Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am proud to stand here to speak on behalf of S. 2484, a bill to rename the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NICHD, after my aunt, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. In 1962, Mrs. Shriver persuaded her brother, my uncle, President Kennedy, to establish the NICHD to ensure that all children are born healthy, and that they have an equal chance to achieve their full potential. Since that time, NICHD has been a global leader in producing developments that improve the lives of this world's children. Specifically, research through the NICHD has helped produce results in reducing the rates of sudden infant death syndrome, reducing infant mortality and maternal HIV transmissions. My aunt Eunice Shriver has spent her life fighting to deliver the promise of the American dream to each and every child, not only in this country, but around the world. She has never backed down from a challenge. In fact, when she heard from a mother who could not find a camp that would accept their disabled child, Eunice started a camp of her own in her own backyard, a camp for other parents who, like her, were trying to deal with a family member who was mentally retarded. My Aunt Rosemary had mental retardation, and my Aunt Eunice was inspired because of her experience with my Aunt Rosemary to start the Special Olympics. And I don't think there is anything that has probably had a more profound effect on millions of people's lives in this world than the impact that Special Olympics has had, not only on the millions of families whose lives that it has touched with those with intellectual disabilities, but also for the millions and millions of volunteers who have come in contact with Special Olympics and who found their lives moved and transformed because of their experience with Special Olympics. The Special Olympics organization has given athletes and their families the courage to participate in competition while always remembering that success is not measured by how often you win but by how brave you are in the attempt. Beyond providing athletes and their families with new and unique opportunities in competitive sports, the Special Olympics also established the Healthy Athletes Initiative, which increases health care to athletes at events all around the world. During 2006, 600 screening events took place, and 135,000 athletes received a screening. These screenings provided not only critical care to athletes; they also provided appropriate treatment, and also an opportunity for those athletes to get the rewards of getting the best in treatment that are too often taken for granted by the rest of us. In addition to that, the data from these screenings are collected and used to promote health policies that inform those of us here in Congress on how we can better develop programs here in Congress for those individuals with intellectual disabilities. The incalculable benefits resulting from this program are just a small example of how my Aunt Eunice has altered the future of millions of children in our own country and around the world. I just want to say once more, in a personal sense, that she has done so much to destigmatize the stigma of those with mental retardation. And, as someone who is fighting for parity for mental health coverage, she has also worked so hard to destigmatize mental illness, something that often accompanies those families who are depressed when they find that one of their family members has been struck with mental retardation. She has been someone who has fought for the human spirit and the dignity of the human person in every sense of the word. And, due to her tireless advocacy, our country has been better off for all of her devotion and work. So, it is with my great honor and pleasure that today I was able to join my colleagues in seeing that the National Institutes of Health saw the naming of the National Institutes for Childhood and Development named after Eunice Kennedy Shriver for all of the great work that she has done on behalf of every child born in this country and around the world. Congratulations, Aunt Eunice. It is so well deserved.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, this evening I have an opportunity to address an issue that our country has long seen unaddressed in the many years that we have tackled many issues but failed to address the underlying issue that we seek to talk about this evening. We have just heard many people talk about the issue of gun violence. We have had many people talk about drug smuggling. Well, these are just two examples of the issue that we are going to talk about tonight, in the examples that point to the fact that we are failing to address the underlying problem. The issue of gun violence, we fail to address the underlying problems of violence in our society when we fail to address the underpinnings of violence. What is it that created the mind of that young man in Omaha that led him to act out in such a way that led to the death so tragically of those innocent people in the mall in Omaha, Nebraska? Why was it that he could not get the help that he needed such that he had to act out in such a way? Why was it that he had to resort to violence? Why is it in this country that homicide amongst young people is the second leading cause of death for young people? Why is it that suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people 15 to 24? It is important to ask these questions because if we do, we start to dig below the surface of these questions about whether the issue is really about simply the question of whether we are talking about locking people up or addressing a more fundamental problem and that is addressing people's needs in this country which aren't going to be addressed simply by locking them up, but rather by, as was just addressed by Mr. Payne from New Jersey, addressing these problems before they become problems. What we are here tonight to talk about is addressing people's emotional and mental health needs in this country so that as a Nation we don't have our criminal justice system become the mental health system that it has become in our society. We as a country incarcerate more people in this country of ours than any other free country on the face of the Earth. We imprison more people in this country than any other free country on the Earth. It begs the question, why is it that America, which calls itself the land of the free, why do we jail so many people? We jail so many people because we fail to get ourselves prepared to come to grips with the violence in our society. We jail so many people in this country because we fail to come to grips with the drug epidemic in our society. You just heard Mr. Poe from Texas talk about Border Patrol and the fact that these border agents are being held in jail because of drug smuggling charges and the problems that they have in interdicting drug smugglers. We heard from Ms. Jackson-Lee about the problem of charging criminals, the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine and how disparate the charges are. We are talking around the issue. We are talking around the issue. The issue is: What are we doing as a Nation to address this as a health problem that it is? Why in the world would people choose to keep using drugs if they know it is going to end up putting them in jail? Why would people continue to use drugs when they know it is going to cause them to either die or lose their families or lose their lives? But that is what it does to millions of Americans every year, and yet people continue to go on using. Why do they go on using? Because this is an addiction. Because this is a physical disease, because this is a compulsion of the mind, of the body of the soul. And unless our country comes to grips with treating this disease for what it is, and that is a physical illness, like every other physical illness, then we as a society will not begin to address all of the other problems that we hear our colleagues come to the floor this evening to talk about. We will fail to address the criminal justice problems. We will fail to find a way to deal with the incarceration problems. We will fail to find a way to deal with the drug smuggling problems. We will fail to find a way to deal with the violence problems if we don't first find a way to address the fundamental problem of treating people's physical illness which drives them to use drugs and alcohol which forces them into these situations which create the underpinnings of violence that create these problems in the first place. Now many people say, Well, when people use drugs, that is their choice. It is a moral failing on the person's part if they get addicted. We know better now. We have done scans of the brain and we have done research and we have shown that a brain is an organ of the body, like every other organ of the body. And in fact just like somebody may have diabetes and if they get low sugar and they eat candy bars in order to get that sugar up, for many people who have depression, they use drugs to get their serotonin levels up, to get their neuroepinephrine up, to get their chemicals up in their brain that are unusually low because of the way their brain is constructed. So they use drugs because they are looking for a way to get themselves back up, and that is the way that they try to compensate for their depression. Many people have bipolar disorder, like myself. Initially, I used drugs in order to make myself whole again. I got addicted. I am fortunate because I got treatment. Now I am able to get medication and I am able to live a life that is free from addiction because of that treatment. As a result, today I am able to live a free life. But for many people in this country, they don't have that freedom because they don't have that opportunity to get treatment. Why? Because their insurance plans in this country, unlike Members of Congress, do not cover addiction treatment. Their insurance plans do not treat the brain like an organ in the body. As a result, they are denied treatment for their addiction; and as a result, many of them do not survive. My friends, that is why my friend Congressman Ramstad and myself have been working so hard to see that we pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act in the United States Congress that would do away with the discrimination against this disease called addiction because we feel so strongly that people with addictions, illnesses that are mental illnesses, are no different than illnesses like any other illness of the body. They are just physical illnesses in the brain as opposed to physical illnesses in some other part of the body. And they are no different than any other part of the body. It is just that they are above the shoulders. But insurance companies don't treat these illnesses the same for insurance purposes, and that is what we want to see end. We want to see the discrimination against mental illnesses end, and this is about ending that discrimination. We have stories this evening that we want to share telling about what we have learned in our tour around the country about how this issue is affecting millions of Americans. At this time, I yield to Jim Ramstad who has been a champion of this issue during his many years in Congress and whose leadership on this issue has been second to none and whom I am proud to have worked with in this Congress on this issue. Jim, it has been a pleasure to work with you.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I ask him and say to everybody a rhetorical question. If you could imagine in this country insurance companies saying to you, ``Cancer is going to cost you a higher deductible or copay. We're going to charge you more for that because we choose to,'' I can only imagine the outcry in this country. They wouldn't allow it for a second if they charged more for treatment for one disease than another in any other part of the body, but they allow it for mental illness because there's a stigma in society. Let's just face it. People are afraid of mental illness because they think it reflects something about them, their moral character, their ability to be strong and so forth. The fact of the matter is mental health is about being strong. One of the great opportunities that I had as an early Member of Congress was to go down to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and rededicate the Special Warfare School named in honor of my late uncle, President John Kennedy. President Kennedy was the first to award the wearing of the green beret in Special Forces. And I was surprised to learn that the Special Forces have for them psychiatrists on staff 24 hours, 7 days a week for each of the units of our Special Forces. And you'd think to yourself, why in the world would the strongest, most elite, most resilient of all of our military men and women, why would they ever need to see a psychiatrist? And the commanders told me it's not because of any weakness that we want them to have a mental health professional; it's, rather, we want them to be the best that they can be. And we know, we've sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into the training of these elite Special Forces. We've trained them to jump out of the sky. We've trained them to dive under the water and carry all kinds of things. We've trained them to do the most extraordinary tasks, and we've trained them to shoot at incredible ranges and to do incredible tasks. And we know that for them to be able to do those tasks at the maximum proficiency, they have to have a clear mind. They have to be unburdened by any stress in their life for them to have the maximum use of all their faculties and doing the job that this government asks them to do when they're tasked to go and defend the United States of America. And I was astounded. I said to myself, Well, if we want the best for all of our Special Forces and are tasking mental health professionals so that we get the best from our Special Forces, why aren't we tasking this for the rest of our military? And, in fact, as we're finding out now, the military is slowly learning that, in fact, we should be doing that for the rest of our military. It actually makes sense, in order to save lives amongst our own military members, to train them in advance to them going to war, in advance of them going to defend our country, to prepare themselves not only physically, but to prepare them mentally for the challenges that lay ahead. Why? Why? Because, when they get back from that combat theater, we've all read about posttraumatic stress disorder. I prefer to call that combat stress illness because I don't see it as a disorder. Frankly, I see it as a normal reaction to abnormal situations. That's what war is. Soldiers are responding to stress that is absolutely abnormal. People killing people in the streets, bombs going off is abnormal. Soldiers responding to that is normal. So the stress that is known as posttraumatic stress is absolutely a normal response to war. It should be called combat stress illness. That means they can get over it with the proper treatment, and, frankly, we ought to be doing more to treat our soldiers and their families. But, frankly, we, as a country, have seen such a stigma towards mental health that we're losing our soldiers now to suicide at a record rate. We have got 120 soldiers killing themselves every week back here in the United States after they've survived going over to Iraq. I only wish we added all those soldiers' names to the list of casualties in this the Iraq war, because if we added them to the names of those killed in action, this President's body count for the war in Iraq would be a lot higher than it is right now. And the fact of the matter is we are missing the opportunity right now to intervene and take care of many of those soldiers because of our stubborn attitude towards mental health; and if we don't get it right with our soldiers and our veterans, we're not going to get it right for the rest of the American public. Our American public is sympathetic to our soldiers because they've stood the line and defended our country, and if we can't understand why they don't need it, then how are we going to understand why a child in the inner city who is going to school in southwest Washington, who's seeing guns and bullets fly through their neighborhood and seeing police cars at night all around their neighborhood, because of gunshots echoing in the night, how are we going to understand where that child isn't going to have post-traumatic stress? If a soldier's going to suffer from post-traumatic stress because of guns, bullets and bombs, how are we not going to expect a child growing up in our inner cities around our country not to have stress and not have the impact of that? We need mental health for our soldiers. We need it for our children in this country who are growing up in traumatic situations.

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.

Mr. KENNEDY. And in fact, within 3 years in the State prisons, those prisoners have a recidivism rate of 70 percent. So those State prisoners will be back in the criminal justice system. Seventy percent of them will be revolving back within the criminal justice within 3 years, the reason being we don't have alternatives. We don't deal with the basic problem. We need to have drug courts and drug treatment; and if we do that, we establish a way for these prisoners who are spending 35 grand, 40 grand a year to keep these people housed in prison and, yet, we're not. We're releasing them to what? They don't have the skills. They don't have the treatment. Whether they do, when they get out, they're going to go out and use again. If they have to use, they have to break in and enter. They're committing more crimes. It doesn't solve the problem. It may make lawmakers feel good to beat their chest and say, oh, I sent that criminal to jail, but it is not making our constituents any safer, and it's not solving the problem. And the war on drugs is a joke if it doesn't address the demand side of the war on drugs.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. And, frankly, what the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act says is that we need to offer insurance because really what private insurance companies are doing is putting this on the public taxpayer because, for example, we heard a story out in Los Angeles about a single mom who was trying to get treatment for her son with a methamphetamine addiction, and the insurance company told her that the in-patient treatment that her doctor told her her son needed was not medically necessary so she couldn't get it for her son. What happened to her son? Her son broke into a house to burglarize it to get the money for the drugs. He got caught up in the criminal justice system. Wouldn't you know, 2 years in jail, at the taxpayers' expense. Imagine what that could have bought in terms of treatment, all of which should have been covered by her insurance policy, which she paid for. Now, the fact is, when you buy insurance, you should think health insurance, your body. I mean, where does it say health care only starts from your neck down? I don't know. I just can't understand where, when they say you're buying health insurance but your health only starts from your neck down. This is absolutely incredible in the year 2007 that we've got such patent discrimination in our country's laws, and we're still abiding by them, and that it is taking Congress this long to even consider legislation to end this patent discrimination. So we need the people in this country to call their Representatives, to call their Senators and tell them that we need passage of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity bill, and let me just read another story about what happened about this medical necessity. We had a woman whose daughter Katie was trying to get help for her heroin addiction. She had insurance. Her insurance company said that they couldn't treat her with in-patient treatment until she had OD'd, overdosed, at least once. So imagine this: they said, we can provide her with outpatient treatment, but of course, the outpatient treatment that they provided her was a great deal of distance from where she lived, so it made it very difficult for them to get to. I'm sure that was no coincidence by the insurance plan to make it difficult for them to get to. What happened? Well, sure enough, Katie OD'd, but unfortunately, you can never tell whether you're going to survive an OD. Katie never survived her first OD to prove that she was an addict so that she could qualify for medical necessity by her insurance plan so that she could get health care insurance for her drug addiction. That is how crazy our health insurance system is when it comes to mental health. If she had cancer and malignancy or a tumor in her, she would have been given that care, would have been given that care. But because this is a mental illness, she's been denied that care. And we are looking to pass this legislation because we believe it's fundamentally wrong that this is not covered, and it should not be denied care. We know, once again, that the brain is part of the body. We can measure the metabolic changes in the brain now due to modern technology. If people and insurance companies are questioning the science based on determining any of this, all they need to do is go to the National Institutes of Health, National Institutes on Drug Addiction, National Institutes on Alcoholism, or National Institute of Mental Health. They can get all the information they want. There is no sound basis for discrimination. It's patently wrong. It's based in fear and it's based in essential misinformation. And so we are constantly trying to pass this in spite of the efforts by insurance companies to fight us, and we need the American public to join us in this battle. Otherwise, we'll continue to see these tragedies reoccur over and over and over again in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I wanted just to conclude with a couple of stories that I think are uplifting, and they show when people are successful in getting treatment that their lives really do turn around. Marley Prunty-Lara spoke to us in one of our hearings. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was first diagnosed when she was 15 years old. And she and her mom were searching for a psychiatrist in her home State of South Dakota, and they were told that she would have to wait 4 to 5 months for an initial appointment. As Marley was stating in her testimony, she did not have that long to live. Thankfully, she found care 350 miles away, in another State, and was hospitalized for 2 months. However, the residential treatment facility was not covered by her mother's insurance, forcing her parents to take out a second mortgage on their home in order for them to receive the care that their daughter needed for her to survive. Marley stated that if she had suffered a spinal cord injury requiring long-term hospitalization, the insurance company would have paid for all of her care without any questions asked, but because her hospitalization involved a mental illness, it was deemed unworthy of insurance. Finally, Marley said, ``I understand the power of successful treatment because I am living it today. I have passionately lived with the prison of mental illness and I have also experienced the incalculable emancipation that accompanies wellness.'' How can Congress continue to deny the opportunity to be well and live a full life to tens of millions of Americans every year? We met with Amy Smith from Denver, Colorado, who also talked about her unmet mental health needs, how it cost her 40 years of her life, shuffling the roads in Denver, Colorado; muttering to herself; people dismissing her on the sidewalk, not talking to her; panhandling, using drugs; in and out of prison; in and out of detox; always being marginalized from society until one day she finally got the help she needed. Her life is 180 degrees different today. She has a job. She has a house. She's paying taxes. But she said to us, Members of Congress, I lost those 40 years of my life. You can't give those years back to me. I wish I had gotten the treatment earlier in my life, but I didn't. I only hope that more Americans get the help they need earlier in their lives rather than waste their lives the way I did. But I didn't get that help. We need to make sure that people live out their dreams. Amy Smith said that she had had the dream of getting married and having children. She said, I'm too old for that now. I can't have children now. I'm too old for that. She said, Maybe some day I might still get married, maybe I will adopt. But she said, I had all kinds of dreams of having a really successful career and really making the most of my life. She said, I feel like I've squandered so much of my abilities and talents. And it was so clear to us that she had so much to offer, and those skills and talents were not realized because of her mental illness. And the fact is we have millions of Americans who have so much to offer in our society, and yet they and their potential is being squandered. Squandered why? Because we as a society failed to open up the door of opportunity to them simply because we reject their illness from being treated like every other illness. And I think that's un-American. That's not what this country is all about. That's not what we as a nation are all about. And that's why we need to pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Dr. Alvan E. Fisher, a pioneer in treating those affected by AIDS in Rhode Island, who distinguished himself with an extraordinary career as a courageous physician and leader in my home state and throughout the Nation. Dr. Fisher passed away on September 28, 2007, after dedicating over 25 years of service to the treatment of people with AIDS. As a man with deep conviction and tremendous spirit of public service, Dr. Fisher in the early 1980s ventured into the care of patients who other doctors feared, and I am deeply honored to pay tribute to this outstanding Rhode Island native who spent 22 years in clinical practice in Rhode Island treating and advocating for patients with HIV/AIDS. AIDS Project Rhode Island recognized him with its first ``Red Ribbon Community Service Award'' in 2002, among many accolades he had received in his lifetime. Dr. Fisher was a specialist in infectious diseases and a founding member of AIDS Project Rhode Island, where he was instrumental in establishing standards of care for patients with HIV and helping patients find doctors who would treat them. He served as chairman of the AIDS task force at Rhode Island Hospital and helped start the Brown University AIDS Program. More recently, Dr. Fisher continued his work in the field of HIV/AIDS treatment as senior director of medical affairs for Gilead Sciences, a biotech company in Foster City, California. Dr. Fisher was ahead of the times and was someone who understood very well that through acts of bravery and by deeply caring, he worked every day to ensure that patients in our State of Rhode Island and nationally would have a chance to maintain dignity and live a full and healthy life with HIV/AIDS. Today, I praise Dr. Fisher and thank him for all of his contributions to our country and I assure his family that we are inspired and sustained by his example.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank, for his tireless efforts on behalf of affordable housing and say I am astounded to hear my colleagues on the other side bemoan the fact that there is too much effort being made to provide affordable housing in this country. I don't know where they are living. I don't know who they represent. They are certainly not living anywhere that I have been. In my district, my business community is saying that they can't get workers because there aren't enough affordable housing spots for those workers to be able to live so they can actually work in the businesses that they are needed. I don't know how my Republican friends think that they are somehow on the side of the free market, when the free market isn't going to even work if the workers they need can't even afford the housing they need in order to live where they work. This housing trust fund is a basic concept. I think it's a fantastic idea. It's one that I support wholeheartedly. I just would say that this notion that government is bad, bad, bad, it's funny, because it reminds me of the story of the elderly woman jumping up at a senior town hall meeting saying, get your government hands off my Medicare. Medicare, by the way, is a government program, in case everyone hasn't forgotten, and one of the most successful programs that there has ever been, but you wouldn't know that by the way Republicans talk, 3 percent overhead on their Medicare. You never hear that when they talk about socialization and government programs. Finally, I would just say there is a story about the Englishman and the German and the Russian. All have a genie that says ``Give us your wish.'' The Englishman says, ``Oh, I will have Wyoming, a big ranch out in Wyoming.'' The German says, ``I will have a Swiss chalet.'' The Russian says, ``Well, you know what? My neighbor has a barn; destroy it.'' Sounds like the Republicans kind of have the Russian point of view. It doesn't make any sense. Their neighbors can't have it. That's their attitude.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act which would put the National Flood Insurance Program, an important program to the residents of Rhode Island, back on solid footing. Devastated by the impact of Hurricane Katrina, the National Flood Insurance Program has operated in deficits for over 2 years. This bill authorizes increased funds for the program and includes additional provisions to improve flood plain mapping. Under this legislation, FEMA is required to conduct a review of U.S. flood maps and make the necessary changes to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness. We owe it to homeowners across the country to provide a fiscally sound insurance policy for natural disasters that create a flood crisis. In my district, the National Flood Insurance Program is essential to economic growth. My home state of Rhode Island saw a 15 percent increase in policy growth to the NFIP as many residents reside in coastal areas that would be threatened by a flood disaster. This bill can give homeowners in my district some peace of mind during storms and violent weather,. Though questions remain over the cost of the optional wind coverage in the National Flood Insurance Program, I support the pending study by the General Accountability Office to investigate the financial viability of the wind program. I applaud Chairman Frank, and congresswoman Waters' efforts to infuse federal dollars back into the National Flood Insurance Program so that it continues to serve as a safety net for victims of future natural disasters. Congress has an obligation to ensure that this program is on sound financial footing and I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, the horrific violations of human rights in Burma have alarmed leaders in the United States and around the world. When repressed people across the globe cry out for help, America has an obligation to lead the calls for justice and equality. In Burma, a nation with a long history of egregious human rights violations, a repressive regime has cracked down on civil liberties and peaceful protests. The State Peace and Development Council, a military junta and illegitimate ruling party, has brutally cracked down on dissidents using rape and murder as their tools of terror. Now, leaders of the legitimately elected opposition, lead by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, face increased violence and incarcerations. This bipartisan resolution expresses Congress's support for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy in Burma. I believe the United Nations should swiftly act in response to this dangerous and growing threat in Southeast Asia. As the world watches the events in Burma, the United States must take a firm leadership role to speak for the voices that have been silenced by repression and make perfectly clear that this brutality will not be tolerated.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge everything that the National Heritage Fellowship has meant to this country over the past 25 years. It has been a vital inspiration for those who practice traditional arts and Americans owe so much of our nation's artistic diversity to the Fellowship. I also speak today to honor the achievements of Nicholas Benson. In Rhode Island, a place where there is no shortage of history, the contributions of Mr. Benson's family stand out for their beauty, charm and authenticity. Mr. Benson oversees a stone carving shop that has been in his family for three generations and has been operating continuously for over three hundred years. Thankfully, the contributions of Nicholas Benson and his family have not been limited to Rhode Island. From the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama to the World War II Memorial here in Washington, DC, his work is a part of our history. In a country where so much of our history is recorded through art, I am reminded of something John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail in l780, ``I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.'' Nicholas, in producing three generations of outstanding artists, your family has surpassed even the dreams of John Adams himself. I would like to congratulate you once again. It is my hope that this fellowship allows you to further your craft and to continue the work of your family. You are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 891 & 892, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for bringing this important bill to the House floor. H.R. 2831 is designed to be an important but narrow reversal of the Ledbetter decision, without upsetting any other current law. As many of us here today know, earlier this year, the Supreme Court decision Ledbetter versus Goodyear made it much harder for workers to pursue pay discrimination claims based on the fact that plaintiffs would need to file their charge of pay discrimination within 180 days of the employer's decision to pay them less. What was particularly disturbing about this decision was the fact that it stripped Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of its longstanding position that every paycheck resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision is considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The importance of this consideration of each and every paycheck is vital to the CRA. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision was untenable. Employees often do not know what their co-workers earn, or how and when pay decisions are made. These dynamics in the workplace make it nearly impossible to file a complaint precisely when discrimination first occurs. Many times they find this out far after the fact, and thus need a filing deadline that takes this time delay into account. The bill before us today maintains the law's current statute of limitations and limits on back pay recovery. It states that an employee must still file a charge within the statutory filing period after receiving a discriminatory paycheck but would provide a realistic timeline consistent with the Civil Rights Act. Again, I thank the Chairman for bringing up this bill that calls attention to the fact that we need to make our pay discrimination laws work in a much more realistic and fair way for all parties involved.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 803-807, I missed votes due to my pager malfunction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on each of them. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that raises parity for mental health for Medicare enrollees from 50 percent to 80 percent and for SCHIP from 75 percent to 100 percent, an additional $3 billion in this bill for mental health care. That's why we ought to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think it is interesting to hear all these protestations from my colleagues on the Republican side about this issue of civil rights and how they are so concerned about equal rights for women. They are so concerned about equal pay for equal work, that if it were up to them, they would do something about it, that they care just as much as Democrats. Yet it was the Republican President who nominated the Supreme Court, who stacked the Supreme Court of the United States with conservative, right-wing Republican ideological judges that handed down not only the Ledbetter decision, but has handed down decision after decision that has gone against working people and civil rights every step of the way. This is no mistake. This is just the agenda that the Republicans wanted. You voted for President Bush, so don't come on down here and say but we didn't mean to. And by the way, you also cut the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when you were in charge of this place, so don't come over here and now say you protest women not getting paid equally. And for a fact, if there were a flood of lawsuits, there would be every reason for there to be a flood of lawsuits, Mr. Dreier Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. KENNEDY. The facts being what they are, the Department of Labor says, as a fact today, 76 cents on the dollar today is paid for the same hourly work for a woman as for a dollar that a man works. For every dollar a man earns, 76 cents is what a woman earns. That is a fact. If you don't believe that, go to the Census Bureau, go to the Department of Labor and ask for yourself. For my sake, I don't want to go home and tell my mother that she is only worth 76 cents for a dollar a man is worth. I don't want to go back to my sister and tell her she is only worth 76 cents what my brother and I are worth. I don't want to go to my daughters some day and say they are only worth 76 cents versus a dollar what a man is worth when they go to work for equal time served. If you are happy being opposed to this bill, H.R. 2831, and you are happy living with yourselves and living in the same home as your female family members, knowing that and living with yourselves, God bless you. I'm not happy with it. I couldn't live with myself Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I want to commend her for her support. Madam Speaker, I am proud to lead a bipartisan coalition of Members from both sides of the aisle that support the cause of Liberia, and I want to thank and extend my gratitude to them and to all parties for bringing this bill to the floor today. Minority Leader and Whip Blunt, Congressman Mike Pence, Congressman Tim Walberg, and my good friend from Minnesota, Jim Ramstad, have come together because we all believe in the Liberian-American community. I would also like to recognize Congressman Keith Ellison, a true champion of the Liberian-Americans, for his steadfast support and dedication to this cause, as well as to Chairman Conyers and again to Chairwoman Lofgren on the Judiciary Committee for her strong leadership on this issue. Madam Speaker, as you can hear from this debate, this is an issue where we have had a country that has had a unique history with our Nation. It is a country that was founded by former American slaves. It was a country that was established by this country for those liberated American slaves; and it was a country whose refugees came back here because of a war that was in part fueled by American guns, where we supported former General Taylor and General Doe. So it is a tragedy that was exacerbated because America supported a civil war that cost the descendents of those American slaves their lives. There was torture and killing that forced those former American slaves' descendents to have to come back to the United States. Now they are here. They have made their own lives here. And the thought that we would have to force them to go back instead of them making their own decision as to when to go back. I represent a large community of over 17,000 Liberian-Americans. They want to go back to Liberia, but they want to make the decision as to when they go back. They don't want to have to be forced to go back on October 1 because we are forcing them. They have made their lives here. They contribute heavily to our community. In fact, I have spoken this afternoon to several of my constituents. One woman, Ms. Harris, has never missed a day of work in the 20 years she has been here in this country; another family, the Dennises, who have been here; Mr. and Mrs. Akowala. He has two degrees in engineering and Mrs. Akowala is a registered nurse. Both degrees are very important in this country. Both of whom contribute heavily to our economy. Their children were born here. But if they were forced back and their children are Americans, what happens? They go back to a country where 85 percent of the country is unemployed, where there's little running water, little electricity. Can you imagine what we'd do to that country? It's barely on its feet right now. What do we do? We do not stabilize the country that's getting on its feet. I think we further destabilize it. Further, I think the best policy for us to help stand up to Liberia is to help and give them the remittances that Americans here in this country, the Liberian Americans here send back every year to Liberia. And that, I think, is a good policy for this country. For all of these reasons, not the least of which is Ciehanna Stevens. She is married to an Iraqi war veteran hero who's on his fourth tour of duty. He's a citizen of this country. He's a Liberian American, fourth tour of duty serving his country. She will be deported. Imagine, the wife of an Iraqi war hero on his fourth tour of duty to be deported. That, to me, is an outrage. We need to pass this bill for all the Liberian Americans who contributed to our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to commend the chairman and Ranking Member Miller for the work they have done on this legislation, but moreover, the attention they paid to our Nation's veterans. I also want to commend the members of this committee for all the work that they have done on mental health. Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity, as a member of the Veterans Appropriations Committee, to sit in on some of the committee hearings on the Veterans Authorizing Committee and seeing the work that they have done to try to increase the outreach to veterans with post- traumatic stress disorder. I am pleased to see that this committee is starting to do as much as they can to reach out to these veterans as they return from Iraqi Freedom. But, clearly, more needs to be done. We have witnessed that in these recent hearings. I think that, clearly, the Appropriations Committee has recognized this this year. I am pleased to announce that this Congress has voted the largest increase in veterans health care spending in the 77-year history of the Veterans Department. Within that, there is an over $100 million increase in veterans specialty mental health care. This is just one acknowledgment of many that our veterans, when they come home, we need to make sure they come home not only in body, but that they come home in spirit, and that it's not enough just to take care of the outer wounds of our Nation's veterans, but we also need to make sure that we mend the inner wounds, the psychological and emotional wounds that they have sustained during war defending our country's freedom.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I think this is absolutely a justified effort to bring to light something that I think all of the American people deserve, and that is to understand truly what is going on at the Department of Justice insofar as the use of these letters. Unfortunately, this is legislating on an appropriations bill. I do hope that in the course of this session we will bring up legislation that will get at the PATRIOT Act so that we can bring to light how far the Justice Department has gone in overriding the initial intent of the PATRIOT Act and overriding the sense of Congress in terms of the abuse of issuance of both National Security Letters and exigency letters. For that reason, I think the intent of this is very well placed. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for whom this is a very important issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that this issue is an issue of due process. This country was founded on the basis of due process and on law, and that is why this strikes at the very heart of our system of government and why this is such an important issue to be raised. And for that reason, I think that while this is a point of order, I do believe this is going to be an issue for this Congress to address in the course of this session. I commend the gentleman from Florida for raising it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,