Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues. There are millions of Americans without health coverage, and they live in every one of our districts. We hear from them every day. One provision that is poised to have a tremendous impact on reducing the number of uninsured is association health plans. I have heard some of my colleagues contend that AHPs are bad for women. Bad for women? How is affordable health coverage bad for women? Association health plans offer another tool for women to access affordable health insurance. Currently, small business owners, their families and their employees make up over 60 percent of the uninsured. Over half of these people are women. This is a no-brainer. AHPs are good for women. In fact, AHPs are strongly supported by the National Association of Women Business Owners, Women Impacting Public Policy, in addition to a host of other groups committed to increasing access to health care for hardworking women Americans. Many small businesses do not have the ability to negotiate affordable health care prices the way big companies can. I think we should give them an opportunity to level this playing field. I urge all of my colleagues to remember the women and uninsured of America and adopt this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in supporting this amendment. VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, is badly in need of what my colleague from New Jersey attempts to do with this, and my colleague from New York. Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed hundreds of millions of dollars from the lower New York area veterans network. VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new spending plan. The veteran's network in our area has the oldest veterans population, the highest number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest number of veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence of hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of homeless veterans. It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA would continually reduce our region's funding. VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 4 years because our veterans hospitals keep running out of money. When will we realize that the VA should fund our hospitals properly the first time and leave reserve funds for emergencies? I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation were there is our time of need. We ought to do the same for them.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any HUD funding to be used to implement the community service requirements that we passed as part of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I worked with my colleagues on this provision and know it to be very fair with a great deal of flexibility for those subject to it. This amendment seeks to reverse an important initiative that was part of our welfare reform effort. In approving the Community Service Initiative, we sought to create a mutuality of obligation between the provider of the housing and the recipient of the housing. This obligation is not overwhelming, it only calls for 8 hours a month of assistance from the resident; that is only 2 hours a week. It is a very flexible requirement. The initiative was crafted to have no real limits to what can be considered community service so that it can be satisfied by planting and maintaining a garden, voter registration efforts, or can be work with the big brothers or big sisters programs. Under the language of the provision we give the individual Housing Authorities full authority to make the determination for what is an allowable activity. This initiative enjoys bipartisan support and was not only supported by the Clinton administration, it was included in former President Clinton's own public housing reform proposal which he sent to the Hill prior to our consideration of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Who is required to comply with this initiative? Residents of public housing who have the time. The language of the law clearly exempts the elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in school, and/or are receiving training, those in a family receiving assistance under a State program, and those who are involved in the welfare reform program. With all of those exceptions, who is left? Individuals who are unemployed, those who have dropped out of school, those who are fully capable and have the time to give something back to the communities in which they live. What happens if these individuals choose not to comply with this community service provision? They are not immediately tossed out on the street. However, noncompliance can be grounds for nonrenewal of the public housing lease at the end of the 12-month lease term, which can lead to eviction. This issue comes down to one of personal responsibility. This was a major theme of the welfare reform laws we successfully changed. President Clinton signed those laws; they were good laws. This is one of them. The language from the Senate committee report seems to best sum up, and I am quoting: they say, ``The provision is not intended to be perceived as punitive, but rather considered as a rewarding activity that will assist residents in improving their own and their neighbors' economic and social well-being and give residents a greater stake in their communities.'' In recent years we have made great progress in an effort to reform welfare and reform public housing. This initiative has a strong link in this effort. Recently, I saw residents of the Housing Authority of New Orleans buildings outside cleaning up yards after the weekend. They were patrolling areas that might not otherwise have been clean. They would have been filled with trash. They told me, the residents who were cleaning them up, that they had been cleaning a lot of trash up. Now the yards are clean on a Monday morning, the children are outside playing in the grassy areas, grandmas are walking their grandchildren around, helping them learn to ride their bikes. Mr. Chairman, this initiative works. I think we have to preserve the community service provisions of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please consider this opposition to the Rangel amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I join my colleague in supporting the increased funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Investment in wastewater infrastructure may not be a glamorous issue, but it is a fundamental component of efforts across the country to create and maintain livable communities. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has been the Federal Government's primary and most effective tool in helping communities meet wastewater and infrastructure needs. The needs are enormous. Even under the most conservative estimates, we are still not investing enough in wastewater infrastructure. We wonder how our water gets dirty. We need to fix our wastewater problems. The EPA estimates that we face over $300 billion of wastewater infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. New figures have been coming out showing significantly higher figures. The longer we wait to address these needs, the worse the problem will become. It is imperative that we do everything we can now to assist our communities in building environmental infrastructure. I commend the chairman for putting in funding for the State Revolving Fund which is significantly higher than the level proposed by the administration, but I do believe that an even higher funding level will be necessary in the coming years. I offered, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, a bill, H.R. 668, which calls for $3 billion in funding for the State Revolving Fund. I do understand the constraints faced by the chairman in funding the many programs in this bill; but I hope, at the very minimum, that we will be able to reach the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.35 billion in this bill. I look forward to working with the chairman and trying to achieve a funding level in this bill that more accurately represents the tremendous needs of our communities across the Nation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from Massachusetts's amendment to strike the earmark for the Down Payment Assistance Initiative program in the HOME program. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, on which I serve with my friend from Massachusetts, I believe that the President's proposal for low-income down-payment assistance must be a top priority. When I read the Frank amendment, I was a little surprised, since I know my friend from Massachusetts to be a knowledgeable individual on issues concerning housing. Hence, I assumed he would realize the down payment assistance program is already an authorized purpose of the HOME program and is one that is in current use in towns and cities across the country. In the past few months, we have both participated in a number of hearings on the lack of affordable housing in our Nation. We have been told again and again of the crisis we face. The HOME program is important to housing production. It is an important housing production program, and I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts wants to facilitate as much new housing as possible. However, I also believe my friend from Massachusetts would recognize the real need to help low-income families with their down payments for their purchase of first home. Let me be clear: the down payment initiative is not a solution to all the problems we face, but it is one important step that will greatly assist the families who use it. In addition, in order to target this excess $200 million solely to down-payment assistance, we are required to take this issue up in our committee to target the assistance. I will do everything possible to work with my friend from Massachusetts and all of the other members of our committee to ensure we make these changes. However, if we fail to do this by next June, the funding will be utilized as regular HOME funds would. With this in mind, I would hope that my friend from Massachusetts would withdraw his amendment so that we can join together to work on this issue and craft a program in the committee. I believe that our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has a solid bipartisan approach to the housing programs that our Nation uses. This initiative will require us to work together to bring it into reality. I also hope that my friend and all of our colleagues on this subcommittee will join us in working on this issue. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is the ranking member of the committee, I hope he will work to help craft a program to help more people own their own homes.

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe very strongly that this is a program that we must authorize very quickly. I believe very strongly that this is a program that will allow people to own their own homes. The more people at the low-income level that are able to do that, the better we all are, for our communities and across the Nation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to strike the $200 million from the President's down payment assistance initiative and add it to the drug elimination program. This amendment would make two changes to this legislation we have at hand. I believe they are both wrong. The amendment strikes down the President's proposed $200 million down payment assistance initiative. To strike this funding takes the legislation in the wrong direction. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services' Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, we have held several hearings on the current affordable housing crisis we face in this Nation. We have heard again and again that affordable housing is not available, and many families cannot afford market rents. HUD has declared further that a fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in my area of Westchester County is $1,144 a month. That is higher than in New York City. What we have to do is to help these families get out of the rentals and into their own homes so they can build equity in their home. To own their own homes means they can also build equity into our communities. That builds stronger communities for America. The President recognizes this need, and that is the purpose of the down payment assistance initiative. First-time home buyers need all the assistance we can give them. It comes down to the fact that when one owns one's own home, they are vested. They are vested in the interests of the neighborhood, the local schools, and the community. Unfortunately, this amendment seeks to strike this valuable initiative in order to fund the drug elimination program. In past years, I was a strong supporter of the drug elimination program. I have heard positive programs that are run with drug elimination funds. But this year, I have come to the conclusion that this program should be ended. Let me just read some of the abuses from the Miami-Dade Housing Agency: The money was spent before receiving the grant. Overtime money was paid to officers to bowl and play basketball. Janitorial services were done at elderly developments; and that is a good thing, but they bought phones and beepers and copiers, shirts and clocks, recreation equipment, journal vouchers. A lot of money was wasted instead of doing drug elimination. I believe that it is very important that we try. I think Secretary Martinez has put it best when he testified before our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity this spring as to problems inherent in the program. He told us HUD does not have the resources to enforce and ensure that these funds are spent properly. He asked us to add additional funding to the public housing capital fund rather than to the drug elimination grant fund. Since then, I have looked into the use of the drug elimination grants and I have been greatly saddened at the waste, fraud and abuse that has occurred in this program. I have found these funds have been spent on things like trips to Washington, D.C., a board retreat to St. Simon's Island in Georgia, renovations to kitchens that never existed, and consultants that pocketed a lot of money. The list goes on and on. Worst of all, $800,000 was approved for creative wellness programs that are considered on the outer fringes of alternative medicine. This program involves God-Goddess typing according to an individual's gland activity. It also involves gemstones and colors for each personality type. This is not what the drug elimination program was meant to do. These abuses need to stop. We must ensure that HUD funds are spent on housing, not incense. How do we start? I think it is very important that we join together in voting against the Kaptur amendment. One last thing that I think is important to point out, this current appropriations bill has $34,000 new section 8 vouchers. That is twice as many as the Senate has in their bill. The appropriations bill is a good bill for housing, and it is good for America. My friend, the gentleman from New York, has a good bill; and I ask my colleagues to join together in voting against the Kaptur amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to strike $200 million for the down payment assistance initiative to mostly fund additional section 8 vouchers. This amendment would move this bill in the wrong direction and should be opposed, as it was. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and a former home renovator, I have worked on these issues, and I believe this legislation as drafted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), moves in the right direction. First, this amendment cuts the President's new down-payment assistance initiative for getting more first-time home buyers into their own homes. I cannot understate the importance of this initiative. So many Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend a large percentage of their income on monthly rent. That can be the right choice for some, but most families greatly benefit from the purchase of their own homes. A home helps them create wealth for their families and, in the form of equity, also invests them in the community. In short, we help the families rise on the economic ladder and build stronger communities in the process. It is truly the American dream to own one's own home, a dream we have to help make a reality for families who currently lack that opportunity. Second, this amendment designates funding for additional section 8 vouchers. This would be in addition to the 34,000 new vouchers this bill already provides. What I find interesting about this amendment is that the Democrat-controlled Senate provides half of that, 17,000 new section 8 vouchers. Why? In the report that accompanies the Senate bill, they stated, ``The reduction from the administration's request reflects the concerns of the committee that vouchers do not always provide the best opportunities for low-income families to obtain affordable housing.'' Perhaps our esteemed colleagues in the Senate know about the problems housing authorities have had in distributing section 8 vouchers. In my home county of Westchester, New York, we have 13,207 people on the section 8 waiting list, yet the county and communities are not able to use all of their section 8 vouchers because of a combination of lack of available housing units and the inability of section 8 vouchers to cover the fair market rent for the area. I cannot help but feel frustrated by this problem. Here we have a program in place with extra vouchers to assist families; here we have a very long list of families who have applied for this assistance, yet they are unable to use them because they are priced out of the market. Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is not to add more vouchers. That solution will only come with more and new and affordable housing coming on to the market. In short, the legislation takes an important step in the right direction addressing the current affordable housing crisis in our Nation. Unfortunately, the Nadler amendment would have reversed these positive initiatives to add funding to an area where it cannot be used. I have urged my colleagues to join me in voting against the Nadler amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). This amendment unfortunately would cut in half the funding for an important initiative proposed by the President to assist low-income families to purchase their own homes. With this money, he proposes to forward-fund the Shelter Plus Care program. While I am a strong supporter of the Shelter Plus Care program, it is not necessary to add additional funds to the program to ensure that all contract renewals will occur. This funding would then be used to forward-fund contracts in fiscal year 2003. This would set an unnecessary precedent. I believe the money is put much better to use in the downpayment assistance initiative next year. We must do more to move low-income families into their own homes. This is a critical need that we need to work to address. We know the barriers for low-income families to purchase their own home, and one of the largest is the downpayment. I cannot understate the importance of this initiative. So many Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend a large percentage of their income on their monthly rent. That can be the right choice for some but not for all. Most families greatly benefit from the purchase of their own homes. A home helps a family create wealth through equity. It also invests them into the community. In short, we help these families rise on the economic ladder and build stronger communities in the process. It is truly the American dream to own one's own home, a dream we must make a reality for families who currently lack the opportunity to realize this goal. In addition, the LaFalce amendment cuts $23 million from the salary and expense accounts from HUD. HUD is struggling with real problems these days. They have shut down programs because their mission in recent years has been so spread out that they have been incapable of properly overseeing and implementing the programs that they administer. Secretary Martinez has been working to refocus HUD on their true core mission, one of providing and facilitating the creation of housing. This is not the time to reduce the resources of HUD. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, says he will oppose any amendment that cuts money for the downpayment assistance program of the HOME program. In short, let us work on the funding for the Shelter Plus Care program next year when they really need the funding. In the meantime, let us fully fund the President's downpayment assistance initiative in this bill by joining me in defeating the LaFalce amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Velazquez-Kelly amendment to increase the funding for the three crucial programs of the U.S. Small Business Administration, the 7(a) loan program, the PRIME program, and the BusinessLinc program. Together, these programs help our Nation's smallest businesses prosper and survive. Our amendment provides for an additional $10 million for the 7(a) loan program. This lending program supports over $10 billion in new business loans annually. It brings money back into the Federal Treasury. It is a very good program. Last year, the SBA 7(a) loans accounted for over 30 percent of all long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. In my district, the 7(a) program was responsible for 93 loans totalling over $22 million last year. Without appropriate funding this year, the program will not be as far-reaching as in past years. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the bill they have brought before us, and for acting to fund the 7(a) program at $77 million, but I urge that we go one step further and give this worthwhile program the funds needed to ensure its viability. In the midst of economic uncertainty, that is not the time to impose fees on lenders and reduce access to loans for small businesses. The Kelly-Velazquez amendment also includes $5 million for the Program for Investment in Microenterprises, known as the PRIME program, which is designed to increase investment and technical assistance in traditionally underserved areas. These much-needed funds will help PRIME provide training, technical assistance, and access to credit to entrepreneurs. Long-term studies charting the effects of microenterprise investment have found that low-income individuals engaged in microenterprise development increase their personal incomes, build assets, and decrease their reliance on government benefits. When we are telling people that it is time that they go from welfare to work, we are teaching them skills and training them to do jobs, and what we also must do then is provide them with the ability to go on to reach the American dream, and that is to begin and to succeed in businesses, tiny little businesses, with microloan programs, so that they, too, can experience the ability to be part of the American dream. Who knows who and where the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates is going to come from. It may come from one of these programs. It is a very important program that we do with BusinessLinc, with the PRIME program, and with the 7(a) loan programs. I have people in my own district who have moved from welfare into now very successful businesses. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Nation's small businesses and small business access to financial and technical assistance and adopt this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into this colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). I wish to discuss the importance of providing additional funding for the NRC Inspector General. I feel that providing the Inspector General with more resources will help the NRC better perform its responsibility of ensuring the safe operation of our Nation's nuclear power plants. Through my own experience, I have found that the agency's priorities have not always been what they should be. In February of last year, an accident occurred at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in my district. A steam generator tube burst, and the plant was shut down immediately. It goes without saying the people in the community surrounding the plant, myself included, were seriously troubled by this accident. We expected the Federal agency responsible for handling nuclear safety would make every effort to quickly repair and restore public confidence in the plant. I regret to say that the NRC fell short of this very reasonable expectation. Though the agency itself acknowledged that this plant had the highest risk assessment of any plant in the Nation, they were on red as risk assessment, they demonstrated a stunning indifference to a litany of legitimate concerns about the plant's safety. The NRC chairman refused to play any role whatsoever in the very difficult deliberation as to when the plant ought to be started. The NRC chairman refused to hold a commission hearing at the plant, or even come to Buchanan to see the plant and the surrounding community firsthand. Not once during the entire 11-month period that the plant was down did the chairman or any of the NRC commissioners think they ought to come to Buchanan, New York, and look at this plant. So the chairman can imagine my profound concern when I learned about some of the places that the NRC chairman and the commissioners did think they ought to go during the time the plant was down: places like Korea, Spain, and Mexico. The public record indicates that during the time the Indian Point 2 plant was down, the chairman of the NRC visited a nuclear power plant in Scotland. He visited three in Canada. During this time, investigators from the IG's office were at Indian Point cataloguing all of their mistakes. They found a troubling number of things at this plant, and the most troubling they discovered was that an inspection performed back in 1997 plainly indicated the strong likelihood of a leak. The NRC had that information back in 1997. It showed that there was a strong likelihood of a leak, but nothing was done because nobody at the NRC ever looked at the inspection report. This should not have happened. I realize there is a new interest in nuclear power, and I should say that I am not against nuclear power. But the way that the NRC handled the Nation's most troubled plant raises some real concerns. I understand the gentleman from Alabama has provided a generous increase in the funding for the Inspector General in this bill. I commend him and thank him for it. Is it the gentleman's understanding that this additional funding will be available for further independent reviews of NRC regulating activities?

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

Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman. I would ask only that the gentleman continue to keep in mind the importance of a strong funding level for the NRC Inspector General as we continue to work on this bill, and also that he continue to vigorously oversee the agency to ensure that unnecessary travel expenses are not incurred by the NRC officials.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama very much, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. This is legislation to prune fees which have grown to become an implicit tax on long-term investors. The excessive fees, especially section 31 fees, penalize those who invest their savings in the market, and those who have pensions invested in the market. It is untenable for us to silently tax investors, entrepreneurs, and businesses through fees designed to fund securities regulation. In addition, these excessive fees are passed right on to consumers. While the fees are small on a single trade, they exponentially add up over the years for folk who invest in mutual funds or have pensions. I am talking about teachers, police officers, workers whose pensions should be protected and encouraged, not taxed. This is a stealth tax. In addition, the growth of these fees runs directly counter to the legislation that created them. The 1934 Act clearly states that these fees were created to cover the costs of running the SEC. There was nothing about other priorities. Unfortunately, the fees now bring in 5 times as much money as necessary to properly run the SEC. While it is hard for Washington to return excess money, that is exactly what we must do today. This debate is about priorities, strengthening and encouraging pensions and investment must be our priority. In crafting this bill with my friends, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), I feel it is the best possible solution to the current problem of excessive fees imposed on investors. This bill will return $14 billion to investors and pension beneficiaries who earned them, and this is where the money belongs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting to return the excess fees to the pensions and to the investors. Vote to follow the intent of Congress when it created these fees. I believe that we should all vote to support the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kirk- Larsen amendment expressing the sense of Congress that Impact Aid programs should be fully funded. I join my colleagues in their efforts to ensure that children in federally impacted school districts receive quality education. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a highly impacted, actually the most highly impacted school district in the United States of America. Adjacent to West Point, the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District exists between Federal land, State land, and the Hudson River. This unique positioning means that over 90 percent of the land in the school district is nontaxable. Without Impact Aid, this school district is unable to raise the revenue necessary to educate its students. The increase in funding for section 8002, which applies to land- impacted districts, has helped the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District undertake capital improvements, hire new teachers, tutors, and reinstate the college advanced placement courses which they had to cut. However, this section and the entire Impact Aid program is still not fully funded. As we continue to debate improvements to our children's education, we absolutely must not forget those military children sitting in classrooms in federally impacted school districts. We rely on Impact Aid funds for a quality education. Support the Kirk amendment and support full funding for Impact Aid. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kirk-Larsen amendment expressing the Sense of Congress that the Impact Aid Program should be fully funded. I join my colleagues in their efforts to ensure that children in federally impacted school districts receive a quality education. Created in 1950, the Impact Aid Program addresses the increased burden felt by school districts that host military children or have non-taxable federal lands. On behalf of the 1,500 school districts and 1.5 million federally connected students across the country who rely upon the Impact Aid funds for a good education, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. The Impact Aid program is equally important to an additional 17.5 million children whose education is linked to the eligibility of their school, or their classmates, to receive Impact Aid funding. Like many of my colleagues, I represent the most highly impacted school district in the U.S. that relies upon the Impact Aid Program. Adjacent to West Point, the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District, in Orange County, NY exists between federal land, state land, and the Hudson River. This unique positioning means that over 90 percent of the land in the school district is non-taxable. Without Impact Aid, this school district is unable to raise the revenue necessary to educate its students. The increase in funding for Section 8002, which applies to land impacted districts, has helped the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District undertake capital improvements, such as hiring new teachers, tutors and reinstating College Advanced Placement courses. This is quite a contrast to prior years when they were faced with the possibility of closing their doors. However, this section and the entire Impact Aid Program is still not fully funded. As we continue to debate improvements to our children's education, we must not forget those military children sitting in classrooms in federally impacted school districts. We rely on Impact Aid funds for a quality education. Support the Kirk amendment and support full funding of the Impact Aid Program.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio. I am grateful for the hard work my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means have done in putting together a strong package of tax relief to ensure the retirement security for working Americans. Unfortunately, I have been contacted by my constituents who are concerned about potential interpretations of sections 405, 501, and 801 of H.R. 10. They fear they could negatively affect pension benefits. I would like to get assurances that these sections I have mentioned are not intended to harm participants. It is my understanding that these sections are not intended to reduce pension benefits, eliminate early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, or optional forms of benefits, or discourage companies from increasing pension benefits.

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

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Lieutenant General Daniel William Christman. General Christman will retire on June 30, 2001, after an outstanding career of more than 36 years of service in peace and in war to the Army and to our Nation. General Christman is currently serving out his final 2 months as superintendent of the United States Military Academy. In this capacity, General Christman charted the course for officer education into the new century. Under his guidance, the academy crafted a new mission statement, strategic vision, and new public-funding structure needed to enable the institution to compete and excel in an era of transformation. His assessment of current needs and insight of future possibilities has resulted in a revised academic curriculum and increased focus on the profession of officership. General Christman leaves a notably improved academy in terms of leadership facilities and morale. Prior to undertaking this role, General Christman has distinguished himself in numerous command and staff positions with U.S. forces stationed both overseas and in the continental United States. In Europe, his assignments included serving as the 19th U.S. representative to NATO Military Committee, Brussels, Belgium, and Commander of the 54th Engineer Battalion in Wildflecken, Germany. In 1969, he commanded a company of the 101st Airborne Division in combat in Southeast Asia. General Christman occupied senior executive positions in Washington, D.C., requiring creative leadership and strategic vision. He served as a staff assistant with National Security Council in the Ford White House. Prior to his West Point assignment, he served as an assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advising the Secretary of State on a broad range of military and national security issues such as arms control with the Russian Federation and the Middle East peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. In June 1996, General Christman became the 55th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy. Through his tenure, he demonstrated an exceptional combination of intelligence, character, and positive personality notable even in this highly selective environment. From the outset, he sought the comments and insight of graduates, the academy, and even the neighboring community to give them a closer identification with and support for the institution and decisions that were ultimately made. Development of a more cooperative and positive environment has been the hallmark of his superintendency. General Christman arrived at West Point at a time of significant financial constraints. Severe cutbacks to the Army budget had seriously affected both programs and infrastructure at the academy. He undertook strenuous efforts to obtain the critical funding support for an institution that was behind not only other colleges but also many Army posts. Through his efforts and the support of the Army staff, he gained pledges for the funding necessary to restore the institution to a competitive sustainment level necessary to encourage officers and soldiers to serve at West Point and to attract high-quality young cadets to embark upon a career of service to the Army. At the same time, he tirelessly dealt with the Department of Defense and Members of Congress to make the case for critical funding for West Point. The successful completion of Arvin Gym will be of great credit to Dan Christman. In concert with his desire to prepare the institution for the next century, he revised the institution's formal mission statement to a more comprehensive expression of its foundation and objectives. His leadership was also instrumental in establishment of the William E. Simon Center. The center will promote the study of the professional military ethic in the Army and nationally. This project is but one example of General Christman's efforts to enlist the skills, talents, and character of the West Point community for a broader national purpose. He leaves a notably improved academy in terms of leadership, facilities, and morale. The military, academic, physical and moral/ ethical development of programs at the academy have never been stronger and never been more connected to the Army. With his actions, General Christman has set the course for officer education into the first half of the new century. A consummate professional, General Christman's performance of duty during his long illustrious career exemplifies the finest traits of duty, honor, and country. His service reflects a deep commitment to West Point, the Army, and to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking General Daniel Christman for his honorable service to the citizens of the United States of America. I wish him, his lovely and intelligent wife, Susan, and their children continued success and happiness in all of their future endeavors.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday was the first day of ``Back to Health Month,'' a national campaign created to increase awareness of back pain as well as possible causes and prevention. Sponsored by the North American Spine Society, this month is designed to educate Americans about their spine and how they can prevent common back injuries. The facts of back pain speak for themselves. Did you know that at some point in their lives, more than 80 percent of American adults will experience back pain? Or, that 1 out of 14 adults will visit a physician this year due to back or neck pain, and that back pain is the second most common reason people visit a physician? These statistics demonstrate how important it is to raise awareness about this health problem that affects too many Americans. One famous American who suffers from back pain is 1993 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame inductee, Reggie Jackson. Jackson was a two-time World Series MVP and Major League Player of the Year in 1973. During his legendary career, Jackson was named to the Major League All-Star team fourteen times. However, last July, like so many other Americans, following a spine injury, Jackson underwent emergency spine surgery and has been undergoing spine rehabilitation ever since. Another highlight of ``Back to Health Month'' is an event to distribute information about back pain. ``Back to Health Day'' on Capitol Hill will be held on April 24th, in the Rayburn Gold Room. ``Back to Health Day'' will provide an array of educational materials, including guidelines to a healthy back, exercises to strengthen your back, and how to prevent back pain. In addition, representatives from the North American Spine Society will be on hand to discuss commonly asked questions about back pain, causes and prevention. I encourage my colleagues to join us for ``Back to Health Day'' as we learn the most effective ways to prevent and alleviate back pain. I commend the North American Spine Society for organizing ``Back to Health Month'' and for their commitment to ensuring that Americans learn to keep their backs healthy.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rangel substitute because partial repeal of the death tax is just that: partial. Full repeal is what is needed to benefit all of the workers on family farms and in small businesses. Many of the testimonials we have heard regarding the repeal of the death tax have centered around the plight of the family farmers. Farm families are not the only ones affected by the estate tax. Family-owned manufacturing and construction businesses are also affected. How? Because they put the bulk of their assets into the equipment by which they do business. For instance, if one is a road contractor, the very bulldozers and clam shells and backhoes that one owns cost in the millions of dollars, and this is what one has to pass on to one's children, one's good name and equipment, that is it. So when the inheritor of a small business has to liquidate the company's assets and equipment to cover the cost of paying the government, it marks the tragic end to an entity that may have gone on for several generations. When a business closes its doors for the last time, it is forced to sacrifice the jobs of the employees. All of the workers, many of whom have long tenures with the business and deep roots in the community, are faced with unemployment and the sudden need to find another job in order to feed their families. Please note, these could be union or nonunion jobs. It is just plain jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the long arms of the estate tax reach deep. The death tax touches every aspect of small businesses from the inheritor to the employees to the families to the local community. If we vote to repeal the estate tax, we are not only assuring a promising future for family farmers, but we are ensuring a promising future for the small business owners of America and the small manufacturers of America. All American workers will do better and all of America will be better if we pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Rangel substitute to H.R. 8.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for both yielding me the time and for his considerable efforts to move this legislation forward. I also want to thank my fellow New Yorker, ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for his work on this issue and for allowing us to bring this legislation to the floor under suspension today. My legislation today can be passed in such a way in which everyone wins. This has been an issue which has been pending before the Congress for the past 6 years. Last year, our committee passed everything before us now by a voice vote; and the full House also passed these provisions by a voice vote. It is my hope we can do that again today. The Small Business Interest Checking Act contains four initiatives. First, to repeal the prohibition on allowing banks to pay interest on business checking accounts after a transition period. This prohibition has been in place since the 1930s. While I believe it should be repealed, I believe a proper transition period is critical. The 2-year transition contained in this bill is not adequate in my estimation. However, I believe it is time that this legislation does move forward. Second, this legislation allows banks to increase money market deposits and savings accounts sweeps from the current 6 to 24 times a month. This gives banks an increase in their sweep activities, enabling them to sweep every night, increasing the interest which businesses can make on their accounts. Third, the bill gives the Federal Reserve the authority to pay interest on reserves banks keep in the Federal Reserve system. This is good economically since it will bring stability to the Federal funds rate which is subject to volatility when the reserves become too low. It is also good public policy since these reserves have functioned as an implicit tax on our banks and would partially offset the costs of a repeal of the prohibition on business checking. Fourth and finally, my bill gives the Federal Reserve the additional flexibility to lower the reserve requirements. This will give the Federal Reserve greater control at maintaining reserves at a specific and consistent level. My goal in this legislation is to best help our main street banks which are so essential to our small communities. Without their support, our communities would struggle where they are now thriving and stall where they now move. Quite simply, this legislation is about creating new and broader market options. We allow banks to pay interest on business checking accounts. We allow banks to increase sweep activities. And we allow the Fed to pay interest on the reserves all banks are required to keep with them. We also allow the Fed to lower reserve requirements. We do not require or mandate anything. This way we can allow the market to create change, not the government. Mr. Speaker, I have much, much more to say on this legislation but in the interest of time, I will place the rest of my comments in the Record. I again thank the gentleman from Ohio for his strong leadership on this issue and for the swift consideration of this legislation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in strong support for this common sense bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for both yielding me the time and for his considerable efforts to move this legislation forward. I also want to thank my fellow New Yorker, Ranking Member LaFalce, for his work on this issue and for allowing us to bring this legislation to the floor under suspension today. In addition, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] for his work as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] for the very significant contribution he made to this legislation with his bill, H.R. 1009, which was merged into my bill during committee consideration. My legislation today can be passed in such a way in which everyone wins. This has been an issue which has been pending before Congress for the past six years. Last year our committee passed everything now before us by voice vote and the full House also passed these provisions by a voice vote. Provisions of this legislation enjoy strong support from a diverse group of associations. The list of these groups includes the American Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, The National Federation of Small Businesses, The Financial Services Roundtable, The National Association of Federal Credit Unions, The National Chamber of Commerce, The Credit Union National Association, and The National Farm Bureau. Mr. Speaker, one issue which has held this legislation up in past years has been the issue of the transition period from the bill's enactment to when banks are allowed to pay interest on business checking accounts. Currently, the bill contains a two year transition period. This is a shorter transition period than was contained in Congresswomen Roukema's bill, H.R. 1585, the Depository Institutions Regulatory Streamlining Act, in the 105th which passed the House on October 8, 1998 by voice vote. How many years was the delay in H.R. 1585? Six years. Again last year the House passed Congressman Metcalf's bill, H.R. 4067, which again contained this issue, but this time contained a three year transition period. I supported that deal last year and continue to support a three or four year transition period. This transition period are not arbitrary and have been contained in laws that have made changes to interest payments in the past. When Congress enacted legislation to gradually remove interest rate controls on consumer checking accounts in the 1980s (Reg Q), it did so with a six-year transition period. We have listened to testimony before the Financial Services committee about why banks need this transition period to unravel the agreements they currently have with their business customers. Those groups advocating for shorter transition periods unfortunately seek to create instability in the banking sector. For some this is intentional. The Thrifts, until recently, were prohibited from business checking activities. They would like this authority in attempt to attract business clients from the banks. I don't blame them for this, but the small community banks with assets under $2 billion will suffer under this scenario without a transition. Those who argue that since there is no transition period in the bill for the Fed to pay interest on reserves ignore the innumerable differences between banks and the Fed and the very different reasons we are changing these laws. One has to do with effective monetary policy of the Fed and the other about the more efficient operation of our banks. Let me also clear the air on another point. The Federal Reserve is opposed to a transition period of this length. They see this in a purely economic perspective. They believe that the disruptions this policy presents will work themselves out. Well I stand in strong disagreement with the Fed's read of this issue. Banks have long established relationships with the business customers they serve. These banks, while being prohibited in paying interest on reserves provide other tangible benefits to their business customers, such as doing the payroll for the business. These banks need time to properly prepare for this change we are proposing to the law. They need to be able to sit down with their commercial accounts when their loans turn over, which is every few years. Some may speak about wasteful sweep activities. Sweeps may be more complicated but they do not hurt the small banks that way. The repeal of the prohibition will. Sweeps are temporally invested outside of the bank typically in safe repurchase agreements involving T-bills. This imposes zero cost to the bank and the commercial accounts can earn interest. I also refer to an article from the American Banker I inserted into the record during a hearing last May. It stated that the majority of small banks operate sweep accounts. The computer programs are becoming much simpler and less costly to handle these activities. Additionally, if banks can do this every day they are not limited to commercial customers that keep large balances in the accounts. Some will say that this bill does not require the payment of interest on commercial accounts, it just allows it. That's true but the market place will require it in order to remain competitive. Let me sum this up with one final observation. The banks that will be hardest hit with this new cost will be the smaller banks. This will make them more liable to takeovers and jeopardize the best friend of the small businesses--Small banks. We must do everything we can to preserve small banks. They need time to prepare, and should at least give them more time to do so. Again, I want to thank the Gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Oxley] for his strong support and leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all of the others I have worked with on this issue that deserve some of the credit, this list includes former Congressman Jack Metcalf, for whom these issues were one of his highest priorities; Congressman Jim Leach, whose leadership on these issues ensured a fair debate; Congresswoman Marge Roukema, whose attention to these issues has been both helpful and thoughtful; Congressman Spencer Bachus, whose insights and encouragement have helped drive this debate; Congressman Pat Toomey, who brought his first hand experience and considerable knowledge to this issue; Senator Charles Schumer, for his strong support for our priorities on this legislation in the Senate; I also need to thank the staff, especially Terry Haines, Bob Foster, Hugh Halpern, Gregg Zerzan, Jim Clinger, Garry Parker, Laurie Schaffer, and Alison Watson. Without the assistance of these good folks we would not have been able to bring such a strong bill to the floor this year. We have before us the best opportunity to move this legislative package through the process. I hope we are able to take advantage of this opportunity. I stand ready to work with all interested parties to ensure that this legislation truly benefits all concerned.