Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. The big problem here is a lot of these kids do not get anyone to pay attention to them until it starts to be too late. They commit so many crimes. They do not have the people intervene early when they show the predisposition to having a proclivity to commit crimes where they might just be calling out for help. And so the kind of grants that are going to be provided under this legislation ideally will be used as they are designed to be used in the prevention of kids getting into trouble. Because at the very outset, those children, if identified with mental illness, will get the treatment they need. I have talked to both family court judges in Rhode Island and State court judges. The family court is very excited about the chance to have a mental health court where the child can be brought in and the family can be brought in and they can be given a treatment plan. In the State court situations, the judges can talk about bail and say, listen, you have a chance. If you go to this treatment program you can avoid perhaps getting sentenced, if it is a minor petty crime. So these things make sense not only for those who are caught up in our prison system, but of course it makes sense for all of us as a society to try to do the right thing early on, and I think this legislation goes in that direction. That is why I support it.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his leadership and thank him for his friendship to my Aunt Eunice and my Uncle Sarge Shriver. Growing up, I recall many times when I saw him in the house, and now I enjoy serving with him in this House. To Majority Whip Blunt, I want to thank him as well for his spearheading this effort. It means a lot to so many millions of Americans, but it means a lot to me and my family that he would do such a thing and take his leadership position to help those who are often the most vulnerable in our society. It says a lot about him. I respect him for it. As the gentleman from Maryland said, the motto of Special Olympics is, ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.'' These inspiring words have really been the hallmark of Special Olympics, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 5131, the Special Olympics Empowerment Act. When my Aunt Eunice created the Special Olympics over 36 years ago from a grant by my family's foundation, the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation which was named after my uncle who died in World War II, she had hoped to create an opportunity for those with intellectual disabilities like my Aunt Rosemary. She hoped to create a forum in which not only her sister Rosemary but others could dispel the myths associated with their disabilities. The creation of Special Olympics has allowed over 1.5 million persons around the globe the opportunity to compete athletically in over 25 sports. The Special Olympics has become a vehicle and a platform to break down artificial barriers, improve public health, change negative attitudes in education and help athletes overcome the intolerance held against them due merely to their intellectual disability. This act will provide funds to the Special Olympics in order to carry out an expansion of the organization and increase the participation of potential athletes. The funding would also permit Special Olympics to increase the activity of the organization well beyond our borders and further awareness outside the United States of the contributions that individuals with intellectual disabilities can make in their society. I had the opportunity with many of my colleagues to travel over to Iraq several months ago. I was asked by the liaison for the military what were some of the things that I would be interested in learning when I went over there. My Aunt Eunice always was after us to make sure we asked, wherever we were, how people with intellectual disabilities were being treated. Especially traveling around the world, I thought this was something that was important for me to follow through, so I asked the liaison to find out for me whether I could not meet the Special Olympics team of Iraq which had just competed in the international games in Ireland. I was in Saddam Hussein's palace, surrounded by thousands and thousands of both military and civilian workers helping to reconstruct that country. I was with my colleagues and someone came and touched me on the shoulder and said, ``Congressman Kennedy, your group is here to meet with you.'' Of course, I was excited about going down the hall and seeing the Special Olympics team of Iraq. I went down the hall, and there was the Special Olympics team of Iraq and surrounding them were practically every worker in Saddam Hussein's palace, all there with smiles on their faces. It had melted the place. These are people who were consumed with war, and on the sight of the inspirational Special Olympics, they just smiled. I think that says so much about the power of Special Olympics; it shows our common humanity. No matter where we are in the world, we are all members of the same human family. Nothing drives that message home more than the Special Olympics. I think that is what is really the power behind it. I am convinced that the power of this legislation is that we can have our international diplomacy moved forward tremendously just by expanding the Special Olympics program, because who is going to want to do war if they see the power of peace and love that the Special Olympics embodies. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from Maryland for their leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. She is working, as all of us are, on a number of these other agenda items in helping to assist those who suffer from asthma and allergy attacks. We have worked on more notification for families when purchasing food products to know what is in those food products so that they can be alerted to any food type that may trigger anaphylactic shock. And I know that these and many other issues are ones that we are going to need to continue to work for in the years ahead. I thank my colleague for his effort on this and many others of these issues.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the lead Democratic cosponsor of the ASTHMA Act of 2003, and I want to acknowledge my good friend and partner, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), for his excellent leadership on this matter. As my colleagues have just heard him speak, he has spoken very eloquently to the case that we are making through this legislation. I think he illustrated better than anything else the reason why we are pushing this legislation when he talked about the story of Catrina Lewis. We in Rhode Island, and those stories are happening all over the country; in Rhode Island, we have a family, the father, Walter Stone, and the mother, Lynn Stone, lost their daughter, Morgan. She was a mild asthmatic. She was attending college and was killed when her asthma overcame her and she was not able to gain access to her medications. This is a life-and-death issue. Unfortunately, many States have made it a liability for those students to carry their inhalers to school when those students need their medications. If they have not registered them in the nurse's office, for example, they are subject to all kinds of punishment. Then again, if they need their medication, as those of us who have asthma, like myself, know very well, it can come on you very quickly; and if you do not have your medication available, you can have a much worse time of it. Tragically, as we have seen in Catrina Lewis's case and in Morgan Stone's case, it can be fatal. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good colleague, was talking about the fact that we have 5,000 people die every year of asthma. This is quite extraordinary when people consider that asthma must not be that big a deal because when people suffer from asthma, it does not look like they are suffering. That is the biggest impediment for people in this country when approaching asthma, the fact that most people, when seeing an asthmatic, do not see the suffering that an asthmatic goes through when they are having an asthma attack, or do not see the suffering that someone is going through when they have an anaphylactic shock attack because of allergies to food. Many times people do not take this seriously, and it is for just that reason that we need to pass this legislation. It is because many school districts do not take this seriously that we have had the situation where too many young people have had to go through unspeakable suffering as a result of an asthma attack that could have been treated, or they have even suffered death because of the fact that they did not have access to their medications. That is why we need to pass this legislation. We have heard eloquently from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) about the statistics. But the fact remains, with all of the statistics, it is important that people keep in mind that asthma is the single leading cause of missed school days in this country. Unfortunately, more and more children suffering from asthma are uninsured and do not have access to medications, so we also need to talk about that. Unfortunately, that cannot be incorporated in this legislation, but I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I both will work hard to make sure that asthma medication is available to our children who are not otherwise covered by health insurance. And the reason for that is simple: Our children are making the emergency room their primary source of medical care when they have asthma attacks and, as any physician or parent can tell us, this is the worst kind of health care policy we can have in this country. We need to do more through the Centers for Disease Control to alert families about asthma and to educate families about how to help them manage their child's asthma if their children have asthma. These things can make an enormous difference in a family's life, and certainly those are also objectives that we need to follow as well. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I both owe a special debt of gratitude to Nancy Sanders, who is President and founder of the Allergy and Asthma Network of Mothers of Asthmatics. She has really encapsulated all of these issues through her advocacy, and she speaks on behalf of all mothers of asthmatics when she testifies as she does, and her partner in this effort, Marissa Magnetti, who has also worked very hard to get this bill to the floor. I want to thank both of them for their good work in getting this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank once again my colleagues in the Congress who have been helping us, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his work in passing this in the committee; and of course, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his good work and partnership on this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I never could have thought I would see it, a House that is run by a conservative majority that is bent on imposing its will on the minority. We have seen it many times, but, Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting to see that, this morning, we are taking up an issue, we are enforcing our will upon the people of this District of Columbia. Whereas, we would not even allow any other State or this Congress to dictate its will against the interests of our own local communities, we are prepared to do that to the District of Columbia. It should not be any surprise, I suppose, to our delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She has seen it too many times where she represents a populace here in Washington, D.C., that does not have the vote, does not have the vote here in the Halls of Congress. It does have a vote, however, on the local management of the city, not until today. Today, the Congress says, not only will you not have a vote in the Halls of the Congress, not only as United States citizens will you be denied the right to vote, but you will also be denied in your own local government to decide what is in the best interests of your people. We look at Washington, D.C., and see one of the most murderous capitals in this country, where every single day mothers worry about whether their children are going to get home at the end of the day, whether their children are going to be killed in drive-by shootings, whether their children are going to be safe. To the mothers in the District of Columbia, terrorism means drive-by shootings, not Osama bin Laden. To the people of Washington, D.C., terrorism is defined by semi-automatic weapons and unrestricted access to all kinds of guns. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill says terrorism is all right. Terrorism for the people of this city, who now will have to wonder how many guns are staring them down when they go outside every single day of the week, are going to have to wonder, when they see all of the complement of anti-terrorist measures in this town and know that those anti-terrorist measures are for everyone else but them, the inhabitants of Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill eliminate all of those laws that the people of this city have determined are in their best interest in defending their people, and it says, no, we are going to make you an example to the NRA that, whatever they want, they will get. When it comes to the repeal of the assault weapons ban, not only will this President not have fallen through on his commitment, but furthermore, they will have retreated on their commitment to defend the people of this Capital City and the Capitol Police of this Capital City. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 13 and the morning of September 14, I was attending the funeral services of Richard Langevin, the father of our colleague Congressman James Langevin, and was unable to vote on rollcall votes 441-450. I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, and 450. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 441, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 442, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 443, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 444, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 446, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 448, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 449, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 450.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the National Mall is home to memorials in honor of our founding fathers, our nation's veterans and leaders who have shaped the course of the United States. The Mall is also home to wonderful museums that explore subjects from our natural history here on Earth, to travels to the moon and beyond. However, even with the diverse exhibits, there was always a piece of our history missing from the Mall, and on September 21, 2004, that hole was finally filled. It is my honor to celebrate the long awaited opening of the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall. This museum stands as a monument not only to the past generations of Native Americans, but to the present and the future. I am hopeful that the prominent placement of this museum will help to educate our nation on the true history of Native Americans, told by their perspective and through their eyes. The museum will be home to artifacts and exhibits, but will also serve as a classroom with live performances and demonstrations. It truly is a magnificent addition to the Mall, and I look forward to visiting the museum often. As we celebrate this joyous occasion, and visit with the thousands of Native Americans who have traveled from across the country to join in this event, Members of Congress must not forget that our relationship with Native Americans goes far beyond the museum. Preserving the past and ensuring the future of Native Americans is celebrated in the museum, but it is only through the adequate funding of education, healthcare, and other initiatives critical to our Native American communities that illustrates our true commitment. I will continue to work with several of my colleagues to fight for essential programs to give Native Americans the resources they need. I am proud to have the opportunity to welcome so many Native Americans to Washington, D.C. this week, and to welcome the National Museum of the American Indian.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 13 and the morning of September 14, I was attending the funeral services of the Richard Langevin, the father of our colleague Congressman James Langevin, and was unable to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 441-450. I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 441, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 442, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 443, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 444, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 446, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 448, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 449, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 450.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues today who have expressed outrage at the fact that these overtime regulations have been changed such that workers in this country who work overtime are not compensated for that time that they are working. Millions of American workers count on this overtime pay as part of their basic income. They do not simply make it in this country based upon the 40 hour week and the money that they make then. They make ends meet because they are able to add the time and a half that comes from them having to work overtime. Now, let us take this in this context. I often hear friends tell me, it could not be. No one would do that, not anybody that wants to grow this economy. Well, I have to say to them, in fact, it is true. The Republican majority is taking away overtime pay from working Americans while they are giving the richest of Americans huge, huge tax breaks; tax breaks on capital gains, on estate taxes and dividend taxes. Well, how could this be? The idea is maybe if we give people with $1 million or more of income a year, we are giving them $100,000 in tax cuts, that will grow our economy. What I find so interesting is when Republicans talk about tax cuts, they never seem to mention that the sales taxes are going up, they never seem to mention that the property taxes are going up, they never seem to talk about cutting taxes on income for those on unemployment insurance. Yes, Mr. Chairman, unemployment insurance is taxed, but you never hear about Republicans cutting those taxes, do you? Mr. Chairman, I have found this a very interesting few years that I have been in the Congress. I have seen proposals to make Medicaid a block grant, so that entitlements are written at the State level, not the national level, so that people's health care will be determined on where they live in this country, not based upon whether they are in need. I have seen all kinds of proposals on labor law, just as there is in this case, where workers are being punished for joining unions. I have seen where there are bills like the TEAM Act, which essentially decides what the manager is doing when they choose who they are going to negotiate with. That is their idea of TEAM Act: workers will be without a voice. Then I see other bills, like OSHA reform, another ``sounds good'' reform, except you find out that really it is a voluntary program. No one will even know whether an employer will comply with it or not; and, hence, we have something that takes away from the protection and safety of workers on the job. And in just this last budget, Mr. Chairman, we saw the President of the United States cut, cut the money for inspection of child labor. Get that. This Republican budget cut the inspection for companies around the world that may be using children in the course of their labor. So it is interesting, because many people think we have left those days well behind us when there was child labor. Maybe we left those days long behind us where workers did not have a pension. Maybe we left those days behind us where workers could not have a 40-hour workweek and work overtime and be compensated time and a half. Maybe they think all of these things are back in the thirties or forties or maybe fifties. What I am here to say is my experience being in a Republican-led Congress the last 10 years that I have been in the House of Representatives has led me to believe that the same battles for economic justice that people were fighting for over a generation ago are the same battles that we are having to fight all over again in the 2004. This is what we are dealing with, my friends; and this, my friends, is the reason why we need to make a choice in this next campaign as to who we want leading our country. This is a perfect example of the fact that elections have consequences. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to eliminate time and a half for workers who work more than 40 hours a week. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to eliminate the entitlement for Medicaid. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to roll back in this country all of the progressive legislation that has been put forth that protects our workers in this country. Let us support the Obey-Miller substitute.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. I find it very interesting that we hear a lot from the other side today about sovereignty, and they are all very excited about it, as if they have just discovered it. It is interesting to hear about sovereignty from the other side, because where were they when we were trying to get sovereignty included in homeland security? Where were they when we were trying to get sovereignty included into all of the other issues, like the environment? Where were they when we tried to get sovereignty into the welfare reform bill, and tribes had to go through States rather than have that money disbursed to them directly, as they should under the trust responsibility? There have been many votes that have been cast on this floor, and I would venture to say most of these votes, because they are brought up by the majority, I think give the true explanation as to what this debate is all about. We have seen more votes that are antisovereignty votes on this floor in the last several years than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been here for over 20 years, has ever recalled. So when some of my friends on the other side call into question the commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), when it was that gentleman who was the author of the IGRA legislation that provided for sovereignty, I find that suspect. When people talk about, oh, it is sovereignty, and yet where were they when it came to the meetings that took place so that we could get a resolution of this issue? My colleagues, I do not think this is so much about sovereignty as it is election-year politics. That is what this is about, make no mistake about it. If there was a true interest in getting this issue resolved, this issue could be resolved.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order. I believe that this is an important point that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) brought up. I thought it was brought up very poignantly because of the importance of this issue, and I wanted to join him in addressing this issue and to ask my colleagues to acknowledge the real champion on these issues with alcoholism and substance abuse that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) speaks so eloquently about and is such a leader on.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think we have before us a choice between science and stigma. Stigma is the biggest barrier to us making sure millions of Americans gain access to what is fundamentally a physical illness. You do not need to take my word for it. You have every Nobel Laureate, the Surgeon Generals of the United States, all saying this is a physiologically, biologically based illness. So the notion that we are going to shut kids out from being screened so that we can intervene and make a difference in their lives, I do not understand. I would add one more thing: our colleagues have learned the hard way. Three of our colleagues have lost their children in the last couple of years alone as a result of suicide. We voted on one of those bills on suicide prevention on Senator Smith's son, who died a year ago yesterday as a result of suicide. We know of many others whose tragedies we do not want to go into. But to think that suicide and mental illness are not scientifically based is to look back and think we are still living in the Stone Age.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues Congressmen Ford, Petri, and English in introducing the ASPIRE Act, which presents new hope for extending the American dream. The ASPIRE Act--or America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education--renews our commitment to ensuring opportunity for every child. This Act is in keeping with our government's long-standing tradition of expanding opportunities for each generation of citizens. It upholds the tradition of the Homestead Act, which in the nineteenth century sought to create opportunity through land ownership. It is in the same spirit that, in the twentieth century, we created universal public education--and then opened up access to higher education through the GI Bill and Pell grants. Living up to our goal of ensuring opportunity requires a new strategy, one tailored to the information age. In the twenty-first century, opportunity is tied to ownership. And yet we see today glaring disparities in the distribution of assets. A huge gulf exists between those who have ready access to asset-building tools, and those who do not. If we are to make good on our promise to America's youth, we need an honest new effort to broaden ownership of assets. We need to make savings incentives universal, rather than reserving them exclusively for the wealthy and middle class. The tax deductions we currently use to incentivize savings disproportionately benefit those in the highest tax brackets, not those who need the most help. By creating universal ``KIDS accounts,'' the ASPIRE Act will give every child born in this country a real stake in the future. Under the program, every child's account will be credited with an automatic $500 seed contribution at birth, supplemented by up to an additional $500 for children living below the median income. These accounts will be invested in a system like the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees, giving kids and their parents a range of indexed investment options, from government bonds to international stocks. The accounts will be able to receive up to $1,000 each year in private voluntary contributions. Children in lower income families will receive dollar-for-dollar government matches for annual contributions of up to $500. As in Roth IRAs, the growth of account balances will be tax-free. When children turn 18, thanks to compound interest, they will have a real nest egg that they can use for higher education costs, save for future home-ownership, or save for retirement. They can then chose to maintain their accounts within the ASPIRE Fund, or roll them over to private financial institutions. Some will criticize universal savings accounts as too ``big government'' or too expensive. But let me tell you, we subsidize asset- building in a very big way already--70 billion dollars each year for the homeowner's mortgage interest deduction and 150 billion for retirement accounts like IRAs, just to name two. Contrast this with the seven billion dollars per year it would take to bring savings to every American. That's less than 3 percent of what we currently spend subsidizing savings and investment for middle class and wealthy Americans. Universal KIDS accounts will go a long way toward the creation of a true stakeholder society. They will enable millions of young Americans to gain access to higher education. They will put homeownership--the cornerstone of Americans' financial stability--within reach of millions more families. And they will put every young American on track for developing retirement savings. Consider that a child receiving the full $1,000 seed contribution, contributing as little as $250 per year to an account earning 7 percent, would hold an account worth $21,480 by her 18th birthday. By the time this individual reaches age 65, the account balance would grow to over half a million dollars. We know from experience that incentives like matching contributions can help lower-income families save. Evidence provided by individual development accounts as well as 401(k) plans clearly points to the success of these strategies. In addition, international models demonstrate the feasibility of a universal accounts program. This is the so-called baby bonds idea that Tony Blair has instituted in Great Britain, and if they can do it there, we can do it here in the United States. Think about the way that universal accounts would transform the outlook of young Americans. A new generation, assured savings accounts at birth, would cultivate a savings habit from a young age. These kids would grow up knowing that they own something, getting quarterly statements. KIDS Accounts would encourage a new culture of increased financial literacy, which is critical for enhancing one's prospects in a society where ownership equates with opportunity. Your lot in life shouldn't depend on your parents' paycheck. KIDS accounts would give every child in the United States a real stake in the future, and a reason to dream. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is both bipartisan and bicameral, with Senators Santorum and Corzine introducing a companion in the other body. I hope that the breadth of our initial supporters will foreshadow a wider embrace of this legislation that truly transcends party lines. I want to thank my colleagues from both parties and both chambers for the hard work that has gone into thinking through details of this effort. And special thanks are due Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer at the New America Foundation, who have provided much of the intellectual foundation underlying this important step forward. Mr. Speaker, too often our policy innovation falls victim to our partisan acrimony. If we are to preserve the universal opportunity that has been the hallmark of America for two centuries, we need to get beyond stale ideas and ideological blinders and embrace new ideas for a new age. I'm proud to join my friends today in introducing the ASPIRE Act and look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reinvigorate the American dream.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the commitment of the Republic of Cyprus to democracy, human rights, free markets, and equal justice under law. Regrettably, this July 20th marked the thirtieth anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish military forces. This illegal military occupation of more than one-third of Cyprus' territory is a violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. To this day, Turkey maintains a force of 30,000 heavily armed troops in Cyprus. 1,500 Greek Cypriots and 4 Americans of Cypriot descent remain missing since 1974, when the Turkish military forces commenced a policy of ethnic cleansing, forcibly evicting 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. In 1983, displaying blatant disregard for international law and the sovereign independence of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey encouraged the secession and declaration of independence of the occupied areas. The ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'' has been recognized by no nation except for Turkey, and the U.N. General Assembly has made numerous calls for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Cyprus. Cyprus' accession to the European Union in May of 2004 has given Cypriots new resolve to overcome the division of their nation and citizens. It will be a difficult path towards a united Cyprus that is founded on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. But it is a path paved with the hope of a determined people. Currently, the Republic of Cyprus is seeking a bizonal and bicommunal federation, reunifying society and economy, while granting each community the right to retain its own identity and culture, without military occupation. Although a reunification plan was set forth by the United Nations, in April of this year 76 percent of Greek Cypriot voters stood in opposition to the plan due to issues of vital concern, such as security, property restitution, and dissatisfaction with the structure of the proposed central government. Despite the rejection of the plan, 90 percent of the Greek Cypriot community turned out to vote on the UN plan, displaying a deep interest and concern in the future of the reunification of their nation and the changes this would bring. We must learn from the message sent by those who could not support the proposed Plan. The lesson is Cyprus' reunification is too important an issue to rush into a Plan that does not address the serious concerns of all Cypriots.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall vote 406. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' on rollca11 No. 406.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for Josie King. Josie was a vibrant eighteen-month-old who suffered a terrible accident and, thanks to the incredible advances in medicine, was saved and preparing to go home from the hospital. Before she could, though, the same health system that saved her then took her life. That sweet little girl was lost to a series of entirely preventable mistakes in one of the finest hospitals in the nation, if not the world. Politicians like to say that the United States has the best healthcare system in the world. But we don't. What we have is the best medical talent in the world, the best medical technology in the world, the best facilities in the world. But the system itself is a mess. The best healthcare system in the world would not allow nearly 100,000 people like Josie King to die in hospitals of preventable medical errors. The best system in the world would not leave the United States ranked 28th in the world for infant mortality, in the company of Cuba, Hungary, and Slovakia. The best system would not leave almost 75 million people--nearly one in three people under 65--without health insurance at some point over a 2 year period, especially when the National Academy of Sciences has documented that people without insurance have worse health and die sooner. The best system wouldn't waste 30 cents on the dollar, or 1,400 dollars per employee per year, on care that does nothing to improve clinical outcomes. That's a 2 billion dollar tax on employers and taxpayers in my home state of Rhode Island in 2004, and an estimated 77.44 trillion dollars for the nation over the next decade. And, one thing I know for certain, Mr. Speaker, the best healthcare system would not give patients barely a coin-flip's chance whether they receive evidence-based, scientifically accepted care in appropriate situations. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation because our health care system is not the best in the world. Our health care system produces great medicine but it produces great medicine unevenly and with massive inefficiencies and frequent mistakes. We can do better. There's a saying: ``Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results it gets.'' We need to redesign the health care system to produce better outcomes at a better value. We need nothing short of a transformation so that delivering the highest quality health care becomes not only the overriding goal of the professionals within the system, but of the system itself. How do we get there? Today, I am introducing a bill called the Josie King Act to put in place three pillars of a transformed system: A fully electronic, integrated, paperless healthcare system; a new emphasis on improving the science of better care, from the evidence base underlying medical treatments to the creation of a new cadre of health quality experts; and new methods of measuring the quality of care and new payment practices so that providers are compensated for the quality of care they provide, not just the quantity. We're in the information age, and nowhere is information more important than in health care. Yet we ask doctors to practice medicine in the dark. Our healthcare system is made up of thousands upon thousands of independent providers, each with its own records and no way to communicate with each other. Patients see multiple doctors, very rarely with anybody other than the patient as the traffic cop. Since the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, it's no wonder that 54 percent of serious chronic disease patients say they have been sent for duplicate tests or procedures within the last year. In fact, it is estimated that 20 percent of labs and x-rays are ordered because the previous results can't be found. One in seven hospitalizations occurs as a precaution because patient information is unavailable. Handwriting errors and other human mistakes cause deaths and injuries. The chances of being administered the wrong drug or the wrong dose in the hospital is around seven percent. Adherence to evidence- based medicine is shockingly low--barely 50 percent. Why? It's not because the doctors and nurses and other health care personnel aren't skilled or committed or careful. It's because we practice 21st century medicine on a 20th century platform. Right now, less than five percent of doctors' offices use electronic medical records there's no way for even those doctors to easily share information. The information revolution has transformed financial services, manufacturing, retail. Even hide-bound politicians are adapting campaigns and elections to the new tools. We need I.T. to transform medicine as well. Making our health care system fully electronic, with networks to share all information that patients choose to share, will create new tools for doctors and nurses to let them use their skills more effectively. Each provider would have a complete record for the patient, so there would be no more duplication of tests and procedures. Computerized decision support systems would catch possible errors and help remind health professionals of new advances in evidence-based practice guidelines. Patients would have access to important health information in a way that can allow them to be active participants in their own care. A national health information infrastructure will also be a critical public health tool, helping the CDC and other public health agencies quickly pick up on and respond to outbreaks and acts of bioterrorism. As we build these health information networks, security and privacy must be paramount. In fact, we can and should make a new information infrastructure safer than the status quo, with paper records that can be read by anybody and are easily accessible. Not only could creation of this health information infrastructure dramatically improve patient care, it could save us billions of dollars--dollars our health care system can scarcely afford to waste. The independent Center for Information Technology Leadership prepared a report for the Department of Health and Human Services estimating the savings at $87 billion per year as we eliminate duplicate tests, unnecessary hospitalizations, and the many errors that plague our system today. If electronic health systems are so terrific, you would think we'd have them by now. But here's the trouble. Most providers, especially physicians in small practices, have little financial incentive or wherewithal to make substantial I.T. investments. In order to fix that, we need to recognize that putting in the information technology we need is a community-wide, infrastructure challenge. The benefits of achieving a widespread health information network for the community as a whole are tremendous, easily providing enough return on investment for all to gain. But to get there, all of the health care stakeholders will have to work together to figure out how they're going to divide up the costs and the savings of putting electronic systems in every provider's office and of establishing the network. It needs to be a community-wide approach. The model is being built in Rhode Island. Work is underway to pilot the development of a comprehensive health information network, and when it is in place, Rhode Island will be showing the future to the rest of the nation. Building on this model, the Josie King Act lays out a phased process that will provide seed money and leadership to get the process rolling across the country and help every state and region build its infrastructure. With this proposal, we can get virtually the entire healthcare system networked in a decade. When we have an electronic health information system, all kinds of other possibilities for transformation become possible. The Josie King Act not only would put I.T. in place, but would help establish new systems to take advantage of it. Information systems create new opportunities for developing and using the evidence base. The Josie King Act would promote research into the comparative effectiveness and value of drugs, treatments, and technologies so doctors will have more and better information. But as we expand our understanding about what constitutes good medicine in a given situation, we need to improve how that knowledge is used. How would we react, Mr. Speaker, if the airline lost half of our bags? Or if every other computer in our offices had to be returned to the manufacturer due to defects? Well that's what we have in medicine--a defect rate approaching 50 percent in many cases, according to research from the RAND Corporation. We need to challenge the culture and systems that we have, because they are simply not good enough. Information technologies can be powerful tools to drive out errors and improve efficiencies, as we have seen throughout our economy. But they are the tools, the means not the end. We also need leaders committed to redesigning health care delivery. The Josie King Act would begin training this new cadre of health care leaders with scholarships for graduate study in health care quality and efficiency. To improve quality and efficiency, we also must be able to accurately measure quality and efficiency. The Josie King Act will help standardize performance measurement and use the new electronic clinical data so that, for the first time, consumers and payers can have a single source for an apples-to-apples comparison of all providers' quality, efficiency, and patient satisfaction. Over time, these performance measurements can help us redesign payment practices so that doctors and hospitals are rewarded, not penalized, for improving patient outcomes. The status quo is just not a sustainable option. We deserve a health care system that is as good as the quality of the medicine it can provide. That means thinking critically and creatively about what kind of health care system we want and how we build it. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge the great leadership and commitment on this issue of the former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich. There is nobody thinking more critically and more creatively about health care delivery than he is. Speaker Gingrich has been a terrific teacher and partner tome in this effort, and it is the great fortune of this nation that he has turned his prodigious talents to fixing what ails our health care system. We can transform the health care system. It's an ambitious goal, but our reimbursement rates are too low, our premiums are too high, and our health outcomes are too uneven for us not to meet this challenge. We owe it to Josie King and her family to make sure that our health care system follows the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Josie King Act, and I hope that we can do the hard work to build a health care system that's every bit as good as the extraordinary medicine it can produce.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2004 I missed rollcall votes No. 391, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003, No. 392 concerning the importance of the distribution of food in schools to hungry or malnourished children around the world, and No. 393 Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act. Had I been here I would have voted: Yes on rollcall No. 391; Yes on rollcall No. 392; Yes on rollcall No. 393. At this time I would ask for unanimous consent that my positions be entered into the Record following those votes or in the appropriate portion of the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the chairman for their work on this legislation. I too want to join any colleagues in saying how important a bill like this is, and I only hope this Congress recognizes how critical the kind of aid that is provided through legislation like this is in a time where we are trying to combat international terrorism. Terrorism feeds on instability. Terrorism feeds on poverty. Terrorism feeds on the loss of hope. And unless we build these economies, unless we provide stability to these countries, such as Sudan, which is obviously such a great tragedy, and I am pleased to see this committee work to try to address the needs of the Sudanese who are starving and dying every day. But in addition to that, Liberia; and I wanted to make a special note. Liberia has been racked with a civil war for over 10 years or more. A third of their population has been driven from their country. We need to continue to support the effort to connect and build Liberia so that the refugees that have been scattered all around the world can come home and help make that country a country that can move into the future. The United States has a very close relationship with Liberia. Liberia was founded for former American slaves, hence the name Liberia. Its capital city was named after the President who did that, President Monroe, Monrovia. And I know that within the bill also there are funds for the John F. Kennedy Hospital which is the primary health care facility in Monrovia. And I am pleased to see that the committee has acknowledged that in the efforts to help rebuild Liberia and make it so that those people can move forward in their country. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hard work and leadership of the Chairman and Ranking Member in producing this Australian Free Trade Agreement. It is a credit to the diligence and dedication of the Australian government that this complex Free Trade Agreement was completed in under a year. That is why I'm hopeful that the Australian government will employ that same diligence and dedication in resolving a dispute over maritime boundaries with its neighbor, East Timor. Fifty-three of my colleagues have already joined in supporting East Timor's call for a fair and expeditious resolution to this dispute. These disputed boundaries are a reminder of the invalid agreements made between Indonesia and Australia during the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor. The East Timorese struggle for independence will not be complete until East Timor, a fully sovereign country, no longer has to bear that lingering reminder of subjugation. To be sure, there is tremendous enormous financial benefit dependent upon how these maritime boundaries are drawn. Rich with oil and natural gas reserves, these critical areas are an economic resource for a struggling country of very little economic activity. A country struggling with high maternal mortality, widespread malaria and tuberculosis, rampant poverty, and desperately needed education. The Australian government was a leader in assisting East Timor's transition to democracy. It provided peacekeepers and foreign aid. But since 1999, Australia has acquired an average of $1 million a day in petroleum from the disputed areas, exceeding the amount of assistance it provided to East Timor. The Free Trade Agreement today between our two countries are a mark of respect we have for each other. A fair and equitable resolution of this boundary dispute with East Timor honors Australia's leadership and commitment to fostering a strong and enduring democracy. As a friend of Australia, I respectfully urge its government to rejoin the international dispute resolution mechanisms and expeditiously negotiate a permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea in good faith, according to the established principles of international law.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a minute. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me and with other of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), certainly the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). We have been working throughout the last several months on addressing the issue of our veterans from our war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places where they are fighting around the world, and like every other conflict, we have had to learn this lesson over and over again, that in the course of battle, our men and women in uniform are not only injured, their legs are not only injured, their arms are not only injured, their other body parts are not only injured, but their psyche is injured as well. And one of the things that we are very concerned about is any time you put a human being in the conditions that our young men and women are being called on to serve in, that you really jeopardize their psychological well-being. They come back, and many people would say, well, they do not look like they are injured. We do not see any injury. Then they must not be injured. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we have seen in the Vietnam War, in World War II, in World War I, it was called shell shock. It has been called post-traumatic stress disorder, and we are worried that in this war we do not learn from the lessons of the past and not put together the best ability in order to address this issue when our veterans are returning home to this country, particularly our Gulf War veterans, who are in the Guard and Reserve, because many of them when they come back, they go right back to civilian life with very little transition between the time they were in active combat and the time that they are back in their regular lives. And what concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that we need to do more to make sure that they are reviewed properly before they are released from the military to ensure that any potential wounds that they may have suffered in the course of the battle that they have fought on behalf of this country, that those wounds be tended to just as much as the other wounds they may have suffered throughout the Gulf War. I thank the Chairman for the time. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to make sure we address this issue in the coming months.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote Nos. 276 and 277 on 6/21/04 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for their hard work on this legislation. It is an immense challenge to be in charge of the funding of this Nation's homeland security . . . and they have done the best that they can with this bill. In particular, I want to raise an issue that is of concern to me: The need to address and integrate psychological resiliency into our national readiness plans. Building psychological resilience is one of the most effective counter-terrorism strategies we could have, because it fights terrorism on the real battleground--the psyches of the American people. The Israelis have learned this and see resilience development as a key component of counter-terrorism. Referring to terrorism, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said: ``This is all a question of human psychology. It is all a question of understanding how to manage fear. The most important thing to explain to people about managing fear is that courage is not the absence of fear, it is the management of it.'' In Full Committee I offered an amendment to call for a report between the Institutes of Medicine and the Department of Homeland Security on resilience development and how this resiliency can be harmed by the ways in which the media report on terrorism, or can be harmed by the way terrorist threat information is communicated to the public. Although the Department is funding some University-based grants in this area, only one is specifically geared toward the ``behavioral'' aspects associated with terrorism. It is my hope that I can work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to address this issue further and to build on the work that they are doing and to expand outside the arena of individual Universities.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, this year, the American Lung Association proudly celebrates their 100th Anniversary. On this momentous occasion, I would like to recognize this organization for their invaluable contributions to our Nation. The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 for the purpose of eliminating tuberculosis. As they neared that goal in the middle of the century, they also turned their attention to research, education, and advocacy against other lung ailments, including lung disease and asthma, and their environmental triggers. Each year, more than 360,000 Americans die of lung disease. Responsible for one in every seven deaths, lung disease is the third highest cause of death in America. While the death rates for diseases such as heart disease and cancer are beginning to decrease, the lung disease death rate is climbing. The American Lung Association is needed now more than ever, and I am confident that they will continue to fight to end asthma and other respiratory ailments. I would like to thank their excellent staff and countless volunteers who work around the clock to bring attention to these diseases and educate our communities. I am honored to have worked with this association during the past ten years in Congress, and I would like to once again congratulate the American Lung Association on 100 years of advocacy.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the leadership and hard work of Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton in producing this Defense Authorization. I'd also like to thank my distinguished colleague from Washington, Congressman Baird, for offering this amendment with me. In March, we heard about a higher suicide rate for our troops in Iraq than elsewhere. We've heard about problems with morale. We're all committed to maximizing our troops' effectiveness. To keep them in fighting shape, we've got to safeguard their psychological resiliency. We know from past experience, articles in the press, and meeting personally with our returning troops the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life after duty in a combat area. They're troubled by anxiety and sleeplessness bred by the hyper- vigilance required in combat. At its utmost worst, the ravages of war on a person's psyche may change them completely from those who knew them before, manifesting itself in depression, drug abuse, domestic violence, or suicide--we need to protect our troops from that. The intensity and nature of ground combat and urban warfare our troops face may produce some of the most lingering scars of war, those that lie beneath the skin: The emotional and the psychological. And the stress and emotional hardship our military families cope with may not necessarily end with the return of their loved ones. Our Nation and our Department of Defense need to address these needs and with this amendment, we make sure that they will.