Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman brings up a very important point. I would like to honestly ask the majority leader to answer it. As a member of the Committee on National Security, we get briefings constantly on intelligent reports and the implications of United States foreign policy around the world. It is hard for me to believe for one moment that, if this House engages in impeachment debate tomorrow while the bombs are being dropped and our men and women in uniform are actively engaged in a wartime activity, that we do not invite some action on the part of our enemy in this war to take advantage of this situation at the cost of the lives of men and women in uniform. I would ask the gentleman whether he has gotten a full briefing from George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, to give us some satisfaction that, if we embark on this precarious road, that we are not putting in jeopardy the lives of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as a member of the Committee on National Security, I rise today in firm support of our soldiers and sailors in the Gulf. The American people have asked these men and women to put their lives on the line to defend freedom all over the world, and it is entirely fitting that today in this House we dedicate ourselves to support their cause. My colleagues, in the post Cold War theater of our country, we are faced with new threats of all kinds. Rogue nations that have the capability of creating biological, nuclear and chemical weapons comprise the next generation of challenges that our Armed Services face. Saddam Hussein has found out last night why he should never take our national commitment and dedication to the preservation of peace for granted. Time and time again we warned him that if he persisted on this course, that if he prevented the agreement of inspections, and that if he continued to snub the wishes of the international community, then the United States would let loose the awesome power of its military to force Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions. Our nation has sent a clear signal to the international community that Saddam's kind of terrorism will not be tolerated. The careless manufacture of these weapons of mass destruction is an affront to all civilized societies. While the people of Iraq search for food, Saddam Hussein searches for a new palace to build for himself once again. These weeks are going to take another important step to changing that situation. Saddam Hussein's days should be numbered and we must commit ourselves to the installation of a fair and democratic government in Iraq. In conclusion, the President has acted with leadership, he has taken the appropriate action; and it is clear by today's action that the Congress stands by our men and women in uniform and the President of the United States. I want to thank the leadership for setting aside our other business so that we can tend to this important issue of life and death.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1997, my friend and colleague, Mr. Knollenberg, introduced H.R. 2822, a bill that would recognize a group of individuals self-named the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwe as a distinct recognized Indian tribe. I have reviewed the bill in detail and have concluded that it reduces to two concepts: sovereignty and process. It is this bill's affect on these two concepts that convinces me that I must oppose this legislation. I encourage my fellow Representatives to oppose it as well. Congress has been discussing sovereignty in relation to Indian tribes since the first instance a European settler set foot on this continent. It is time we learned to respect tribal sovereignty and uphold it to its fullest extent. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan is a sovereign nation. It has exercised and retained its sovereignty throughout history and throughout its many encounters with the federal government. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty is not something that Congress granted to it. Rather, it is something the Tribe has retained. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is a nation unto itself--with the sovereign authority, power, and right to manage its own affairs and govern its own members. Congress must respect this and must not become involved in internal tribal political affairs--which H.R. 2822 asks us to do. H.R. 2822 proposes to federally recognize a group that calls itself the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwe Tribes. This group claims to be the successor in interest to the Swan Creek and Black River Banks of Chippewa Indians. It is my understanding that although these bands were once considered parts of the larger Chippewa group in southeastern Michigan before and during the treaty process, that these bands, by virtue of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, were affirmatively merged with the Saginaw Band to become the one sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. For over 140 years the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has functioned as one tribe without regard to any band distinctions and has been treated as such by the federal government. Further, I also understand that most of the participants of the Swan Creek Group pushing the bill, including its organizer, are currently members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and that most tribal members, because of more than a century of intermarriage among the three component bands of the Tribe, find it difficult to determine from which band they descend. Of course, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has and continues to serve all of these members equally regardless of their band affiliation. In reviewing the history and the circumstances surrounding this bill, I can only conclude that H.R. 2822 addresses nothing more than a tribal membership issue of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and that Congress should not interfere in this matter. It is an issue for the sovereign Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and its governing body. Congress must respect this. If Congress were to do otherwise and pass H.R. 2822, its effect would be to mandate that a splinter group of a well established and long recognized tribe break off and form its own nation, complete with the rights and privileges of all legitimate Indian tribes. It would allow the Swan Creek Group to claim the treaty-preserved rights, jurisdiction and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. This is an affront to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty--and to the sovereignty of all Indian nations. If Congress were to split the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe with H.R. 2822, nothing will stop it from unilaterally splitting other federally recognized tribes when splinter groups come forward. This cannot be the precedent Congress sets-- especially when, as in this case, gaming and the establishment of a casino are the motivating factors for recognition. H.R. 2822 would set this dangerous precedent--and I cannot allow that to happen. Process. The second argument against H.R. 2822 boils down to process. Since 1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), through its Bureau of Acknowledgement and Research (BAR), has been the appropriate forum for determining whether groups merit federal recognition as Indian tribes. The BAR process calls for extensive research and analysis. The BAR staff has the expertise and the experience to conduct such study and review. With all due respect to my fellow Representatives, Congress does not. Congress cannot play the role of the BIA. Of course, I realize that Congress has granted legislative recognition to tribes in the past. Yet, the circumstances of those were quite different from what we see before us today with the Swan Creek Group. The Swan Creek Group has not even attempted the administrative process. It is my understanding that they filed a letter of intent with the BIA in 1993. This merely opens a file in anticipation of a petition for recognition. As of yet, however, the Group has filed to provide any documentation or to even pursue this process in any way. The Group's file lays dormant in line behind over 100 groups awaiting recognition. It is my contention that the Swan Creek Group, if it is to pursue federal recognition, should be directed back to the BIA. It would be wholly unfair for Congress to allow this Group that has provided no documentation whatsoever for recognition to be recognized ahead of all the other groups who have abided by the process simply because the Swan Creek Group and its representatives have walked the halls of Congress pushing legislation. Congress is not equipped to decipher the Group's history and genealogy to determine whether it merits recognition. This, along with the simple fact that many of the Group's participants remain members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and receive the benefits and privileges as such, convinces me that Congress should not pass this bill. Congress must not interfere with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty. If we are to take any action at all on H.R. 2822, it should be to oppose it to allow the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, the appropriate governing body for this issue, to resolve the matter. Beyond that, the Group is welcome to pursue the established administrative process for recognition. In efforts to uphold tribal sovereignty and established process, I cannot condone any other action by Congress on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, Joe Moakley, my good friend, who is not only the dean of the Massachusetts delegation but the dean of the New England delegation. I know when I think about what it is like to come here to the Congress and try to make it on to the right committees and always people say to me, you know, you have to go check with Joe Moakley, but I was lucky, Joe, because I had some more advice than the average freshman when I came here to Congress. And you alluded to it when you talked about the fact that there was already a Kennedy in Congress here and I was lucky to have Joe in Congress here when I came here, because when you were talking about Joe and the great expectations that he had to rise to when he was elected here to the Congress, and you really set it up very well, what he was up against when he first was elected, the notion that he was following in such a historic seat as the 8th congressional seat, that he was following the Speaker of the House, that he was following in my family's legacy of public service, it was a daunting task. But luckily for me, I had Joe to break the ice for me when I came to the Congress. And Joe, when I got down here on the floor, he told me a few things to do and not to do, when I was looking out to start my career in the Congress. And Joe Moakley, you were very kind to say that I am making it on my own here, but I can tell you that would have been a total accident if I had not had my cousin to be here in the Congress and to show me the way. And Joe has certainly seen the way in this House. He basically said to me, I have seen how it is done in this place. Let me tell you, from the benefit of my experience, how to do it the right way. And he was selfless, as he is known to be by anyone who knows Joe and loves him. I want to talk a little bit about what Joe is like as a person, because I think it is reflected in all the things that you mentioned, Mr. Moakley, and my other colleagues in the House mentioned with respect to the issues that are dear to Joe's heart and the legacy that he leaves as a Member of this esteemed body. As I was growing up, Joe was always someone who took me under his wing and always made sure that I was doing all right. I can tell you that might sound funny to people, but I never felt like I was in the groove, so to speak, because Joe came from a large family with lots of brothers and sisters, and my brother and sister were 6 and 7 years older than me. I was not as close to them because of age as I was to many of my cousins who were his younger brothers and sisters. I can tell you I never felt out of step when I was with him because he always made me feel like I was just one more of his brothers and sisters. I can tell you whether it was sailing on race week or whether it was running up, after sailing in the Victura, to go catch some bluefish off of Cape Cod, Joe was always there to show me the way that he knew and he was always there to educate me and give me the benefit of his experience. That got him frustrated sometimes when I caught bigger bluefish than he did or when I managed to get a better place in the sailboat, but then he always knew that he was the one that had been my instructor, and he knew he had done well by giving me the best advice that anyone could give. When I think about what it was like for, I think, all members of my family growing up with the last name Kennedy and to think about what it was, what it is like to live up to my family's legacy of public service, I think it is probably easier for me to think about the history that is written by my family, its historic struggle for the disenfranchised, and I think more often than not that legacy was written by Joe's father, who brought to politics a personal touch that everybody that I meet in my travels around the country who talks to me about what my family means to them, they always mention my Uncle Bobby because whereas my Uncle Jack was a great President and someone who inspired a whole generation to public service, it was my uncle Robert Kennedy who really moved them in a personal way. And I can tell you for me it was history because I was not, I am among the youngest members of my family and Joe is amongst the oldest members of my generation. And he was with his father campaigning and he knew his father well. I can tell you from watching the way he has orchestrated himself as a Member of this Congress, I can tell you without a doubt that everything I learn about my Uncle Bobby, I say about my cousin Joe. He is there to fight on behalf of human rights, as has been mentioned, with the School of the Americas. He is there on behalf of those who need the help the most from government. And most of us in my family would say, hey, does not everybody do this? I mean, we were brought up thinking this was the thing to do. And Joe and my colleagues who are Democrats here, we have come to this Congress and, boy, I have only been here four years, but it has been long enough for me to realize that nothing that I have been brought up to believe in can be taken for granted. I thought that it has been done before and so what was left for us to do. I can tell you what is left for us to do is to be stewards of the great legacy of the Democratic Party. In Joe's case, he was a steward of the great legacy of his father and of my whole family. He stood up on behalf of people who are being tortured in Central and South America when he worked to close the School of the Americas. He works on behalf of homeless veterans. The homeless situation in this country is a tragedy in itself, but to think that we have homeless people who are American veterans who have served this country in time of war and in time of peace, who come back and have no place to call home, they have no better friend than my cousin Joe. Joe Moakley, I happened to be in downtown Boston a couple weeks ago trying to take a break from the activity of politics down in Rhode Island. And I stumbled across a veterans shelter in downtown Boston. And I went in there and I said, I am Joe Kennedy's cousin. And I can tell you, I got smiles from everyone all around, because everyone told me that they could not have had a better champion for homeless veterans than my cousin Joe. It made me very proud to just say, I am Congressman Kennedy and I am from Rhode Island, and I hope I can do somewhat as much as my cousin Joe has done for all of you in trying to provide assistance for the neediest of people in our society, our homeless veterans. I was taken on a tour up and down the 7 flights of stairs where each floor was dedicated to housing workshops, vocational education and training workshops, you name it, it was all one-stop shopping for veterans, homeless veterans in our community. And it was there because of the tireless work of my cousin Joe and Congressman Moakley, and to think about what great pride it gave me made me realize why I am in this Congress. I hope that some day I can be in the majority, as Joe had been in for a number of years, so that I can do some of the things that he was able to do when he was in the majority. But I know that whether we are in the minority or whether we are in the majority, either case, that what is important is that there is someone up there to fight for the interests of people who do not have representation in this body. I can tell you, I wish this place had more Members of the caliber of my cousin Joe, because if it did, we would truly see what the true definition of government is supposed to be, and that is to protect the people who are least protected in our society. That is what I believe government is here for. That is the legacy of my cousin Joe. And if you wander the halls of this Congress and the last Congress, you would not know that because you would think that this place only existed for the people who could pay to have access to this place. But that is not my cousin Joe. He went here to the Congress to make sure that there was access for people who do not have a voice, and I could not be more proud to try to carry on his legacy of public service. And I know as my colleague, Congressman Markey said, that my cousin Joe is just taking a respite now from public service. I know that he will be back, because he is somebody who is not committed to hold any particular office. He is committed to carrying on the legacy of his father. What an awesome legacy that is. But he did everything he could do in his power to stay true to his father's legacy. Nothing could be said better than that for Joe Kennedy, because he really is the kind of person who has the big heart and fights on behalf of people who need to have a fighter. And when you think of Joe, you think of a fighter. And if you think about the issues he fights for, you have got a road map for good humanistic causes, making sure people have their homes heated, making sure they have homes to stay in, making sure they are not terrorized by people who are educated by the School of Americas, making sure they have access to credit so they can provide for their families and their communities. I mean, you cannot help but appreciate that Joe has kept to the basics. Most Members in this place try to find a niche that is more, that is sexy and is technical in nature and tries to give them a leg up with the powers that be in this town. Joe never lost sight of the true powers that he was here to represent and that is people who do not have any power in this society. He can be confident that when he leaves here, he leaves a legacy of someone who actually tried to change this country for the good and not just try to go along to get along, because that is not the cousin Joe Kennedy that I know. I know that will not be his legacy, because he is going to carry on and keep fighting for the people who need to be fought for. Good luck, Joe. And I will look forward to continuing to get your good advice and counsel over the next few years because I am sure I am going to need it. I thank my colleague from South Boston for yielding to me.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Allen and Congressman Berry for their work in organizing today's special order. As we are hearing today, many seniors are unable to afford the cost of prescription drugs due to a lack of insurance coverage and excessive drug price inflation. Ninety percent of Americans over 60 years or older take one or more medications. The days when someone only takes one drug a day are long gone. Today's seniors take three or four drugs a day at least. At the same time, 45 percent of seniors, age 65 and older, do not have prescription drug coverage. High drug costs, coupled with this lack of coverage, often means making choices between groceries, heating oil, or prescription drugs. How many of our constituents have had to choose between buying certain foods at the grocery store or buying high blood pressure medicine? How many of them had to make sacrifices, just so they could buy their medicines? For three out of four seniors, prescription drugs represent the highest out-of-pocket medical care cost; only long term care costs more. The prices of the top selling prescription drugs have risen nearly four times the general rate of inflation between 1985 and the early 1990s. Meanwhile, the Federal Government and the taxpayer spends billions of dollars to help find drugs to treat the diseases of our generation: cancer, Alzheimers, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. The industry must do their share as well, and so far they are not doing enough. The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world. In FY 96, it made over $106 billion in sales and revenues and $16.2 billion in sheer profits. One example of the profits made in the pharmaceutical industry is from the drug TAXOL. TAXOL is an anti-cancer drug that treats breast, lung, and ovarian cancers. It makes $800 million in profits annually. The NIH budget supplied $32 million of the money needed to research this drug. Furthermore, a cancer patient taking TAXOL may pay in excess of $100,000, while the cost to the pharmaceutical company that manufacturers this drug is only about $500 per patient. We pay for the development of these medications, and then pay high prices for their use. The bill that I introduced this spring with two of my colleagues, Republican Congressman Tom Campbell of California and Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, gets at both the need for seniors' prescription drug coverage and the rising costs of these medicines. The bill, called Making Affordable Prescriptions for Seniors Act, will provide up to $500 of such assistance, for any legally marketed prescription drug that is safe and effective according to the FDA. Also, I am a proud sponsor of the Prescription Drug Fairness Act, by Congressman Allen and Congressman Berry. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act protects senior citizens from drug price discrimination and makes prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at reduced prices. The legislation is a ``win-win'' bill because it allows pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the low prices available under the Federal Supply Schedule. The legislation has been estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40 percent. It is time that we help alleviate the burden on our nation's seniors and become accountable for rising drug costs. It is only fair that we end the need to make choices between a good nutrition and shelter or critical medication.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I will cast the most important vote of my whole time here in the United States Congress. And if we are not going to listen to each other, then I would like us to listen to the eminent scholar, Lawrence Tribe, on what we are doing today. He said that, ``Today this Congress is twisting impeachment into something else, instead of keeping it within its historical boundaries, and our Nation and its form of government are imperiled as a result.'' He went on to say that, ``Today we are losing sight of the constitutional wreckage that this vote will cause as we lay down historical precedent that a President of the United States can be impeached for something other than official misconduct as President of the United States.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to submit the following for inclusion in the Record on behalf of the veterans of Rhode Island. [From the State of Rhode Island in General Assembly, January Session,

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense not of the President but rather of the Presidency. Trent Lott, the majority leader of the Senate, has just spun to the press that, quote-unquote, bad conduct is grounds for impeachment. To me, this is shocking. I actually could not believe that he was serious. But, sadly, he was. Today, we are at a turning point in this debate and we have to put this thing in park and take a break. The removal of the President of the United States is different from the removal of a judge, is different from the removal of a Member of Congress or a college president. The situation cannot be equated, as it often is, with the CEO or a college president who would be removed for similar types of acts that the President is accused of. To remove the President of the United States would be to paralyze the entire government. Because, whereas a judge, a legislator, and certainly not a private citizen represents an entire branch of government, the President is the executive branch of government, and to suggest his removal entails a constitutional crisis and a disruption of our whole political system. We have all been slapped in the face by not only the President's action, but also the Starr inquisition, and we have been so busy holding our cheeks that we have not even examined the evidence and made a deliberative assessment of it. I myself have educated myself about the severity of the Articles of Impeachment, and I want to share with my colleagues and the American people some of the thoughts that I have learned. As we all know, the Congress has been down this road only twice before in American history, and we need to wake up right now as to the severity of today's issue and what it means to the Republic and this Congress's place in U.S. history. I asked Larry Tribe, perhaps our Nation's most renowned constitutional scholar, to describe the upcoming vote to begin, just to begin, an impeachment inquiry; and his answer, my colleagues, captures everything that I want to say today. Professor Tribe likened a vote simply to begin the impeachment proceeding to that of breaking the glass of a fire alarm, that would trigger a mad rush and a state of emergency. He said once the glass is broken and the alarm goes off, we cannot put the pieces back together. Such an action will make it almost impossible to restore a sense of stability and order in this country. Impeachment proceedings are just like pulling a fire alarm in a crowded room; you better think before you pull, lest many people or this Nation get hurt in the process. To be sure, if we are going to go down the road to impeachment, it must be taken with a keen sense of understanding and purpose. Otherwise, we will be blind to the consequences of our actions. And we must begin with what constitutes the ground for an impeachable offense. Is this what Ken Starr says it is? Is this what Trent Lott says it is? Is this what the gentleman from Illinois (Henry Hyde) or I should say the gentleman from Georgia (Newt Gingrich) says it is? Or should it be the definition of the entire Congress before we begin an inquiry into impeachment? I like the fact that, in fact, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has said that we should have hearings on what constitutes grounds for impeachment. That seems to be the right course to take. Yet it seems the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) intend to proceed with an impeachment inquiry before such hearings on the working definition of what impeachment really is could even take place. Do they want to make it up as they go along? It sure sounds as though they do. In my opinion, to make up a definition or to proceed with an inquisition before we have had the time to understand what truly constitutes impeachment and we have a frame of reference to judge our actions against when we continue with an inquiry, constitutes sounding the fire alarm before we know there is even a fire, and it flies in the face of the due process set forth by our Constitution, which says that we need to know what to prosecute before we know whether a crime has been committed. The reason the majority wants to vote on an impeachment inquiry next Monday, before they know what impeachment really is, is because they would never vote to initiate an inquiry once they really know what they are talking about. And once we know what is truly impeachable, then we need to ask one more question. Request for Additional Time

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. In conclusion, once we know what impeachable offense is, then we need to ask another question. Is it the kind of offense in which the President's remaining in office is far worse for this country than what will happen to this country if we remove a President from office? We need wisdom to prevail over politics.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, that was not dangerous to the future of this republic. It did not justify throwing this democracy into a constitutional tailspin, and it will not justify it. Gifts, testimony, executive privilege, all these things, do these justify paralyzing our constitutional form of government? People say this is about a certain offense, perjury, and we should not let anyone off the hook. But during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon perjured himself in his tax returns, and this was dismissed, this was dismissed, as not an impeachable offense. And what about when Caspar Weinberger lied to this Congress about a secret war? Remember the Iran contra scandal? When asked, Caspar Weinberger said he had no details of such a military offensive, no details whatsoever. He lied to this Congress. Guess who pardoned Caspar Weinberger? Republican president George Bush, and he did so at the behest of Senator Bob Dole, who pushed him to pardon Caspar Weinberger. I just want to make a concluding couple of thoughts: Joe McCarthy, remember him? He used details of people's sex lives to extort cooperation from them and from former communists by threatening to expose what happened in their bedrooms. J. Edgar Hoover, remember J. Edgar Hoover? He tried to get Martin Luther King, Jr., to drop out of the civil rights movement by sending Coretta Scott King a copy of an illegally obtained elicit tape recording. It is documented. Ken Starr has done the same thing. Through his dump of lurid sexual details, he is trying to embarrass this president so much so that he disrupts our whole constitutional form of government by forcing him to resign. To me, this amounts to simply sexual McCarthyism. The bottom line is this: I would say that the majority needs to heed the words of your own party. President Gerald Ford was featured in the Hill Newspaper last week. You recall what he said? He said an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. But that is only what Gerald Ford meant with respect to a judge. He was asked to clarify his comments and apply them to a president of the United States, and I want everyone to listen to me, because they are so misunderstanding what President Ford said. President Ford added that the removal of a duly-elected president in midterm ``Would indeed require crimes of the magnitude of treason and bribery.'' Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional debate here, and I will venture to say that in my whole time in the United States Congress, I will not cast a more important vote in my whole time in Congress than the vote I cast next Monday against moving this country down such a reckless course that will imperil this republic and permanently damage this Constitution and the definition of what is an impeachable offense. In my mind, this is a sacrosanct document, and what is sacred in it is it is only used in those most extreme circumstances. To me, this inquiry does not rise to that level and threshold, and, for that reason, I encourage all my colleagues to join with me and put politics aside and say what is right for the Constitution, and that is to stand with the Constitution and vote against any inquiry down this maddening road. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for yielding to me. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I was cut off but those are the Rules of the House and that is the nature of the floor proceedings, but I did want to conclude with my remarks because I cannot emphasize enough to the people in this Chamber, my colleagues watching on TV and the American people at large, that this is no light matter that we have been talking about. We seem to be taking such a cavalier attitude to this, and I know that obviously a lot has to do with the politics of this season. I dare say, though, what we are embarking on truly goes to the nature of our whole form of government. I just had the opportunity last week, as a member of the Committee on National Security, to go to New York to listen to the President's speech on global terrorism, and I met many diplomats who have a working relationship with our allies, democracies around the world, in Europe and the former Soviet bloc countries, and all of them are so perplexed about what is going on here in this country. My friend who deals with them on a day-to-day basis told me that his judgment of why they are so perplexed is because they have not been at the democracy game as long as we have. They have been under tyranny, the tyranny of fascism and Communism, within their own lifetimes, and they know that the miracle of this system of government is not to be messed with. That is why they feel so strongly about what we are doing in this country is so wrong for the future of our constitutional form of government. As I was saying, in my opinion, what we are doing now by putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, by saying that we are going to have a preliminary inquiry before we know what the definition of impeachment is, to me violates the fundamental process of due process, where you know what the crime is before you begin to prosecute it. The reason the majority wants to vote on an impeachment inquiry before they know what impeachment really is is because they could never vote to initiate such an inquiry once they really knew what they were talking about. Once they knew what was really impeachable, then we would have to ask one more question: Is the impeachable offense, such as perjury, is the impeachable offense the kind of offense in which the President's remaining in office is worse for this country than the excruciating process of impeachment that it will take to remove the President from office? We need wisdom to prevail over politics. We must see past the passions of this moment and look to the true nature of this offense, which in my opinion is better judged by God and family than by the Congress and the media. What we have here is a reckless, embarrassing, personal act. It was wrong. The President was human in trying to hide it, and that was wrong, too. None of this, however, shows that the President was on a course that was dangerous to the public. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues in this House that I had the opportunity this past year to go down to Reynosa, Mexico. I went into the maquiladora section. I went to several maquiladora sections. I went in unannounced to factories and introduced myself to the workers. Most of the workers were women, most of them were 14 and 15 years old. Most of them, I would say 90 percent of them, worked six days a week, and at the end of the week they had $47 to take home. I went to neighborhood after neighborhood, and all I saw were mud floors. No indoor plumbing. So I say to myself, it is fine to talk about this global economy and the need for trade, but the fact of the matter is, as Martin Luther King said, we are all going to be affected by the same web of mutuality. If we do not insist on standards for our brothers and sisters in Mexico, believe me, we are the next ones on the chopping blocks. In my state of Rhode Island, we have already seen our workers lose jobs and benefits because of the depressing aspect that NAFTA has had on our workers' conditions here in this country. Vote no on fast track authority. Let the Congress decide how to enforce the status.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her work on this issue and particularly my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who I look forward to supporting as he offers his amendment with the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) to straighten out this report with respect to ending the sanctions on those countries that are blockading the democratic country of Armenia, which is a country that this country should be doing more to work closely with and support. Instead, our Nation's policy is that, as embodied in this report, to make friends with a regime that is totally antithetical to the principles that this country holds dear, those democratic principles that are so important to this country and are also important it our friends in Armenia. I look forward to supporting the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) as he seeks to strike this language that would call for an end of sanctioning a country like Azerbaijan for what they should be sanctioned for. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that we need to continue the pressure on these regimes so that they end the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment to strike the language in this bill that eliminates Section 907, the sanctions for the blockade that Azerbaijan has placed around the democratic country of Armenia and the area of Nagorno Karabagh which is the area that has been subject to so much warfare over the years. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the opportunity to visit, with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), Armenia about 2 months ago and I had a chance to see firsthand the devastating impact of this blockade that we are talking about repealing, in essence, because of the fact that we are not going to allow this country to say unequivocally that we are going to condemn any country that puts such a blockade against a neighboring country like Armenia, forcing it to contend with the ravages of natural disasters, as Armenia has over the last decade, forcing it to contend with the fact that it is interdependent in the Caucasus on its neighbors, but is yet to be able to get the kind of trade that is necessary for that struggling democracy to survive because of the intransigence of countries like Azerbaijan in their inability to deal with their neighbor of Armenia. The fact of the matter is Armenia is the closest country to the American values of any single country in the Caucasus. Armenia shares the values of the United States like no other country in the former Soviet Union. Like no other country. And any Member of this House who would have an opportunity to go to Armenia and meet, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I have had an opportunity to do, to meet with President Kocharian, to meet with that fantastic new President of Armenia, to see how dedicated he is to the principles that we hold dear in this country, they would not have a single doubt in their mind why it should be United States policy to continue to support section 907, which condemns Armenia and Turkey for their creating this blockade around the democratic country of Armenia. We know that Armenians in Armenia share our values, and the fact is this United States Congress should stand in solidarity with our friends in Armenia and say enough is enough for Azerbaijan to continue that brutal, brutal blockade on that island locked country. Keep in mind that Armenia is locked in the Caspian area in the Caucasus region. It does not have anything but a land route for its trade. And when every country around it blocks its ability to have free trade, it is held hostage to these regimes. Now, let us think about what these regimes are. Azerbaijan is a dictatorship. They are a regime that has been cited by the Department of State for human rights' abuses. And let us understand what we are saying if we support this bill without passing the Radanovich-Pallone amendment. We are, in essence, saying that we are going to stand by a dictatorship, we are going to stand by a dictatorship in their effort to put their thumb on the democratically elected regime of Armenia. We are going to side with the dictatorship over a democratically elected government of Armenia. To me, that does not sound like the kind of country and principles that we should support as American citizens. That is why I call on my colleagues to support the Pallone-Radanovich amendment, because that is the amendment that is going to strike out the effort to repeal section 907, which calls on sanctioning those countries which blockade our democratically-elected friends like Armenia. Let us understand what we are talking about here. Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh are ravaged economically. They are ravaged economically because of the natural disasters like earthquakes, the wars that have gone on in that area, and on top of it they have their neighboring countries put this blockade through. And what is happening is a tragedy of human dimensions that none of us should be proud to support if we vote against this Radanovich-Pallone amendment because, in essence, that is what we will be doing. We will be continuing to perpetuate an intolerable situation for the Armenians in that area. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in this House need to support our friends and democratically-elected Government of Armenia. If Azerbaijan wants to end this blockade and wants to end the sanctions against it, they can just end the blockade; that is what they should do. They should end the blockade if they want us to end the sanctions against them because of the blockade.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to place the following Senate Resolution from the State of Rhode Island into the Record. Senate Resolution Memorializing Congress To Amend Title Ten, United States Code Relating to the Compensation of Retired Military Whereas, American servicemen and women have dedicated their careers to protect the rights we all enjoy; and Whereas, Career military personnel endured hardships, privation, the threat of death, disability and long separations from their families in service to our country; and Whereas, Integral to the success of our military forces are those soldiers and sailors who have made a career of defending our great nation in peace and war from the revolutionary war to present day; and Whereas, There exists gross inequity in the federal statutes that denies disabled career military equal rights to receive Veterans Administration disability compensation concurrent with receipt of earned military retired pay; and Whereas, Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress to remedy this inequity applicable to career military dating back to the nineteenth century; and Whereas, The injustice concerns those veterans who are both retired with a minimum of 20 years, are denied concurrent receipt of hard earned military longevity retirement pay and Veterans Administration awards for service connected with disability; and Whereas, Career military earn retirement based on longevity of twenty years for honorable and faithful service and rank at time of retirement; and Whereas, Veterans administered compensations serve a different purpose from longevity retired pay and are intended to compensate for pain, suffering, disfigurement, chemicals, wound injuries and a loss earning ability and have a minimum requirement of 90 days of active duty; and Whereas, The prevailing idea that military retirement pay is ``free'' is false. There is a contribution to retirement pay, which is calculated to reduce military base pay and retirement pay by approximately seven percent when pay and allowances are computed and approved by Congress; and Whereas, Traditionally, a career military person receives a lower pay and retirement than his or her civilian counterpart and has invested a life of hardships and long hours without the benefit of overtime pay and lack of freedom of expression through the unions; and Whereas, The Veterans Administration awards dependents allowances to disabled veterans with a thirty percent (30%) disability or more for each dependent, which allowances are increased with the amount of disability; and Whereas, The Department of Defense deducts the entire amounts of dependents allowance, essentially leaving the disabled military retiree with no dependents allowance and that extends the discrimination to the families of military longevity retirees; and Whereas, It is unfair to require disabled military retirees to fund their own Veterans Administration compensation by deductions on a dollar for dollar basis in the Department of Defense; and Whereas, No such deduction applies to similarly situated federal civil service or Congressional retirement benefits to receive Veterans Administration compensation; and Whereas, A statutory change is necessary to correct this injustice and discrimination in order to insure that America's commitment to national and international goals be matched by the same allegiance to those who sacrificed on behalf of those goals; now therefore be it Resolved, That this Senate of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges the United States Congress to amend title ten, United States Code relating to the compensation of retired military, permitting concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Administration compensation, including dependents allowances; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House, Committee Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and Veterans Affairs Committee, House Committee Chairman, National Security and Veterans Affairs Committee, and each member of the Rhode Island Delegation to Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the extraordinary leadership of Chief Philip Martin and commending the successes of the Choctaw Tribe. As a member of both the Congressional Native American Caucus and the Resources Committee, I have dedicated many hours to the promotion of tribal sovereignty and have met with numerous tribal leaders across the country to determine ways to jump start tribal economies. The Choctaw achievements and record in these two areas is truly exceptional. Chief Martin's commitment to tribal self-determination, tribal sovereignty and the development of tribal economies has brought about enormous positive change to the Choctaw Reservation and the surrounding communities in Southeastern Mississippi. By rebuilding the tribal government, educating its tribal members and constructing the basic infrastructure to maintain a very modest manufacture-based economy, the Choctaws were able to carve out a place for the tribe in the mainstream economy in the late 1970's. Over the last twenty years, Chief Martin has been able to expand the economy and create manufacturing jobs for members and the surrounding communities. This progress has allowed the tribe to improve the reservation infrastructure, construct single family homes for tribal members, and strengthen education and training among Choctaw citizens. This diversified economy has also enabled the tribe to become entirely self-governing. Revenues from the Choctaw enterprises are used to operate their own courts, fire departments, police force, reservation school system, housing authority, utility commission and health care system. The resurrection of the Choctaw Tribe is a remarkable story. It is a model from which our Nation's Indian tribes can learn from and try to replicate. It is also a story lawmakers should look toward when considering legislation that affects native Americans. The Choctaws are indeed a tribe worth emulating, and their experiences exemplify what strong tribal governments can achieve.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time, and I want to salute the gentleman from Virginia for all the good work that he does to preserve sound policy with respect to juvenile crime. My colleagues, what we are doing today is wrong. We are taking a bill that is supposed to help missing and exploited children and runaway and homeless youth, we are taking this program and we are saddling it with a political agenda. We are taking these most vulnerable children in our society, the exploited children of this society, and we are exploiting them for political gain, and this time it is by the United States Congress that wants to beat its chest and say how tough they are on crime. Every single knowledgeable person in this country who works in the area of juvenile crime will tell us that the kind of policy that the Republicans are trying to foist on this Congress is policy that simply does not work. How do we know this? The United States Senate will not even take up this draconian bill, a bill that would put 14-year-old children in the same prison as an adult criminal. They are not taking up this bill because they know it is barbaric. So what are we doing today? We are trying to circumvent the proper process, to allow this Congress an opportunity to debate and fully understand this bill, by putting it on the suspension calendar and hoping no one will know that this Congress is taking missing and exploited children and using their political agenda to attach H.R. 3 onto this bill. This bill is not about missing and exploited children any longer, it is about a Republican agenda to make themselves look tough on crime when in actuality they are victimizing these poor children once again.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude this debate. I know it has been debated here this afternoon, the issue of Radio Free Marti, and the issue of what utility it has even though there is quite a bit of jamming going on. I can tell my colleagues that Radio Free Marti is something that is important to the people of Cuba, who remain faithful to the ideal that they will someday have a democracy, and that will be based upon the freedoms that we enjoy in this country: the freedoms of speech. But we cannot expect that this thing is going to be born overnight. And the only way for us to prepare a free Cuba is to be able to prepare Cuba for the transition that it is inevitably going to make to a democracy, and the way to do that is through the instruments of democracy, and that is through freedom of speech. Mr. Chairman, maybe not all of the people of Cuba are able to hear Radio Free Marti, but there are over 40,000 who are definitely able to tap into Radio Free Marti. And I know, from speaking to Cuban exiles here in this country that have spoken to me about their experience in Cuba, that they have translated to me the fact that although not everybody in Cuba is able to receive Radio Free Marti, the fact remains that their family members, their friends and so forth, amongst them all someone receives it and is able to spread the word. How do we suppose that the underground press is able to operate over there? They are not able to operate in the current environment but for the fact that Radio Marti helps to balance out the flow of information that is being received by the people of Cuba. Are we supposed to give up on the people of Cuba just because a majority of people do not get Radio Free Marti? Are we supposed to assume that just because a majority do not understand it and receive it, that those that do are not spreading the word informally through the grapevine? I think that this is an important vehicle for us to build a solid foundation for a future relationship between the United States and Cuba. Keep in mind, and I will conclude with this, keep in mind that Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of the United States. Someday we hope to enjoy a good strong relationship based upon democracy, and I should think that this is an investment that is worth our while because there is going to be a country that is close to us, and they are going to look back and understand that we were with them, the people of Cuba, I mean, all along, even though we were against their government. I think that is the message that we want to make sure the people of Cuba understand, is our beef is not with the people of Cuba, it is with the Cuban government that continues, as all press have acknowledged, to be amongst the most repressive regimes on the issue of free speech. So I think that means even more of an obligation for us in this country to make sure freedom of speech is not killed altogether on the island of Cuba.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I take note of my colleague's comments from New York and say that I am glad that we have finally reached some accord on some issue on this floor.