Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the unfairness of Britain's decision to allow the Orange Order to march through Northern Ireland's Garvaghy Road area this past weekend. Thousands of residents were barricaded in their homes by 1,500 riot police and troops, which were reinforced by more than 100 armored cars. This choice was tragic, and today's headlines bear solemn witness to this fact. This is the third year that British authorities have allowed the Orange Order to march through this predominantly Catholic neighborhood. In justifying this fatal decision, Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam said, ``Had the Orange Order not been permitted to march through the Garvaghy Road Community, the Protestants would have committed widespread mayhem.'' The mere fact that Secretary Mowlam, admitted that by allowing the Protestants to march through the Garvaghy Road area was her least worst option, to me is quite disturbing. In fact, her decision led to severe rioting, and has made the Irish Peace process that much more difficult to achieve. Clearly, this march should not have been allowed to take place in the first place. All marches in the future should be cancelled, until Ireland can reach a peace agreement. I call upon the British and Irish Governments to work together, and encourage all parties to resume their efforts toward a just and lasting peace. Violence, under any circumstance, is not the answer.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. This rule can work to ruin the livelihoods of numerous splendid artists in my district; halt the regeneration of the city of Peekskill, village of Cold Spring and several other struggling communities; and to deny many of my constituents theater, dance, opera, painting, and other artistic mediums. This shortsighted decision to severely cripple our Nation's preservation of culture will haunt us in the near future. All of us like to think of the United States of America as a civilized country, but how civilized is a country that abandons their commitment to the arts. How civilized is a country that does not prioritized art and culture as the inevitable measurement of our society? When we look for signs of early and ancient man, where do we find it? In the arts that ancient cultures left behind. Absent the argument of whether or not the NEA should continue, there is a yet a bigger concern being debated here--Democracy. This rule denies this Chamber a straight up and down vote on funding the NEA. It allows an attempt to reach compromise by block granting arts funds without any hearings. This amendment, while supposedly sympathetic to the arts, operates on the premise of eliminating the NEA--a premise with which I cannot agree. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote that: ``Art is the child of Nature; yes, Her darling child, in whom we trace The features of the mother's face, Her aspect and her attitude.'' That quote leads me to ask one question. What kind of mother are we then if we devalue the arts? Allow a vote on NEA funding. Defeat this rule.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, for the second year in a row, the members of Yorktown High School's girls lacrosse team have won the New York State Public High School Athletic Association's [NYSPHSAA] girls lacrosse State championship, and I would like to take a few moments to recognize these young women from my district, each of whom has exhibited great dedication, outstanding teamwork, and extraordinary perseverance. In 1996, the Yorktown Cornhuskers won the NYSPHSAA girls lacrosse competition in Division B. Over the past year, increasing student enrollment at Yorktown High School placed the girls lacrosse team in Division A. Mr. Speaker, any sports fan would be inspired by the manner in which the Yorktown High School girls lacrosse team responded to their placement in the highly competitive Division A. The Cornhuskers found themselves competing against teams representing schools with student bodies as much as four times larger than Yorktown's. In spite of the odds, the Yorktown High School girls lacrosse team played a remarkable season, decisively winning the NYSPHSAA Division A championship. In doing so, the Yorktown Cornhuskers became the first girls' lacrosse team in the State of New York to first win a championship in one division and then win in a higher division the immediate following year. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate each of these motivated young women, as well as their parents and coaches, for the Yorktown Cornhuskers' repeated success. High school varsity athletes are expected to commit a great deal of time to their sport. For the members of the Yorktown High School girls lacrosse team initiative and hard work are the norm. However, the coaches and parents of these young women also deserve recognition, because without their devotion, these young women would have had trouble reaching the goals that they have. So by supporting their children, the parents of these young women have profoundly nurtured their daughters' ambitions. And certainly no less significant than their parents' guidance, a sound coach who positively motivates the members of a team--such as their's surely does, by constantly pushing them to fulfill their potential, also played a significant role in their success. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the young women of the Yorktown High School girls lacrosse team. Their hard work, commitment, and teamwork should serve as a model for us all. I congratulate the Cornhuskers for their hard-fought and well-deserved victory, and I wish them continued success in all their future seasons.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which seeks to support the family members of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty. Police officers and firefighters lay their lives on the line on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, and sadly, all too often they make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their communities. This tragic fact was illustrated most recently in my district in New York when a volunteer firefighter, Michael Neuner, who was also a police officer, was killed while fighting a fire in the town of Southeast. This unfortunate story is repeated around the country, Mr. Speaker. 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. The Public Safety Officers Memorial Scholarship Act seeks to address this particular problem. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to award education scholarships to the spouse or dependent child of a public safety officer--police or firefighter--who is killed in the line of duty. These scholarships may be used to cover education expenses associated with elementary and secondary education (K-12), or to attend a post secondary institution as a full-time or part-time student. Last year, Congress adopted similar 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, and even more pleased to introduce this bill, 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. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

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

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening simply to concur with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. We have in Albania a situation where there is a nation emerging from a long darkness into the full-fledged sunshine of democracy. I feel that we in Congress need to do all that we can to support and encourage this nation. I strongly stand behind the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleagues: I would like to call your attention to a great service rendered to this country by the men who served as civilian weather observers with the U.S. Weather Bureau's North Atlantic Patrol during the Second World War. These men significantly impacted the success of D-day, and many other battles of World War II, and yet, they have never been given the public appreciation they so richly deserve. One of my constituents, Mr. Ray McCool, told me of these men, serving in the North Atlantic Weather Patrol aboard Coast Guard vessels, who obtained and transmitted essential weather data to Washington, DC. As a result, they made possible the preparation of weather maps used throughout the war. In fact, their long-range forecasts provided vital information needed to plan the D-day invasion. Their knowledge and talents made an enormous difference in the success of the overall mission and ultimately in an Allied victory. Their service was not without danger and sacrifice. Under the Geneva Convention Articles of War, the rules for treating military prisoners did not apply to civilians. Therefore capture by the enemy most likely meant being treated as a spy and shot. To prevent this, they were outfitted in Coast Guard uniforms, carried as chief petty officers and enlisted into the service as ``U.S. Coast Guard Temporary Reserves.'' If capture by the enemy wasn't worry enough, they had the high seas and enemy ships to face. A typical mission took these men out to sea for 4 to 6 weeks at a time where they dealt with hurricanes and attacks from depth charges, U-boats, and German submarines. To date, the United States have never fully recognized the invaluable job these civilian weather observers performed. Today, let the record show we salute these unsung heroes and acknowledge their service to our Nation. Further, in order to show our proper recognition, I am recommending that each local veteran's office present a U.S. flag to the family of a deceased member of this elite ensemble of men. In the face of danger and against the odds, these men stood tall and answered our country's call to freedom, and for that the United States of America is forever grateful.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1997, the National Sheriff's Association will inaugurate Sheriff Fred W. Scoralick of Dutchess County, NY, as its new president. It is a distinct pleasure for me to join the residents of Dutchess County in recognizing my constituent Sheriff Scoralick, who has devoted his life to law enforcement. Sheriff Scoralick first entered the law enforcement community in 1961, as a part-time deputy sheriff. Through diligence and ability, Fred Scoralick achieved the rank of undersheriff in April 1976, and, in November 1978, he was elected sheriff of Dutchess County, NY. Sheriff Scoralick has an impressive background in law enforcement. He is a graduate of the National Sheriff's Institute. In addition, he has completed specialized training at Iona College in New Rochelle, NY, and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Throughout his law enforcement career, he has also studied safety, management, and corrections under the auspices of the Municipal Training Council, the New York State Commission of Corrections, the New York City Police Department, and the FBI Academy. Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Scoralick has brought the same dedication to the wider law enforcement community that he brings to his duties in Dutchess County. He has served as the chairman of the executive committee of the New York State Sheriff's Association. Indeed, Sheriff Scoralick has held every office within this organization, including president. In 1987, he was elected to the NSA's Board of Directors. Currently, Sheriff Scoralick serves as the chairman of the NSA Insurance Committee, cochairs the NSA Board and the Educational Foundation Committee, and is active on the Budget, Traffic Safety and Management Subcommittees. Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Scoralick has made invaluable contributions to our community. He has succeeded in bringing new services to Dutchess County, including DARE, Youth Support, Crash Management, Arson investigation, County Wide Drug Task Force, and the Senior Citizen ``Are You OK?'' Service. Besides spearheading these programs, Sheriff Scoralick also oversaw the construction of a new jail. He has repeatedly demonstrated his ability as a leader and public guardian. In 1970, he won the American Legion Heroism Medal. In addition, Sheriff Scoralick is also a past recipient of the Police Benevolent Association President's Award. In 1985, his able leadership was recognized by President Ronald Reagan. Sheriff Scoralick was the 1996 recipient of the Multi-County Community Development Corporation Award. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all Members to join me in paying tribute to Sheriff Fred Scoralick. He is an exemplary public servant who has devoted his life to making his community a better place. I applaud Sheriff Scoralick's dedication and wish him continued success in his endeavors.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Harman amendment and thank my colleague for her leadership in the fight to repeal the ban on privately funded abortions for servicewomen and their dependents at overseas military hospitals. Our servicewomen have volunteered to defend our country, which is a patriotic calling to be admired and, for which, we should be grateful. So how do we thank them? By denying them basic rights that are extended to all other American women--reproductive rights. This amendment is an access to health care amendment to repeal a harmful public policy for women who deserve our utmost protection. We are talking about women who are serving in countries that do not share America's standards of quality in health care. Furthermore, some of the countries in which they serve do not share America's affection for human rights--especially women's rights. Some members of this body claim to not want American tax dollars going to abortion, and that claim in this matter would be fine if it were accurate. But we are talking about privately funded abortions. In addition, no medical provider in the military will be forced to perform an abortion, for all branches of government have a conscience clause permitting medical personnel who have moral, religious or ethical objections to abortion not to participate in the procedure. How dare we claim not to be a discriminating country and then continue this ban that clearly singles out patriotic women serving the United States of America overseas. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Support the Harman amendment and repeal this misguided and injurious public policy.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Smith amendment which would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy. Once again we have this unnecessary debate. Once again those of us who are strong supporters of international family planning have to remind Congress that we already prohibit U.S. funds for abortion in international family planning through a 1973 Helms amendment that is part of the permanent foreign aid statute. Once again we have to remind Congress that family planning is not abortion, that family planning prevents abortion. Once again we stand here today debating an issue of women and infant mortality. This amendment uses scare tactics to prevent nongovernmental organizations from discussing issues pertaining to reproductive rights. The Smith amendment gags foreign nongovernmental organizations from talking to their own governments with their own funds about abortion law or policy, even when it might involve discussions about making abortions safer. The effects of the Mexico City policy are far-reaching and negative. According to UNICEF, each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes; 75,000 of these deaths are associated with self-induced unsafe abortion. Is this the result we want? Do we want the blood of 75,000 women on our hands year after year after year? In addition, this amendment would terminate the entire U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund unless the President certifies that the U.N. Population Fund has terminated all activities in China. This is simply not fair. The U.N. Population Fund's country program in China ended in 1995. Currently they maintain a liaison office only in Beijing for programs in Mongolia and North Korea. This amendment seeks to use the U.N. Population Fund's past program in China and its small presence in China as a basis for withdrawing all support of the U.N. Population Fund altogether. Lastly, I would like to emphasize that to call family planning abortion is to trivialize a critical and complex issue. Family planning is prenatal care. Family planning is child nutrition. Family planning is followup and preventive care. It is the education provided by international family planning that is often what enables children to survive the first year and what enables women to survive their pregnancies. Do not impose this gag order. Provide the world with family planning education that works to eliminate the need for abortion. Defeat the Smith amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, because voluntarism plays so important a role in this country, I rise today to introduce legislation that will, in a small way, assist people who give their time and efforts to charitable organizations. Americans are a giving people, Mr. Speaker. Whether volunteering at a veterans nursing home, helping to deliver meals to the home-bound elderly, helping a child learn to read, or helping entire nations ravaged by famine or strife, I think it speaks well of our society that we are so readily willing and able to help our neighbors in need. There are ways in which the Federal Government can help promote voluntarism, including the use of the Tax Code. In 1984, Congress passed legislation that set a standard mileage deduction rate of 12 cents per mile for persons who use their own automobiles in the course of supporting the work of charitable organizations. This was an important step to offset the out-of-pocket costs of those who use their cars for volunteer work. Over a decade later, however, the mileage deduction rate remains at 12 cents per mile, despite the fact that the deductibility of mileage expenses for the business use of automobiles has risen over the years to 31.5 cents per mile. The legislation that I introduce today corrects this oversight and raises the deduction for volunteers to 18 cents per mile, the same ratio between the charitable and business deductions which existed in 1984. My bill also takes the next step by giving the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to adjust the deduction for volunteers each year to reflect changes in costs, authority which is lacking under current law. Mr. Speaker, it should be the policy of our Government to support and promote voluntarism, and this legislation does just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation that will greatly assist this body in obtaining information that it can use to fulfill its responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act. My legislation would create a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis, or CORA, whose sole purpose would be to provide Congress substantive information on the potential impact of new regulations on our Nation's small business. In March 1996, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] was enacted. Contained within this legislation is an often overlooked, but nevertheless significant, provision that gives Congress the authority to prevent new Federal regulations from taking effect. This new regulatory disapproval authority is designed to allow Congress to become a more active participant in the regulatory process. Members of Congress have often protested that Federal agencies routinely promulgate regulations that exceed their legal authority. Given these complaints, and the fact that the regulatory burden has become unbearably large, one would expect that Congress would be vigorously employing its powers under the Congressional Review Act. However, in practice, the exact opposite is true. As of May 21, 1997, roughly 14 months after the Congressional Review Act became effective, 4,574 nonmajor final rules have been submitted to GAO and Congress, and 72 major rules, on which GAO is required to submit a statement to Congress, have been issued. Yet, not a single resolution of disapproval has been passed. The House of Representatives has failed even to consider one such resolution. In my opinion, this is not how the Congressional Review Act was designed to operate. Congress must use its authority to exercise stronger oversight of the regulatory state. Before I describe the responsibilities of CORA, however, I would like to make one point very clear: this initiative is not based on the assumption that all regulations are bad. Some regulations have been instrumental in protecting our environment and ensuring the safety of millions of American workers. These efforts should not be weakened, and it is not the intent of this legislation to do so. Having said that, let me explain more fully what CORA is designed to do. Under my bill, a new legislative support office, called the Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis, would be created. Why is such an office needed? As discussed above, the Congressional Review Act is simply not being implemented. The executive branch continues to churn out new regulations at a staggering pace. In most cases, the only information that Members of Congress have available to them regarding a regulation is that which is provided by the promulgating agency. As we all know, Federal agencies are required to complete a number of reports and analyses on rules that they are promulgating. A problem exists, however, because agencies often ignore these requirements, or fail to thoroughly comply with them. Aside from what an agency may provide, there is no other source of information that Congress can rely upon. CORA's sole purpose would be to analyze new agency regulations to help Congress determine whether the use of its disapproval authority under the Congressional Review Act would be warranted. How would the Office operate? Under current law, virtually all new regulations are required to be filed with Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office and each House of Congress. The Comptroller General has unique responsibilities if these regulations are determined to be major. A major rule, whose determination is made by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is defined as a rule that will likely have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. In these instances, GAO is required to submit a report to the committees of jurisdiction by the end of 15 calendar days containing an assessment of the agency's compliance with the procedural steps required by various statutes and executive orders relating to the regulatory process. The usefulness of these reports, however, is minimal because they simply assess procedural steps taken by an agency, and do not at all address the substance of the regulation. As a result, they do little to assist Members of Congress determine the merits of the rule itself. This would change under my legislation. Initially, the functions now designated to the General Accounting Office would be transferred to CORA. In addition to the report on an agency's compliance with procedural steps, CORA would also perform its own regulatory impact analysis of major rules. Such an analysis would provide a second opinion on the agency's actions and provide Members with a substantive assessment of the impact the regulation is likely to have. This information could then be used to facilitate use of the Congressional Review Act. In addition, CORA could also conduct regulatory impact analyses of nonmajor rules. Currently, there is no type of review of these regulations by GAO or anyone else. CORA would undertake these analyses at the request of a committee or individual Member, based on a priority system established within the legislation and the discretion of the Director of the Office. Under such a system, CORA could analyze important nonmajor rules using limited budgetary resources. Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Congressional Budget Office also has certain regulatory analysis functions. CBO is required to estimate the costs of regulations that may be needed to implement a particular piece of legislation. Upon request, CBO is also required to compare its estimate with that of the agency promulgating the rule. Because CORA would be the repository of regulatory information for Congress, it would be appropriate for CORA to assume this function. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs accurate, reliable, nonpartisan information that it can use to assess new regulations. A source for such information does not currently exist. My legislation would create a small, inexpensive, and focused office within the legislative branch that could provide such information. It would consolidate and centralize such a function, and greatly facilitate effective implementation of the Congressional Review Act. With the annual cost to our economy of Federal regulations estimated at roughly $700 billion and growing, how can we afford not to have such an office? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I salute the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, and the leadership of both sides of the aisle in working with the administration to achieve a balanced budget agreement. It is a good agreement but we can make it better, and that is why I am supporting the bipartisan Shuster-Oberstar-Petri- Rahall substitute. To put it simply, this substitute restores trust to the highway trust fund, ensuring that revenues into the fund are spent out of the fund to support needed highway transit improvements around the country. This investment is desperately needed. There is a multibillion dollar backlog of transportation projects across the country, investments that we must make if we are able to compete in the global marketplace. The Shuster substitute boosts funding for transportation and includes offsets to keep the budget on a glide path to balance by 2002. It is fiscally responsible and fulfills our responsibility to invest in our aging infrastructure. Passage of this substitute will help us to craft an ISTEA reauthorization bill that will resolve the donor versus donee State controversy. If the issue is important to my colleagues, I hope they will join me in supporting the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall substitute.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, 42,000 Americans were killed in automobile accidents in 1995 and 1996, an increase of 2,500 fatalities since 1992. The Federal Highway Administration says that road design and conditions contributed to 30 percent of those fatalities, which means that approximately 12,000 lives could have been saved by investing in better roads. Highway improvements save lives. Eighty percent of all travel occurs on the Nation's highways, which means investing in better and safer roads is the single most dramatic step we can take in protecting the lives of our Nation's motorists. The millions of dollars paid into the highway trust fund each year from our motorists is done with the expectation that it will be used not only to maintain but to improve the safety of the Nation's highways. This is not being done. Using the monies entrusted to us by the people for their intended purpose, the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri- Rahall amendment gives us the opportunity to fulfill our obligation to provide the safest roads possible for every man, woman, and child traveling on them. In the name of safer roads, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall amendment on the budget resolution.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy substitute for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. With H.R. 2 we are stepping away from old thinking. We are ending the administration's passive approach to problems, and we are going to give communities the power to build strong neighborhoods. It is with this active approach that we can nurture our communities. The Kennedy substitute does nothing to change the culture of dependency of many who live in public housing, nothing. We can no longer throw large chunks of money at bloated, poorly functioning administrations that produce results that are mediocre, at best. These funds that come down from these administrations have so many strings attached that there is no flexibility to address the different problems that public housing authorities face across the country. I understand in one of my sick public housing authorities we had a cow butchered in a bathtub. We have to end this kind of public housing administration. One-size-fits-all has to end. We have to allow for a new synergy to be created. That is what H.R. 2 does. That is what the Kennedy substitute seeks to stop. I would like to emphasize the goals we are moving forward with in H.R. 2. They are simple: Personal responsibility that ends with a mutual obligation between the provider and the recipient, removal of disincentives to work and retention of protections for the residents, and empowerment of the individual and family through the choices that I believe will lead them to economic independence and the pursuit of their own American dream. I would like to emphasize that everyone has the same shared objective: Clean, safe, affordable housing that empowers the have-nots in our society to become people who can realize their own American dream. That is what we are going to do here with H.R. 2. This is what we will be voting for when we vote against the Kennedy substitute. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against the Kennedy substitute, that will do nothing for America's communities.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. With that understanding, I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the full committee, clarify the intent of section 106? Am I correct in understanding that this section merely clarifies that the difference in funding for section 8002 between the amount appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 will first be used to pay 50 percent of the maximum amount for any school district described in paragraph 2 of section 8002(i), and that any remaining funds plus any additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding years will then be distributed to increase payments to other school districts which qualify under 8002?

Mrs. KELLY. This section will in no way result in any reductions in funding to the local education agency described in paragraph 2 of section 8002(i)?

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

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, as Members probably know by now, this week is Teacher Appreciation Week, and we are very grateful for all of them. As a former teacher, I have learned from experience that the best way we can truly appreciate teachers and their students is to make certain that they are provided with the safest possible learning environment. This week in Congress we are going to begin to work on legislation to ensure safe classrooms by removing violent juveniles. We are going to work to accomplish this by reforming our juvenile justice system. But this will only be the first step in a series we are going to take in this Congress to reduce crime in our schools and in our communities. The next step will be through strong prevention programs when we move to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act this summer. We need safe classrooms for teachers and for students. We can accomplish this through our focus on both the areas of prevention and punishment. I ask for all of my colleagues to join me in support of safer schools when we pass both the Juvenile Crime Control Act and reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to speak to the work benefit program. This is work for the benefit of living in housing which we, the American taxpayers, are subsidizing. We are also anxious to educate people in the United States of America. One of the benefits of work is an education in how to work. One of the benefits of this program will be an education for people hopefully in how to work at a particular job where they then will be able to earn their salary so that they can pay for their own rent. We need to educate everyone in America to higher and higher levels. That is why I feel so strongly about supporting education. However, in this instance where we have people who are able bodied and able to work and are able to find a job, but living in public supported housing, by putting them out, by helping them find a job and putting them out into the community where they can work in some place, they can work for the benefit of themselves as well as the fact that they are doing something for their community. Consider the fact that in a public housing authority, one can work as a part of a floor watch, or one's block watch. Consider what that means. If someone is a part of the block watch for 2 hours a week, will that not help that person feel good? Most volunteers feel much better; they get more out of the voluntarism that they do than what they put in. This is not voluntarism. This is work for a public benefit. The benefit would be for the person living in the housing authority. I quite frankly think there are so many opportunities that people can have. One can go to one's church and polish the collection plates, or one can work with Girl Scouts. One can do a lot of other things besides having to do things that are in a very limited scope, that have been presented here. I believe very strongly that this is good, solid legislation. People on welfare who are working would be exempt, and I think that that was not clearly stated. We must understand that those who are working in any capacity would be exempt from this work requirement. It is only those who are able bodied and who do not work who would be out there and we would ask them to give a simple 8 hours a month.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Adoption Promotion Act, H.R. 867, and I ask that all Members do the same. Quite simply, this measure represents Congress' commitment to children. According to the Children's Defense Fund, in 1995, 3.1 million children were reported abused or neglected and 818 children died as a result of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, that same year over 1.8 million youths were arrested for various crimes, over 100,000 of which were violent crimes. At issue here is America's future. We are failing our children if we do not provide them with positive role models. While foster care and those who assist in that care are doing a world of good, it will go to waste without some sense of stability for the child. We should be embracing and assisting those families that are willing to care for this country's most precious resource, our children. That is what this bill is all about. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 867.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to call for all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in strong support for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. I would like to thank Chairman Lazio and all of the members of the House Committee on Banking for their hard work on H.R. 2 which we passed with a bipartisan vote last week. H.R. 2 is a piece of well thought out, comprehensive legislation that will make a real difference in public housing in America. We have based this legislation upon simple goals that will move our public housing programs in a strong new direction to empower the residents. These goals are: First, personal responsibility that extends to a mutual obligation between the provider and the recipient. One of the ways we accomplish this is through 8 hours a month work requirements for residents, exempting the elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in school or are receiving training, and those who are already involved in a welfare reform program. Second, retention of protections for the residents. One way this is accomplished is through the exclusion of income for the first few months of a new job and the income of minors from the determination of a resident's income level. Third, removal of disincentives to work and empowerment of the individual and family tenant through choices that I believe will lead them to economic independence. One of the ways we do this is by giving residents a choice between a flat rent or a percentage of their income. I would like to emphasize that everyone has the same, shared objective: clean, safe, affordable housing that empowers the have-nots in our society to become people who can realize their own American dream. We all want to realize this goal, but we just have different ideas on how to get us there. So, if we all keep this vitally important objective in mind, we will be able to move forward in a unified effort to make sure that the benefits of this legislation become a reality.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Nancy Johnson, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Norton, for creating a true bipartisan group concerned and focused on women's health. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to discuss the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, H.R. 616. This legislation, which I introduced in February, along with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Molinari, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo, is a comprehensive measure that focuses on women and breast cancer; those who fear it, those who live with it, and in memory of those who have died as a result of it. As we all have heard, through new reports or personal experience, some women who must undergo mastectomies, lumpectomies or lymph node dissections for the treatment of breast cancer are rushed through their recovery from these procedures on an outpatient basis at the insistence of their health plan or insurance company in order to cut costs. Other insurance companies cut costs by denying coverage for reconstructive surgery because they have deemed such procedures as cosmetic. Ironically, they do not deny reconstructive surgery for an ear lost to cancer. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act guarantees coverage for inpatient hospital care following a mastectomy, lumpectomy or lymph node dissection based on a doctor's judgment, and requires coverage for breast reconstructive procedures, including symmetrical reconstruction. In addition, this bill requires coverage of second opinions when any cancer tests come back either negative or positive, giving patients the benefit of a second opinion. This important provision will not only help ensure that false negatives are detected but also give men and women greater peace of mind. Several key organizations have endorsed this legislation, organizations that agree we have a responsibility to protect the doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that the medical needs of patients are fully addressed. In fact, I would like to thank the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the Center for Patient Advocacy, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and many, many others for their support of this bill. Some critics claim this measure is nothing more than a mandate leading to government-controlled health care. Usually those critics believe that all health care should be individually based and should utilize medical savings accounts and other initiatives that maximize individual control over cost. I agree with these ideas, but they are not in place. There is also a misconception that this legislation requires 48 hours of inpatient care. It does not. The length of stay under this bill is simply determined by the physician and the patient, as it should be. Developing a system of health care which maximizes an individual's control over the health care available is the goal that I in particular strongly support, and so do these organizations. Such a system uses free market principles to ensure that the health care we receive is of the highest quality. However, I realize that while this is a goal we strive for, we are not there yet. Most Americans do not have access to multiple health care plans from which to choose. Until they have this choice, it is going to be necessary for Congress to enact targeted reforms, such as the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, reforms that safeguard quality care while at the same time avoiding overly broad regulations and mandates. I am for market-based health care, but I am not willing to stand by idly while approximately 44,000 women die of breast cancer every year. They will this year, they did last year. This is a figure which is comparable to the number of men and women who died in all of the Vietnam war. Mr. Speaker, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act aims to give women with breast cancer a fighting chance and the dignity to endure the fight.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and join with my colleagues in commemorating the 82d anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I would like to thank the other members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, and particularly the cochairmen Mr. Porter and Mr. Pallone, for their tireless efforts in organizing this fitting tribute. On April 24, 1915, 82 years ago today, the nightmare in Armenia began. Hundreds of Armenian religious, political, and educational leaders were arrested, exiled, or murdered. These events marked the beginning of the systematic persecution of the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire, and also launched the first genocide of the 20th century. Over the next 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians were put to death and 500,000 more were exiled from their homes. These atrocities are among the most cruel and inhumane acts that have ever been recorded. As we reflect today on the horrors that were initiated 82 years ago, I cannot help but be disturbed by those who wish to deny that these deeds occurred. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary-- eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, diplomatic reports, and testimony of survivors--they reject the claim that genocide, or any other crime for that matter, was perpetrated against Armenians. Well, history tells a different story. Let me read a quote from Henry Morgenthau, Sr., U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time: ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact * * *'' The world knows the truth about this tragic episode in human affairs. We will not allow those who wish to rewrite history to absolve themselves from responsibility for their actions. This evening's event here in the House of Representatives is testament to that fact. I would like to once again thank the organizers of this event and I would like to once again reaffirm my sincere thanks for being given the opportunity to participate in this solemn remembrance.