Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in September of 1999, most of the east coast was hit hard by Hurricane Floyd. There were 66 known deaths, 48 in North Carolina, three in New Jersey, two in New York, six in Pennsylvania, four in Virginia, two in Delaware and one in Vermont. Ten States were declared Federal disaster areas as a result of Hurricane Floyd. These 10 States needed support. In the aftermath of the storm, 4,582 individuals registered for Federal assistance in my home State of New York alone. The insurance for this kind of storm risk is priced far too high for the average homeowner. The Federal Government passed the Federal Flood Insurance Program in 1968 to provide homeowners in communities which meet certain requirements. In return for coverage, a community adopts and enforces a set of floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood risk for new construction in floodplain areas. This program is critical to communities across the country which are threatened by potential floods. This is not a perfect program; but it is something that we need to do, and we need to do it now. It was essential to the recovery of the community in my area of New York in 1999, and it has helped thousands of families nationwide to rebuild their lives after floods. When you see a natural disaster, the pictures of a natural disaster on television or in the papers, flooded homes, flooded schools, flooded churches, this is the money that helps those folks reclaim their communities and reclaim their washed-out lives. Many members believe that this Federal Flood Insurance Program should be reformed, and I support that. I am confident that the Committee on Financial Services will consider Federal flood insurance reform legislation in this Congress. However, today we are not here to debate reform of the program. Today we are here to ensure that the program can continue for 1 additional year to provide retroactive coverage for those days which have already passed since the authorization expired. December 31st the flood insurance expired because of an oversight in the last continuing resolution. Without this legislation, homeowners are going to be unable to purchase homes in areas threatened by an occasional potential for flooding. This can harm people and it can harm communities and could cause further harm to the economy. So today we need to pass this legislation and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in this support of the bipartisan support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I just want to applaud the chairman's Ohio State Buckeyes. Way to go, Buckeyes.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the rule providing consideration for H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Reform Conference Report, because this issue boils down to two words: personal responsibility. If a person assumes a debt, they are obligated to do everything in their power to pay it off. Creditors should be made whole, if possible. However, a safety net must remain for those who legitimately cannot pay their debts. Some of my colleagues 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 fail to note that credit card debt in the United States amounts to only three point eight percent of all household debt. Furthermore, only one percent of credit card accounts end up in bankruptcy. Of that one percent it is estimated that fifteen 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 off their debts. Bankruptcy costs the average American family about $400 a year. Needs-based bankruptcy reform is well overdue, and that is what this Bankruptcy Conference Report delivers. It is the people who game the system that we need to stop. I listened to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He stated that more people filed for bankruptcy than graduated from college. That is a staggering fact. It's a transference of cost from those who overspend to those who carefully manage their money. I support the Bankruptcy Conference Reports provisions which strengthen 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. The Bankruptcy Conference Report ensures 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. This Conference Report is a good legislation 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 by voting in favor of the rule providing for consideration of this Conference Report.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, our world fundamentally changed with the cowardly act of a handful of terrorists. Passage of this bill represents another significant step in our efforts to address the new realities we confront. This bill addresses the fact that one of the key objectives of the terrorist networks is to disrupt our economy. The losses of September 11 and the continued terrorist threat demonstrate that we must provide basic protections for our economy. The September 11 attacks resulted in the largest single hit to our insurance industry in history. Since then, businesses and insurance markets have faced a new reality. Insurers are being asked to insure terrorism risk when they have no realistic way to determine the fair price for that risk, or, in the vast majority of cases, being able to obtain any reinsurance for it. Moreover, no one can presently calculate the proper odds for where or when the next attack will occur. We do know, however, that our government officials believe that we should expect additional attacks. Consequently, the vast majority of insurers have been reluctant to cover terrorism, especially for major buildings, factories, or gathering places. Where terrorism insurance is available or is required by law, insurers are now charging high premiums for it and offering very limited capacity to protect against the risk of insolvency. I believe that the GAO put it best when they testified before my oversight committee that ``large companies, businesses of any size perceived to be in or near a target location, or those with some concentration of personnel or facilities, are unlikely to be able to obtain a meaningful level of terrorism coverage at an economically viable price.'' Hospitals have been especially hard hit by this terrorism insurance crisis. Representatives of some of the New York hospitals testified before my subcommittee that they have seen a 256 percent increase in their coverage of their insurance rates for only one-third of the previous coverage. It is only one example of the crisis. I have many, many more and will insert letters into the Record which demonstrate this. It is clear that the current lack of terrorism coverage acts as a chill factor, restraining our economy. We heard that businesses, particularly in cities and near potential targets, wanting to build are being required to carry terrorism insurance. However, there is little or no terrorism coverage available, so some new construction is being stopped before it can even start. This is causing the loss of new jobs at a time when creating jobs should be one of our highest priorities. In short, the failure to act quickly on terrorism insurance legislation is imposing a fear tax on America, costing real jobs when the country is trying to pull out of a recession. In addition, the administration says that another terrorist attack is extremely likely, and we must plan now for how the government should react to an attack; now, not after another attack. We have learned countless lessons from September 11 on homeland security, and the need for this legislation is one of them. This conference report is a good solution to the problem and deserves our full support. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of jobs by voting for this conference report. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for his leadership, and I thank his wonderful staff for their work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters regarding terrorism insurance: July 8, 2002. Hon. Sue Kelly, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Kelly: Our members, the owners, institutional investors and others in real estate in New York City, appreciate the leadership you have provided in dealing with the critical problem of the absence of adequate terrorism insurance coverage. I understand from a recent conversation with one of our members, Douglas Durst, that you are interested in having some specific examples of the problems the absence of terrorism insurance coverage has created. Those examples follow: 4 Times Square, also known as the Conde Nast building, is in litigation with its lender due to the absence of terrorism insurance coverage. The lender, La Salle Bank and CIGNA has threatened to invade the ``lock box'' into which rents are deposited in order to buy $430 million in terrorism insurance, the amount of the mortgage. The insurer for the portfolio held by the owners of 4 Times Square has refused to write coverage for this building claiming it is ``high profile.'' The owners have recently obtained $100 million in terrorism insurance but without no coverage for biological or chemical events. As for the remaining $330 million dollars in coverage the lenders require, the courts will resolve whether the money to buy such coverage, if available, can be claimed from the cash flow of the property. Should the courts determine that the cash flow can be invaded for this purpose, the full interest due to the investors holding certificates will not be paid, the rating services will downgrade the securities which are already on the Moody's watchlist, and the individuals who invested will see their investment eroded. Meanwhile, the owner-builder of 4 Times Square has equity of $450 million invested in this $880 million building and no coverage. That owner, who typically would be investing in the construction of a new building is stymied. A lending officer at HypoVereinsbank, the major construction lender in the nation, has advised us that at least 5 major construction projects in his portfolio are not going forward until the terrorism insurance situation is resolved. HypoVereinsbank wants full terrorism coverage including biological and chemical causes as well as certainty that for the duration of construction the insurance will be available. Four of these projects are in New York, the fifth in Chicago. Andy Veith, the lending officer will try to reach you later this week either by phone or e-mail. Downtown, a one million square foot office building owner could not obtain refinancing for the underlying mortgage of approximately $200 million because terrorism insurance was unavailable. Finally, a lender agreed to go forward if the owner committed to pay $41 per square foot for stand alone terrorism insurance coverage. At the same time that the owner faced that $1 million additional drain on the cash flow of the building, he also had to absorb an increase of from $110,000 to $550,00 over the prior year's cost of insurance. This additional cost, in addition to excluding terrorism risk, does not cover mold or biological, nuclear or chemical events whether terrorist generated or otherwise. The owner now has $1,440,000 additional insurance expenses with less comprehensive coverage on the environmental risk side than before, and has to self-insure for the equity that he has invested in the property. A REIT portfolio, which includes major office complexes in Boston, San Francisco, D.C. as well as a trophy midtown Manhattan building, can get only $250 million in terrorism coverage for the entire portfolio worth several billion. If there is one more terrorism incident, it is likely that even this limited coverage will be lost given its not uncommon 30- day cancellation clause. Other examples from across the country, including hospitals, stadiums, major transportation centers and other vital private and public investments that are not covered by terrorism insurance, along with a vivid description of the ripple effect this problem is having on the overall economy, appear in the May 23rd Joint Economic Committee report to Congress. It is most important that enactment of some form of government temporary back up for terrorism insurance coverage occur quickly. We appreciate your efforts to resolve this critical problem. Sincerely, Deborah B. Beck, Executive Vice President.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, in view of Iraq's history of violence, deception and hostility, and the mounting evidence about its pursuit of powerful weapons, our objective must be the disarmament of Iraq and the fundamental reform of its current political leadership. The Administration and many members of this body realize that this task is one that must be undertaken to protect America and its citizens. As we have learned, failing to recognize the seriousness of threats posed by our enemies can have grave consequences. I support this resolution because it is critical to our national security. It does not obligate us to carry out military action, but it makes clear to Iraq and all nations the depth of our commitment to extinguishing the threat, and ensures that the Administration has every option available to achieve our objectives, including the use of military force. There is a looming menace to America, and we ought not delay our efforts to neutralize it.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor my friend and colleague from New York. In our military, for New York State government, and for the last 30 years here in the House, Ben Gilman has always been there for his country and for his fellow citizens. And I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with an individual like Ben, who has dedicated so much of his life to public service. As we all know, as we have all heard, he has had a very distinguished career in this body and has been a great leader for us on many fronts as chairman of the Committee on International Relations. But I also want to say something about Ben's dedication to the interest of his constituents in the Hudson Valley. Those of us in the Hudson Valley have been particularly fortunate to have Ben here in Congress. He has been a tireless advocate for focusing Federal resources on the area's needs; and he has been a tremendous partner, and he has been a teacher for me in working to improve the region and to bring forth the work on the important issues of our area. The Hudson Valley has benefited greatly because of Ben Gilman's service in this body. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman today for his service to the Hudson Valley, to the State of New York, and to this Nation. I thank the gentleman so much for being the person that we all so admire for what he has done for all of us.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa, the author of this bill. Certain State, tribal and private entities have raised concerns, and I would like to clarify the intention of the drafters of H.R. 556 on one point. Section 3, subsection (b)(1)(E)(ix) exempts from the bill's provisions lawful transactions carried out with a business licensed or authorized by a State. Some parties have raised concerns that this could be read broadly to allow the transmission of casino or lottery games in interstate commerce, for example, over the Internet, simply because one State authorizes its businesses to do so. I want to make clear that this exception will not expand the reach of gambling in any way. It is simply intended to recognize current law, which allows States jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, not interstate but intrastate activity, where bets or wagers, or information assisting bets or wagers, do not cross State lines or enter into interstate commerce. The exemption would leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions such as the Wire Act, Federal prohibitions on lotteries, and the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could not be placed on the Internet. Put another way, this exemption does not allow for interstate wagering. For example, under this bill a resident of one State could not legally use the Internet to purchase a lottery ticket in another State. This exemption is simply intended to recognize current law, which allows States to regulate wholly intrastate gambling activity and would leave intact the current Wire Act, which prohibits interstate gambling. Is that correct?

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

Mrs. KELLY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to join us in standing against illegal Internet gambling and voting for this bill. In a few short years, the Internet gambling industry has exploded. According to an Internet gambling committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, there were less than 25 such sites on the Web in the mid-1990s. Bear Stearns, one of the nation's leading securities firms, estimates that there are between 1,200 and 1,400 e-gaming Web sites. Bear Stearns projects that as the industry continues to grow; such Internet sites could generate an estimated $5 billion in revenues by 2003. That figure approximates roughly half of last year's casino earnings in the State of Nevada. Internet gambling presents a complex set of legal, financial, technical, and social challenges. On the legal front, it is believed that most forms of interstate Internet gambling are prohibited by Federal law under the Interstate Wire Act in Section 1084 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. For years, authorities have used the Wire Act to combat illegal betting by phone or other wire communications. Now, with the advent of Internet technology, the Wire Act and other related provisions of Federal law also stand as a legal obstacle against the establishment of Internet casinos on U.S. soil. The most serious offenders in the Internet gambling arena are the virtual casinos operating offshore, beyond the research of U.S. law. One estimate puts the number of foreign jurisdictions authorizing or tolerating Internet gambling at fifty. This includes not just the well- known bank secrecy jurisdiction of the Caribbean but other countries like Australia. The lure of lucrative licensing fees and the possibility of sharing in gambling receipts are proving to be powerful incentives to enter the Internet gambling business. Antigua and Barbuda have reportedly licensed more than 80 Internet gaming websites already, charging a $75,000-$85,000 licensing fee for a sports betting site and $100,000 for a virtual casino. A report prepared for the South African government, as reported in the Bear Stearns study, revealed that Internet gaming revenues could yield up to $140 million in foreign exchange. While Internet gambling represents a jackpot for such foreign justifications, it is a wheel of misfortune for far too many Americans who struggle with gambling addictions and the loss of jobs, wrecked marriages, and destroyed finances that often follow. With a click of a computer mouse, any American armed with a credit card can have instant, anonymous access to round-the clock gambling from the privacy of their homes. All of the social hazards associated with problem gambling at brick-and-mortar sites are of equal, if not greater, concern when it comes to on-line gambling. Furthermore, Internet gambling poses a serious problem to our youth. In the areas in which gambling is legal, strict laws have been enacted to ensure our children are prohibited from participating. In many homes the children are far more computer literate than the parents. What possibly would stop a child from placing a bet with their parent's credit card? Since our society has made a conscious decision to keep children from this activity we must take steps to ensure that online casinos do not victimize our children. The issue of what can we do to protect children from these sites will be one of my first questions for our panelists today. In addition to the social problems associated with Internet gambling, U.S. authorities warn that Internet gaming offers a powerful vehicle for laundering funds from illicit sources as well as to evade taxes. A 2001-2002 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report on money laundering typologies indicates that there is evidence in some FATF jurisdictions that criminals are using the Internet gambling industry to commit crime and to launder the proceeds thereof. The use of credit cards and the placement of sites offshore make locating the relevant parties, gathering the necessary evidence, and prosecuting those parties difficult if not impossible. Despite the many problems associated with Internet gambling, there is clearly money to be made in this business, and U.S. firms are increasingly eager to claim their share. U.S., software firms, public relations and advertising companies, and other U.S.-based enterprises are already knee-deep in the Internet gambling business. Within the last year, two U.S. companies--MGM Mirage and Harrah's--have announced new on-line play-for-free or play-for-prizes operations that are but a short step away from actual Internet gambling. Nevertheless, it is clear that absent strong Congressional action, the United States may be poised itself to head down the slippery slope of Internet gambling. In 1999, the Congressionally-mandated National Gambling Impact Study Commission unanimously recommended a Federal ban on Internet gambling. Testifying at a hearing before the Banking Committee last Congress, Commission Member Richard Leone explained that unlike the regulatory regimes that have accompanied the expansion of other forms of gambling in the United States, the emergence of Internet gambling has occurred with no regulatory structure. As a result, the current framework of Federal and State laws governing gambling can be easily circumvented. The Commission noted that the problems associated with Internet gambling include: (1) the potential for abuse by gambling operators who can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within minutes; (2) the ability of gambling operators or computer hackers to tamper with gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit; and (3) the provision of additional means for individuals to launder money derived from criminal activities. The Commission concluded that because Internet gambling crossed state lines, it would be difficult for States to effectively control it and that Federal legislation was the only recourse. The Commission further rejected the argument that Internet gambling could be effectively regulated. and recommended, instead, a ban on any Internet gambling not already authorized by law, and without new or expanded exemptions. Although the States do not normally welcome Federal legislation on such matters, the National Association of Attorneys General, speaking on behalf of State Attorneys General, has indicated strong support for Federal action. In response to the Commission's recommendations and testimony from other interested parties, the House Financial Services Committee approved this legislation now before us, H.R. 556, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This bill tackles the problem of Internet gambling by prohibiting gambling operations from accepting credit cards, checks, or other bank instruments in connection with illegal Internet gambling. The justification for this bill is simple: if we cut off the internet gambling industry's access to money it will die. If we fail to act and pass this legislation I fear that our actions will be misinterpreted as a green light to those in U.S. industry who are interested in launching on-line gambling operations of one type or another. This issue can no longer simply be left to random events and foreign jurisdictions. It is time for Congress to address these issues and identify an appropriate public policy response. It is time for Congress to pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1701. This is bipartisan legislation which would create a nationwide floor for rent- to-own contracts. In turn, this floor would create greater opportunities and flexibility for consumers to choose from when acquiring new products. What kind of flexibility? Rent-to-own consumers do not need to commit to any specified amount of time to use these products. One example would be consumers who like to test out different products before deciding which product they will purchase. Rent-to-own gives them an opportunity to do that by just allowing the consumers to determine which of these products best suits their needs before purchasing that product. In addition, rent-to-own allows consumers to obtain products they may only need for a short time. For instance, a consumer may want a giant screen TV for just the fall football season. They could engage in a rent-to-own contract for the fall, and at the end, simply return the TV, no questions asked, and end the agreement right on the spot. Another example is particularly helpful for parents of children interested in taking music lessons on an instrument. These parents can obtain the instrument the child is interested in with a rent-to-own agreement. If the child loses interest, parents can simply return the instrument and stop making payments. Many school districts in the United States of America have this sort of thing in place. Rent-to-own represents a viable and simple alternative for many Americans not looking to purchase a product. However, rent-to-own also represents an option for many Americans who lack credit or who do not have the funds to purchase a product they otherwise would be unable to obtain, so they do it slowly, with a rent-to-own contract. In essence, this legislation is about ensuring greater options for consumers. As a body, I believe it is our mission to create more and not limit choices and opportunities for consumers. Those opposed to this legislation claim the bill would override State law and harm consumers. That is a gross distortion. While this legislation would create a new floor for consumer protections in the States, in no way would the bill change any State law which is stronger than the standards written in the bill, nor would this bill prevent any State from enacting even stronger consumer protections for these leasehold agreements. What the bill does is create a floor of strong consumer protections from which States can work to help consumers who want to take advantage of rent-to-purchase opportunities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in support for this legislation to give all consumers better protections in these contracts, and a lot more options in the market.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, before I address the Waters amendment, let me say a few things about the LaFalce amendment. The LaFalce amendment runs counter to our economy and would subvert the free market. The amendment requires rent-to-own merchants all to offer the same cash price for their products, and these prices would be set by the Federal Reserve Board. I have to wonder why we have to impose such a duty on the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve is tasked with broad mandates to ensure the overall health of the economy through sound monetary policy. The last thing we need is for the Federal Reserve to become an appraiser and set prices for the rent-to- own industry. Second, the amendment would harm competition in the rent-to-own industry. I do not see anyone advocating that a car lease would have a cash price set by the Federal Reserve. Why? Because we know that a competitive car lease market benefits the consumer. When an industry all has the same base price for a product, that is known as collusion. A merchant not fairly setting a price on their own but being required to set it at their competition's level, that is illegal. When airlines set their ticket prices, it is illegal. When they put such a practice into law on a rent-to-own lease, it is also wrong. I think that my colleagues should join me in support of the free market and oppose the LaFalce amendment. Mr. Chairman, now let me speak to the Waters amendment, which I also oppose. My colleague from California has here an amendment that would remove the responsibility of a consumer to care for the merchandise that they received through a rental purchase agreement. The agreement would effectively preempt contract law that is already in place and established in 49 States. In effect the merchant, who is not in possession of the property, would be responsible for the damage to it. This amendment would take away any responsibility for the consumer to care for the product that they are renting. Does anyone know of any agreement in which the holder of a rental piece of property would not be responsible for the damage that they do to it while it is in their possession? I believe the amendment would effectively kill the industry; and in these slow economic times, I do not think we should be looking to eliminate more jobs. The rental purchase industry is a credible option for many Americans who would not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain the products that they need. Personally, I learned to play the violin on a rent-to-own violin. It provided an enormous amount of joy in my life because my folks could not afford to buy me a violin when I was in grade school. They did a rent-to-purchase agreement. There are kids all over the Nation who do this. Our mission in Congress should be to increase opportunities for people, not to limit consumer opportunities. Let me be clear on another point. Because of an amendment from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the bill allows merchants to include liability damage waivers as part of the rental purchase contracts only after disclosing to the consumer that they need not purchase this coverage in order to enter into the rental purchase agreement itself. The bill is clear that the consumer has been given the choice, and we need to support the choice by voting against the Waters amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Increased Capital Access for Growing Businesses Act. In 1980 Congress enacted changes to the securities laws to allow for the creation of Business Development Companies (BDCs)--publicly traded companies that would invest in small and medium sized business that needed access to capital. Today there are about 20 active BDCs that are in the business of providing capital and management expertise to grow companies into larger success stories. There have been many success stories as a result of the BDC legislation. Companies that would never have had access to capital to grow and expand today owe their success to the securities law structure that was enacted more than twenty years ago. However, after twenty years it is important for Congress to modernize and update the BDC provisions. In order to maintain status as a BDC, in general a company must invest at least 70 percent of its assets in securities issued by something called ``eligible portfolio companies.'' There are different categories in the law of companies that qualify for status as an ``eligible portfolio company.'' However, the principal category on which BDCs rely for eligibility of their portfolio companies are companies that do not have a class of securities on which, ``margin'' credit can be extended pursuant to rules or the Federal Reserve. According to the legislative history of the 1980 Amendments, it was estimated that the definition of eligible portfolio company would include two-thirds of all publicly held operating companies. Since 1980 when Congress adopted the definition of eligible portfolio company, the Federal Reserve has changed the requirements for marginability, and, effective January 1, 1999, margin securities include any securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. This change has dramatically decreased the number of eligible portfolio companies. The proposed legislation would allow BDCs to provide financing to a larger number of companies that are in dire need of capital and which cannot access the public markets or obtain conventional financing, consistent with the policy of the 1980 law. Specifically, it would add to the definition of ``eligible portfolio company'' any company with a market capitalization of not more than $1 billion. It would not, however, affect the requirement that the securities must be acquired in privately negotiated transactions. Today more and more companies are finding that credit is simply unavailable. The ability for companies to grow and increase jobs is dependent on their ability to tap the capital markets. While this legislation may not be the answer for every small and medium sized company, it offers an opportunity for many companies that would otherwise find the capital market doors closed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to approve the conference agreement for the corporate accountability legislation. With the Senate adoption of the House's top priorities of tougher penalties, openness, so the investor can evaluate a company before they invest and money back to defrauded investors, this conference agreement stands as a product that both sides can be proud of. This legislation punishes corporate crooks. It strengthens oversight of the accounting industry and empowers investors with much faster access to critical information about the companies in which they invest. This legislation will shine a bright light into the shadows of America's corporate board rooms so the public is not kept in the dark, and when they make an investment, that investment will be sound and based on truth and openness and honesty. The corporate executives, the heads of these businesses, need to know they are being watched and they will be put in jail if they use their company to line their own pockets at the expense of our investors. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and his excellent staff and Senator Sarbanes and his fine staff. They need to be recognized for the conception of most of the provisions in this bill and the fortitude and the resolve to bring the legislation forward through this process in a very bipartisan and open manner. Last week, Chairman Greenspan spoke before the Committee on Financial Services about how strong our economy is and talking about that our economy is strong even though our corporate system is frayed. This legislation contains the tools necessary to mend the bonds which have been abused by the people who have been motivated by greed and strengthen others, which ensure a strong and vibrant economy. Chairman Greenspan also emphasized that the criminal penalties section in this legislation is the most important part of this legislation. With the Senate acceptance of the House's tougher penalties, we have ensured that the most important part of this legislation is the best possible. I look forward to our passing this conference report today so it can be sent to the White House so the President can enact this legislation giving employees and investors the needed protections and confidence they require and they deserve.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This is a substantial step in addressing the growing shortage of nurses currently being experienced by health care facilities nationwide. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the Subcommittee on Health chairman, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor. As a professional patient advocate, I hope that this measure will increase the number of health professionals available to care for the growing number of patients we have, the growing number, as well as being more ill when they are in the hospital. The bill contains practical and creative solutions to eliminating the nursing shortage. It focuses on recruitment, retention, career enhancement and faculty development. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will provide a framework for increasing awareness about opportunities in the nursing profession, growing enrollment in nursing schools, and providing staff coverage for areas experiencing acute shortages. Funding for outreach and public awareness campaigns will help us tap into new communities, seeking those people who may not traditionally have considered health care as a career. The National Nurse Service Corps expanded loan repayment assistance and a scholarship program contained in this bill will further entice prospective students to serve in areas where the need is the greatest. We hope that nurses currently practicing will find this legislation provides funding for the development of internships, residency and mentoring programs, and education and new emerging technologies. Nurses also should be encouraged to seek specialty training and other opportunities to enhance their skills as a result of this bill. An especially important component of the bill is a provision to ensure that nursing schools have adequate faculty. A loan forgiveness program will be available for nurses pursuing advanced education who will teach in nursing schools. In short, the bill will help make sure that the classroom seats in our Nation's nursing schools are filled and that practicing nurses remain in the field and pursue higher skill levels. This will help relieve the nursing shortage that we are experiencing. Nurses are stretched too thin, and we need to get more nurses on the hospital floors to provide much-needed care for patients. It is a good step. It is a first step in helping America continue to have caring and outstanding medical nursing care. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure and help strengthen our Nation's health care workforce.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize McQuade Children's Services, located in New Windsor, NY, for its dedicated service to special needs children of the Hudson Valley. On Sunday, July 21, McQuade Children's services celebrates its 140th birthday. McQuade's service to Hudson Valley residents dates back to 1862, when it was founded as a home for orphaned or abandoned children. Established by the Newburgh Union Female Guardian Society as the ``Home for the Friendless,'' it was renamed in 1945 to commemorate the life of Dr. Milton Ash McQuade. Dr. McQuade was an ear, nose and throat specialist who himself was abandoned at a church doorstep as a baby and raised by the Reverend McQaude and his wife. Dr. McQuade emigrated from Canada to Newburgh, NY in 1914 to establish a medical practice and throughout the years, supported the Home and provided free medical care to the children. Upon his death in 1928, Dr. McQuade dedicated much of his estate to the Home, enabling it to continue to provide services throughout difficult times such as the Great Depression. Today, McQuade Children's Services provides quality care in a variety of settings to 300 children and their families. Its mission, however, has remained one of providing an accepting, nurturing environment for children. Putting ``Children First'' is not just a pledge taken annually by staff, but a philosophy that is truly internalized by all those who help McQuade's succeed. The services available to children are vast and varied, ranging from therapeutic residential care to special education. McQuade's facilities and programs include: a boys and girls Residential Treatment Center, the Kaplan School for special education, Diagnostic Assessment Centers, and community programs focused on family counseling and independent living skills. Teaching responsibility and imparting values to children, McQuade's staff works tirelessly to provide social, academic, physical and spiritual growth. McQuade's numerous success stories are a testament to its importance to the Hudson Valley community. The McQuade staff and volunteers share an unparalleled commitment to improving the lives of children in need. Once again, I commend McQuade Children's Services for providing quality care to children for well over a century and I look forward to celebrating their 140th anniversary this coming Sunday, July 21, 2002.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, this morning I asked Chairman Greenspan a question which is directly relevant to this motion to instruct. My question was: ``Do you think that increasing the ability for individuals to sue corporations for inaccuracies in their statements is a proper goal for this kind of legislation?'' I am quoting now from Mr. Greenspan's response. He said: I think not. I don't see that has any particular economic advantage. The issue is a technical one and a complex one and should be really under the aegis of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And they should be taking the actions which are required to redress inaccuracies, mistakes, malfeasance and the like. I don't think you gain anything by increasing the ability to sue the company. Because remember that it is shareholders suing other shareholders. That is what it is. Republicans are committed to strengthening this legislation in conference by including real-time disclosures, adding a provision to ensure that investors and not trial lawyers are the beneficiaries of funds recovered from corporate malfeasance and adding tougher penalties to corporate fraud. If the Senate had not dragged its feet, this bill would have been done months ago. But for whatever cynical reasons they have, the Senate chose to play politics with this issue. And for the same cynical reasons, the Democratic leadership is threatening to drag out any conference for 2 months. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to join us in voting against this motion to instruct and for a stronger corporate accountability law.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. This report must be passed for one simple reason and that is the support for U.S. jobs. It is really easy to characterize this as a handout for big businesses. Well, those businesses mean jobs. They are the people who hire. In our global economy, U.S. companies must constantly be seeking new markets for our products. Our government needs to support these efforts because it supports U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world in which our trading partners play fair. Our businesses must compete with businesses which are directly subsidized by the nations in which they operate. To add some level of fairness to this competitive disadvantage, the U.S. created the Export-Import Bank. In my area of New York, this has translated into over $70 million which has benefited both large and small businesses involving thousands of jobs in my district alone and tens of thousands of jobs in New York State. The international market presents many problems for United States businesses seeking new opportunities. We must work to alleviate these problems for U.S. employers so the incentive to move jobs overseas will not be there. In this present economy, every one of us has to make a commitment to ensure more products bearing the ``Made in the USA'' label get to the markets abroad by supporting this legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this conference report. In this committee's review of the Ex-Im's performance we determined that a greater effort must be made to increase the amount of funds which go to small businesses. This Conference Report requires a ten percent increase in the volume of funds going to small businesses. Ex-Im provides an invaluable service for U.S. workers. Many U.S. products and services would never have been able to find new buyers in the global market place without the assistance of Ex-Im.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2941) to facilitate the provision of assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and economic redevelopment of brownfields, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for setting this bill up and sending it to the floor, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2941, the Brownfields Redevelopment Act. Brownfields redevelopment is an issue of critical importance to our Nation as a whole. One of my priorities in Congress has been the need for saving green spaces. A key to saving open space is directing new growth to those areas that we have already developed, where we have already got infrastructure, and where established communities are looking for revitalization: Our brownfields. Too many communities are growing like trees, with ever expanding rings of outward growth but very often the community in the middle falls out of that growth pattern. We need to revitalize our existing communities. This saves valued green spaces from uncontrolled growth and gives us much more pleasant communities in which to live. A large part of this effort must focus on the spaces that we can rehabilitate for human habitation. This helps communities by returning these properties as tax ratables to the tax rolls. It should be our goal to ensure that any planned growth of communities has as a goal the greatest possible cleanup and redevelopment of their contaminated properties. Otherwise growth will continue the trend of sacrificing more and more of our open spaces as we simply abandon areas that have been harmed. The Brownfields Redevelopment Act is simple and clear. First, it makes HUD's Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Fund work better for local communities by taking off the strings of cumbersome Federal loan requirements. The law which this provision changes has prevented my home county of Westchester County, New York, from applying for a Brownfields Redevelopment grant because they could not meet these requirements. Second, it creates a pilot program to promote more brownfields locations with HUD support. In addition, the legislation makes brownfield redevelopment a qualified use for community development block grants. These provisions will assist our communities in addressing brownfields problems. We know that blighted brownfields are more than an environment-only problem. These are places that need investments of infrastructure and economic development and business growth. HUD is well suited to give local governments the tools they need to invest in the revitalization of brownfields properties in partnership with other Federal agencies, the States, and the private sector. This legislation represents an important step toward the ultimate goal of cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites. I believe making progress on this issue is something that will require local as well as State and Federal cooperation and partnerships. The gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) has introduced his Brownfields Redevelopment Act in an effort for the Federal Government to play a larger part in assisting localities in this effort. This legislation makes a good step in the right direction, and as a cosponsor it has my full support. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for championing this issue, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for working in a strong bipartisan effort to move this legislation, and I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his efforts to ensure the legislation is moved quickly through this process. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join us in strong support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2941, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) to control the time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act. This legislation should be supported for two important reasons: first, it increases deposit insurance coverage for the first time since 1980; and, second, the bill introduces flexibility into the designated reserve ratio. As we are all aware, the FDIC insurance plays a critical role in our Nation's financial system, ensuring both consumer confidence in banks and stability in the system. Today, community banks are facing serious funding challenges due to the lack of core deposits, which is why an increase in the deposit insurance coverage levels is such an important issue. While I support higher deposit insurance levels, I also support the increase in the bill which raises the Federal deposit coverage to $130,000. It provides for automatic inflation adjustments and provides for up to $2 million in municipal deposit coverage. Increasing coverage levels would benefit communities, retirees, consumers, farmers, the economy, and small business customers by enabling depositors to keep more of their money in local banks where it can be reinvested for community projects and local lending. In addition, the legislation removes the current hard target of the designated reserve ratio and replaces it with a flexible range. This change will allow banks to do their job and provide credit when it is most important: when the economy is struggling. This is an acknowledgment of the harsh effect these assessments can have on the economy and allows the FDIC to coordinate the imposition of such assessments with the Federal Reserve. This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support, having passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 52 to 2. I ask all my colleagues to join me in support of strong legislation which will enhance the effectiveness of the FDIC and help consumers and our communities.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 2871, the Export Import Bank Reauthorization Act. This legislation needs to be passed for one simple reason: saving U.S. jobs. The core mission of the Ex-Im Bank is support for U.S. jobs. The bank does this by providing credit guarantees for U.S. exports deemed too risky by private lenders. In addition, Ex-Im will make loans, offer financing, and offer insurance on U.S.-made products. In our global economy, companies must constantly be seeking new markets for our products, and our government must support these efforts, because it supports U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world in which our trading partners play fair with U.S. businesses and our U.S. businesses must compete with nations which directly subsidize their competitors. In order to add some level of fairness, we created the Ex-Im Bank. Last year, Ex-Im supported $12.5 billion of U.S. exports. In my area of New York, this translated to over $70 million, which benefited a total of 12 large and small businesses involving thousands of jobs in my district alone, and tens of thousands of jobs in New York State. As we have heard today, 90 percent of the total number of Ex-Im Bank's transactions were in support of small businesses. This is good, but we must also work to increase the amount of funds which are used by small businesses. In this committee's review of the Ex-Im's performance, we determined that a greater effort must be made to increase the amount of funds which go to these small businesses. Hence, this legislation requires a 10 percent increase in the volume of funds going to small businesses, and that is good for our small businesses in the United States. Ex-Im Bank cannot stop there, however. We have challenged them to go even further. I strongly support the committee's work to improve the operation of the Tied Aid Credit Program. I believe the changes the committee has made to this program in this bill will permit the program to operate more efficiently and effectively, while maintaining the coequal role of Ex-Im and the Treasury Department. Ex-Im provides an invaluable service to U.S. workers. Many U.S. products and services would never have been able to find new buyers in the global marketplace without the assistance of the Ex-Im. The international market presents many new problems for the U.S. businesses that are seeking new opportunities, and we have to work to alleviate these problems for U.S. employers, or the incentives to move jobs overseas will only grow and the pressure will be strong. One way we ensure that more products bear the ``made in the USA'' label abroad is by supporting this legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It should be defeated for two reasons. First, the amendment makes the U.S. Government support for U.S. products conditional on determinations made about legitimate business activities regardless of the situation. Say we have the Sanders widget company with plants in the Midwest, Vermont and offices in Brazil where there is a real demand for Sanders widgets. If the Midwest plant is destroyed by a tornado and they are forced to lay off the workers, they would be in violation of the standards set by this amendment and would be unable to access Export- Import Bank support until they get the factory rebuilt and operational. The amendment would effectively damage the company a second time when they are not at fault in the first place. What disturbs me most about the amendment is the apparent belief if these companies must lay off U.S. workers, there would be no understandable circumstances in which that might happen. Second, this amendment represents a large administrative burden on U.S. businesses which have operations overseas. Even when a manufacturer has not let go a single employee, they would be required to assemble and certify all of the information required by the amendment for each application for support for their U.S. made products. What if a U.S. business with foreign operations asked for the resignation of one U.S. employee during the year because of a sexual harassment charge, but it kept all of the other employees? As I understand this amendment, that company would be prohibited from Export-Import Bank assistance. That is neither fair nor is it right. This amendment presents a different philosophy of how the government should ensure the creation of more U.S. jobs. It comes down to carrot or a stick. Do we use incentives for companies to create more jobs in the United States, or do we enforce penalties against companies that increase foreign operations. It has been my experience that one can only drive business away with sticks, and we should provide more carrots for companies that do the right thing and keep U.S. jobs going. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing here today, and join me in opposition to the Sanders amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Corporate Auditor Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act, known as the CARTA Act. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding me this time. This legislation represents the first positive step forward to restore public confidence to our Nation's accounting industry. Since the dramatic failures in both Global Crossing and Enron, we have heard from countless former employees and investors who have been harmed because of the lack of transparency, the lack of auditor independence, and the lack of timely and clear disclosures. CARTA takes substantive steps to address all of these issues, with a focused approach that will restore confidence in the industry. Let me be clear. The legislation is not the complete solution. There are many investigations which continue with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labor. As the appropriate agencies uncover new issues, we are going to continue our work to ensure that we act prudently, appropriately, and responsibly. As with the medical profession, though, our overriding goal has to be, first, do no harm. We must be focused in our work and make sure our response is effective, restores public confidence, and has a positive impact on the market. CARTA is reasonable and responsible. CARTA creates a new Public Regulatory Organization with real power to discipline accountants who violate the standards of ethics, competency, and independence. CARTA makes it a crime for any corporate official to mislead or coerce an accountant in the course of conducting an audit. CARTA requires real- time disclosures of significant financial information to ensure that employees and investors know about important events as they happen, instead of when the quarterly report comes out. These are just a few of the significant reforms made in this legislation. CARTA is a strong reform. It gives greater authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission to act, and it is stronger authority than in the Democratic substitute. It takes significant steps to ensure accountants are truly independent and corporations are clear and honest in their statements. It is a bipartisan bill. It was supported in committee by both Democrats and Republicans. The committee vote on final passage of 49 to 12 demonstrates that there is real agreement in the House that the provisions contained in this legislation will move us forward to our goal of restoring public confidence in our accounting system and corporate disclosures. Mr. Chairman, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us with the strong support of CARTA so we can prevent mistakes, misstatements, and obfuscations we witnessed in the failures of Global Crossing, Enron, and Arthur Andersen from being repeated and harming others.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the founding of ``Club 60,'' an organization that promotes social, intellectual and recreational activities for the senior citizens in the Town of Poughkeepsie. In March 1952, the Women's City and Country Club became interested in establishing clubs for the aging. At that same time, Chairman of the New York State Joint Legislature Committee on Problems of the Aging, Thomas C. Desmond, contacted all the mayors of cities and towns and urged them to proclaim May 1952 as the First Senior Citizens Month. The Mayor of the City of Poughkeepsie complied and May 1952 became the first Senior Citizens Month in the town with the formation of this senior 60 group. Since that first meeting where 25 members came to play games, talk and enjoy a cup of tea, the club has grown to include over 140 seniors today. At the beginning, without much guidance, their aim was to merely get people there and have the type of meetings seniors would be interested in coming back to. Like any other organization, Club 60 has grown tremendously over the years. Not only do members elect their own officers in May of each year, but they now have a constitution and bylaws, as well as weekly business meetings. The seniors, who pride themselves on being self-supporting are encouraged to make their own decisions and plan their own programs. This has aided in continuing some of the members youthful pleasures and enjoyments such as ceramics and painting classes. Keeping active is crucial to both their physical and mental well-being. From day trips, to picnics and annual dinners, this elderly club provides companionship opportunities that seniors wouldn't necessarily have if they did not belong to this group. It is satisfying to see other clubs for senior citizens are forming around the country. As people are living longer, it is important we continue to promote educational and recreational opportunities for those over 60. A gathering place, such as Club 60, where the elderly come together to recreate, share hobbies and common interests will certainly enhance their quality of life. For 50 years, this senior citizen group has provided opportunities to meet new friends, develop new interests and socialize with peers. For all their efforts, my fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Club 60, an organization that has been instrumental in meeting the social, physical and mental needs of our senior citizens.