Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of my two previous colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I also want to talk about another area of civil rights concerns and that is the civil rights of our Native American people. As all of my colleagues know, while this bill overall has many shortcomings as has been just pointed out, there is another glaring example of a shortcoming and that is one that I want to talk about. In a tight- fisted decision that one could only think was a mistake, the Indian Law Enforcement Initiative received absolutely no funding whatsoever in this bill. Let me explain just what that means. That means that tribal courts get nothing. That means that tribal COPS grants programs get nothing. That means that programs proposed by the administration to make life a little bit better for native peoples get nothing. Not one single cent. To me, that means once again this Congress is shirking its responsibility to our first Americans. Mr. Chairman, almost nowhere else in this country, in this Nation, is there more need for law enforcement resources than in Indian country. On many reservations crime is rampant. For example, of more than 4,000 FBI cases opened in Indian country, 46 percent involve sexual physical abuse of a minor child, 36 percent involve gang activity involving Indian youth; and we are giving them nothing. Only 1,700 BIA and tribal uniformed officers are available for 1.4 million people. Let me give Members an idea of how that relates to those non-Native American peoples. That is 1.2 officers for every 1,000 people in native country. In contrast, in non-native country, we have 2.8 officers on average; 1.2 on native lands, over 2.8 on nonnative lands. Let us understand what the consequences of this are. Everywhere else in America, we see homicides going down. The homicide rates on Native American lands, however, are 2.6 times higher than they are for whites. They are higher than any other group in this country. Violent crime has gone down the last few years with murders down almost 25 percent. But let me underscore something. While murders have gone down 25 percent in the rest of this country, on native territories, on native reservations, violent crimes have gone up 90, let me repeat, 90 percent. What is this Congress' answer to that? Zero, I repeat, zero funding for law enforcement on Native American country. To me, that is absolutely unconscionable. If any one of us in our own districts anywhere in this country had the kind of crime statistics that currently exist on Native American reservations, it would be front page news. Every single talk show would be talking about it. Every story would be reporting about it. But the outrage in this story is there is not any coverage whatsoever. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that we all but ignore our native peoples here in this country. The fact of the matter is we have tried in this bill to get funding for Native American law enforcement. We tried to get the President of the United States' $173 million for this initiative. It would have been an important increase in funding. But what did this bill provide? Zero. Zero funding for one of the most crime-plagued communities anywhere in this country, a region of this country where there is a 90 percent increase in violent crimes while everywhere else sees a decrease of 25 percent. We are giving them zero, zero funding. Now, if it is your child who is getting molested, if it is your child that is getting killed and this is in your neighborhood, you would be walking down here and protesting right outside this Capitol. The fact is that it is native peoples, native peoples in this country. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. My point was that we recognize there is an enormous crime problem on Native American reservations. It is not a matter of discriminating for or against our first Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. The point I am making here is the law enforcement block grant that the gentleman is talking about, as he said, anyone would be able to apply for that. The only trouble is on Native American reservations, we have got a crisis; and it is not a matter of them having to compete with your or my law enforcement community in our respective States. They have nothing. They have a 90 percent increase in crime. The rest of the country has a 25 percent decrease. Yet you are going to throw them in the same barrel as every other law enforcement agency. I am not disputing the fact you added to everyone's ability, but I am saying given the statistics, would it not make more sense to make sure we address specifically the instance that we are talking about?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I look forward to working with the gentleman to see that our Justice Department awards our Native American law enforcement community the funding that the gentleman has put in the bill so that they can receive the kind of support they need on these Native American reservations.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). It would undermine our responsibility as Members of Congress, our trust responsibility to the first Americans of this Nation. For many tribes, the resources that are provided by tribal gaming are their lifeblood. It has allowed them to begin to rebuild their homes, giving their children a quality education, treating their elders with adequate health care. Yet this Congress continues to shirk the responsibility towards Native Americans, turning a deaf ear to their pleas. It is a travesty that has resulted in the crumbling of overcrowded schools that no Member in this Congress would dare send their own children to. It has resulted in deteriorating unsafe homes that no one in this Chamber would allow their families to live in, and it has resulted in abysmal health care that would shock and outrage every single Member of this House if it was one of them or one of their constituents. The thing that has allowed these tribal governments to provide for the things that this Congress has failed to do is tribal gaming. Two hundred years of Indian law jurisprudence have told us that this Congress and every single Member of this House has a responsibility to our first Americans, our Native Americans. This amendment is not so much about tribal gaming as it is about the trust responsibility that each of us has been sworn to uphold when we swore by the Constitution of the United States to uphold our responsibility, our trust responsibility, to our first Americans. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this amendment, just as we did last year, and stand up for the first Americans of this country of ours.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Illinois. Both the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and the gentleman from Illinois have been tremendous supporters of the asthma programs under the CDC Chronic and Environmental Disease Prevention program. Members on both sides of the aisle have agreed that this program is critical in addressing the increases in asthma amongst children. Under the subcommittee's leadership last year, we were able to provide an increase of $10 million to this program. This year the total CDC Chronic and Environmental Disease budget was approved for an increase of over $21 million, bringing its overall total to $317 million. While this commitment is a wonderful step in the right direction, it is my hope that the subcommittee will continue its work in conference to assure that increases for asthma control and prevention are continued. Asthma rates are rising dramatically across this country in all populations. Tragically, our children, in fact, are affected the most. Between 1980 and 1994, the rate of asthma incidence rose by 160 percent for children under 4 years of age. Across the Nation, 17 million Americans, 5 million of them children, are afflicted with asthma. As an asthmatic myself, I can assure my colleagues that prevention programs are vital. They teach asthmatics as well as their families how to develop strategies within the home to reduce allergens, as well as to treat the disease of asthma. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Illinois to the CDC and its programs regarding asthma control, and it is my hope that the gentleman will continue to work throughout this legislative process to ensure that the issue is provided additional funding in the final bill. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I know it is the gentleman's last year in this body, and I want to thank him for all of his hard work. He has been critical to our Nation's health programs, and I know that all of our Members widely regard the gentleman as just having been a great champion for the NIH and for so many important areas. There are few Members who have worked so hard on areas of critical concern, like our health care system, and the gentleman has been terrific. I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his efforts in his position as ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. He has also attended to our national health programs with the utmost of integrity, and I want to thank the both of them for showing what it means to be both good appropriators as well as supporters of essential health programs.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank him and wish his sister a speedy recovery. Part B Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the Navy resumed training on the Atlantic Fleet bombing range in Vieques after Federal Agents cleared the bombing range of protesters. Unfortunately, a very tense situation remains. Yet we in the legislature, instead of leaving in place the agreement reached by the President, the governor of Puerto Rico and the Secretaries of Defense and Navy, we tried to add fuel to the fire with a provision in H.R. 4205 that unilaterally undermined a deal where concessions were made on all sides. I am pleased with the passage of Mr. Skelton's amendment and celebrate our victory in striking out the deal breaking language in H.R. 4205 and reinstating our agreement with Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico. Let us recall that the agreement reached last January is a deal where concessions were made by both sides--negotiators had worked in good faith to reconcile the vital need for training with the legitimate concerns of the people of Vieques. Mr. Skelton's amendment leaves in place the compromise agreement for the orderly transfer of land on the Western side of Vieques, land not utilized by the Navy, to Puerto Rico. I urge the continuation of the President's deal as H.R. 4205 moves toward conference. One thing is evident, our actions influenced the Navy's ability to continue crucial training on Vieques. We simply would have done a disservice to our sailors and their readiness if our legislative actions somehow led to more unrest in Puerto Rico. Let us not forget that the Navy has not been the best of neighbors to the American citizens of Vieques. Since the early days of World War II, the people of Vieques have been exposed to bombing raids 180 days of each year. Unfortunately, a little over a year ago, a bomb fell 2 miles off target, killing Mr. David Sanes Rodriquez, a civilian employee by the Navy and severely wounding four others. This tragic accident redefined and emboldened virtually all of Puerto Rico to demand for the safety, the security, and the well-being of the 9,311 Puerto Rico Americans who reside in Vieques. Let me be clear on the point that the Skelton amendment is strongly supported by the Government of Puerto Rico. I have spoken with Governor Rossello. He told me that over 70 percent of the American citizens on Vieques live below the poverty level and that civilian residents reportedly suffer from a cancer rate 26 percent higher than that of Puerto Rico as a whole. Doctors also note high levels of birth defects, skin diseases, asthma and other respiratory diseases. Yet without this amendment the resources that these people need would have been jeopardized. If you are concerned about the ability of the Navy and our sailors to be militarily ready, then you will support the continuation of the President's's deal in conference because it represents the quickest way for us to resume a full spread of training activities which can include live fire exercises. The bottom line is that we have already negotiated a deal that is supported by all sides in this debate. But without the Skelton Amendment we would have had no deal. And so whether you are coming at this debate from a military or Puerto Rican perspective you can be sure that supporting the President's deal is the right thing to do.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2000, I was accompanying President Clinton to a funeral in the First District of Rhode Island and consequently I missed five votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``No'' on Ordering the Previous Question, H. Res. 511; ``yes'' on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 511; ``yes'' on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 331; ``yes'' on Motion to Recommit, H.R. 3916; and ``yes'' on Final Passage, H.R. 3916.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on human rights, China has failed with over 1,000 executions of dissenters since 1998. On religious rights, China has created an atmosphere of dread and torture and arrest which are commonplace, and on military aggression China's policies are still of great concern. This weekend we celebrate Memorial Day and are reminded that freedom is not free. Our veterans laid down their lives fighting such dictatorships such as China. What is our generation going to do, lay down and let them make the deal just because we have a buck to save? Do we not care about what this country was founded on? Do we not care about human rights? This is a travesty. This Congress passed sanctions against South Africa when Nelson Mandela was tortured and jailed in South Africa. What would we do today if this was an apartheid? I guess what we would do is do even more deals with P.W. Botha, because that is just what this Congress is going to do when it does PNTR for China, is lay down with dictators like P.W. Botha and China.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Drier/Gilman Amendment to shorten from 180 days to 60 days the amount of time for Congress to review the performance level that defines high-speed computers; however, I am disappointed in the Rules Committee's handling of this issue. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not rule in order the Lofgren/Tauscher Amendment that would have created a 30-day review time limit. I am disappointed that the amendment that we have before us today is inadequate because it does not go far enough to make meaningful change to our export policy. On October 19, 1999, along with eleven of my Democratic colleagues from the House Armed Services Committee, I signed a letter to Chairman Spence and Mr. Skelton, indicating support for a change to the export adjustment policy to a 30-day review period. That letter was meant to indicate the support of several Democratic Committee Members for this change and to reiterate the fact that advances in technology and industry product cycles are simply moving too quickly to deal with a 180-day delay in the implementation of export regulations. It is unreasonable to subject modifications in computer export regulations to a six-month waiting period, or even a 60-day delay, while the sales of tanks, rockets, and high-performance aircraft require only a thirty-day review period. That is why I was extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee did not allow an amendment to be ruled in order on a reasonable 30-day review period. Of course, I support the 60-day waiting period amendment as an improvement, and will vote for the Dreier Amendment. Nevertheless, I do feel that we have wasted an opportunity to make an even more practical and necessary change to our computer export policy by not allowing an amendment on a 30-day amendment to be ruled in order.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I am in opposition of H.R. 1283, the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act, which was recently reported out of the House Judiciary Committee. Before it comes to the House floor, I want to make clear my opposition to this bill that creates a windfall for the asbestos industry but denies fair compensation to tens of thousands of American workers and their families. Bailing out an industry that has caused harm to millions of Americans, is the ultimate slap in the face to the millions of victims affected by the deadly hazards of asbestos. Only because our court system provides accountability for these manufacturers was this deadly threat finally stopped. Now, it is no surprise that asbestos manufacturers want to use the Federal Government to override tort statutes in various States, which have brought them to law. Even more troubling, the bill will prohibit approximately 50 percent of injured asbestos victims from compensation due to new and unreasonable medical standards. Furthermore, punitive damages would be capped at three times compensatory damages if the victim goes through an administrative hearing. Most troubling, if the victim goes to court directly, punitive damages would be prohibited entirely. The bill forgets all scientific and health related research that has proven the link between asbestos exposure and lung disease. The bill creates a strict burden of proof for establishing that asbestos-induced diseases were caused by asbestos exposure. There is no need for this elevated burden of proof since the medical literature by the medical community supports the current substantial level of proof now required. It is estimated that under the bill, about one-half of all asbestos cancer cases now eligible for compensation would be thrown out. For the first time, asbestos lung cancer victims will need to prove that they have no smoking history; if a victim has smoked, they can be denied compensation despite the fact that in the courts this excuse has been repeatedly rejected. Lastly, the Republican Congress, that so heartily opposes bigger government creates a new federal bureaucracy with this bill. Instead of the 100 asbestos trials a year now moving through the courts, the bill proposes the creation of an entirely new Office of Asbestos Compensation to handle work that is Constitutionally under the purview of the Judiciary system. We should call this bill what it really is: an Asbestos Industry Preservation and Denial of Victims Act. It is one-sided, pro-defendant, and will throw victims out of court, for the sake of protecting a dangerous industry.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2000, I was unavoidably detained and consequently missed four votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yes'' on the passage of H. Con. Res. 295; ``yes'' on the passage of H. Con. Res. 304; ``yes'' on the passage of S. 1744; ``yes'' on the passage of H.R. 1509.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today, we commemorate the Armenian Genocide of April 24th 1915, and in so doing honor the memories of those who survived and those who were killed on that tragic night. It is hard to talk about that date and many would prefer not to, but if we cannot recognize the tragedies of the past, how can we avoid them in the future? Ethnic violence and genocide have marred our collective history from its earliest days, challenging generations throughout time. Yet we cannot forget these events; we cannot cover up, ignore, or rewrite history so that these crimes against humanity disappear. Our Nation's connection to the Armenian people is great, as has been their contribution to the United States. In my home state of Rhode Island, we have one of the largest populations of Armenians in the country and the State is blessed with the gifts of the Armenian community. To truly honor those gifts, we must take time every year to understand what that community has been through, and the part of their history that is the Armenian Genocide. That is why on this day we remember the unjustifiable, unprovoked, and undeniable massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. What the Ottoman Empire began that night 85 years ago was a policy of ethnic cleansing. It can be called nothing else. Today, brave American men and women serve in our Armed Forces across the globe. They do more than protect nations, they serve as reminders to the world and ourselves of what our country stands for. The Armenian Genocide should also serve as a reminder, of what will happen if we do nothing in the face of potential tragedies. It serves as a reminder that we must do better to protect peace and stability and human rights around the world.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I stand before you today to recognize the 179th anniversary of Greece, one of our nation's closest allies. I want to praise my colleagues from Florida and New York for their efforts in organizing this special order and also for organizing the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic issues. It is no secret that the democratic principles of equality and freedom were advocated by great Greek thinkers. These principles served as an inspiration to our founding fathers and were heavily relied upon as they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: ``to the ancient Greeks * * * we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of * * * darkness.'' Just as today's youth is educated on our nation's humble beginnings by studying the lives of the framers, they should also learn about the great Greek thinkers whose visions of democracy helped our nation advance towards a free society. The ties that bind Greece and the United States also extend towards the common role that our respective countries played in revolting against oppressive rule. Borrowing from the successful experience that our young nation utilized to free itself of English rule, the people of Greece rose up and declared their independence from the Ottoman Empire. After a long decade of struggle, freedom came to Greece. Just as it did in the democratic world at the time, their victory continues to inspire us today. Greece has contributed to this nation in many other ways. The hard work of Greek-Americans has made an impact on our nation, especially in Greek communities such as Providence, Pawtucket and Newport, Rhode Island. It is a great honor to be able to represent the people of these communities in the United States Congress. As the birthplace of classical political thought, as a strong ally to the United States, and as the motherland to the many valuable Greek immigrants who reside within our borders, Greece is indeed a country worthy of much praise. Again, I thank my colleagues for all their hard work in making this Special Order and I look forward to working with the Hellenic Caucus for the advancement of Greek issues.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, we are here because America needs a raise. For too long, many Americans have been working too hard for too little. They work more and more but take home less and less. This isn't the American way. In America an honest day's work deserves an honest day's pay. That's what the minimum wage is all about. Today, pay is not keeping pace with expenses. The work day is still 8 hours. Workers still punch the clock 5 days a week. The same work still needs to get done. And the same job is done--but at the end of the week, when it's time to go through the bills, the pay check doesn't go as far as it used to. The Traficant-Martinez substitute that we will have a chance to vote on later today, will help working families' wages go farther. The substitute will increase the minimum wage by 1 dollar over 2 years. In two incremental steps it will raise the total wage to $6.15. This modest increase will provide a higher standard of living for 12 million low-income working families. Many of us do not realize the face of today's minimum wage worker. When we last increased the minimum wage, we found that nearly 60 percent of workers who benefited were women and 71 percent of those who were lifted up by the wage increase were adults. In my district in Rhode Island, it is families like the O'Neill family who could use an increase in the minimum wage. The O'Neill family is headed by a single mother with three children who works fulltime as a child care worker. Despite her hard work, Ms. O'Neill barely makes ends meet. Her weekly salary barely covers the rent, food, utilities, clothing, and a student loan that was taken out so that Ms. O'Neill could learn emergency medical training and become a better day care worker. The Traficant-Martinez substitute will help families like the O'Neills. It may not help them to have a new car or a 2-week vacation, but it will help them to make ends meet. Again, the Traficant-Martinez substitute is the only way to bring a wage increase to deserving families without delay and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on February 14, 2000, I was unavoidably detained and consequently missed two votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yes'' on the passage of H. Con. Res. 247--Expressing Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of Organ, Tissue, Bone Marrow and Blood Donation and Supporting National Donor Day. ``Yes'' on the passage of H. Con. Res. 76--Recognizing the Social Problem of Child Abuse and Neglect and Supporting Efforts to Enhance Public Awareness of it.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 2000, I was unavoidably detained and consequently missed two votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yes'' on the passagee of H. Con. Res. 244, rollcall vote No. 2; ``Yes'' on the passage of H.R. 2130, rollcall vote No. 3.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it shortens the solvency and the life of Medicare. H.R. 3075 increases payments to Medicare providers by approximately $11.5 billion over five years. But it is a flawed and irresponsible bill. It was brought up without the Democrats having any chance to negotiate with the Republicans. We were not allowed any Democratic amendments, including a substitute, which we specifically requested. There has been no consultation with Democrats--it is being brought up hastily. It is being brought up under the suspension of the rules. The Republican bill is not paid for. Because it is not paid for the bill shortens the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund by at least a year and increases Part B premiums for seniors. The Republican bill will shorten the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. A democratic amendment if offered would have paid for the 2.7 billion that would have been offset. The bill will reduce medicare payments to teaching hospitals. It will transfer $250 million in Medicare funds from 400 teaching hospitals. It will initiate new cuts against teaching hospitals. It does not include language to help seniors with the high cost of drugs. It does not have the Senate language to strike the $1,500 limit on rehabilitation caps and therapies. This is a provision that nursing homes need desperately. It includes ``deemed status'' for HMO's; this provision will weaken our ability to insure quality in HMO's that participate in Medicare.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for democracy. Today is a very sad day for those of us who are friends of Armenia. Those of us who have been able to watch today's unfolding news have been struck by the horror in the government in Armenia as the prime minister and several lawmakers were struck down by bullets in the middle of their session. I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Sarkisian last year when I visited Armenia and just 2 weeks ago when he walked the halls of this United States Congress to bring the cause of Armenia here to the bastion of democracy, and Prime Minister Sarkisian was struck down and murdered and assassinated today in Armenia. All of us in the United States Congress and all friends of Armenia all over this country, our hearts go out to the families of Prime Minister Sarkisian and all those lawmakers who lost their lives today in Armenia. For all Armenian Americans today is a very sad day, and I must say for all of us today is a sad day because this kind of senseless act of violence threatens the very foundations of democracy which we hold so dear here and which Armenia is struggling so much to establish in that former Communist country. Mr. Speaker, our sympathies go out to the families with our condolences.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate Salve Regina University for being selected to receive the 1999 National Preservation Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Indeed, I cannot think of many college campuses that would qualify for such a distinctive and prestigious Award. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that Newport is home to many of the 19th century ``summer cottages` which personified the Gilded Age. Indeed, the city by the Sea enjoys a rich history of the splendid architecture of that Age. What is not widely known, however, is that Salve Regina's unique campus is comprised of 18 of these restored summer estates on some 60 manicured acres along the Atlantic coast. Salve Regina was recognized by the National Trust for its ongoing restoration of its campus and its accredited historic preservation educational program. The award was presented on October 22nd in Washington, D.C. at the National Trust's annual preservation conference. Beginning in 1947 with the gift of an estate designed by noted architect Richard Morris Hunt, the University has added the former summer homes of Vice President Levi Morton, international sportsman James Van Alen, and New York financier William Watts Sherman to its collection. Some of the homes were designed by H.H. Richardson or McKim, Mead and White, and feature details by Louis Comfort Tiffany, John LaFarge, or Karl Bitter. This architectural treasure trove, which also includes landscapes designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, has been preserved in its entirety by Salve Regina. The Salve Regina campus with its Gilded Age mansions, shingled Victorian cottages, and classically-designed landscapes is a working laboratory of American history and architecture. One such unique home is Ochre Court. It was the first of a group of spectacular Newport houses in the Grand Manner designed by Richard Morris Hunt, America's foremost architect of the late 19th century. Commissioned by the Goelet family in 1988, the stately 50 room mansion was given as a gift by the family in 1947 to the Sisters of Mercy to begin Salve Regina. Ochre Court now serves as the University's administration building and is a treasure trove of mythology, literature, and the arts and sciences. Mr. Speaker, Salve Regina is also the home of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, named in honor of our former colleague Senator Claiborne Pell of Newport. In 1997 Salve Regina acquired Fairlawn to be the home of the Penn Center. Built in 1852, Fairlawn became the home of Vice President Levi Morton in 1860. Morton added a ballroom to this mansion in 1870 to accommodate a visit by President Ulysses S. Grant. Aside from its many architectural treasures, Salve Regina is also recognized for its wonderful educational system. Having recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, the University is emerging into national recognition as a coeducational institution where academic excellence is fostered in a context of ethical living. In the tradition of its founders, the Religious Sisters of Mercy, Salve Regina embraces a mission of commitment to learning and community enrichment for students of all backgrounds and faiths. Over two thousand undergraduate and graduate students from 43 states and 26 foreign countries are enrolled in 32 undergraduate concentrations and 11 graduate programs, including a doctoral program in Humanities. It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate Salve Regina University for receiving this national award. It is a testament to the leadership of the University under the incomparable Sister Therese Antone, the faculty, and the student body that their campus has been selected as one of our nation's top historic treasures. It is also symbolic of the ability of the University to not only adapt to this rich environment, but to continually feel the responsibility to preserve it for future generations of students, members of the community and visitors to Newport.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, after my opening remarks, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for many today in saying that it does not please me to be standing here before the House. We are here today because of the passing of a man of uncommon valor, honor, and integrity. That man is the senior Senator from Rhode Island, John Chafee. It is with great regret and sadness that I offer my condolences to his wife, Virginia, his son, Warwick Mayor Lincoln Chafee, and all the members of the Chafee family. We can only hope that our words today will help to ease the grief that we are experiencing and that they are sure to experience in a very personal, personal way. While we cannot begin to understand their depth of loss and what they are suffering, we can understand, as many Rhode Islanders will know and as many Americans will know, that the covenant that the people of this Nation have with their government is that much lessened today by the loss of a selfless public servant like Senator Chafee. Mr. Speaker, Senator Chafee led the life of an exemplary public servant. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking of the challenges this Nation faced with the economic collapse and war beginning to thunder in Europe, stated ``For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.'' Senator Chafee lived this ideal and he lived it until his last days. He was born in Providence, Rhode Island, the child of one of the State's most storied families. He was still a young student at Yale University when the call went out to mobilize our Nation for war, thrusting America into the furnace of conflict in Europe. The weight of the lives of millions across the globe was placed squarely upon the shoulders of countless young men like Senator Chafee, who left his studies at Yale and enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. Senator Chafee willingly walked into the fire of war, serving in the invasion force that blunted the Japanese advance at a tropical island that is now part of our Nation's collective memory, Guadalcanal. Mr. Speaker, his astounding bravery and willingness to shoulder the burden, placing his very life on the line, speaks far more eloquently than words could ever speak about his dedication and his love for this fine country. Indeed, he was recalled to active duty in 1951, when he once again risked his life for freedom so that countless people around the world would enjoy the same freedom we enjoy here in this country. He commanded a rifle company of 200 American fighting men in the brutal Korean conflict. I would like to take a moment to read a few lines from The Coldest War, by James Brady. Jim Brady, who I am told had dinner with Senator Chafee just this past week, served with then Captain Chafee in the Korean War. As we all know, the Korean war claimed the lives of 54,000 Americans. This book is a first-person account of their experience. At the outset, Jim Brady states of his book, ``Memoirs are about remembering. I wish I could recall all the names. If the book has a hero, it is Captain John H. Chafee.'' Captain Chafee was in charge of the Dog Company in the U.S. Marine Corps' First Division. Of Captain Chafee, Jim Brady writes, ``You learn from men like Chafee, a Yalie with a law degree from Harvard who came from money, a handsome, patrician man, physically courageous and tireless. From all that could have come arrogance and snobbery. He possessed neither of these traits. He was only calm and vigorous and efficient, usually cheerfully, decent and humane, a good man, a fine officer.'' Mr. Speaker, far too often we use terms like ``going to war'' and ``trench warfare'' when talking about legislative battles which go on in Washington, D.C. We should not throw around these terms so lightly, Mr. Speaker, for we have seen in the actions of Captain Chafee a true example of patriotism and self-sacrifice, of a willingness to accept a much more daunting challenge than simply a House or Senate floor vote, an election campaign, or a policy or political debate. The man that Jim Brady described in this book, Captain Chafee, was willing to make what is called the ultimate sacrifice, the giving of one's life for one country. Mr. Speaker, no one could ask for anything more than what Captain Chafee was willing to offer. However, even after risking his life by serving in the frozen tracts of Korea, Senator Chafee strove to give even more of himself to his community and to his State, contributing to the quality of life in his home in the State of Rhode Island. Senator Chafee graduated from Yale University and eventually went to Harvard Law School, entering the public arena in 1956 when he was elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives. He served 6 years in this capacity, where he was also elected the Minority Leader. He was elected Governor of Rhode Island in 1962, handily winning reelection for two additional terms. In a heady appointment for this former marine, Senator Chafee was appointed to be President Nixon's Secretary of the Navy, working with a branch of the Armed Forces he dedicated so much of his life to. Senator Chafee entered the United States Senate in 1976, and most recently elected to serve a fourth term in 1994. Senator Chafee was well known across the Nation as a moderate in his party, a Senator who would often place pragmatism above partisan politics. He used his frequently commonsense approach to policy to bring together all kinds of legislative coalitions that keep our Nation moving forward in progressive and steady manner. His range of accomplishments is staggering, touching on everything from health care to gun control. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence stated that ``Senator Chafee was a national leader on gun control,'' calling him ``one of the most effective voices for gun control in the Congress.'' However, it was as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that Senator Chafee made a lasting and tangible contribution to all the lives of everyone across this Nation. Senator Chafee has been a champion for the environment during his time in the United States Senate. He has worked to improve the air that we breathe with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and the fight against the pollutants that are causing global warming. He fought to preserve our natural beauty and environmental safeguards that protect the lands we live in by protecting open space and preserving wetlands from irresponsible development and exploitation. He fought for our world's biodiversity, working hard for the Endangered Species Act and successfully trying to keep the most egregious anti- environmental riders from ever seeing the legislative light of day. While we honor Senator Chafee by looking back on his accomplishments, we also should look at two good things he was still working on at the time of his untimely death last evening. Two legislative proposals of note were S. 662 and S. 664. S. 662 was Senator Chafee's latest effort to assist the fight against breast and cervical cancer. This legislation attempted to make screening for these diseases available to low-income women. S. 664 is the Historic Home Ownership Assistance Act, and as anyone from my State of Rhode Island will tell us, preserving our many historic homes is a means by which we preserve our heritage. This legislation seeks to make historic rehabilitation and restoration a priority in the Tax Code. On both of these legislative fronts, we should all do well to honor not only Senator Chafee's accomplishments, but also his work as well. Mr. Speaker, Senator Chafee and I often engaged in what can be termed ``lively debates'' about issues that we have had differences of opinion on. Senator Chafee was indeed a formidable partner in our debates about public policy. However, it is the nature of our government, and I always felt that I had grown as a legislator and as a citizen and even as a person, as a result of our exchanges, to put aside the personal and to underscore the professional in our convictions to our home State. When I look back at my work with Senator Chafee, a quote I heard recently from Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. In his first inaugural address as president of this great Nation, Thomas Jefferson stated that, ``Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle.'' In many situations we call ourselves Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, left-wing or right-wing. With Senator Chafee, however, it was understood that labels were irrelevant. Whatever he did, you could be sure that it was done for the good of Rhode Island and of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, when the plaudits and the pundits finish speaking about Senator Chafee's chairmanships, his committees, his campaigns, his debates, his bills, and his legislative accomplishments, what will remain is what will always have been there. That is, before the chairmanship of committees in the United States Senate, before overseeing our Nation's fleet as Secretary of the Navy, before sitting as Governor of the State of Rhode Island, even before the minority leadership of the State legislative body, there was a 19- year-old known only as John Chafee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to paint a picture. It was the winter of 1942, and this young man, a college student, made a decision to leave the coziness and the tradition-steeped security of the halls of Yale University for the uncertainty of a position as a private in the United States Marine Corps, a move that would almost certainly lead to his exposure to enemy fire in the heat of combat. To this young man, the future Senator John H. Chafee, there was no thought of the marbled corridors of the United States Senate in Washington, of the imposing office that he would have as Secretary of the Navy at the Pentagon, of the impressive view that he would have as Governor of the State of Rhode Island. There was only one thought in Senator Chafee's mind. That was of what was right and what was wrong. This young man made the right decision to fight for the right freedoms for those who were half-way across the world. He brought his honor and his integrity into the Senate, the courage to vote his convictions, and the integrity to defend his beliefs. There is no difference between that 19-year-old student who chose conflict over complacency during a world war and the United States Senator whom we mourn today. Both saw the challenges and scorned the path of least resistance. Instead of blazing their trail, they blazed their trail on the shining battlefield. Instead of shirking their responsibilities, they lived up to their responsibilities as citizens of this great country of ours, and that should serve as a shining example that will far outlast even those of us who honor him to this day.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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