Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3845) to make corrections to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, for her efforts in moving this noncontroversial, yet crucial legislation through the committee process on the floor today. H.R. 3845, the SBIC Corrections Act, is a specific, clear-cut bill offered in an efficient and timely fashion. The purpose of H.R. 3845 is to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make changes in the Small Business Investment Company program at the Small Business Administration, commonly known as SBIC program. Created by Congress in 1958, SBICs are licensed by the Small Business Administration. They are privately organized and privately managed firms. SBICs serve as profit-motivated businesses that have a chance to invest in small businesses and a chance to share in the success of the small businesses they expand and thrive. SBICs serve as partners with the government and the private sector by using both their own capital and funds borrowed through the Federal Government to provide venture capital to small, independent businesses, both start-ups and established businesses. H.R. 3845 contains four technical changes to improve the program and correct problems brought to the committee's attention through the oversight process. We heard testimony regarding these changes at a hearing held on March 9. SBA has examined this legislation and is in agreement with the changes the Committee on Small Business has made. The bill makes four minor changes in the SBIC program. First, H.R. 3845 modifies the definition of control for SBIC investment in small businesses, eliminating a cumbersome five-prong test and setting a clear statutory standard. Second, the legislation modifies the definition of long-term investment to harmonize that definition with accepted business practice and the tax and banking laws, changing it from 5 years to 1 year. Third, the bill allows the administration to adjust the subsidy fee for the SBIC program to maintain the subsidy rate of the program at zero. It is an unfortunate side effect of the success of the program that the current fixed 1 percent fee is actually taking in more money than the cost of the program, resulting in an unnecessary cost to borrowers. I would also point out that this section has been amended to be effective after the end of the year; therefore, the bill has no impact on direct spending in the current fiscal year. Finally, the bill changes the language in the investment act concerning distributions by SBICs. H.R. 3845 will allow SBICs more flexibility in making distributions to their investors and will simplify the accounting and tax procedures for SBICs by permitting distributions according to the quarterly needs of SBICs. Mr. Speaker, while these changes are minor, they are essential to the continued success of this valuable program. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3845 and the thousands of small businesses who could not flourish without the capital provided by the SBIC program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that this technical corrections act is entirely that, technical in nature. However, it will save time and expense for both SBA and SBICs by eliminating duplicative filings and inefficient use of the SBA resources.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3845.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the hard work my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means have done in putting together a strong package of tax relief for America's small businesses. Unfortunately, I have been contacted by constituents concerned about potential interpretations of sections 235, 241 and 281 of H.R. 3081. They fear these could negatively affect pension benefits. I have written the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) detailing these concerns, which I will insert into the Record. Over the past months, I appreciate the time the gentleman from Ohio and all the members of the committee concerned with pension issues have spent as we have worked to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get assurances from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) that these sections that I have mentioned are not intended to harm participants. It is my understanding that these provisions are not intended to be interpreted in such a way as to reduce pension benefits, discourage companies from increasing pension benefits, or allow for violations of the Tax Code. So I ask my friend from the State of Ohio (Mr. Portman) is my understanding correct?

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for his comments. I really appreciate his assurances and his continuing efforts on this legislation. With these efforts, we can assure concerned individuals that pensions are enhanced and protected by this legislation. We have the opportunity to level the playing field for small businesses today with this legislation that provides, among other things, millions of entrepreneurs with 100-percent health insurance deductibility next year and increases the business meal deduction to 60 percent. Most importantly, the bill repeals the unfair installment sales tax that has already impacted small businesses by drastically reducing their value and blocking their sale. I look forward to voting in favor of this important legislation today, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation which seeks to enact reasonable reforms to liability laws affecting America's small businesses. Through passage of this legislation today, this body makes clear its dedication to promoting sensible policies which acknowledge the importance of our small businesses. As vice chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I can attest that it is the work and energy of small business enterprises that comprise a driving force behind our Nation's economy. It is essential that we continually work to ensure that they are able to operate in a free and fair marketplace. In supporting this bill, we also make clear today our reproach for those who seek to exploit shortcomings in current liability statutes. Approval of this measure will mark an important stride in removing the onerous and unreasonable threat of litigation which serves to stifle the growth and entrepreneurial spirit of small businesses. Current liability law encourages many of these businesses to impose limitations on their own promise, to bypass opportunities to improve and expand. This not only conflicts fundamentally with our American character, but it is an unnecessary restraint on the livelihood of the millions of Americans who work for these businesses. This simply is not right, and this Congress ought to do what it can to change it. I ask my colleagues to join me in doing so today, by voting in favor of this sensible reform measure.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation to assist law enforcement agencies that are facing additional costs due to the new residency of the President and the First Lady in Chappaqua, NY. It is fortunate that my new constituents will now have the benefit of the services of some of the finest local law enforcement agencies in the nation. My intention in introducing this legislation today is simply to ensure that the local taxpayers are not overburdened with the additional costs which are normally associated with providing the necessary protective services for the Nation's First Family. Though their presence in our community at this point has been limited and sporadic, some local police departments have already incurred costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. While it is difficult to forecast, these local agencies project that the costs will increase dramatically in the coming months. Similar legislation was introduced and acted upon in 1989 when Representative Brennan, whose district included Kennebunkport, ME, proposed legislation to provide funding to local police departments in order to limit the costs incurred by the frequent visits of President Bush. It is my hope that the Federal Government will again take action to prevent a local community from being overburdened by these additional costs, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of introducing the Small Business Disaster Assistance Act. This is a two-part proposal that seeks to provide both immediate assistance to viable small businesses and agricultural enterprises when first dealing with the damage wrought by a disaster, and more long-term assistance which seeks to provide them with the needed lift as they continue to work towards normalcy. My bill creates a program whereby viable small businesses and agricultural enterprises would be eligible for a grant of up to $30,000 in order to provide them with the immediate assistance they need when dealing with a disaster. Additionally, the bill creates a loan program that acknowledges the great difficulties small business owners and farmers encounter during the first year following a disaster by allowing for a one-year deferral on any repayments toward the loan, and, furthermore, allows the recipient to pay back the principal of that loan before the interest. This is a compassionate, reasonable proposal that seeks to provide small businesses and farmers with assistance during a time when they need it most. I'd like to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Bob Franks, for his important contribution in drafting this legislation, and I hope that our colleagues will join us in this effort to assist small business owners and farmers whose lives have been fundamentally diminished by natural disaster.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 791) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 791 is to allow for currently funded Women's Business Centers and graduated Business Women's Centers to recompete for Federal funding. S. 791 addresses the funding constraints that make it increasingly difficult for Women's Business Centers to sustain the level of services they provide and, in some instances, to remain open after they graduate from the Women's Business Centers Program and no longer receive Federal matching funds.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Reducing the Effects of Abuse and Domestic Violence on Youth Act--also known as the READY Act. I am joined in introducing this legislation by Representatives Connie Morella, Nancy Johnson, Carolyn Maloney and Judy Biggert. The READY Act is a first step toward addressing the multiple needs of children who witness or experience domestic violence. In the past year, much has been done to find the cause of violence by our children. Tragic events like the ones at Columbine and Jonesborough have highlighted the violence faced by our Nation's youth. Working groups and commissions have been created across the Nation to study the cause of violence in our schools. Speaker Hastert has created a bipartisan working group in the House, of which I am a member, to look at several aspects of our society and to identify which may influence the violent trend we have witnessed in our youth during the last several years. However, as we know from study, one of the primary influences on socialization is the family. Over 3 million children witness violence in their own homes. It is here that my legislation focuses. Witnessing domestic violence has a devastating impact on children, placing them at high risk for anxiety, depression, and suicide. These children also may exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, fearful and inhibited behaviors. It is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of chronically violent children have witnessed extreme parental conflict. Another study found that boys who had witnessed their father battering their mother had a 1,000 percent higher battering rate than boys who did not. Clearly, witnessing this type of violence in the home has a profound effect on children. In order to combat this trend, the READY Act gives grants to qualified nonprofit agencies in order to create multi-level interventions for child witnesses. This program would create a partnership between entities like the courts, schools, health care providers, child protective services and battered women's programs to provide a system of cooperation and collaboration between the professionals in a community in order to better support these child witnesses. Examples of intervention partnerships could include: security for the child and his or her family; mental health treatment; counseling and advocacy for the family; and outreach and training to community professionals. While many facets of this support system are currently in place, there is a gap in coordination and cooperation. In another step to encourage coordination between various agencies, a second provision in the READY Act would encourage collaborative efforts between nonprofit domestic violence community agencies and schools to create a curriculum for K-12 students, as well as provide training for education professionals on experiencing and witnessing domestic violence. Training would include teachers, administrators, counselors and other school personnel. I believe that this provision is especially important in light of the determination that one-third of all 16-19 year old girls experience violence from an intimate partner. Domestic violence often escalates during separation and divorce, and visitation is often used as an opportunity for abuse. Under my legislation grants would be provided to qualified applicants on a competitive basis to create family visitation or visitation exchange centers. Use of such centers will minimize the potentially dangerous interactions between family members. On July 3, 1996, 5-year-old Brandon and 4-year-old Alex were murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother Angela was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During her marriage, Angela was physically and emotionally abused by Frank. Brandon was once hit by his father and had his lip split when he stepped in front of his mother during a domestic violence incident. Angela had an Order of Protection against Frank, but her request for her husband to receive only supervised visits was dismissed during custody hearings. Kurt Frank murdered his two sons during an unsupervised visit. While it is too late for Brandon and Alex, a secure visitation center will help to prevent other children from meeting the same fate. The READY Act also allows the use of private pensions to settle child abuse judgments. Private pensions are currently used for alimony or child support payments, however cannot be used to settle a child abuse judgment. This provision was originally submitted by my friend and colleague, Carolyn Maloney during the 105th Congress and I am happy to be able to include it in the READY Act. In addition, my legislation amends the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act to provide a defense to women who flee across State lines to escape domestic violence or sexual assault, and ensures that a civil court can consider domestic violence and the parent and child's safety when determining which State should hear a custody dispute. This will pull the State and Federal laws regulating this area closer into line. Finally, the READY Act includes a sense of the Congress stating that when determining child custody, it is not in the best interest of the child to force joint custody in cases where there is a history of domestic violence. This act also states, that it is also not in the best interest of the child to make so called ``friendly parent'' provisions a factor when there is abuse against a parent or a child. It is important for Congress to take the lead on this important issue. In preparing to introduce this bill, I came upon a website that posted story after story from women who had been victims of domestic abuse. Of the dozens of stories that I read, one particular submission was especially poignant, by a 23-year-old woman named Lisa. Lisa had been married to her husband for 4 years, but altogether she has been with him for 6 years. He mentally and physically abused her and her children, just as her father had abused her and her mother. She is ready to leave him. She realized that her oldest child is 4 and, since he's a boy, she is afraid he will grow to be like her husband. Her youngest is 3 months, and she does not want her to end up where she is. Lisa ends her letter with the realization that she has to leave for the sake of her children. She writes of how she and her children have their whole lives ahead of them and it should not be a life full of fear. Her letter was written over a month ago. Hopefully, since that time she has been able to flee her husband's abuse both to save herself and to save her children. Her lifetime has been testimony to the cycle of violence. For Lisa and her kids, it is time to break that cycle. While the road to healing begins with the knowledge that Lisa needs to save herself and her kids, more help is needed to repair the damage done during the years of abuse. Without it, chances are the cycle will continue. As we all know, there are no easy answers or solutions to the violent acts of our youth. However, passage of the READY Act would be one solid step toward reducing the effects of abuse and domestic violence that is so clearly harming our youth.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act, legislation I introduced to strengthen the current Federal anti-stalking statute. Although stalking is not a new phenomenon, it is certainly one we have only recently identified as a distinct and troubling societal affliction. Just 10 years ago, not one State in the Union had on its books a law designed to criminalize the insidious behavior of human predators who devote themselves to the haunting and harassment of others. Though we will probably never be able to fully stop or comprehend the behavior of those driven by delusions and personal demons, it is our responsibility to do all that we can to assist the millions of stalking victims in our country. In the last 10 years, lawmakers across the land have acknowledged this responsibility. As it stands now, there is not one State that does not have an anti-stalking statute on its books. We have responded at the Federal level, as well. Three years ago, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) shepherded through Congress the International Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, the first Federal anti-stalking statute. This provision makes it a crime for any person to travel across State lines with the intent to injure or harass another person, thereby placing that person or a member of that person's family in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. This was landmark legislation that was an important first step to our effort. I come to the House floor today to continue that effort. In considering the proposal before us, we ought to be guided not so much by memories of high profile cases of celebrity stalking, but rather by an increasing awareness that stalking is a commonplace circumstance affecting millions of Americans. It is my hope to help these millions who have not the resources to cocoon themselves from mainstream society as celebrities do. The Justice Department has estimated that over 1 million women and over 370,000 men are currently stalked every year. They further estimate that one out of every 12 women and one out of every 45 men has been stalked at some point in their lives. In light of these projections, a reassessment of the current Federal law must yield a conclusion that modifications should be made. My proposal seeks to build on current law by addressing the definition of stalking, which addresses only traveling over interstate lines. This new definition works by including those avenues of communication we are addressing in this area believed by many experts to be the most vulnerable medium to an increased rate of stalking in the coming years, the Internet. Though its magnitude is unknown at this point, a report on cyberstalking released just 2 months ago by the Justice Department concluded that there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims of recent cyberstalking in the United States. Because of its ostensibly anonymous, nonconfrontational nature, many are concerned that stalking over e-mail and the Internet will increase as more Americans gain access to this exciting new communications tool. By acting now, we will impose a serious disincentive to stalkers who consider using technological capabilities to inflict harassment and fear. My proposal also seeks to provide additional protections to stalking victims by stipulating that a protection order be issued at the time of sentencing, and by specifying that there be a presumption against bail in cases where the accused has a previous history of stalking offenses. I think all of my colleagues would agree that this body has no directive more important than the one which guides us to work each day to improve the lives of Americans. Though perhaps in the grand scheme of our efforts this measure may be very small, it nevertheless carries great significance to those Americans across the country whose basic daily freedoms are contaminated and crippled by an undaunted menace. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this proposal.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Conforming Amendments of 1999. This bill is a technical correction to legislation adopted by Congress last year that ensures reconstructive surgery coverage for all stages of reconstruction, including symmetrical reconstruction, for breast cancer patients. In the last Congress I introduced H.R. 616, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998. A specific provision of this bill that requires coverage for reconstructive procedures after breast cancer surgery was passed into law in Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Bill. While passage of last year's legislation was a wonderful step forward, a loophole has been identified which seriously weakens the intent of this legislation. The bill I am proposing would correct this flaw by conforming the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to the requirements consistent with the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act. This change would provide a civil monetary penalty against those health plans who fail to provide coverage for breast reconstruction following mastectomy or other breast cancer surgery. There is indeed precedence for such a technical correction. Similar corrections were made to the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Taxpayer's Relief Act of 1997 to ensure compliance to the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 and the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996. The correction I am seeking today is like these and would ensure compliance to the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998. Studies have documented that the fear of losing a breast is a leading reason why women do not participate in early breast cancer detection programs. Now that coverage is guaranteed for reconstructive surgery following breast cancer surgery, it is time to put the teeth in that language and hold health plans accountable for providing that coverage. As we continue this month of Breast Cancer Awareness, let us make this important correction to ensure the best possible support for breast cancer victims.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Act of 1999. This conference report truly bridges the disagreements that have torn apart past efforts to update our financial services laws and brings our laws into the 21st century. The true winner in this effort is the consumer. They win on two fronts: first with savings, and second through the greatest expansion of financial privacy. Two provisions are especially noteworthy and will save consumers money. The NARAB provision will solve a difficult and costly multistate insurance licensing issue by creating a single higher national standard. Another provision will allow banking firms to sell mutual funds to their customers without having to go through third-party distributors that do not provide any added value to the bank or customers. This legislation is a true win-win for the American people, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in favor of the passage of this historic legislation. This legislation has been decades in the making and I am pleased to have been part of the effort to make this legislation a reality. Of course, this would not have been possible without the excellent work of my chairman and his top notch staff who set the best example we can all strive for. As for privacy, this legislation represents the greatest expansion of personal financial privacy in the history of American finance. Consumers will benefit from the mandatory disclosure by financial institutions of privacy policies and the consumer opt-out choices to prevent the sale of confidential information to unaffiliated third parties. This represents only two of the many positive privacy provisions. I want to go into greater detail on the provisions of this legislation that will create NARAB--the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers. This subtitle, which I authored, will streamline the insurance agent and broker licensing process. Allow me to read something that demonstrates both the desire of state regulators to achieve the goal of establishing uniform or reciprocal licensing standards goal and the great impediments to its attainment: The Commissioners are now fully prepared to go before their various legislative committees with recommendations for a system of insurance law which shall be the same in all States--not reciprocal, but identical; not retaliatory, but uniform. This statement expressing the desire for a more uniform insurance regulatory system was made by George W. Miller, the New York Insurance Commissioner who founded the National Association of Insurance Commissioner, at the close of the very first meeting of the NAIC in 1871. The NAIC has been working for almost 130 years to achieve some level of regulatory uniformity; NARAB will simply assist them in achieving what has proved to be a very elusive objective. As advocated by the state insurance commissioners, state insurance regulation is preserved in this legislation. What NARAB does, though, is address one of the shortcomings of state regulation. Licensing laws are not only unnecessarily redundant; they all too often are protecionist--designed to protect in-state agents and brokers from out- of-state competition. The NARAB designed to protect in-state agents and brokers from out-of-state competition. The NARAB subtitle creates the incentive for states to change those out-of-date laws and regulations. Now that this legislation stands at the brink of enactment, state insurance regulators must recognize that NARAB is the tool they need to make licensing less of a burden, and less of an add-on cost to consumers. Throughout the three-year debate on this provision, some state insurance commissioners argued that they're getting the job done on their own, and NARAB is unnecessary. Unfortunately, they've been saying that for 130 years. With NARAB's enactment into federal law, there is no choice but for state licensing laws to move into alignment with the broader modernization goals of this legislation. Madam Speaker, it is an embarrassment that the separate nations of Europe have done more to harmonize their insurance licensing laws, compared to the separate states of America. NARAB will help change that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is good for business and consumers in many ways. It's important to note, though, that many of the provisions of this legislation only bring the regulatory scheme into line with what's already happening in the marketplace. NARAB stands out as one of the key elements of this legislation that represent true modernization. I was pleased to author this element of the bill, and am grateful for the wide support it has enjoyed throughout this process. Most of all, speaking as a moderate, I feel honored to have played a role in the enactment of important legislation that has had true bipartisan leadership. As it should be, this is a legislative product that should make us all proud.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, during the 5 minutes that I deliver this speech, 33 new lives will begin, 17 males and 16 females. They enter a world on the brink of the 21st century and where possibilities are limitless. Of the 16 females born during this speech, at least two will be the victim of rape or attempted rape, one of whom will be violated before she reaches the age of 18, five will be the victim of abuse by an intimate partner, and one will be stalked. She will join the ranks of the 1 million women who have been stalked this year. This is the world that these new lives are being brought into. As a former rape crisis counselor, I know firsthand the devastation caused by this type of violence. I have been in the emergency room when a raped woman has come in to be treated. I have seen the fear, the shock in these victims who have been so horribly violated. In 1998, forcible rape ranked third for violent crimes reported to law enforcement officials, but that number may be grossly underestimated because, according to the Justice Department, only one-third of all rapes are reported to the authorities. Over the last 2 years, as I worked to develop stronger antistalking legislation, I have met with the victims of stalking and heard of the damage brought on their lives because of the constant threat from a stalker. My legislation, which was marked up earlier this week in the Committee on the Judiciary, expands and broadens the definition of stalking to include interstate commerce. This would include e-mail, telephone, and other forms of interstate communications as a means of stalking. In addition, it also expands the definition of immediate family to include persons who regularly reside with the victim. During the hearing on this bill, one stalking victim testified about her experiences with cyberstalking. This woman was stalked by three people she had contacted a year earlier to answer an ad for a children's book newsgroup. They were located in New York and claimed to be a literary agency looking for new authors. She called them, sent her proposal, and was asked for money for a reading fee. However, real agents do not charge for reading, editing or other fees. Later, she learned from other on-line writers that this so-called agency was a well-known on-line problem. When writers who actually paid this agency money came to her for help, she contacted the New York attorney general, who opened an investigation. Her stalking came as a retaliation for her part in that investigation. Stalking comes in all forms. It is not only a physical crime; it is also a psychological crime. For this victim, the psychological harassment ranged from prank phone calls to libelous messages about her being posted on the Internet. Physical threats came, too, for the victim, her family, and her lawyer. In an attempt to end this harassment and protect themselves, this victim and her husband moved to another State. Once there, they took their name off public records and directories and they have an unlisted phone number. However, this, too, proved futile. The stalking has continued. Just today alone, approximately 2,750 women will join this tragic sorority of women who have been stalked. Stalking takes many forms. Unfortunately, in this age of technology it has the ability to take on a nameless and faceless electronic form, where the perpetrator has the ability to invade every aspect of life. I look forward to seeing this legislation come before the House. Violence against women happens in many ways, physical and mental, by strangers and intimates. In this, these crimes share a common bond. And please listen to this: as I leave the House floor this evening, at the end of my 5-minute speech here, one more woman will have been raped. It is my hope that as a governing body and as a society we will be able to address and work to eliminate these horrible acts of violence. In doing so, we will make this world a safer and a kinder place for those 33 new lives born these last 5 minutes.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Roemer-Quinn-Kelly amendment to H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. I commend the Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for bringing this bipartisan legislation before us today. Under the language of H.R. 2, Title I has been authorized at a level of $8.35 billion. Our amendment would increase this authorization by $1.5 billion, to bring it to a total of $9.85 billion for the fiscal years 2000 through 2005. The Student Results Act will hold our educational system to a higher set of standards. It requires the States and the school districts to issue report cards on student achievement to the parents and the community. It also recognizes that there is an active achievement gap, and demands that the State and local education agencies establish a plan to close this gap. H.R. 2 provides choice and flexibility and rewards while demanding accountability, quality and results. The bill before us today continues to provide flexibility for our State and local education agencies which we have already established earlier this year in the Ed-Flex bill and the Teacher Empowerment Act. The Title I program is the largest Federal commitment to elementary and secondary education in the reauthorization before Congress this year. Passage of our amendment will provide additional funds to help States, school districts and schools make the changes necessary to raise student achievement across the board. As a former public school teacher and the mother of four, I support public schools. And I know that few things are more important to the future success of our children and our Nation than education. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as the underlying bill. In doing so, we will demonstrate our real commitment to Title I programs and to improving the educational system in this Nation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3046) to preserve limited Federal agency reporting requirements on banking and housing matters to facilitate congressional oversight and public accountability, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3046, the Banking and Housing Agency Accountability Preservation Act. I want to thank my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for his cosponsorship of this bill and for his cooperation in bringing the bill to the floor. I also want to recognize the cosponsorship of the distinguished Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). In a nutshell, this bipartisan bill sees to exempt from the impending December 21, 1999, sunset date a number of reports which have been identified as useful to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or to the general public. Perhaps the most well-known of these is the semiannual Humphrey-Hawkins reports of the Federal Reserve Board to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. While the combination of Chairman Greenspan's prudential stewardship of monetary policy and the Congress' more disciplined fiscal policy has produced the longest peace-time growth in modern times, no committee has a greater ongoing oversight obligation than the Committee on Banking and Financial Services with its jurisdiction over the Fed's conduct of monetary policy. Simply put, it would be unthinkable not to hold the Fed precisely and regularly accountable for its conduct of monetary policy. Whether or not we succeed in getting this legislation to the President in time to continue the legislative mandate for regular congressional review of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy, it is the committee's intent to require the Chairman of the Board of Governors to report regularly on the state of the economy and the Federal Reserve's policy to sustain economic growth and promote the fullest credible employment of the American work force. The upcoming sunset of the Humphrey-Hawkins report and various other banking and housing reports dates back to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Public Law 104-66, which ordered hundreds of annual, semi-annual, or other regular periodic Federal reports in a 1993 Clerk's Report, House document 103-7, to terminate in 4 years. The 1993 Clerk's Report cited thousands of Federal reports issued by the GAO, the President, Federal departments and agencies, advisory boards and commissions, and the judicial branch. In principle, I concur with the spirit of the sunset law in eliminating outdated or wasteful reporting requirements. However, in hindsight, it appears that the law used a meat axe approach where a scalpel might have been more appropriate. As a result of concerns about the sunset of the Humphrey-Hawkins reports which were brought to the attention of the committee earlier this year, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) instructed staff to review the 1993 Clerk's Report to assess the potential impact of the sunset law on policy matters under the Committee on Banking and Financial Services' jurisdiction. An early count identified approximately 270 reports that had some connection to the work of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, ranging from reports by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to certain reports by the President and various agencies, such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Export-Import Bank. On closer examination, numerous reports did not appear to be affected by the sunset provision because they did not fall into the regular and periodic definition of the sunset law. Other reports among the 270 were the one-time reports only, or report requirements which had already expired, or been amended or repealed. Some reports were required from agencies that have since gone out of business. In order to ascertain the need for the remaining active reports, the committee sent letters in April to several key departments and agencies, inviting their input. Most returned helpful comments. As might be expected, the committee's efforts confirmed that a large number of reports should sunset as scheduled, but also identified a group of reports that probably should be exempted from the sunset. That latter group is found in section 2 of the bill. It includes, in addition to the Federal Reserve's semiannual Humphrey-Hawkins reports on monetary policy, such reports as the Fed's reports on the policy actions of the Federal Open Market Committee, HUD's agenda of all rules and regulations, as well as an annual report on early defaults on FHA-insured mortgages, Treasury's reports on the Economic Stabilization Fund, and annual reports from the Export-Import Bank as well as various banking agencies. Section 2 also includes a number of important consumer reports such as the Fed's survey of bank fees, and reports from the banking agencies describing actions each has taken to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices by banks to address consumer complaints. In addition to Treasury, HUD, the Federal Reserve, and Ex-IM Bank, some of the other agencies covered by section 2 include the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Board. Finally, I might add that section 3 of the bill also includes, after consultations with the FDIC and Ex-IM Bank, provisions which will repeal a handful of additional reporting requirements not on the sunset list. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and a cosponsor of this bill.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill strikes a balance between ending waste in Government on the one hand and preserving congressional oversight and public accountability on the other. I urge my colleagues to lend it their full support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1497) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program, as amended.