Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. AIDS is an affliction which has had a fundamental and far-reaching effect on the well-being of many nations, and I think this amendment signifies the importance of our strong national commitment in combatting this disease, not only for this Nation's benefit, but for the benefit of all humanity. Though we continue to struggle in our efforts to understand AIDS and to cure it, it seems to me entirely consistent with this Nation's character, which teaches us to reach out to the weak and the sick, to engage in this dilemma in an active and direct manner. This amendment is reflective of this sort of approach, and it is my hope that it will serve as a stepping stone for future congressional action.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendment to increase funding for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $10 million each. Being from Westchester County, New York, my neighbors and I have the benefit of our proximity to New York City, which provides us access to the premiere cultural center in this country. However, we do not take the impact of our exposure to the arts for granted. If anything, it has highlighted for us the important role that the arts can play in all of our lives. Without the NEA and their aid, the private sector is unlikely to replace Federal funding; and this, Mr. Chairman, would be a great tragedy. There are thousands, literally thousands of people employed in the arts in my district, authors, painters, applied arts conservationists, TV production people. As a matter of fact, the City of Peekskill has been able to encourage and engage in real urban renewal based around the arts. For the last 4 years, we have not given the NEA and the NEH any substantial increase in funding. We have asked, however, that the NEA institute reforms in their grant process and reduce the size of infrastructure. The proposed $10 million increase to each, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is much needed. These are jobs we are talking about. As a former teacher, I can attest to the fact that the impact of the arts on our children is instrumental in their education. And with this small increase, the NEA will be able to reach more teachers and more students. They cannot do this alone. They need our support. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Horn- Johnson amendment and support this modest increase for the NEA and the NEH. As we work to create a solid foundation for our children, we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to understand and appreciate all of the arts.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the United States Women's Soccer Team for their spectacular efforts in the 1999 Women's World Cup. For the last 3 weeks the entire country has been consumed by soccer fever. Mr. Speaker, this is not only an achievement for the women on the team but an achievement for our Nation. In a time when the most exciting part of the Superbowl seems to be watching to see the million-dollar commercials, this tournament was one of the most captivating athletic events of the year. Six hundred fifty thousand tickets were sold for the 32 matches and for the 90,000 spectators at the final game between the United States and China. They definitely got their money's worth. After 90 minutes of regulation play and two 50-minute periods of sudden death overtime, the team moved to a penalty kick series where the U.S. women scored five goals to defeat China. Mr. Speaker, this was the game of a lifetime. No one could imagine a more exciting end to this sensational run for these athletes. Many of these athletes have been playing soccer since they were 5 and 6 years old, and this achievement is the pinnacle of their athletic career. For the girls of this country, this event gave them the role models that they so often lack. But, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, this team and this championship season has given our Nation a great sense of pride. I commend all the players on this 1999 Women's Soccer Team and all of those women and who inspired them to be the players that they are today.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This loan loss reserve issue is creating a great deal of confusion for banks that are publicly traded on an exchange or market. This situation where they are torn between directions from their primary bank regulator and the SEC need not happen if proper communications are established between the regulators. In this case-- the proper loan loss reserves needed by the banks--communication was clearly lacking. This language does not stop the SEC from doing anything, it simply requires them to communicate as they should have been doing all along. We held a hearing on this loan loss reserve issue in our Financial Institutions Subcommittee on June 16. The message we heard from all parties involved was that better communication is necessary. I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in support of this common sense amendment.

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to put this redomestication provision back in this legislation. This is a technical issue, and I think I want to try to clarify what this amendment seeks to do. Mutual insurance companies are essentially cooperatives and they have no stockholders, only policy holders. A mutual company may own the stock of the subsidiary, but, having no shareholders, it is confined to lower subsidiaries if they want to diversify. This structure imposes serious limitations on the ability of a mutual company to make significant acquisitions in order to stay competitive. In addition, a mutual insurer cannot sell stock, thereby limiting its ability to raise capital to diversify. Taken together, these factors place mutual insurers at a substantial disadvantage in an affiliated environment such as H.R. 10 allows for. While State laws generally permit insurers to move their base, States are capable of imposing significant practical barriers to redomestication. I do not believe that a mutual insurer's ability to participate fully in an affiliated financial services environment should depend solely on the State where they are based. It is for these reasons I believe we should support this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10. I would like to take just a minute to talk about the provision in H.R. 10 regarding NARAB, the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers. Under NARAB, States would be encouraged to streamline insurance agent and broker licensing laws, creating reciprocity, uniformity, and eliminating protectionist residency barriers. The NARAB provisions have been designed to bring true modernization to insurance licensing, and it is something that I believe that we really do need to have in the United States of America today. It is for the commonsense provisions in H.R. 10 like NARAB that we all need to join together in support of H.R. 10. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10. We have been hearing the debates so far mostly focus on the more controversial sections of the bill. Many of the benefits of H.R. 10 have been heralded here today because they represent breakthroughs on issues that have been contentious and seemingly irreconcilable for many years. Yet there are other modernization provisions which are extremely valuable, but have not been highly publicized because they have been essentially non-controversial. I'd like to specifically point to the provisions regarding NARAB--the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers. Under the NARAB subtitle of Title III, states would be encouraged to streamline insurance agent and broker licensing laws--creating reciprocity, uniformity, and eliminating projectionist residency barriers. If a majority of states fail to enact reciprocal licensing laws within three years of enactment of this legislation, NARAB would be created as a uniform, agent/broker licensing clearinghouse governed by state insurance regulators. I'd like to thank the bipartisan leadership of both the Banking and Commerce Committees for including this provision in H.R. 10. Since I raised this issue in the Banking Committee in 1997, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and individual states have significantly ratcheted up their efforts to achieve licensing reform. For many years prior, there were attempts to ease the burden and unnecessary costs associated with multi-state licensing. But those attempts failed to keep pace with consolidations in the insurance industry, along with increasing financial services consolidation and globalization of insurance markets. The NARAB provisions have been designed to bring true modernization to insurance licensing laws, in keeping with functional state insurance regulations. Perhaps the most gratifying development on the licensing front in recent months has been the increasing acceptance of NARAB by the NAIC as a good incentive for licensing reform. NAIC President George Reider, Kentucky Commissioner George Nichols, North Dakota Commissioner Glenn Pomeroy and others have been doing a superb job in elevating uniform and reciprocal licensing on the agendas of individual state legislatures. They understand that barriers to competition from out-of- state insurance agents and brokers is incompatible with today's integrated financial institutions marketplace. Their commitment to reform is real, and NARAB will be the assurance their efforts will ultimately succeed. Currently, there is no counterpart NARAB provision in the financial services bill approved by the other body, and I look forward to working with congressional conferees to assure that these important licensing reforms can be achieved in the context of broad modernization legislation. It is for these common sense provisions that we all must join together in support of H.R. 10. I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Leach for his superior leadership in steering H.R. 10 through committee. It was because of his patience, thoughtfulness and considerable knowledge of the financial service industry that this legislation has come to the floor with a strong bipartisan support it now has. The gentleman from Iowa has also had the assistance of an excellent staff at his side to assist his considerable efforts. Just to name a few, Tony Cole, Gary Parker, Laurie Schaffer and Alison Watson. There are so many more but I haven't the time to name them all. Chairman Leach really does have the highest standards for his staff and they have all lived up to those standards set by the Chairman. Secretary Rubin estimates that passage of this legislation will save consumers $15 billion a year. The efficiencies created by this legislation will allow financial institutions to stop wasting time and money complying with out of date laws written in the 1930's and enable them to better serve their customers in the 21st century. H.R. 10 comes before us with the strong support of both parties and the administration. Let's join together in ensuring that we preserve this agreement by passing this rule with a strong bipartisan vote. I thank the gentleman from California and his colleagues on the Rules Committee for their good work on the rule and ask all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for legislation years in the making that will improve the lives of all Americans, H.R. 10.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, what does the FICA man do with the FICA taxes taken out of a worker's paycheck? Most workers assume, as I used to, that the taxes collected from the worker's paycheck for Social Security and Medicare were actually spent on Social Security and Medicare. Well, it turns out that is not exactly the case. The FICA man has been engaging in some very funny business with our seniors' Social Security and Medicare money, and more and more seniors are learning the harsh truth about the way our Government is running the Social Security Trust Fund. The FICA man collects the money and uses it to fund all kinds of things, things which have nothing to do with Social Security or medicare. Republicans want to know what the FICA man is doing with all that money. We want to put an end to the practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund anytime Washington feels like it. ``But wait,'' my Democrat colleagues will say, ``Social Security was designed to operate like that.'' Exactly. And that is what we want to change.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I want to share with Members some words written by a third grader: ``I feel so proud whenever I see my country's flag flying over me. The red's so bold the white's so clear the brightness of the blue is all so dear. I love my country my family, too, but most of all I love the red, white and blue.'' Madam Speaker, these words were written because this child was allowed to value our flag, to understand the importance of the symbolism embodied in our flag and its importance in representing the values of our country. Madam Speaker, the child who wrote these words, Carolyn Holmes, is grown now. She still values this country. She still values our flag. Madam Speaker, we must teach our children values. If we allow the desecration of our flag, we allow those who desecrate it to teach our children a values lesson which may yield bitter fruit. Madam Speaker, this issue is important. We worry about how to help our children learn the basic values for a civil society. Respect is one of the most important of these. Children need to be taught respect. Respect for the flag seems a very good place to begin. Let it spread from there to respect for others and their ideas. It is important to remember here that it takes the States to ratify what we do and it takes the voice of the people in those States. So let the people speak. Let them speak. Madam Speaker, the flag desecration amendment should be passed.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the prostate cancer awareness resolution and the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. I commend my colleague from New Hampshire for bringing awareness to the fight against prostate cancer. Thirty-seven thousand men will die from prostate cancer this year, 2,400 in my State of New York alone. I applaud the efforts of the community organizations and health care providers in promoting awareness of and access to regular exams and testing. But, unfortunately, awareness is only half the battle. Once a cancer is diagnosed, it is perhaps even more cruel if it must go untreated. Yet this is a situation that thousands of people have had to face. Currently, the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides cancer screening services for low-income women who have little or no health insurance. Yet cruelly, after being diagnosed, these women have no means with which to get treatment. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act will give States the option to provide Medicaid coverage to these women. While Congress must continue to advocate cancer awareness, it cannot continue to promote screening and early detection without providing a means for treatment. I urge the leadership and Members of the Committee on Commerce to take action on the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act and for the House to pass the prostate cancer awareness resolution.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mrs. Speaker, I insert the attached speech for the Record. This speech was given by Fanny Palli-Petralia, a member of Greece's Parliament at a conference that was held in Washington, D.C., in March of this year, hosted by the International Women's Democratic Union. I found it to be quite insightful and would recommend it to my colleagues. [At the Conference of IWDU, Washington, Mar. 3-5, 1999] Address by the Honorable Fanny Palli-Petralia First, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the organizers of the conference for the invitation to participate and address this gathering. I consider it a privilege and a unique opportunity to share with leaders from all over the world my perspectives on the role of women contemporary politics and the problems they face in Europe and especially my own country. I am referring of course, to women belonging to the conservative, or as I prefer to state, Center and Center-Right ideological spectrum. However, before I discuss specific problems I believe it is necessary for us to define or redefine certain concepts and to reflect on the following question: what defines conservative politics in our time. I believe a new definition of conservatism is essential, given the fact that the central criterion used to distinguish between Right and Left ideology i.e.--i.e. economic philosophy--is no longer valid. As we all know, belief in a free market economy, espoused by conservative thinkers has been coopted with unrestrained enthusiasm by old and new liberals. Whether we are talking about Great Britain, Germany or the United States, we see Social Democrats, Liberals and their American equivalent, the Democratic Party, endorsing and applying Milton Freedman's doctrine of free markets with the zeal usually displayed by late converts to a cause. No wonder that we now see big business, traditionally viewed as allies of conservative parties, moving to the socialist corner of the political arena. I have only one explanation for this phenomenon: either big business cannot see the difference between the two philosophies, which I doubt, or the dividing lines between ideological camps have been blurred beyond recognition. In either case, now that our economic philosophy has caused global mass conversion among the liberal ranks, there is a need to differentiate our agenda by other criteria. Now that liberal and the left-wing politicians have embraced free market over socialist planning, we have to ask what is next in our philosophical agenda in an era that often seems as being in a-moral drift? The answer, in my opinion, is obvious: though the economic philosophy of conservatism has triumphed, a cultural war is under way globally and whether we want it or not, we must be concerned and respond. Far too many of the core values that served as the glue to keep society in harmony have been trashed and a climate of moral relativism permeates the industrial world. We are witnesses to a troubling trend since the collapsed of the Communist bloc: traditions, family, history, religion, culture are under assault by ``feel good crowd.'' These are the values that have and ought to distinguish the Center- Right political parties: we cherish them while the Liberal left makes them optional. The question is what is the role of women in the field of culture? At the risk of sounding immodest, let me state at the outset that women have always been in the forefront of cultural battles and helped shape the core values of free societies. More precisely, women have been persistent defenders of human rights and effectively linked rights, values, economics and politics and in the process, redefined the latter for the better. However it is also true that, by and large, the contributions of women in the political life of nations and the affirmation of social and political values have been achieved through men. The old cliche ``next to a great man stands a greater woman,'' still rings true. But our concern today is not what Aspasia or Theodora, Eleanor Roosevelt, or Hillary Clinton have done behind the scenes. The question is what happens in the public domain--and here is where a convergence of view emerges among women of all political percussions. ii It is obvious that inequalities between men and women persist and opportunities for women are limited by artificial barriers in all societies, including the United States where the struggle for equality started, at end of the 19th century. As conservative women and political leaders in our own right, we can not ignore gender disparities in public life; neither can we ignore the fact that traditions and values, prevalent for generations, do play a role in defining our place in contemporary society. Because women have played a central role in defining core values, they must now assume a similar role in defining a political system that assures the promotion of the most central of all values--equality without qualifications. I am cognizant of the fact that social trends take time to be set in motion and even more time to be reversed. We cannot ignore the role of history and special conditions that have played a role in determining a woman's place in society. In Southern Europe, for example, cultural factors, religion and social attitudes made change a slow and arduous process when compared to northern European societies. For example, the right to vote in my country, Greece, was granted to women in 1952 and full equality in all walks of life was constitutionally guaranteed in 1974.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I cannot give the gentleman that information because I did not bring it to the floor with me. It may be important for the gentleman to recognize the fact that this amendment that I am offering passed the floor of the House last year. It passed not only with the membership of the Republican Party but also with a number of Members of the Democratic Party supporting this bill, as they again do this year.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again, the passage of this amendment would give law enforcement across the country a new and powerful weapon in the fight against violent criminals. As I mentioned earlier, there are disturbing examples of hostage situations involving children. I hope my colleagues will join me and pass these new protections and protect children from crime in America. Mr. Chairman, I want to also point out that in the last Congress, this bill did pass through the committee process. So I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did have a chance to look at it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of offering an amendment that addresses the problem of children being taken as hostages. Far too many scenarios have been documented in which children are taken as hostages and exposed to violence, emotional trauma, or physical harm at the hands of adults. For example, in New York a woman's estranged husband took her and their three children hostage at the point of a loaded shotgun. He held them for nearly 4 hours, and at one point he allegedly traded his 7- year-old son for a pack of cigarettes. In Texas a man took 80 children hostage at an area day care facility. They were held at gunpoint and released over a 30-hour period before the standoff was brought thankfully to a nonviolent conclusion. In Florida a suspected drug addict and murderer held two children ages 2 and 4 hostage for 2\1/2\ days. An entire Orlando neighborhood was evacuated during the standoff. Only when he threatened to use the children as human shields did a SWAT team rescue the children in a raid that resulted in the death of the suspect. In Baltimore a man broke into a second-floor apartment, stabbing a young mother and holding her 9-month-old child hostage for 2 hours before a quick response team could rescue the baby and apprehend the suspect. Situations such as these are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. We in Congress must do our part to prevent scenarios in which children are used as pawns by a violent adult. The amendment I offer today is based on my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 51, and will give new protection to our children. It establishes the strictest punishments for those who would evade arrest or obstruct justice by using children as hostages. This provision toughens penalties against any person who takes a child 18 years of age or younger hostage in order to resist, compel or oppose the Federal Government. Such a person would serve a minimum sentence of 10 years to a maximum of death depending on the extent of injury to the child. A number of States, including California, Illinois, Florida, are already enforcing tougher penalties on people convicted of stealing children for their own personal gain. I ask my colleagues to join me in this important effort to protect the lives and well-being of our Nation's children. It is my hope that together we can make our Nation a safer place for everyone, especially those who are least able to protect themselves. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before the House but also to personally pay tribute to the House Page Program funded in this bill. Especially, I wish to acknowledge the service and dedication of this academic year's House Pages. Today marks the last legislative day before the end of duty for this class, and tomorrow is their last day to be enrolled in the Page Program. Mr. Chairman, I want these special young people to know how grateful I, the members of the Page Board, and all of the Members of Congress are for their marvelous efforts on behalf of the American people. Their tireless work and dedication to this House allow for work to be done in a more efficient and professional manner. We are all truly grateful to each individual page for their willingness to leave the comfort and security of home to live, work, and attend school in an environment that certainly requires a tremendous adjustment. These exceptional young men and women, who stand in the back of the chamber today, have made an incredible sacrifice, Mr. Chairman, by dedicating their minds and enthusiasm during their service to our Nation. From the beginning, we had great expectations of this Page class. They have not disappointed us. We have asked for their loyalty. And again, they have not disappointed us. Now, as they return to their home communities and schools to continue their studies, we wish them all the best of luck and ask them to hold this House in the same high regard and esteem as we do their contributions to the House's works. It is with great pride and appreciation, as chairman of the House Page Board, that I rise to salute our pages and wish them the best in their future endeavors. Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Congressional Record the official listing of names of the departing House pages. 1998-1999 u.s. house page class Graham Babbitt, Joel Bagwell, Kyle Becker, Nicholas Bronni, Ashley Bumgarner, Dan Cosman, Bernadette Cullen, Becca Daltan, Tina Dannelly, Sheila Davies, Nick Dexter, Mike DiRoma, Leif Erickson, Caroline Evans, Rebecca Forster, Benjamin Foster, Andrea Green, Jay Greenbaum, Lauren Haller, Danny Hanlon, Gillian Hanson, Haley Hobbs, Patrick Janelle, Adam Jones, Glenn Kates, Amy Kennedy, Megan Kennedy, Janel Koehler, Rebekah Krieger, Michael Lanzara, Robert Leider, Scott Levine, Jonovan Luckey, Emilie Mague, Mike Mahoney, Natalie Mariona, Kareem Merrick, Megan Miller, Lindsey Much, Billye Nelson, Cristie Neubert, Dave Newcomb, Frank Nicklaus, Daniel Ortega, Kari Peterson, Patrick Pugh, George Robinette, Tracy Robinson, Katy Rosenberg, Noah Sanders, Jen Sauers, Karen Schulien, Jay Schwarz, Harlan Scott, Jacob Shellabarger, Elizabeth Smith, Kathy Smith, Robert Smith, Tristan Snyder, Cody Specketer, Sara Steines, Michelle Sullivan, Blair Sweeney, Micah Thompson, Darius Underwood, Matt Wagner, Kara Wenzel, Will Whitehead, Robyn Willie, and John Yarborough.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly mark the 125th anniversary of the Katonah, New York Volunteer Fire Department. It truly takes hard work and dedication by its members to provide quality fire protection services for over a century. Formed in 1874, just after a major fire which nearly resulted in the destruction of the entire town, the Katonah Fire Department has grown to over 100 active, hardworking volunteer firemen and emergency medical service personnel. The history of this incredible organization has turned out to be a long and illustrious story of bravery and commitment to the residents of Katonah. They have progressed dramatically over the 125 years of existence from an old horse and carriage to the firefighting tactics and equipment of today. Today, more than ever, all over the country, we need people to volunteer to serve in our local fire and ambulance corps. The people of Katonah are proud of our men and women who volunteer to risk their lives every day to respond to any emergency at a moment's notice. Congratulations to them. Let us salute them on this auspicious occasion for the undaunted hard work they do to make Katonah a safer place.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, we teach our children about the story of the ant and the grasshopper, in which the ant works hard in the summer laying up supplies for the winter while the grasshopper plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed, but the grasshopper has no food and starves. While we expect our children to understand the moral of this story, the government itself cannot seem to set the example of saving for the future, which is why I strongly support the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act, legislation which locks away 100 percent of the budget surplus attributed to Social Security and Medicare to ensure the long-term solvency of these two vital programs. Passage of this legislation represents a commitment to today's workers that tax dollars being set aside for Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. It also represents a commitment to older Americans that their golden years will be marked by peace of mind, not uncertainty, when it comes to the future of Social Security and Medicare. The wisdom of the ant and the irresponsibility of the grasshopper teach our children an important lesson, Mr. Speaker. I hope Congress will have the wisdom to embrace the fable's meaning and pass this legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of introducing the Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999. This legislation addresses a problem of increasing prevalence in our nation. While stalking is perhaps most popularly regarded as a crime only to be dealt with by celebrities with bodyguards and fortress-like estates, this is simply not the case. According to statistics released by the Justice Department, over 1,000,000 women and 370,000 men are victimized by stalkers every year. These estimates greatly exceed previous estimates, and clearly indicate a need for legislative redress. For this reason, I am reintroducing legislation that will provide greater protection to stalking victims. This legislation builds on an important anti-stalking law enacted in 1996. The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, which was introduced by my colleague Congressman Royce, marked a significant stride in the effort to stop and prevent stalking, as it established for the first time federal penalties for interstate stalking. My bill seeks to enhance the ability of law enforcement to arrest and prosecute stalkers by broadening the definition of stalking to include interstate communications such as mail and e-mail. Furthermore, by criminalizing ``threatening behavior'' as opposed to ``the demonstration of specific threats,'' this bill closes a loophole commonly used by accused stalkers to avoid conviction. The bill also include bail restrictions and enhanced sentencing provisions for repeat-offenders, along with the requirement that a mandatory protection order be issued for the victim. I've seen first-hand the horrible effects wrought on the lives of innocent people by stalkers. I've met people who face each day with an overwhelming fear for their safety, people whose spirits have been worn down by a undaunted menace. Congress must do more to protect these people, and I see this legislation as an important step in that direction. I certainly hope that my colleagues will agree with me.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees by the gentleman from Michigan. The idea behind this motion is simple, and it deserves our support. When a conference committee is meeting they should not insert provisions into the bill before them that were not in either the House or the Senate bills. We are a deliberative body that demands debate. To subvert this process by inserting provisions into a conference agreement not properly considered for the House or Senate is clearly wrong. These emergency supplementals are important and have my full support. We cannot allow disaster relief and the support for our troops in the Balkans to be delayed in any way. But if riders are going to be inserted into these emergency bills that were not considered by either side of Congress we are doing a great disservice to the American people. The big oink the American public hears is not coming from the House or Senate vote. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this stand we are taking to ensure that the legislative process is not subverted.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of honoring those police officers who have given their lives for the sake of others. A reflection on the sacrifice made by these officers can only lead one to feelings of sadness, humility, and pride. These Americans have demonstrated a commitment to the public good that could not be eclipsed, and their courage serves as a profound testament to the strength of our nation and our purpose. I was privileged last Congress to introduce the Public Safety Memorial Scholarship Act. This bill sought to provide education funding to the families of state and local public safety officers who were killed in the line of duty. I was certainly gratified when legislation which was very similar to my bill was signed into law last year. In honoring the memories of these fallen officers, we in Congress must continue our efforts to create safer and stronger communities through an active commitment to supporting those in the law enforcement community. I know that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that our constituents deserve nothing less than our best efforts as we work towards this goal.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for yielding me the time to clarify some very important provisions in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, because it boils down to two words: personal responsibility. If one assumes a debt, they should do everything in their power to pay it off. However, a safety net has to remain for those who legitimately cannot pay their debts. Creditors should be made whole, if possible. Some of my colleagues here today are trying to paint the word creditors to mean faceless financial institutions who are tricking consumers into assuming debt. They specifically speak of credit card debt. They unfortunately failed to note that credit card debt in the United States amounts to only 3.7 percent of all consumer debt. Furthermore, only 1 percent of credit card accounts end up in bankruptcy. Of that 1 percent it is estimated that 15 percent of those accounts can afford to repay some or all of their debt. The people who are truly being hurt by our current bankruptcy system are Americans who play by the rules and pay their debts. Bankruptcy costs the average American family an average per year of $400. Needs-based bankruptcy reform is well overdue, and that is what H.R. 833 delivers. It is the people who game the system that we have to stop. I have heard from my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He stated last year more people filed for bankruptcy than graduated from college. That is a staggering fact. I am pleased to support H.R. 833's provisions which strengthen the Bankruptcy Code protections for ex-spouses and children. They have to be supported. In the current bankruptcy law, child support and alimony are placed seventh behind attorney fees as debt obligations. If enacted, this bill would move child support and alimony payments to first on the list of debt obligations. Also under current law, some debtors use the automatic stay to avoid paying child support payments after they file for bankruptcy. H.R. 833 exempts State child support authorities from the automatic stay, thus insuring less delay in the proper payment of child support. I vehemently oppose any legislation that would reduce the ability of women and children to receive support payments. H.R. 833 is a good bill that moves us in the right direction, and I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this reasonable reform.