and cultural life of our city. And every single city should have arts, humanitarian programs, the humanities and library services. This amendment reaches out to accomplish that goal. Again, one goal is to make sure that all States have equal funding. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this package.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, who is also the dean of our caucus, for his leadership on this issue and so many others and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). We are at the beginning of a new century which is more information, more wired, and technology driven. Our evermore global new economy is changing the way Americans work and communicate with each other. This conference committee report is part of that change, and I fully endorse it. This legislation knocks down another barrier to a fully incorporated digital information-based economy. The bill requires that e-signatures be treated legally, the same as written ones, for commercial contracts, agreements and records. For consumers, this bill means less paperwork, major time savings and reduced costs. This will greatly increase the attractiveness and efficiency of on-line commerce. An important privacy protection will require consumers to opt in to receive records electronically. This strikes an important balance, ensuring that consumers' interests are adequately protected as transactions are increasingly completed in digital form. While the information economy is changing the way people live around the world, it is having an even more profound impact on the congressional district in New York City, which I represent, particularly the silicon alley area. The technology industry is responsible for 100,000 new jobs in New York City alone in the 1990s. These are highly desirable, professional jobs that are an important addition to our city. This bill is an important step in keeping this progress moving forward. I thank the conferees for their important work on this bipartisan issue, and I urge its passage.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

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

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment, which will enable the Minerals Management Services to operate the royalty-in-kind pilot program more efficiently. I first want to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their efforts to resolve this issue in a positive way. This amendment will strike language that would have given the royalties-in-kind program the ability to finance the gathering and marketing of oil and natural gas products. It will continue to allow the Department of the Interior to finance the cost of transportation and processing of oil and natural gas. Currently the Minerals Management Service is conducting three royalty-in-kind pilot programs located in Wyoming, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico. We have worked in a bipartisan manner closely with the Department of the Interior to develop language that achieves their goals without affecting broader oil valuation policy or costing additional funds. My amendment will accomplish this purpose. So, again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their support, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.