Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the burden that Federal regulations place on the American economy, especially our small businesses. While we are all familiar with this problem, and commend the steps taken during the 104th Congress to make improvements, we are a long way from providing our Nation's small business owners with the relief they need from overregulation. We all know that the regulatory burden that the Federal Government places on the economy is huge. Exactly how huge is difficult to say. One of the most recent studies that we have available to us is a November, 1995 report to the U.S. Small Business Administration by Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Hopkins found that the total cost of complying with the regulatory burden is now approaching a figure as high as $700 billion per year. I find this figure to be troubling, particularly because regulatory compliance costs disproportionately impact small businesses, those that financially are least able to meet Federal regulatory requirements. Consider the following statistics: in 1992, the average small firm with fewer than 20 employees paid roughly $5,500 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. By contrast, firms with more than 500 or more employees spent on average a much smaller $3,000 per employee. This is a large gap that most small businesses have a difficult time bridging. While these are only statistics, they are representative of the very real impact that regulations have on our Nation's small business. To make matters worse, Federal regulation of small businesses often lacks a sound scientific foundation, or put more simply, just doesn't make sense. Let me give you an example. I recently received a letter from a constituent of mine who operates a small biotechnology company in New York. He took great care to make his laboratories as safe as possible for both himself and his colleagues, and made every effort to comply with all existing regulations. One particular safety feature that he included in his laboratories were eye-wash stations that included eye-wash bottles. These are squeezable plastic bottles that contain a buffer solution to neutralize either acid or base should it inadvertently get into someone's eyes. These bottles are also portable so that they could quickly be brought to an incapacitated victim should an accident occur. One day, his laboratory was inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], which fined him for not having eyewash fountains in the laboratory. Now an eyewash fountain is a fixed piece of plumbing attached to a sink. In order to use it, the employee must be able to stand on two feet and bend over to the sink. It cannot be moved, and cannot be brought to an immobilized, prone victim. I think that most people would agree that this type of fountain is far less useful than a portable eyewash bottle with a buffer solution. However, OSHA felt otherwise. They seem to believe that strict adherence to some arcane regulation, regardless of its cost or practicality, is more important than the goal of protecting people's eyes, something that my constituent was obviously trying to do. This is just one of countless examples that I could cite that represent the absurdity of our regulatory system. I chair the Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction Subcommittee of the House Small Business Committee. Last week, we held a joint hearing that looked at the use of sound science in Federal agency rulemaking. We heard testimony from distinguished scholars who indicated that Federal agencies often initiate the development of new regulations without a solid foundation of scientific evidence to support their decisions. When this occurs, the small business owners of America are left holding the bag. The next logical question is: What can be done about this? To its credit, Congress has already done something. Last year, the Congress passed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, better known as SBREFA. This was truly landmark legislation that should help improve the regulatory process. Contained within this legislation is an often overlooked authority that allows Congress to disapprove new regulations before they take effect. This process, commonly referred to as the Congressional Review Act, gives the legislative branch a direct role in the regulatory formation process. While on its own it may not mean foolish regulations like the one my constituent has to deal with will no longer exist. However, it does mean that Congress can at least attempt to prevent new regulations of questionable substance from taking effect in the future. The problem, however, is that Congress has not exercised its new authority under the Congressional Review Act. Since this authority became effective on March 29, 1996, roughly 3,600 new regulations have gone into effect, including 61 major rules. However, only a handful of resolutions of disapproval have been introduced, and the House of Representatives has yet to even consider one such resolution. Why has Congress been so reluctant to use this authority? It is my opinion that Congress has been slow to take advantage of the Congressional Review Act because it lacks accurate and reliable data with which it can challenge the information of the promulgating agency. In many cases, new rules are highly complex and technical in nature. Members have neither the time nor the expertise to assess the information that the agency is using to base its regulatory decisions upon. Until Congress has access to reliable nonpartisan information, it is my belief that the Congressional Review Act will remain a paper tiger, with no real effect on improving the quality and number of regulations that are implemented. To help in this process, I am developing legislation that should provide Members of Congress with timely and useful information with which they can assess the actions taken by the promulgating agency. All too often a regulatory agency either ignores or half-heartedly meets the regulatory analyses that it is mandated by statute to conduct. This must stop. With accurate and reliable information, Members will have a credible, factual basis on which to judge whether a specific regulation is needed or is consistent with congressional intent. We all agree and support having a clean environment and safe workplaces, and I want to be clear that I fully support the need for strong safeguards for our environment and the American worker. However, we must ensure that the ways in which we achieve these goals are based on sound science and take into account the legitimate concerns of the small businesses that will be regulated. It is my sincere hope that Congress can in fact become more active under the Congressional Review Act, and put an end to some of the irrational regulations that Federal agencies continue to develop.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, legislation which might be more aptly titled the Keep America Competitive Act. H.R. 400 makes a number of commonsense improvements to our patent system, but I want to focus on one particular problem inherent in the current system that this legislation will correct. I'm talking about the problem of so-called submarine patents, situations where a patent applicant intentionally delays the issuance of a patent, sometimes for a decade or more, through repeated refilings, which has the effect of submerging their original application from public view. At the same time, other individuals or companies, without knowledge of that pending application, develop and market the same new technology. The original filer then allows his pending application to issue as a patent--the submarine surfaces--and then proceeds to hit unknowing businesses with costly royalty claims. Mr. Chairman, this is not how our patent system was intended to work. We need a system which encourages innovation and protects legitimate inventors who develop new ideas with the intention of bringing those ideas to market--not a system which encourages sham artists who file patent applications with no intention of developing a product, but every intention of hitting unsuspecting companies with huge royalties. This is a very real problem for one of the major employers in my district--IBM. Time and time again, IBM is hit with royalty claims from patents that were filed as much as 20 years ago, but only recently surface as the patent issues. This is not rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, this is real; it costs the company millions of dollars and it hurts their ability to compete. Now let me share with you some additional facts. The information technology industry is characterized by very short product cycles. A technology that is developed and goes to market today could be obsolete less than a year from now. Our patent system has not kept up with the pace of technology development in today's economy. We need a patent system that will take us into the 21st century, and yet forcing companies like IBM to wait 5 years or more before a patent application is published is totally out of step with the realities of the information age. A 5-year publication requirement will accomplish one of two things: You will either inhibit new technologies from coming to market or you will ensure that submarine patents remain a problem, or both. An 18-month publication requirement, as included in H.R. 400, gets the technology to the marketplace quicker and, most importantly, ensures that the inventor enjoys the royalty proceeds from their invention sooner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to keep America competitive in the 21st century. Vote for H.R. 400. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. I ardently believe that the issue of euthanasia must be taken seriously, without encroaching on patients' rights to oversee their treatment and refuse to be placed on life support. However, there is a balance to be had when dealing with the humane treatment of the terminally ill. Given physicians the legal protection of assisting suicide, in my view, tips that balance. I would like to spend a minute to discuss what this bill does not do. It does not get in the way of a patient's wish to refuse medical treatment, nutrition, or hydration. It does not get in the way of a doctor's responsibility to relieve pain, even if doing so increases the likelihood of death. Last, this bill only applies to those programs, agencies, and organizations that receive Federal funds and limits a practice that has already been deemed a criminal offense. I applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] as well as the leadership for bringing this responsible bill to the House floor. Please join me in supporting this measure.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 240, the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act of 1997. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and ask all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in voting overwhelmingly for quick passage. In 1944, Congress enacted the Veterans Preference Act to address the readjustment needs of the men and women who served their country during a time of war. The law was designed to assist veterans in regaining the lost ground their civilian careers had suffered as a result of military service. In the beginning, the Federal Government gladly complied with the provisions of the new veterans preference law. Unfortunately, as time passed and the memory of war faded, so did America's concern for fulfilling its obligation to its citizen-soldiers. Today, the original legislation and its amendments are easily circumvented. Currently, veterans' preference laws give certain veterans preference in appointment to civilian employment with the Federal Government based upon their military service. Congress has long recognized that this is an earned benefit, not a gift. H.R. 240 strengthens veterans' preference and increases employment opportunities for veterans. It provides veterans an effective, efficient, and user-friendly redress mechanism for veterans whose rights have been violated under veterans' preference laws. In short, H.R. 240 will end circumvention of veterans' preference laws. Additionally, H.R. 240 provides veterans with increased protections during reductions in force and extends veterans' preference to certain positions at the White House and in the legislative and judicial branches. This legislation is long overdue. If Federal agencies and Federal managers were fulfilling their obligation to enforce current law, this legislation would not be necessary. In closing, I again ask that all of my colleagues join me in support of our Nation's veterans by voting for H.R. 240.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Nursing Care Availability Act of 1997. This important legislation will help correct a flaw that exists in the way that the Department of Veterans Affairs ranks applications for its State Extended Care Facilities Grant Program. The State Extended Care Facilities Grant Program provides Federal funding for up to 65 percent of the total cost for the construction of State veterans nursing homes. Many States have been desperately trying to get a grant under this program to assist in the construction of State veterans nursing homes. However, despite documented need, they have been unable to get the Federal funding necessary to move forward. Because of the overall inequity of the system that the VA uses to rank State applications, I have decided to introduce legislation that will ensure that States with the greatest veteran need receive priority funding. The current system that the VA uses to rank State applications gives priority to States that have never received a similar grant in the past. While on the surface this may seem logical, the practical effect is that States with the highest veteran's need are often neglected because they received a grant sometime in the past. As a matter of fairness, I believe applications should be ranked solely on the needs of veterans. The legislation I am introducing will correct this inequity by ensuring that States with the highest need receive priority. The Department of Veterans Affairs has determined that there should be 4 nursing home beds for every 1,000 veterans in a State. Using this determination, my bill would have applications based on a formula where veteran need is defined as a number of veterans in the State multiplied by 4 and divided by 1,000 (need = vet. population * 4/1,000). Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in working for its enactment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, among the foothills and lakes which dominate the landscape 45 miles north of New York City, not far from Mt. Kisco, there is a small village by the name of Katonah. One hundred years ago the inhabitants of this marvelous town did something truly extraordinary and I would like to share this tale with the American people. In the 1800's, with New York City's population rapidly expanding due to newly arrived immigrants, a new supply of water was necessary. North of New York City are some of the most beautiful and pristine lakes and streams anywhere in the country, so it was here that New York City turned to fulfill its water needs. One of the small villages which dotted the landscape at this time was Katonah. With about 500 residents, Katonah was a thriving hamlet of culture, art, and commerce. Luck be as it may, however, it was decided that the Cross River would be dammed and the resulting lake would completely devour the village of Katonah. This presented a unique situation to the 500 residents who had called Katonah home for many years. They could either take the money that was offered and relocate to another town or State, or they could do what they could to stick together and keep the village of Katonah alive. They chose the latter. In a remarkable feat of human ingenuity and determination, the people of Katonah decided that they were going to move their village to higher ground and preserve the heritage and history that is Katonah, NY. And so, work began to relocate not just the spirit and culture of Katonah, but indeed many of the actual buildings which made up Katonah. The village of Katonah, NY, was literally moved \1/2\ mile south of its former location to its present location. I rise today to pay tribute to the special people who 100 years ago decided that they were not going to surrender their village and their heritage and culture. I rise today to pay tribute to the current residents of Katonah, whose appreciation of history, culture, and community make Katonah a special place to live. Katonah has been home to me and my family for over 40 years. I raised four children in this marvelous village and my husband owns and operates a business in town. Katonah, NY, is my hometown and I stand here today with the same pride and admiration that I am sure was felt by my town's forefathers, and mothers, 100 years ago when they banded together and preserved one of New York State's treasures, the village of Katonah.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor this morning with a heavy heart over reports that violence has again claimed innocent lives in Israel. In the shadow of this tragedy, it concerns me deeply that President Clinton has reportedly agreed to United States participation in Yasser Arafat's meeting in Gaza this weekend. Although Israeli representatives will be excluded from this meeting, Chairman Arafat has invited other diplomats worldwide to criticize recent developments in Israeli-Palestinian relations. This meeting will obviously provide a platform for one-sided presentation of very complicated issues that are the subject of ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than encouraging counterproductive rhetoric, Mr. President, you should be protecting the traditional United States role of Mideast peace broker. The United States participation in the Gaza meeting will jeopardize that role. Mr. President, now is the time to stand firm on principle. I urge you not to send a United States representative to the Gaza meeting this weekend.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 852, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997. This is important legislation that will assist in the process of lowering the paperwork burden that the Federal Government places on small businesses throughout this country, and will facilitate Federal agencies' efforts to fulfill their requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We all know that the Federal Government places an enormous paperwork burden on small business owners. The amount of forms that it requires to be maintained or submitted is staggering. One study that was conducted by the General Accounting Office estimates the Government-wide paperwork burden to be 7 billion hours per year. Because of this burden that it creates, the Federal Government has an obligation to make compliance with these demands as easy and straightforward as possible. That is what the Paperwork Elimination Act is designed to address. It simply states that the Federal Government should recognize the advancements in information technology management that have been made in recent years, and allow small business owners to utilize them when meeting the demands that the Government makes. As chair of the Small Business Committee's Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction Subcommittee, I constantly hear from small business owners across the country who are desperate for additional paperwork relief. As a former small business owner, I know first hand and can testify to the demands that paperwork and recordkeeping can place on the busy schedule of those trying to successfully operate their own business. H.R. 852 simply provides an additional tool for these individuals to have at their disposal. The one other important aspect of this legislation that I would like to highlight today is the flexibility it provides small business. While requiring that Federal agencies accommodate alternative information technologies, these amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act leave the decision of employing such technologies squarely in the hands of the small business owner. We did not need another mandate from the Government telling small businessmen and women how they must comply. Rather, we need to give them the option of deciding the best way in which they can meet the requirements placed upon them. I would like to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for introducing this legislation. As we all know, this bill overwhelmingly passed this Chamber during the 104th Congress. I would like to urge all Members to support H.R. 852 and help make this important legislation become law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker: In the bosom of one of those spacious coves which indent the eastern shore of the Hudson, at that broad expansion of the river denominated by the ancient Dutch navigators the Tappan Zee, and where they always prudently shortened sail and implored the protection of St. Nicholas when they crossed, there lies a small market town or rural port, which by some is called Greensburgh, but which is more generally and properly known by the name of Tarry Town.--Washington Irving. These immortal words penned by Washington Irving more than 150 years ago describe a beautiful Hudson Valley village which I am proud to represent in Congress. Now, however, Washington Irving's fiction has become fact: the village of North Tarrytown, has been renamed the village of Sleepy Hollow to recognize the importance that Washington Irving's story, ``The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,'' plays in the annals of America literature. In December of 1996 the village of North Tarrytown, NY, in the town of Mt. Pleasant, officially changed its name to the village of Sleepy Hollow. I rise today to pay tribute to the village of Sleepy Hollow and to recognize the truly historical nature of this village that is nestled in the ``bosom of the one of those spacious coves which indent the eastern shore of the Hudson . . .'' The village of Sleepy Hollow is home to not only the great legend which Washington Irving created, but also sites of historical significance such as Patriots Park where American patriots, during the Revolutionary War, captured the British spy Maj. John Andre as he made his escape after having been given the plans to West Point by Benedict Arnold. Sleepy Hollow is also home to the Sunnyside Estate which was the home of Washington Irving and of Kykuit, home to four generations of the Rockefeller family. The village of Sleepy Hollow, NY holds a special place in the hearts of all Americans, from young children enjoying the thrill of reading Washington Irving's story for the first time, to the rest of us who appreciate the true courage and sacrifices made by American patriots during the Revolutionary War. Therefore, I rise today to pay tribute to the village of Sleepy Hollow and the townspeople who worked so diligently to see this name change become a reality. They have helped to preserve a piece of American history and future generations of Americans will be truly grateful for their efforts.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Self-Employed Health Fairness Act of 1997, legislation which will raise to 100 percent the deductibility of health insurance costs for the self- employed. This common sense legislation will restore equity and fairness in the tax treatment of many of this Nation's small business entrepreneurs. I introduced identical legislation in the 104th Congress, and received the support of over 50 bipartisan cosponsors. Our current tax code is fundamentally unfair to the smallest of our Nation's business owners: the self-employed. Larger corporations enjoy a permanent, 100 percent deduction of health insurance costs, while in 1997 a self-employed individual is only allowed to deduct 40 percent of these same costs. We must ask ourselves a very basic and fundamental question: Why should the self-employed small business person be treated differently than a large corporation? The 104th Congress did begin to address this problem, and I do not mean to take lightly the progress that it made. Two pieces of legislation were enacted that provided relief to the self-employed. First, legislation was enacted which restored and made permanent the deductibility that had expired during the 103d Congress, and raised the level of deductibility from 25 to 30 percent. Second, legislation which incrementally raised the deductibility to 80 percent by the year 2006 was also enacted. These were important steps, and I was proud to have supported them. However, as a matter of fairness and equity, we can and should do better. By raising the deductibility to 100 percent, we are helping to achieve two important goals. We are strengthening the most important sector of our economy by relieving a significant tax burden that self- employed small businessmen and women must now shoulder. We are also helping to ensure that more Americans have access health care, because without full deductibility, these costs are sometimes more than a small business owner can afford. Let's sent a message to America's self-employed that they are just as important as big business. Let's restore fairness and equity to the tax code's treatment of the health care expenses of self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 36. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the privileged resolution, House Joint Resolution 36 and I ask that all Members do the same. Why? Because the health of women and children worldwide depends on this vote. At issue here is maternal and infant mortality. International family planning promotes preventive health care, such as prenatal care. It is easy for us to take the availability of health care in the United States for granted, but for sake of this argument we must remember that women and children in developing countries are not so fortunate. Furthermore, international family planning educates women and their families about sexually transmitted diseases, as well as about the dangers of HIV/AIDS. It is our obligation to humanity to use our financial support and medical knowledge to prevent the spread of these deadly diseases--diseases that often are brought into our own country and threaten our own children. Some members of Congress will have you believe that international family planning results in abortions, but the truth is that only a lack of family planning can result in such an unfortunate conclusion. Without family planning, we abandon the world's poorest women and force them to rely on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Let's be clear--current law prohibits the use of any U.S. foreign aid funds for abortion services, including lobbying efforts for abortion, abortion counseling, and the purchase or distribution of commodities for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning. Obviously, this vote is not about abortion. It is about health, plain and simple--not misguided and erroneous political statements. Please support this resolution and release the already appropriated international family planning funds on March 1.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Smith resolution, H.R. 581, which would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy. I find the restrictive resolution to be superfluous. We all know that in the 1973 Helms amendment, which prohibits any U.S. funds for abortion in international family planning, it is part of the permanent foreign aid statute. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any recipient of the U.S. funds has ever violated the terms of this Helms amendment. This unnecessary layering of already restrictive law can only work to harm women and children worldwide by denying them the various health services provided by international family planning organizations. The effects of the Mexico City policy are far-reaching and negative. According to UNICEF, every 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? In addition, the Mexico City policy serves as a threat, a gag order, that results in failure to assist women in need. For example, if a woman is suffering from a life threatening infection that is the consequence of a self-induced abortion, members of an international family planning organization might fear that treating such a woman would result in loss of funds. Is this the result we want? To say that family planning is abortion is to trivialize a complex and critical issue. Family planning is prenatal care. Family planning is child nutrition. Family planning is followup and preventive care, and the education provided by family planning is often what enables children to survive their first year and what enables women to survive their pregnancy. Do not impose this gag order. Provide the world with family planning education that works to eliminate the need for abortion. Let us defeat the Smith resolution.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997, comprehensive legislation that guarantees coverage for inpatient hospital care following a mastectomy, lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection--based on a doctor's judgment, requires coverage for breast reconstructive procedure, including symmetrical reconstruction, ensures a second opinion for any cancer diagnosis, and offers significant physical protections from inducement or retribution. I want to first thank my colleagues in both the House and Senate that have worked so diligently on this legislation. Senators D'Amato, Snowe, and Feinstein, as well as Representatives Susan Molinari and Frank LoBiondo, are all part of this effort to restore the ability of doctors to practice sound medicine and to restore compassion and dignity to the treatment of breast cancer patients. So why introduce this bill? I'll tell you why. Tragically, 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 cost. Other insurance companies cut cost by denying coverage for reconstructive surgery because they have deemed such procedures cosmetic. Ironically, they do not deny reconstructive surgery for an ear lost to cancer. We must understand that self-image is at stake at a time when optimism and inner strength can be the difference between life and death. Furthermore, this bill requires coverage of second opinions when any cancer tests come back either negative or positive, giving all 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. Now, to be clear, all insurance companies are not so insensitive as to not provide these benefits and, therefore, all will not be affected by this legislation. but we have a responsibility to protect the doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that the medical needs of patients are fully addressed. Everyone has heard that one in nine women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. Well, one of those women is my sister. So I know a little something about the horror that accompanies this disease and the personal anxiety of living with the disease. My sister and her experiences have made me realize that we should have no greater priority than empowering those with breast cancer the right and ability to play an active role in the management of their treatment. It is our obligation as leaders to ensure them that their medical treatment is in the hands of physicians, not insurance companies. It is a profound injustice when health care forgets about the patient, yet with regard to mastectomy recovery and breast reconstruction following a mastectomy, that is just what has been done. Let's put the reality of this disease in perspective. When a woman is told that she has breast cancer, the feeling that immediately follows the initial denial is lack of control. Our bill is a patient's bill aimed at providing patients, in consultation with their physicians, a greater degree of autonomy when deciding appropriate medical care and, therefore, taking back control of their lives. More than 2\1/2\ million women in America today are living with breast cancer. These women are our sisters, mothers, daughters, wives, and friends. This dreadful disease now strikes over 180,000 women per year and that figure does not even include the additional 20 percent a year who have preinvasive cancers. Devastatingly to the families involved, it is estimated that more than 44,000 women will die of breast cancer this year. But all the news is not grim. Overall breast cancer mortality declined 5 percent between 1989 and 1993 due to increased mammography screening and improved treatments such as mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissections. There is no doubt that we have the medical know-how to fight breast cancer. The question is do we have the commitment it takes. As long as we send a woman home 12 hours after losing a part of herself with no compassion and no support, then the answer is no. As long as breast reconstruction is deemed cosmetic, then the answer is no. As long as false negatives are acceptable and we, therefore, abandon a patient unknowingly in need, then the answer is no. As long as we fail to come to the defense of doctors who are persecuted for practicing sound medicine, then the answer is no. Passage of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act would demonstrate what we are lacking--the commitment to fight breast cancer and stand up for those who are suffering. In closing, I am pleased that President Clinton emphasized the importance of this legislation in his State of the Union Address last night. It is nice to have the administration behind this critical legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, because the American people are looking to us for tax relief, I rise on the first day of the 105th Congress to reintroduce the Homeowners Relief Act of 1997. This initiative, which provides homeowners with relief from capital gains taxation when they sell their home, is identical to legislation that I introduced during their 104th Congress. This legislation recognizes that a person's home is something more than a simple investment; it's a fundamental part of the American dream, and our Tax Code should reflect this fact. An investment in a home is an investment in your community and in your future. Indeed, for many Americans, the equity built up after many years in a home represents a significant part of their retirement nest egg. Owning a new home is the dream of young couples starting a new life together, of newly arrived immigrants eager to realize the American dream, and of all people working to build a better life for themselves and their children. Homeownership is special, Mr. Speaker, and it should occupy a special place in the realm of public policy. The Homeowners Relief Act does just that--any gains from the sale of a principle residence would be exempt from capital gains taxation. Specifically, the bill excludes from taxation the gains from the sale of a principle residence if, during the 7-year period prior to the sale of the residence, the property was owned by the taxpayer and used as the taxpayer's principle residence for 5 or more years. Current law provides some relief for homeowners, but it doesn't go far enough. Taxpayers may roll the gains from the sale of a home into a new home of equal or greater value, and older Americans can claim a one-time $125,000 exclusion when they sell their principle residence. These exemptions shield some homeowners from capital gains liability, but certain circumstances force many to shoulder a significant capital gains tax bite when they sell their home. Increased home values put many taxpayers, particularly older Americans looking to retire, in the difficult situation of having to pay substantial capital gains taxes. In addition, at a time when corporate downsizing is all too common, often the most substantial asset held by laid-off workers is their home. The problem is that current law may lock individuals into homes that they might wish to sell. Those individuals who can afford to purchase a more expensive home can postpone capital gains liability, while those who need to move to more modest accommodations, because their economic circumstances warrant doing so, must pay a tax. Mr. Speaker, by passing this legislation, Congress will give homeowners needed relief from this inequity, and will put recognition in the Tax Code of the special status of the home. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Homeowners Relief Act of 1997.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4236. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4236, and draw particular attention to the provision in the bill to authorize the Federal acquisition of the Sterling Forest watershed in New York and New Jersey. Acquisition of the important 17,500 acres Sterling Forest reserve, located in southern New York and northern New Jersey represents perhaps the most important environmental issue for our region, and represents an outstanding environmental accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Sterling Forest is at the headwaters of a system of reservoirs which provide water for 1.8 million metropolitan area residents. It is heavily forested, accommodating a wide variety of wildlife and plant species, and also includes a portion of the Appalachian Trail. Twenty- six million Americans live within a 2-hour drive of this important environmental resource. The acquisition of the Sterling Forest represents a unique partnership between the Federal Government, the States of New York and New Jersey, and environmental and other private sector interests. Protecting the Sterling Forest makes sense from an environmental standpoint, it makes sense from a recreational standpoint, and it represents a good deal for the taxpayer. The modest Federal investment authorized by this legislation will protect the Sterling Forest watershed for generations to come, and do so in a very cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the veto override of H.R. 1833. I am opposed to late-term abortions except in instances where they are necessary to save the life of the mother or for serious, very limited health reasons. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned legislation fails to make these exceptions. Tragedies involving severely deformed or dying fetuses sometimes occur in the late stages of pregnancy. In these crisis situations, women should have access to the safest medical procedure available, and in some occasions the safest such procedure is the intact dilation and evacuation procedure. If we ban this procedure, Mr. Speaker, as this legislation seeks to do, doctors will resort to other procedures, such as a caesarean section or a dismemberment dilation and evacuation, which can and often do pose greater health risks to women, such as severe hemorrhaging, lacerations of the uterus, or other complications that can threaten a woman's life or her ability to have children again in the future. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 1833 will not end late-term abortions; the bill only bans one such procedure that, in the judgment of the doctor, might offer the surest way of protecting the mother. The New York chapter of the American College of Obstreticians and Gynecologists opposes H.R. 1833, expressing concern that ``* * * Congress would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and would criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of a woman * * *''. If H.R. 1833 were amended to include exceptions for situations where a woman's life or health is threatened, ensuring that decisions regarding the well-being of the mother are made by doctors, not politicians, I would gladly support the bill. Without this protection, however, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation today. Good people will always disagree over the abortion issue, and I respect the passion and depth of feeling that so many of my constituents on both sides of this issue have expressed to me. Maintaining policies which promote healthy mothers and healthy babies should remain above the political fray, and it is for this reason that I oppose the veto override today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4137, legislation which seeks to addressing the growing and disturbing problem of drug-induced date rape. Mr. Speaker, rape, regardless of the circumstances, is a terrible act of violence against women. But what is particularly troubling is a growing trend of sexual violence against women who are unknowingly drugged and then sexually assaulted. Sexual predators have found a dangerous weapon in certain kinds of drugs, and we must recognize and respond to this growing problem. H.R. 4137 will increase criminal penalties for the possession of certain drugs with the intent to use them to commit crimes of violence, including rape, against another person. The bill puts special emphasis on a drug known as Rohypnol or ``roofies,'' which is commonly used in date rape cases, and also directs the Justice Department to make available educational materials on the use of drugs in rape and sexual assault cases. Mr. Speaker, the Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment Act sends a clear message that we will not tolerate crimes of violence against women. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the veto override of H.R. 1833. I am opposed to late-term abortions except in instances where they are necessary to save the life of the mother or for serious, very limited health reasons. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned legislation fails to make these exceptions. Tragedies involving severely deformed or dying fetuses sometimes occur in the late stages of pregnancy. In these crisis situations, women should have access to the safest medical procedure available, and on some occasions the safest such procedure is the intact dilation and evacuation procedure. If we ban this procedure, Mr. Speaker, as this legislation seeks to do, doctors will resort to other procedures, such as a caesarean section or a dismemberment dilation and evacuation, which can and often do pose greater health risks to women, such as severe hemorrhaging, lacerations of the uterus, or other complications that can threaten a woman's life or her ability to have children again in the future. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 1833 will not end late-term abortions; the bill only bans one such procedure that, in the judgment of a doctor, might offer the surest way of protecting the mother. The New York chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes H.R. 1833, expressing concern that ``* * * Congress would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and would criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of a woman * * *''. If H.R. 1833 were amended to include exceptions for situations where a woman's life or health is threatened, ensuring that decisions regarding the well-being of the mother are made by doctors, not politicians, I would gladly support the bill. Without this protection, however, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation today. Good people will always disagree over the abortion issue, and I respect the passion and depth of feeling that so many of my constituents on both sides of this issue have expressed to me. Maintaining policies which promote healthy mothers and healthy babies should remain above the political fray, and it is for this reason that I oppose the veto override today.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, since he was first elected to the 91st Congress in 1968 until his retirement in 1994, Hamilton Fish, Jr., has relied heavily on the support of his staff. During his 26-year tenure there were more than 70 staffers who served him loyally. The following is a list of those who served at least 3 years or more, as recalled to my memory. The first of these is John Barry, from the Catskills in New York. He met Ham Fish in 1965 and became a trusted friend, adviser, campaign manager, and confidante, launched and ran a successful campaign, getting Ham elected to Congress the first time in 1968, and from that point on continued as his campaign manager and adviser and served as his administrative assistant until he retired, from 1968 until 1982. John currently resides in West Palm Beach, FL. It was my joy and pleasure to serve Ham and work with John Barry. John was a remarkable man whom Ham was very lucky to have on staff. John Nacarrato is another one. John Nacarrato was elected eventually to the Ulster County legislature, but he served as district director for Hamilton Fish until he retired in 1992. John is my friend from the early Ham Fish days, and he owns and runs PJ's Restaurant in Kingston, NY. I go up there to see him often. Helen Fuimarello, this is another woman who met Ham Fish and volunteered on his campaign, then joined him. She came from Hamilton Fish's staff onto my staff and helped me set up my office in Dutchess County. She retired from Federal service in 1996, and currently works part-time for our State senator, Stephen Saland. Helen and I remain good friends and I rely on her excellent advice always. I want to mention Aya Ely. Aya Ely was Ham's personal secretary from 1968 until 1987. She was an absolutely remarkable woman. Then there was Marion Clow. Marion kept us all in line. She was on Ham's staff from 1969 until she retired about 1983. Then there was Alan Coffey, Jr. Alan started in 1969. Alan is still on Capitol Hill. He served on the House Committee on the Judiciary as minority counsel, but he is now majority general counsel and staff director of the Committee on the Judiciary. Alan is as sharp as ever, but he started with Hamilton Fish. Gerry Schindler started as a volunteer on Ham's campaign. Eventually Gerry moved to Salisbury, MD, and now works in the office of Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. She is a lovely, kind woman, and another friend of mine. Then there is Shirley Cavanaugh, Dorothy Pedersen, Clementine Anthony, Janice Traber, Shelva Hoffman, Tom Schatz, and Phyllis Coleman, another remarkable woman. She started in 1979 in Ham's Poughkeepsie office as a caseworker and staff assistant. Later she moved to the Washington office to work as a legislative correspondent and chief caseworkers. She served Ham for 15\1/2\ years, and then she moved with me into my office. She is the finest human being I have found here on Capitol Hill. She is a wonderful human being, and has helped countless people in my district. My hat is off to Phyllis Coleman for her many, many years of service. I am proud to have her in my office. Hope Wittenberg worked for Ham. Nick Hayes came in, replacing John Barry, from 1982 to 1994. He was Ham's administrative assistant. Nick, too, remains a good friend. Nora Lucey Mail is still here on Capitol Hill. Mariel Friedman, David Gilroy, and then there is Pari Forood Novik. Pari Novik and her husband Dick are good friends. She served 6 years on Ham's staff, and they live in Dutchess County, where they help the Dutchess community in hundreds of ways. Pari basically now has opened and runs a radio station. Molly Clark, Morey Markowitz, Grace Washbourne. Grace always made sure Ham got where he needed to go. She was a scheduler and a wonderful help to Ham. Debbie Reilly, Renee Longacre, Mike Hanretta, Heather Whyte, Nancy Eaton, another caseworker who moved from Ham's office to help me. Linda Jo Edwards, Melissa Bottini, Claire Benson, and many more. These are the people who made the office of Hamilton Fish what it was and helped Ham be the man that he was, and helped him continue to keep his image well-honed. I believe it fitting that we also offer them a tribute, as we have Ham.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act, which authorizes projects and programs of the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is strongly bipartisan, and places special emphasis on protecting the environment. In fact, I believe it should be stressed that passage of this legislation represents an important environmental accomplishment for this Congress. Of particular importance to the Hudson Valley, I would like to draw attention to section 551 of the act, which incorporates the provisions of legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 3471, the Hudson River Habitat Restoration Act. The legislation which we are considering today authorizes $11 million for at least four habitat restoration projects along the Hudson River basin. Mr. Speaker, the Hudson River estuary is an important habitat to a wide range of waterfowl and aquatic species. Many important habitats along the river--wetlands, marshes, and so forth--have been degraded over the past century as industry and agriculture grew along the river. The legislation that I have introduced seeks Federal funding for critical habitat projects identified by the Corps of Engineers and New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. I recently had the pleasure of touring one of the proposed sites, the Manitou Marsh near Philipstown in my district. Tidal marshes such as this one represent a very productive ecosystem, a wonderful habitat for raptors, waterfowl and fish, and serve to clean pollutants from the river. Road and factory construction dating from the 19th century has adversely affected the tidal flows in and out of the marsh, a problem this legislation seeks to correct. This legislation supports an ongoing and cooperative effort that has involved various levels of government, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, local environmental organizations, such as the Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Scenic Hudson, and the Audubon Society, as well as private sector businesses, such as Metro North Railroad. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important and vital environmental legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3907, legislation which authorizes $17.5 million for the acquisition of the important 17,500 acres Sterling Forest reserve, located in southern New York and northern New Jersey. The acquisition of the Sterling Forest represents perhaps the most important environmental issue for our region, and represents an outstanding environmental accomplishment for the 104th Congress. Sterling Forest is at the headwaters of a system of reservoirs which provide water for 1.8 million Metropolitan area residents. It is heavily forested, accommodating a wide variety of wildlife and plant species, and also includes a portion of the Appalachian Trail. Twenty- six million Americans live within a 2-hour drive of this important environmental resource. The acquisition of the Sterling Forest represents a unique partnership between the Federal Government, the States of New York and New Jersey, and environmental and other private sector interests. The States have each pledged $10 million toward acquisition, and the private sector will put up $5 million. Protecting the Sterling Forest makes sense from an environmental standpoint, it makes sense from a recreational standpoint, and it represents a good deal for the taxpayer. In New Jersey alone, an estimated $150 million in water treatment costs will be required if the reservoirs adjacent to the forest are polluted from runoff resulting from over-development. The modest Federal investment authorized by this legislation will protect these reservoirs for generations to come, and do so in a very cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3118, the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and urge all Members to support it. One of the primary responsibilities of our Government is to provide for those who have defended our freedoms. In attempting to meet this responsibility, the Government has developed a complex, and often confusing system of health care eligibility laws. The legislation before the House today will help simplify the eligibility requirements of veterans, thereby ensuring that needed hospital care and medical services will continue to be provided to all veterans who are eligible to receive it. Mr. Speaker, the issue of veterans health care eligibility is one that is very important to me. I have a particular interest in proposed changes in the VA health care system because there are two VA medical facilities located in the congressional district that I represent. That is why I am supporting this legislation. H.R. 3118 will benefit the thousands of veterans that use the two facilities in New York's 19th Congressional District, and indeed will benefit all veterans around the country who depend on the VA to meet their unique health care needs. There are a few provisions of the bill that I would like to highlight. First, H.R. 3118 will substitute the current single uniform eligibility standard of eligibility with a new standard which is clinically appropriate and based on a medically sound system of priorities. The bill also extend indefinitely the VA's authority to provide services to dependents of active-duty and retired service- members. It clarifies the VA's authority to collect from insurance plans of Department of Defense [DOD] beneficiaries cared for in VA facilities to the same extent as DOD currently recovers for care rendered in its facilities. Most importantly, however, the bill authorizes the VA to retain these funds, instead of being required to return them to the General Treasury. This will provide the VA with additional resources for its use in continuing to provide health care to veterans. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we continue to provide veterans with the health benefits that they have earned. H.R. 3118 is one more step that this Congress has taken to meet this responsibility. I would like to thank Chairman Stump for his tireless leadership on veterans issues and for bringing this measure to the floor, and I would urge all Members to lend H.R. 3118 their support. Thank you.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, we were all deeply saddened by the passing of our friend, and a distinguished Member of this institution, Hamilton Fish. Ham served in Congress for 26 years, representing the same congressional district from the Hudson Valley of New York that I have the honor of representing today. Each of us has our own personal memories of Ham Fish. My husband and I remember Ham as a good friend with a wonderful sense of humor. We also remember him as a public servant devoted to the well-being of the people of the Hudson Valley in New York. In fact, the term ``public service'' was at the core of Hamilton Fish's life. He served in the Navy during World War II. After the war, Ham attended the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration, and then joined the U.S. Foreign Service. In the early fifties he was posted to Dublin, Ireland. He really loved Ireland. He talked about it often. Following this stint, he earned his law degree from New York University in 1957, and practiced law in the city and in Dutchess County, NY until he became a Member of Congress in 1968. I first met him 2 years before he was redistricted into my area. I set up and worked in his first office in Westchester County and my husband and I worked to back him for the next 24 years. As a matter of fact, my staff card for Hamilton Fish's office expired 20 years to the day I was sworn into Congress. My husband and I have been priviledged to know first three, and now four, generations of this Hamilton Fish family. They have represented the gentility of the Hudson River Valley. Ham was a gentleman's gentleman. His behavior on the floor of the House set a standard many of the Members of this Congress would do well to emulate. His career was marked by accomplishments in the areas of civil rights, the environment, crime, the handicapped, and business regulation. Ham was a strong supporter of the Legal Services Corporation because he recognized and prized the important role LSC plays in providing legal assistance to those who otherwise could not afford it. The 1990 Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act represent hallmark achievements and will stand as lasting legacies to the memory of Hamilton Fish. To know Hamilton Fish, Mr. Speaker, was to know someone dedicated to truth and the dignity of public service. This institution is too often criticized for its problems, the partisanship, the lack of comity, and the arduous process that is the people's business. Unfortunately, it is seldom judged by the virtues of its individual Members. Ham Fish carried out his work with dignity and respect, and represented the very best of this institution. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Ham. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Mary Ann, and his children, Alexa Ward, Hamilton, Nicholas Stuyvesant, and Peter Livingston, and his eight grandchildren.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to mourn the passing of my friend and distinguished Member of this institution, the Honorable Hamilton Fish of New York. Ham epitomized the concept of public service. He represented the 19th Congressional District of New York for 26 years. I had the pleasure of working with him for many years and came to know him for his dedication to truth and the dignity of public service. He was a true gentleman and my friend for 26 years. He left me large shoes to fill in the 19th Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, this institution is often judged by its problems as a whole or by the misdeeds of a few, but seldom by the virtues of its individual Members. Hamilton Fish carried out his work with dignity and respect and represented the very best of this institution. Our thoughts and prayers go to his wife MaryAnn and his family. We will miss you, Ham.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, Americans have spent more than $5 trillion trying to end poverty--but throwing more of our Nation's hard-earned tax dollars at the failed programs of the 1960's is not the answer. Remember in 1992, President Clinton campaigned on the promise to end welfare as we know it. Well, last year, when this Congress sent him a true welfare reform initiative, he vetoed it. Then, on May 18, the President reaffirmed his desire for reform, by endorsing the welfare initiatives proposed by Wisconsin Governor Thompson. In fact, President Clinton said, ``Welfare does not have to be a partisan issue. Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold plan, and we should get it done.'' Well, this Congress, has gotten it done. The waivers that Wisconsin needs to implement its program have been sitting on the President's desk for weeks, waiting for his approval. Eighteen other States are also waiting for waivers to curb poverty in their communities. And according to HHS, they will wait at least 210 days, just for the initial review. Mr. Speaker, the President has gotten one thing right about welfare reform--it shouldn't be about politics. This Congress believes it should be about giving people a hand-up, and the American people agree with us. It's time President Clinton stopped talking, and start delivering on his promises. Where is your pen, Mr. President? The country needs welfare reform.