Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Hinchey amendment. Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have witnessed the effects of a $226-million cut to the lower New York area veterans network. After careful study of VERA, I have come to the conclusion that it is flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new spending plan. It is unfortunate that the VERA plan imposed upon our VA facilities is not one that provides proper funding to VA facilities but one to steal from Peter to pay Paul or to take from some VA facilities to give to others. The gentleman was referring to the reserve fund. In fact, in the Northeast, in VISN 3, that fund has had to be made available to the New York State area for the last 2 years because we keep running out of money in New York. Before us today we have the VA-HUD Appropriations bill that contains the largest ever increase in medical care funding, $1.7 billion. And for this we have an excellent committee to thank. Unfortunately, under the VERA program, even with this increase in size, the New York-New Jersey area will not see one dime of additional funding. In fact, according to the director of our VA network, we will in effect take a cut of $124 million. This $124 million includes the mandated $40.6 million VERA cut, the rising cost of medical inflation that runs at 2 percent a year in our area, and the new mandate for hepatitis C coverage. Let me speak to that point for a moment. I work here every day to provide new essential services to our veterans, such as the hepatitis C coverage, and to give many men and women who work in our VA hospitals a reasonable cost-of-living increase. But if we are going to do this, we must provide the funding necessary. Without any funds to cover these costs, the only option is to cut other services or reduce the quality of care provided. It is wrong for us to pass new mandates on our VA hospitals without providing them the funding necessary to properly implement them. Please join me in returning common sense to VA funding methodology and vote for this amendment. While VERA is supposed to promote more efficient and effective delivery of care, I am seeing the exact opposite occur at our veterans hospitals in my area. The staff is wonderfully caring and committed, but the VA is not supporting them, lowering their morale and making their jobs all the harder. I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Hinchey amendment and make the necessary investment into veterans hospitals in order to keep our promise of our care for our veterans. The veterans of this Nation gave their best for us. Now we need to do our best for them.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies concerning the current level of funding for veterans medical care on H.R. 2684. Mr. Chairman, I am most thankful for the good work of the Members of the House Committee on Appropriations for bringing to the floor a bill with a $1.7 billion increase in spending for veterans medical care. This is the largest increase ever and would not have been possible without the hard work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Unfortunately, despite this increase, lower New York and northern New Jersey could receive $40 million less than last year. According to the VISN 3 director, our network faces an estimated $125 million deficit due to inflation, VA's funding methodology and an increased demand for services, especially hepatitis C treatment. The staff in VISN 3 have worked hard to identify cost savings and efficiencies, reduced its workforce and streamlined operations to work within the funding levels dictated by VA's methodology. Now, after squeezing every available dollar from the system, the VISN 3 director tells us we are at the point where veteran medical care, quality and access is at risk if he is forced to make any additional cuts in fiscal year 2000. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get assurances that the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies chairman will examine the distribution of funds to ensure that all regions of the country have the resources to provide quality health care for all of our Nation's veterans.

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. KELLY

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very simple amendment. This amendment would prohibit the VA from closing any VA hospitals during fiscal year 2000. We are in the midst of a great deal of change in the way the VA provides medical care to our veterans. The health care being provided by VA medical centers is moving from an inpatient-based hospital system to more of an outpatient-based clinical system. The VA is reacting to the same forces that are changing our private health care. There is a great deal of uncertainty for our veterans. I am constantly hearing from veterans expressing their concerns over the potential closing of hospitals. To these concerns of our veterans Secretary West has responded. In numerous speeches before veterans service organizations this year, and in meetings with the New York congressional delegation, Secretary West has made a pledge to keep all VA hospitals open throughout the year 2000. With this in mind, it is prudent to assist the Secretary in his efforts and put a temporary hold on the closing of any VA hospitals until October 2000. In recent weeks, the GAO came out with a report citing their findings of underused, inefficient VA hospitals wasting our VA dollars. It seems to me that the wise course would be to allow the VA to review and examine the facilities in question before any long-term decisions are made. The VA has assets and it has needs. We must take advantage of those assets, namely the existing infrastructure, and use them to help address the growing needs of our aging veteran population's needs. The GAO has noted that these hospitals are antiquated and do not measure up to current standards. That is no fault of the hospitals; it is the result of a lack in proper funding for infrastructure and improvements. Congress has already passed initiatives that can assist the VA in realizing the potential of these underused facilities through the Enhanced Use Lease Authority. While this authority is in need of improvement, it is the right idea and we must ensure that any closure of hospitals maximizes the use of this authority. One way this could be used is to lease the space to provide, for example, much-needed long-term geriatric care to our veterans. They represent the fastest growing need for our veteran population. Over the next 21 years, the veteran population over 85 years of age is expected to increase 333 percent. This demonstrates an imperative situation. Let us not close down one of the greatest assets of the VA system, namely, its infrastructure. Let us make it work for our veterans. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider these issues and support this amendment.

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I hear what my colleague is saying; however, I think it is very important that we focus on a couple of things that I think are of importance. One is that the President's budget asked for only $200 million, whereas this bill puts in $1.7 billion. It is the largest increase that we have ever had.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a short dialogue with the chairman of the committee if I may. Mr. Chairman, my concern is closing of the hospitals because I see the hospitals as being a piece of the assets that the VA actually owns. I look at an aging veterans population that is strongly in need of support in terms of assisted living and skilled nursing and that type of care; and I am concerned that if we step down these assets, which are currently full care, acute care hospitals, that we are closing a possibility, closing a doorway for those elderly veterans. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if he would help me and work with me through addressing these assets that we have in trying to use them in a better way. I think it is very important that the enhanced use lease authority be addressed in this manner and used in this manner. I think that I could perhaps comfortably withdraw this amendment if I can get that kind of a pledge from the committee.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask that there be an ability for those of us who are not on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and for Congress as a whole to have an opportunity to see more clearly, with more transparency, some of the ways that the VA is using money within each individual VISN. At present, I am not able to get those figures, and that also inhibits my ability to ascertain how carefully the money that is being allocated is being used by the regional visions.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, if all options could be explored, that would include the enhanced use authority, then I would be willing to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). Though we are a Nation that believes strongly in an individual's right to freedom of expression, we must condemn in the most forceful manner those individuals who work to extend their political expression into violent behavior. It is well-known now that some have found it proper to offer clemency to such individuals, despite the best recommendations of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and several U.S. Attorneys. This uncommon and ill-advised gesture of leniency has baffled many of us. It has appalled many of my colleagues in the New York delegation, and it has apparently confused some of those who aspire to be included in the New York delegation. The offer of clemency represents a failure to acknowledge the primacy of public safety over politics, and I urge Members of this House to support this resolution condemning it.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Hall). This amendment would allow the United States to make good on its commitment and pay $244 million in arrearages to the U.N. Unfortunately, it does so while dismissing the work of a bi-partisan, bi-cameral coalition which has worked together with the Administration, as well as the Secretary of State, to achieve broad agreement as to the reforms that need to be made in the U.N. so that the U.S. and its citizens can continue to work with the U.N. in good faith. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State, under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, has brought forth a bill that includes two very responsible reforms dealing with the U.N. budget. Additionally, the Subcommittee in their wisdom, also made the payment of the $244 million in arrears, contingent upon authorization language by the House Committee on International Relations. Currently, the House is in Conference with the Other Body to reconcile the differences between the two authorization vehicles. It is important that the Conferees are able to continue their bi-partisan, bi-cameral workings on this legislation. It is expected that this Conference will be addressing the need for U.N. reforms, as well as the need to pay our arrearages. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prematurely seeks to address the concern that the arrearages will not be authorized. The Other Body has worked with the Administration and the Executive Agencies to ensure that all parties are in agreement about the conditions to which we appropriate these monies for the U.N. I will vote against this amendment to preserve the agreement made by these groups. I firmly believe that we must live up to our obligations and pay our U.N. debts, but I want to be clear. I believe the best way to do this is to allow the Conferees to complete their consideration of these measures and not legislate this matter on an appropriations bill.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Paramedic Intercept Service Equity Act, legislation which will provide reimbursement for critically needed ambulance intercepts, no matter where they occur. In the past, paramedic ambulance companies have billed Medicare for services administered to beneficiaries during an intercept. In May 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration discontinued allowing the paramedic ambulances to bill Medicare, stating that they only grant payment for services provided by the transporting ambulance, which under an intercept would be the non-billing volunteer ambulance. This policy precludes paramedic ambulances from receiving Medicare payment for their services. According to the providers this policy has proven to be a nightmare. It creates a situation in which the volunteer personnel might choose to not call paramedic personnel, even if it is against their best judgment, because the patient may not be able to afford the cost of the paramedic care. The billing of the patient could also be avoided, if the patient is physically transferred from the volunteer ambulance to the paramedic ambulance, thereby making it the transporting ambulance but, in the process, wasting time that could be critical to the well being and survival of the patient. However, if the volunteer company does choose to call paramedic personnel, then the cost is passed on to the patient. Although carriers have begun billing patients for their services, they often waive the charges for seniors who cannot afford to pay the bill. As a result of this policy, many paramedic ambulance companies are experiencing serious financial losses and may have to go out of business, which jeopardizes emergency care. Additionally, many seniors have taken to calling paramedic providers to describe their conditions to see if they would require their services, before calling the volunteer ambulance. In 1997, Congress addressed this issue in the Medicare provision of the Balanced Budget Act. This provision amended the Social Security Act to provide coverage in rural areas for paramedic intercept services under Medicare Part B. This change was intended to allow paramedic ambulance companies to bill Medicare for their services despite the fact that they were not the transporting vehicle. Yet under the Health Care Financing Administration's proposed methodology, many areas which would commonly be thought of as rural are not considered as such under the rule. Thus, these areas have all the problems of being rural, yet have none of the protections that Medicare reimbursements for paramedic intercept services would provide. As a result, one town with the fortune of being classified as rural has paramedic intercept coverage, while the town directly next door with the same basic rural nature, but a few more residents has no coverage. This leaves seniors stuck in the middle, confused as to what areas are covered, and scared to call for an ambulance for fear they will be charged with a bill they cannot afford. The policy of only reimbursing ambulance intercepts that occur in rural areas geographically discriminates against Medicare beneficiaries by arbitrarily setting standards for reimbursement that will help only those seniors with the luck of living in a federally defined rural town. Paramedic intercepts should be covered by Medicare no matter where a senior lives. If a senior is in medical need of an intercept, then Medicare should pay for it. The Medicare Paramedic Intercept Service Equity Act takes the debate over coverage out of rural vs. urban and towards one of medical necessity. Specifically, this bill strikes the word ``rural'' from the ambulance intercept provision of the Balanced Budget Act. In doing this, all intercepts are covered whether they are in a rural area or not. Please join me in providing seniors with the critical emergency services they need and cosponsor this important bill.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation to reauthorize one of our most important environmental infrastructure programs. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) was created by Congress in 1987 to enhance the federal government's effort to achieve the Clean Water Act's objective of restoring and maintaining the integrity of our nation's waters. The program was enacted out of the need for a funding mechanism which allowed the federal government to be responsive to the nation's considerable wastewater infrastructure needs, and also afforded states a necessary degree of flexibility in addressing their own particular needs. Since implementing the SRF, Congress has appropriated nearly $16 billion to states, who in turn have been able to provide nearly $24 billion in loans for wastewater infrastructure maintenance and construction. The impact of this investment on the livability of our communities is immeasurable. In his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, New York Governor George Pataki reflected on the benefits brought to his state by the SRF program, calling it ``the most successful federally sponsored infrastructure financing program ever.'' Mr. Speaker, the time is now that we act to ensure a stable federal funding source that attempts to reflect state and local needs. The authorization for this program expired in 1994, leaving it susceptible to the whims of the budget and appropriations process. As evidence of this, one need only look at the President's proposal for the SRF in the FY 2000 budget. If enacted, his proposal of $800 million would amount to a $550 million cut compared to the enacted FY 99 level of $1.35 billion. A significant cut such as this would be particularly problematic at a time when the need for this investment is enormous. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in the next 20 years the country faces wastewater infrastructure needs of more than $139.5 billion, a figure acknowledged by most to be a conservative estimate. These documented needs exist in rural and urban areas in every state. The expense to our environment and the taxpayers will only increase the longer we procrastinate in addressing these needs. We need to demonstrate a strong commitment to safe and livable communities. I feel this legislation marks an important stride in this effort. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Ellen Tauscher of California, for her assistance on this legislation, and I certainly hope that our colleagues will join us in the effort to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1907, the American Inventors Protection Act, legislation which might be more aptly titled the ``Keep America Competitive Act.'' H.R. 1907 comes before us as a consensus bill. In the last Congress we had a battle on the floor when we debated this issue. Now we have a bill before us that, while, as we have heard, there is very limited opposition, I believe almost all of us can support. A manager's amendment contains the core provisions of H.R. 1907 which enjoys 56 cosponsors nearly equally represented by both sides of the aisle. H.R. 1907 makes a number of common-sense improvements to our patent system. It is the culmination of over 4 years of extensive hearings and debate among Members of differing views on patent reform who have had many opportunities to refine the legislation to what we will be voting upon today. Members have agreed upon these provisions because they recognize that we in Congress cannot continue to postpone action on this critical topic of how our patent system works. Those of you who are businessmen and women know that to be successful, you must constantly refine how your organizations operate in order to remain competitive in the face of a changing environment. The same is true to our patent system. We are facing an economic environment that is changing more rapidly than ever, and we must give our inventors, entrepreneurs, and patent system the tools they need to address these changes. H.R. 1907 provides significant benefits and additional protection for all those with the inventive and entrepreneurial spirit, while addressing some of the abuses in the patent system, that we have witnessed in the past. Among the attractions of H.R. 1907 are: The opportunity for inventors to collect royalties from the time a patent application is published; Assurance that diligent inventors will get a minimum patent term of 17 years; Protection for small businesses who are first to invent and use processes, so that they do not have to pay others who later usurp their technology and patent it; Publication of U.S. patent applications which are also filed abroad, thus eliminating an advantage our patent system gives to foreign companies; Reducing costly patent litigation by improving the Patent Trademark Office reexamination process for patents which may have been issued inappropriately. We are all working hard to make sure that U.S. inventors and entrepreneurs are positioned to take advantage of the significant transformations underway in our economy, transformations that are unsurpassed in increasing new jobs. These transformations, many of which can rightly be labeled electronic commerce, are generating significant innovations. However, not all innovations are patented. We must make sure that true innovators have the incentives and protection they need to continue the process of invention, whether or not they elect to patent their inventions. However, nothing in H.R. 1907 eliminates a patentee's exclusive right to collect royalties on his or her invention. At the same time, we must continue to provide new incentives for our patentees, and to make sure that a U.S. letter patent remains a thing of quality and value. H.R. 1907 does all these things, and I urge its passage by this Body and its enactment at the earliest opportunity. In short, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation to keep America competitive in the 21st century. I thank you, Mr. Coble, Chairman Hyde and all others in making this bill a reality.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2614, which amends the Small Business Investment Act to make changes in the Section 504 loan program administered by the Small Business Administration. The 504 loan program guarantees small business loans for construction and renovation and provides nearly $3 billion of financial assistance every year. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly describe the provisions of H.R. 2614. H.R. 2614, will increase the maximum debenture size for Section 504 loans from $750,000 to $1 million, and the size of public policy debenture backed loans from $1 million to $1,300,000. It has been 10 years since the committee acted to increase the maximum guarantee amount in the 504 program. To keep pace with inflation, the maximum guarantee amount should be increased to approximately $1.25 million; however, the committee believes that a simple increase to $1 million is probably sufficient. This increase is especially needed in the 504 program because it is primarily a real estate-based program and the cost of commercial real estate has increased markedly in the last several years. H.R. 2614 also adds women-owned businesses to the current list of businesses eligible for the larger public policy loans of up to $1.3 million. This continues our efforts to increase assistance to women- owned businesses. The Committee on Small Business recognizes the important role women- owned businesses play in the economy and believes this change is needed to ensure the expansion of this sector of our economy. H.R. 2614 will reauthorize also the fees currently levied on the borrower, the Certified Development Company, and the participating bank. The 504 program now operates with a zero subsidy rate based on calculations estimating the net present value of a year's loans plus fees and recoveries from defaulted loans minus losses. The fees in the 504 program cover all these costs, resulting in a program that operates at no cost to the taxpayer. The fees sunset on October 1, 2000 and H.R. 2614 will continue them through October 1, 2003. Additionally, 2614 will grant permanent status to the Preferred Certified Lender Program before it sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2000. This program enables experienced CDCs to use streamlined procedures for loan making and liquidation, resulting in improved service to the small business borrower and reduced losses and liquidation costs. Finally, to address the problem of low recovery rates on defaulting 504 loans, H.R. 2614 makes the Loan Liquidation Pilot Program a permanent program. This gives qualified and experienced CDCs the ability to handle the liquidation of loans with only minimal involvement of the SBA, resulting in savings to the program, and a corresponding reduction in the fees charged to the borrowers and the lenders. Mr. Speaker, I again want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2614. It will mean a significant improvement in services to their small business constituents, and a reduction in the cost of providing those services. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2614) to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program, and for other purposes.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and strongly urge passage of H.R. 2614.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 267, to pay tribute to Col. Eileen Marie Collins, as the first female space shuttle commander. I congratulate her for her leadership and thank her for her efforts to improve our space program. Through her dedication she has become one of the most visible role models for girls in aeronautics and science today. Since 1978, when NASA hired it's first female astronaut, women have come to earn a place in the space program, peaking with Col. Collins' historic effort as the first female commander in NASA's 95 missions, commanding the space shuttle Columbia. With this mission she has earned a place in history alongside pioneers like, Amelia Earhart and Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space. I had the good fortune to travel to Cape Canaveral on July 20th for this historic launch. Regrettably, safety precautions grounded the mission that day. However, on July 23, this mission was able to take place. What a proud day that was for Col. Collins, NASA and for the women of our country. She has persevered in a way that most of us can only dream of. Mr. Speaker, we all can remember the awe that we felt as children as we watched John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and their fellow astronauts, as they brought space discovery home to all of us. Thanks to Col. Collins an her colleagues, our children will also be inspired by brave Americans, who like Col. Collins, have dedicated their lives to the space program and improving our knowledge of the world around us. Once again I would like to congratulate Col. Collins and NASA on their successful mission in which they claimed a place in history and opened a new eye on the universe.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in marking the 25th Black Anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the island of Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, the government of Turkey sent troops to Cyprus and forcefully assumed control of more than one-third of the island. This action dislocated nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots, forcibly evicting them from their homes and creating a refugee problem that exists to this day. Additionally, over 1600 Greek Cypriots are still missing or unaccounted for as a result of this brutal invasion. The Turkish Cypriot community has continually shown its unwillingness to move toward a negotiated settlement with their Greek neighbors. The removal of the roughly 35,000 Turkish troops from the island of Cyprus is central to any such agreement, as is compliance with the previously agreed upon parameters for any solution. However, the Turkish government is doing the exact opposite. They have continued their arms buildup on the island, have abandoned reconciliation efforts begun on a bi-communal grassroots level, have added two new preconditions for resumption of the peace talks and are now seeking the creation of a confederation of two sovereign states. The net result of these actions is to make any sort of rapproachment all the more unlikely. The Greek Cypriots, have continually demonstrated their flexibility and willingness to compromise in order to bring an end to this long- standing dispute. The Cyprus government has made numerous gestures of goodwill in an effort to move the peace process forward. In the last year, they have canceled the deployment of a Russian defensive surface- to-air missile system on Cyprus in an effort to head off any escalation of this conflict. In addition, Cyprus has continued to comply with the preconditions established by the United Nations Security Council resolutions, and has even put forth a plan for demilitarization of the island. However, these efforts have failed to produce any movement toward an agreement. The U.S. government must again take bold steps to show its continued resolve to the Turkish government that it is serious about moving toward peace on Cyprus. In this regard, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 100 urging the compliance by Turkey with United Nations resolutions relating to Cyprus. It is essential that the United States and the entire international community continue to work for the long awaited resolution to this tragic event. Mr. Speaker, it is with decisive steps such as these that we can begin to hope for a brighter future for Cyprus. I wish to commend the Gentleman from Florida. Mr. Bilirakis, for his steadfast work in this area. I look forward to working with him, and all my colleagues who share our concerns, to achieve a unified and peaceful Cyprus in the future.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my deep concerns with our continued relations with the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, today we must send a crystal clear message to China that their business-as-usual attitude must not continue. On almost every level China is promoting and advocating policies which indicate an unwillingness to negotiate honestly with the United States. Whether it be on copyright infringement, use of prison labor, religious freedom, military build up, trading of weapons of mass destruction, labor rights, the illegal importation of guns into the United States, espionage against the United States, illegal campaign contributions to United States candidates and general repression of the rights and freedoms of the Chinese People, the government of the Peoples Republic of China must change their policies. They must understand that if we are going to consider their inclusion into the World Trade Organization (WTO) they must make substantial, measurable progress in all of these areas. As world leaders in commerce and industry and the world's only remaining superpower, we must set the example for the rest of the world to follow on this issue. This afternoon, my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), spoke on the floor of China seeing the United States as a ``paper tiger.'' That rings of truth. The government of the Peoples Republic of China will not take our words seriously unless we are willing to back our demands for action and negotiation with concrete actions of our own. Let me be clear, I do not stand here today advocating for passage of H.J. Res. 57. Passage of this joint resolution would send the wrong message. I voted against H.J. Res. 57 and was pleased that it failed. We should not unilaterally cut off trade relations with China. That is the wrong policy and will only serve to fuel the forces of repression and lawlessness in China. Today I speak for the development of a new relationship with the government of the People's Republic of China. A relationship that rewards positive, measurable actions and penalizes them for double dealing, theft and repression. I call on the Administration to develop new relations with China based on these principles before China's government descends further down the wrong path.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague and good friend from New York. The Kosovar Albanians that are being held in the Serbian prisons must be released and accounted for. Think of the agony felt by the families of these 5,000 men who do not know what happened to their fathers, husbands and sons. The events that have taken place that have affected the families in Kosovo during the last several years have been atrocious and we cannot stand by and continue to allow this blatant disregard for the peace agreement. With the implementation of the Military Technical Agreement on June 9, the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo have been working to bring peace and stability back to this historically troubled region, but this job has only begun. The Kosovar Albanians held in these prisons are there without any formal charge, are being held in clear violation of international law, and this can only prove to erode the faith in the peace agreement. Mr. Chairman, despite the end of the military action that the international community had engaged in to bring about an end of the Serbian aggression, the war is not over for these 5,000 people. They still have a long way to go, they have lived through a terrible time, until they can live in peace and not fear for their safety. Mr. Chairman, Congress has to weigh in on this important issue.