Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 774, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 774, the bill just considered.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.Con.Res. 42, a resolution which supports the deployment of U.S. troops in support of a NATO peacekeeping effort in Kosovo. The reason we need to support this legislation today and the reason why we should resist weakening amendments is the simple fact that NATO peacekeepers, supported by U.S. troops, represent our last and best chance for a workable peace in this very troubled land. I would also add that if we are to maintain any credibility within NATO, we have an obligation to support this vital peacekeeping mission. Mr. Chairman, I visited the former Yugoslavia on two separate occasions in recent years, and I have had the opportunity to visit Rambouillet recently, to observe the peace talks firsthand and to talk with the participants. Let me be very clear about this. I believe the only peace that will occur in Kosovo is one that is enforced by NATO. Serbian strong man Slobodan Milosevic has shown us time and time again that he does not recognize international law, he does not respond to international appeals for peace, and the experience has demonstrated that he does not always respect prior peace agreements. What he does respect and what he does respond to is the very real threat of force. NATO peacekeepers are the only safeguard that will put a stop to the killing in Kosovo and the only thing that will prevent further violence down the road. I cannot over emphasize how sensitive the point at which we now find ourselves in these negotiations is and that the failure of this resolution would deal a potentially fatal blow to the peace effort. Indications are that absent a peace agreement both sides are preparing for a major escalation of fighting in the spring, and as always in this case, it will be the innocent civilians who are once again suffering the horrifying consequences. Mr. Chairman, a considerable amount of time and effort has been put into this peace effort, and the stakes could not be higher. Success means an end to the fighting, an end to the killing and an end to the destruction of entire villages and towns. Ultimately we have all witnessed on the evening news the price that failure has brought to the people of Kosovo. Thousands have been killed, and tens of thousands turned into homeless refugees. Peace is at hand if we have the wisdom and the courage to see this through. I strongly urge my colleagues to send a message to both sides that the United States is committed to the peace process and, with that message, the assurance that we will stand by our commitments to NATO.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his leadership, not only on the committee but on this particular issue. When I first decided to run for Congress, I want to echo my colleague from Pennsylvania who said he asked what we could do for the schools. I called a friend of mine, having been the local president of the local PTA, I called a friend of mine who was active with school boards and I said, ``Judy, what do we need to do for the schools?'' She said, ``Fully fund IDEA. That is the kind of help we truly need.'' So, Madam Speaker, today I rise to urge my colleagues in the House to make the 106th Congress the Congress that finally lives up to the commitment to the American people and the students and the taxpayers to fully fund IDEA. Over 20 years ago, Congress passed a law that pledged that the Federal Government would provide 40 percent of the funding to assist school districts, and we can see it there on the chart, as we can see the big funding gap. We promised we would deliver 40 percent of that funding. For the last 24 years, the Federal Government has failed to live up to this commitment. It is long past time that we correct this problem, because it represents a major unfunded mandate on our local taxpayers. Prior to 1995, Congress' commitment to IDEA was only 7 percent, far short of the 40 percent commitment we needed. Since 1995, we have boosted IDEA funding by 85 percent, which is a major step in the right direction, but we still have a lot to do to meet our obligation to the schools. Unfortunately, the administration's budget tries to derail our progress. According to the budget that was submitted at the beginning of this month, the administration reduces funding for IDEA from the current level of 12 percent to 11 percent, nowhere near the 40 percent that Congress years ago promised our local schools. As a former teacher, I am well aware of how hard it is for school districts to make the tough choices in their budget. It is estimated that school districts spend approximately 20 percent of their budget to cover the unpaid Federal share of education costs. If we were able to fulfill our obligation, that would leave 20 percent of every school's budget in this Nation to be used for other purposes like staff training, curriculum enhancement, hire more teachers, do the things that we know we need to do to give our children high quality education. As the gentleman pointed out, there is a possibility that schools can also return that because they have to make that money up in property taxes. The overwhelming amount of their budget comes from local property taxes. By the Federal Government leaving unfunded the three- quarters of the cost of the mandated program, that is a terrible burden on all of us in every school district. With full Federal funding, those local governments can choose. In my congressional district in New York in one school district, the Peekskill School District, they receive only $148,394. If IDEA were fully funded in Peekskill, the district would receive $760,371. That is a difference of $612,000, a burden that local taxpayers in the City of Peekskill have to bear. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that $14 billion is needed to fully fund Part B of IDEA. In fiscal year 1999, the appropriation for Part B was $4.3 billion, leaving the State and local governments to make up $10 billion. Madam Speaker, one of the most important issues for Americans today is education. We all know the importance of a quality education and it is time we do everything in our power to ensure that our students get the best education possible. An unfunded mandate of $10 billion impedes the ability of the individual districts to use their budget for other purposes. As we move into this year's budget cycle, we have to remember the importance of this program and hold true to the promise, our promise that Congress made so many years ago to fully fund IDEA. Madam Speaker, I stand 100 percent behind the commitment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I applaud him and I thank him for letting me speak on this important issue.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and I rise today in support of H.R. 391, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1999. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 391 provides our Nation's small businesses with desperately needed relief from the burden of government paperwork which has continued to grow each year. The number of hours required to complete government paperwork has increased more than 350 percent since 1980. Clearly we should do all we can to help relieve government paperwork demands that this Federal Government places on its citizens, and H.R. 391 helps us in this process. Specifically, the legislation does the following: It requires the posting on the Internet of a comprehensive list organized by industry of all Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses, it offers small businesses compliance assistance rather than fines for first time paperwork violations that present no threats to public health and safety, and it establishes a single individual in each agency to be the point of contact for small businesses on questions about paperwork requirements. Mr. Chairman, these are all common sense provisions that every Member of this House should support. Let me say also that they are consistent with other actions the House has already taken. Earlier this week the House passed H.R. 439, the Paperwork Elimination Act. This legislation will allow small businesses to take advantage of the information age when responding to government information demands. Both of these bills are designed to help small businesses meet the requirements that the government places on them in an efficient and fair manner. I also want to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the opponents of this legislation. Some have claimed that H.R. 391 lets small business scofflaws go free, and that it protects drug traffickers, and that it undermines the ability to uncover illegal activity. But when I hear some of these statements, I am reminded of the story of Chicken Little in his warning that the sky is falling in. The fact is that the bill already contains numerous exemptions to ensure that bad actors are not rewarded for negligent or illegal behavior. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that I am a former small business owner. I know the frustrations that can be created by having to fill out mountains of paperwork from the Federal Government. This frustration easily turns to outrage when one is fined for a small paperwork violation that they may not even have been aware of. H.R. 391 will remedy this situation. This legislation simply ensures that small business owners who are honest law-abiding citizens, and this will cover the vast majority of them, are not penalized for a minor first time paperwork violation. I urge all Members to take a good look at all amendments that are offered and possibly to reject the Kucinich amendment and support H.R. 391.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, peace and security for the Kosovan people will never become a reality unless NATO brings military pressure to bear on Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, and unless the ongoing peace negotiations include a guaranteed right to self-determination for the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosova. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, NATO should have intervened a year ago when widespread violence against the Kosovan people was first initiated by Mr. Milosevic. Thousands are dead, tens of thousands are homeless, and many more have fled the country. Thousands of refugees now live in camps and settlements in neighboring countries, too afraid to return out of fear of reprisals. These countries are bearing the burden of the lack of peace in this region. Sadly, we have seen this spectacle before. Once again Milosevic carries out a genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing, once again the international community is slow to react, and once again it is innocent civilians who must pay the terrible price that world indifference imposes. The renewed violence in Kosova is but the latest example of the manner in which Milosevic attempts to use terror and murder to hold together the republics which made up the former Yugoslavia. His policies of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, policies which shocked the world and eventually led to international intervention, are now being carried out with renewed vigor in Kosova. Sadly, the very same lack of resolve on the part of the international community which allowed Milosevic to kill thousands in Bosnia is allowing him to carry out a new campaign of terror against the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosova, which makes up 90% of the population. Perhaps no event better illustrates Milosevic's brutal policies than the recent massacre in the village of Racak, where 45 ethnic Albanians, many of whom were women and children, were found murdered by Serb military and police units. As in the past, it took a tragic event to finally focus the world's attention to the plight of the Kosovan people, and to move governments to act to stop the violence. Mr. Speaker, unless we wish to see more massacres, more fighting, and more misery in Kosova, the peace negotiations currently underway in France must include a military commitment to enforce the peace. Despots such as Milosevic and Saddam Hussein do not respect international law. They do not respond to impassioned appeals for peace and human rights. They do, however, recognize and respond to the very real threat of overwhelming military force. The world community was slow to learn this fact in Bosnia, and we continue to inch along painfully slow toward understanding this fact in Kosova. The Kosovan people are running out of time, however. Humanity cannot stand idly by and witness further atrocities such as those committed in Racak. Milosevic enforces his policies from the point of a gun, and I fear that time has long past for NATO to confront him by doing the same. Finally, Mr. Speaker, any peace settlement must also include an iron- clad commitment that the Kosovan people will have the opportunity that we often take for granted--the right of self-determination. Anything less is a recipe for renewed violence and death in the future.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 439) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act, to minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands upon small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State and local governments, and other persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative information technologies.

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me conclude by saying that this legislation is consistent with what the House has passed in previous Congresses. I urge everyone to support this bill, and I am delighted to have those kind words from my colleague from New Jersey.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers H.R. 439, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999. This is legislation that is not new to the House. In both the 104th Congress and the 105th Congress virtually identical legislation was considered and overwhelmingly passed. In the 104th Congress, the House passed this bill by a vote of 418 to zero. In the 105th Congress, the House passed this bill by a vote of 395 to zero. I certainly hope we can continue this trend this afternoon. Before I take a moment to explain the bill, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, as well as the rest of my friends on the Democratic side, for their help in moving this legislation forward. The ranking member and her staff have been very cooperative, and deserve much of the credit for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, paperwork burdens are literally strangling the productivity of our Nation's economy, particularly small businesses. Consider the fact that in 1996 the government-wide burden hour estimate reached 6.7 billion hours. That means that Americans spent 6.7 billion, that is ``billion'' with a ``B'', filling out paperwork required by the Federal Government. That figure is up almost 350 percent from the 1.5 billion burden hour estimate in 1980. As I said a moment ago, paperwork burdens impact our Nation's small businesses particularly hard. A recent study indicated that for companies with fewer than 20 employees, complying with paperwork requirements cost an average of $2,017 per employee per year. For companies with 20 to 499 employees, our small businesses, that cost was almost as much. For these companies, complying with paperwork requirements cost an average of $1,931 per employee per year. But for companies with 500 employees or more, the costs were much lower. For these companies, complying with paperwork requirements cost an average of $1,086 per employee per year. Clearly, for the sake of our Nation's small businesses, we need to start reducing the overall burden of complying with federally-mandated paperwork. One of the ways in which we can do this is to enable the Federal Government to take advantage of the Information Age. The Committee on Small Business has recognized the need to encourage the Federal Government to utilize new information technology to reduce the public costs of meeting the Federal government's information needs. Nowhere is this need more acute than in the small business community. Because small businesses typically do not have the resources to hire employees whose explicit purpose is to deal with paperwork and regulatory requirements, there is a specific need to allow these small businesses, as well as other taxpayers, with access to computers and modems to use them when dealing with the Federal Government. That is the goal that the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 is intended to accomplish. Let me briefly run down exactly what is contained in this legislation. First, it specifically requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, to promote the acquisition and use of electronic transmission of information as a substitute for paper when small businesses and individuals are required to comply with the information needs of the Federal Government. Second, it requires the director of OMB to include in the government- wide resources plan that is already maintained a description of progress in providing for the acquisition and use of alternative technologies that provide for electronic transmission of information. This report is also to include the extent to which the paperwork burden on small businesses and individuals has been reduced as a result of using this technology. Third, it clearly states the new responsibilities of each Federal agency. It specifically requires each Federal agency to provide the option of electronically transmitting information when complying with their regulations and other information needs. It also requires each Federal agency to certify to the director of OMB that each collection of information it undertakes has reduced paperwork burdens to the greatest extent possible, particularly on small entities, by allowing for the electronic transmission of data. Fourth, it prohibits each Federal agency from collecting information until it has first published a notice in the Federal Register describing how respondents may, if they choose, submit the required information electronically. Finally, it requires the director of OMB, when reporting to Congress, to include a report on how paperwork burdens on small businesses and other persons have been reduced by using electronic transmissions of information as a substitute for paper. Furthermore, it requires this report to describe any instances where the use of electronic transmission of information has added to paperwork burdens and specific identifications of instances relating to the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my statement, I do wish to clarify two items. First, I want to stress that any requirements imposed by this legislation fall on the Federal Government. It is the Federal Government that is required to provide the option of using electronic names to transmit information. No small business or individual will be required to use electronic means to transmit information to the government if he or she does not wish to. The second item I wish to clarify is how H.R. 439 differs from previous versions of the Paperwork Elimination Act. As I indicated earlier, in both the 104th and 105th Congresses, the House passed by unanimous votes virtually identical versions of H.R. 439. The version that we are considering today has been changed only slightly to reflect a small portion of last year's bill that was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-277, and signed into law. What we are doing today is considering the remaining portions of legislation already passed by the House in previous Congresses but which did not get signed into law. This complements the provision enacted last year and strengthens the underlying statute. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 439 is not controversial legislation. It is virtually identical to legislation that this House has repeatedly and overwhelmingly passed. I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for his tireless work on this legislation. I would also like to thank once again the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the ranking member; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); and the entire Committee on Small Business and their staffs for the bipartisan work on this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 439 and H.R. 440.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a problem that is plaguing our nation--children being taken as hostages. Far too many scenarios have been documented in which children are exposed to violence, emotional trauma or physical harm at the hands of adults. For example, in New York, a woman's estranged husband took her and their three children hostage at the point of a loaded shotgun. He held them for nearly four hours, and at one point, he even allegedly traded his seven-year-old for a pack of cigarettes. In Texas, a man took 80 children hostage at an area day care facility, including two of his children. They were held at gunpoint and released over a 30-hour period before the standoff was brought to a non-violent conclusion. In Florida, a suspected drug addict and murderer held two children, ages two and four, hostage for two-and-a-half days. An entire Orlando neighborhood was evacuated during the standoff. Only when he threatened to use the children as human shields did a SWAT team rescue the children in a raid that resulted in the death of the suspect. In Baltimore, a man broke into a second-floor apartment, stabbing a young mother and holding her nine-month-old child hostage for two hours before a Quick Response Team could rescue the baby and apprehend the suspect. Situations like these are unacceptable, and should not be tolerated by anyone. All over the country, children are being used as pawns in actions played by violent adults. We in Congress must do our part to help prevent these scenarios from developing in the first place. My legislation will give new protections to children--our nation's most precious resource. I have joined forces with Senator Olympia Snowe to establish the strictest punishments for those who would evade arrest or obstruct justice by using children as hostages. This bill will toughen penalties against any person who takes a child, 18 years of age or younger, hostage in order to resist any officer or court in the United States, or to compel the federal government to do or to abstain from any act. Such a person would serve a minimum sentence of ten years to a maximum of death, depending on the extent of injury to the child. Please join me in this important effort to protect the lives and well-being of our nation's young. I hope that together we can make our nation a safer place for everyone, especially those in our society least able to protect themselves.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act, legislation that prohibits insurers from discriminating against children born with deformities by denying coverage of reconstructive surgery. Children should not only be provided reconstructive surgery to improve the function of a part of the body, but also should be given the opportunity to face the world with a normal appearance. Insurers would like for you to think that such surgery is merely cosmetic--parents of children dealing with the physical and psychological effects of such deformities would beg to differ. Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as birth marks, cleft lip, cleft palate, absent external ears and other facial deformities. A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons indicated that over half of the plastic surgeons surveyed have had a pediatric patient who in the last two years has been denied, or experienced significant difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for their surgical procedures. Some insurance companies claim that reconstructive procedures that do not improve function are not medically necessary and are, therefore, cosmetic. America's physicians recognize an important difference between reconstructive and cosmetic surgery to which this bill calls attention. The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. They define reconstructive surgery as being performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or disease. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act acknowledges the importance of the AMA's definitions and requires that managed care and insurance companies do the same. The problems that Americans across the board are experiencing with various managed care companies who place cost over quality care are infuriating enough, but when it affects the physical and emotional well-being of children, Congress must be willing to put our foot down. Please join me in defending the needs of children with deformities and congenital defects and their families by cosponsoring this important bill.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me. It is a sad day for the country. Each of us in this body, on both sides of the aisle, today faces what is surely the most solemn duty of our lives; to decide whether it has become necessary to impeach a President of the United States. It is a duty, I dare say, that none of us cherish. Having spent considerable time listening to my district, I've heard many voices. All Americans struggle with the dilemma we face. The great debate is what to do with a popular President who has violated the very constructs of our safe, legal society. Ours is not a monarchy. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out. This is not about sex, it is about the law. This vote is about what kind of country we will live in from this day forward. It is about whether we really believe in the ``rule of law'' or just pretend to abide it. It is about whether we really have faith in the principles and mechanisms set forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution, or will instead choose to be guided by TV pundits and polls. Perhaps we would all best be guided by the words of Edmund Burke who, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774 said, ``Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'' In the words of the New York Times (12/14/98), ``Mr. Clinton did lie repeatedly, in plain sight, while under oath.'' Mr. Clinton is not the first President who has lied to the American people. He is the first in modern times to perjure himself in front of a grand jury. He lied not to protect the safety of American soldiers, to save the Republic, nor to trick a foreign despot in a game of political poker. He lied to thwart a court proceeding, in a sad attempt to conceal. He broke his oath of office. A CEO in my district would be fired for this. An attorney in my district would face disbarment; a member of my staff dismissed. All would face prosecution. Should I overlook the President's crime because, as some suggest, he remains popular? Are we to disregard the President's perjury to spare the Country the agony of a Senate trial? Am I to vote against impeachment, thereby forgiving the President's conduct for which my constituents would face prosecution? Certainly, the President has the same right as everyone else to the equal and unfettered protection of our judicial system. This process we undergo today is about whether we will ever again be able to honestly say to ourselves and to our children that we live in a country where no one is above the law. I still believe in that country. It's not a perfect country. Unfortunately, there is hypocrisy, there is dishonesty, there is evasion of laws. These things surely exist in that country I believe in. But if by our actions today we sanction hypocrisy, if by our vote we ratify dishonesty, if by our vote we permit evasion of laws at the very highest level of our Government, then we will have forevermore surrendered the thing that makes us uniquely American--a free, yet legal, society.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues from the House Working Group on Health Care Quality to reflect on the critical legislation passed by the House in July, the Patient Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately politics has taken precedence over policy with regard to reasonable health care reform. I want to share with Americans some key provision of the Patient Protection Act that will not come to fruition because some Members of this Congress would rather resort to demagoguery on the issue rather than actually do something to improve America's health care. As my colleague has pointed out, we are interested in making sure all Americans have health care when they need it, not have to go to court to fight for it. I have approached the health care debate from two different perspectives, the first from that of a professional patient advocate and the second from that of a former small business owner. As a professional patient advocate, I have dedicated my life to ensuring the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship. It is that relationship, the relationship between a patient and their doctor that results in high quality care. To that end, the Patient Protection Act includes several provisions that recognize the distinctive health care needs of patients, especially women and children. For example, the Patient Protection Act provides women with direct access to their OB/GYNs without authorization or referral by a primary care physician. It also gives parents a very important right, access to a pediatrician as their child's primary care provider. Other patient protections in the bill include providing new avenues to health care coverage where quality and choice are available by requiring health plans to offer a point of service option. The measure also includes a prohibition on gag rules that are often placed on medical providers as well as ensures access to emergency care by eliminating preauthorization requirements for emergency services, allowing a patient to access emergency services from any emergency service provider and demanding that coverage is based on patient symptoms rather than a final diagnosis. However, while it is of utmost importance for Congress to protect patients in today's managed health care market, it is also our responsibility to be mindful of producing a bill that does not have dire consequences such as making health insurance too expensive for American families and businesses. The Patient Protection Act does not turn its back on the financial impact health care reform might have on families and businesses. The President's health care proposal does nothing to address the 42 million uninsured Americans, many of whom work for small businesses or are self-employed. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reports that his proposal could result in a premium increase of 4 percent which would result in many Americans losing health care coverage. The Patient Protection Act, on the other hand, is the only health care reform proposal that creates new health care choices so that more, not less, Americans can have access to affordable health care. Mr. Speaker, the Patient Protection Act recognizes that reform means nothing to those Americans who cannot access health care. The Patient Protection Act is an excellent starting point on the road to quality affordable health care for all Americans. It is my hope that next year Congress will rise above political rhetoric and demagoguery and protect America's patients and families as well as America's uninsured.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3046, which provides support to the family members of public safety officers who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. I would also like to commend Congress Fox for all of his hard work on this critically important issue. This issue is a top priority of mine, and I have worked hard to see that it is addressed by Congress this year. H.R. 3046 is very similar to H.R. 2088, a bill I sponsored this year that was unanimously approved as part of H.R. 6 to establish a similar system of financial support for these families. Police officers and firefighters lay their lives on the line on a daily basis, Madam Speaker, and sadly, all too often they make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their communities. These are our friends, our neighbors, our loved ones, and they leave behind families who must continue on. The death of a father or mother takes an obvious emotional toll, but it also impacts the financial security of the family, particularly when it comes to meeting educational expenses. This bill seeks to address this particular problem by authorizing the Department of Justice to offer higher education assistance to the families of State and local public safety officers killed or disabled in the line of duty. Last Congress, Congress adopted legislation to award education assistance to family members of Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. I was pleased to support that legislation, which passed both the House and Senate by voice votes. I am proud to support H.R. 3046, which takes the next logical step and extends this benefit to the families of all public safety officers who are killed while serving their communities. Our public safety officers deserve our respect, gratitude and support. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act, legislation that prohibits insurers from discriminating against children born with deformities by denying coverage of reconstructive surgery. Children should not only be provided reconstructive surgery to improve the function of a part of the body, but also should be given the opportunity to face the world with a normal appearance. Insurers would like for you to think that such surgery is merely cosmetic--parents of children dealing with the physical and psychological effects of such deformities would beg to differ. Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as birth marks, cleft lip, cleft palate, absent external ears and other facial deformities. A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons indicated that over half of the plastic surgeons surveyed have had a pediatric patient who in the last two years has been denied, or experienced significant difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for their surgical procedures. Some insurance companies claim that reconstructive procedures that do not improve function are not medically necessary and are, therefore, cosmetic. America's physicians recognize an important difference between reconstructive and cosmetic surgery to which this bill calls attention. The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. They define reconstructive surgery as being performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or disease. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act acknowledges the importance of the AMA's definitions and requires that managed care and insurance companies do the same. The problems that Americans across the board are experiencing with various managed care companies who place cost over quality care is infuriating enough, but when it affects the physical and emotional well-being of children, Congress must be willing to put our foot down. Please join me in defending the needs of children with deformities and congenital defects and their families by cosponsoring this important bill.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4364, the Depository Institution Regulatory Streamlining Act. This legislation represents the tireless efforts of many of my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Metcalf. H.R. 4364 is a well balanced legislative package of financial services regulatory relief. I was pleased when provisions from my legislation, H.R. 4082, were included in this bill and know that these provisions will help banks better serve their customers. One of these provisions will allow banks to conduct ``24 sweeps'' in a given month for their commercial checking customers. Currently, banks are prohibited from paying interest on commercial checking accounts. These sweeps allow banks to move funds sitting in a commercial checking account into an interest bearing account daily after all transactions have occurred in the commercial account. The next morning the money would then be ``swept'' back into the commercial accounts, with interest. Currently, banks are only allowed to do this six times a month. Operation of additional sweeps each month would not affect the safety and soundness of banks and will allow banks to pay interest on commercial checking accounts. In my discussions with banks, I have found that complying with this provision would take minimal effort since we will only be increasing their ability to sweep from six times a month to 24. This initiative represents a real ``win-win'' for banks and businesses. I want to again thank the gentleman from Washington for his hard work on this bill, as well as the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento and the committee staff who worked so hard to make this bill a reality. Lastly, I am pleased with the bipartisan consensus we have achieved with this legislation and I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in support for House passage of H.R. 4364.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Jerry, you have been such a great friend and a neighbor of mine ever since I came to this body and really before I got here in 1994, 1995. But mostly you have been a mentor to me. You have been a true leader of this House. You have built support for various legislative initiatives over the course of so many years. The experience you have brought here to this body has made the body a better place. It has brought more of New York common sense to Washington than many of the others of us. You have stood, you have fought not only for the Nation but you fought for our State and our Nation as a whole. I think that is a wonderful attribute, Jerry. So many people are here that do not speak with quite as loud a voice as you have, Jerry, and I have to tell you, that strong, loud voice is something we New Yorkers love and appreciate and are going to miss tremendously. The House is going to seem less next year. That is because the very large role that you, Jerry Solomon, have crafted here in Congress is going to be empty. So those of us from New York will continue to build consensus and make the bills we pass good for New York and this Nation we will try to make as good as possible, but we will do that with you in our hearts, Jerry.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, Congress has less than 1 month to conduct the people's business. I think Congress should focus on the issue of tax cuts. Republicans believe that Americans are overtaxed. Democrats believe that Americans are not overtaxed, and some of them actually believe that Americans are not taxed enough. Republicans talk about tax cuts for all Americans. Democrats speak in terms of targeted tax cuts, which is a great way of saying that the middle-class, the backbone of America, will not be getting a tax cut. Now, let us make a distinction between Democrats and so-called ``New Democrats.'' Democrats will raise taxes. New Democrats will talk about cutting taxes, but they will raise them once they get in office. Mr. Speaker, if Americans believe that taxes are fundamentally a freedom issue, then Republicans are on their side. If they think that government knows best, then the Democrats are their friend. To me, the choice is clear.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true American hero. He did not hit home runs, he did not score touchdowns, he did not star in any movies, but what Eric Gross did do in his 33 years of public service was provide an unparalleled role model as both a teacher and friend for students attending Carmel High School in Carmel, New York. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to honor Eric, because this marks the first September since 1965 that he will not be heading back to school along with the students of Carmel High School. Although Eric continues his career as a journalist, he has retired from the profession to which he has given the most of his time. Eric served his 33 years as a speech therapist, helping youngsters overcome all types of challenges. The beneficiaries of Eric's retirement from Carmel High School of course are his wife, Barbara, and his children, Kimberly and Andrew, who will now be able to spend more time with this thoughtful and giving man. Eric Gross will be greatly missed at the institution where he served so long and gave so much. He will be missed by both students and colleagues alike throughout the entire school district. Mr. Speaker, I wish Eric all the best in his retirement and salute him for his 33 years of public service as a teacher. He is a true American hero.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 105, which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the culpability of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Let there be no doubt about the cause of much of the death and misery in Bosnia and Kosova; Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic has carried out an ongoing campaign of genocide, a campaign that is proceeding with deadly precision in Kosova as we speak; Hundreds of ethnic Albanians have been brutally massacred and over 200,000 have been burned and shelled out of their homes since he launched his offensive in Kosova earlier this year; Despite urgent appeals for peace, and urgent appeals for self- determination for the Kosovan people, Milosevic continues his campaign of genocide; Humanity cannot allow this to continue. As I have said before, Milosevic no longer responds to words and condemnation. He will respond to force, and I believe that we have reached the point where force is necessary. It's time that NATO act against Milosevic. The world community should make every effort to apprehend this criminal and bring him to trial; This resolution tonight is important because it expresses the sense of Congress that Milosevic should be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. We cannot turn a blind eye any longer, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that in my home State of New York nearly 349,000 American citizens work for American subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad. These are hard-working Americans that are employed by American subsidiaries of companies; and they, I believe, need to have the right to contribute their own money to candidates through employer-based PACs. It is a political right that is granted to all American citizens at this time. Because we are not certain at this time about whether or not this amendment will change the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), I want to be certain that we have the right to vote on this tomorrow since the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) is not here. I believe that the political rights of all Americans should not be determined by where they work. I think it should be determined because they are American citizens. They should not be disenfranchised from the political process.