Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to thank my colleague, John Hall, for his work on this amendment. He was president of his local board of education and knows this issue inside and out from the local perspective. And his work on this has been absolutely instrumental in its preparation. I also want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Kildee, without whom the work of those for whom this amendment is designed to help, the disability community, those children with disabilities, this amendment is designed to supplement. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really an attempt to just support what is already in this bill in the way of support of inclusive education. What this amendment seeks to do is use those dollars in this bill for teacher education and research, to support the notion that we ought to include children in the classrooms with disabilities so that we can both better educate those teachers teaching those children with disabilities in how to teach both children with disabilities in integrated classrooms, in inclusive classrooms, as well as learn from their experiences in doing so, both to the benefit of both children in those inclusive classrooms; and use evidence-based research that we know is constantly coming towards us in terms of how to identify children with autism, how to identify children with learning disabilities and use those new findings and be able to employ them to the benefit of these children's growth and their development. Mr. Chairman, that is why we've introduced this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I'd yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from New York, John Hall.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I offer this amendment in honor of my aunt, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who started the Special Olympics, who has inspired me in this work; and my uncle, Sarge Shriver, who was the first and founding director of Head Start, both individuals who are inspirations to me and to millions in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 270, H. Res. 334, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 362, the ``10,000 Teachers, Ten Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act, and H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act. For the past century or more, the United States has been the undisputed leader of the global economy. The reasons for this success are many and diverse, but they are united by the principle of innovation that has guided our economy for decades. The United States is the birthplace of aviation and the automobile. We have led the information technology revolution and created the internet. The names of American pioneers are as familiar to us as those of our greatest Presidents: Henry Ford, Robert Oppenheimer, Bill Gates. But today, the supremacy of the United States in international innovation is at risk. In 2005, the National Academies convened a panel, known as the Augustine Commission, made up of some of the most distinguished national leaders in academia, industry and government. Their report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, was startling. It expressed serious concern that ``the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.'' In order to prevent this erosion and maintain the United States' place at the forefront of the global economy, the Commission proposed several concrete actions. The ``10,000 Teacher, Ten Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act is the direct result of the Augustine Commission's first recommendation. In 2000, more than 85 percent of students in grades 5-9 were taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences. In 1999, 68 percent of U.S. 8th grade students received instruction from a mathematics teacher who did not hold a degree or certification in mathematics. This legislation will create thousands of new math and science teachers, each with expertise in their specific area of teaching, and will create centers for improvement of undergraduate education in science and mathematics. The ``Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act'' derives from the Augustine Commission's second recommendation. This legislation will improve innovation efforts at the National Science Foundation. It will especially focus on outstanding researchers in the early stages of their careers. These are the researchers who are most likely to break existing paradigms and realize that singular achievement that will keep the United States at the cutting edge of global innovation. These bills are only the first step. In the weeks and months to come, the House will consider several bills that will encourage technological progress and innovation. I commend Speaker Pelosi for her initiative and commitment to the innovation agenda, and I urge passage of these bills.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget resolution. I rise in support of this budget because I believe that it truly addresses the needs of all Americans, while restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability. Last year, Democrats pledged to move the country in a new direction and this budget is one more step in fulfilling that commitment. Republicans' irresponsible economic policies of the past six years have left a debt burden of $29,099 for a typical middle-income family of four in Rhode Island. This budget begins to reverse harmful cuts, restores critical domestic programs, and better reflects the priorities of all Americans by strengthening our national defense and investing in future generations. This budget provides for the largest veterans' budget increase in American history, which will directly bolster healthcare services for 91,160 veterans in Rhode Island. It is also critical for the 4,082 brave Rhode Islanders, who have served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care services. In 2004, 13,000 Rhode Island families were subject to the alternative minimum tax--and if nothing is done to fix the system, an estimated 98,000 families here in Rhode Island will be subject to the AMT in 2007. This budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects middle- income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax. In Rhode Island, there are 100,000 small businesses that serve as the engine of the economy. This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's request and 56 percent from 2001. It also rejects the President's cuts that eliminate $11,429,000 in funding for job training and employment services in Rhode Island. These investments to a growing economy for America's families are needed as family income in Rhode Island has only increased $574 since 2000 and health care and energy prices continue to climb. In Rhode Island, 20,260 of our children do not have health insurance. This budget helps these children by increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--reducing the number of uninsured kids across America by millions. This budget also rejects the Administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $170,154,922 for Rhode Island hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers--because those proposals would make health care less accessible and less affordable for many Rhode Islanders. The House budget provides substantially more funding for Rhode Island's 159,600 children enrolled in public elementary, middle and high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next five years for education and training programs than requested by the President. This will increase resources for No Child Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh cuts and under funding for these critical education programs included in the President's budget. Gas prices have increased by $1.11 in Rhode Island since January 2001, an increase of approximately 73 percent. The Democratic House budget invests in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, and promote new technologies that can create American jobs. It will also restore funding for Rhode Island environmental programs cut by the President's budget--including $2,654,000 in Clean Water revolving loan funds that help Rhode Island improve wastewater treatment. Mr. Chairman, this budget is a critical step in a new direction. Today, for the first time in many years, this House will pass a budget that truly represents the priorities of the American people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with my colleague Mr. Sestak. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would amend the definition of medical care under the legislation to include mental health care. Under this definition, we measure the quality of health care in our military hospitals in order to determine that we ensure that our military personnel receive the best possible quality health care in the military that they ought to be entitled to. In doing so we ought to make sure that mental health care is part of that quality review process. And as we know full well, in the wake of this war, too many of our veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have been suffering tremendously from wounds that may not be visible from the outside but are wounds nonetheless that are equally harmful. They are psychological wounds, Mr. Chairman. They are mental health wounds, and they are wounds, nonetheless, that need to be treated. That is why we need to have the best quality mental health care that our military can offer, and that is why we want to make sure that when it comes to measuring quality health care in this legislation that mental health care is also measured as a quality indicator to ensure that our military personnel receive the best quality health care that they can receive. On behalf of Mr. Sestak and myself, I move this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I only asked for the opportunity to speak in opposition just to claim the time in opposition. This is my amendment, so I won't be speaking in opposition to it. Of course, I do want to speak in favor of this, because clearly this is the leading cause of disability, I believe, and will be the leading cause of disability for this war. As we have seen our soldiers come back, more and more of them are reporting mental health as the leading cause of disability; and, of course, this has been underreported in so many instances. Why? It has been underreported because of the stigma, Mr. Chairman. Continued in this country is the fact that our society continues to stigmatize the treatment of mental illness. So even our soldiers who have every right to feel that they have been stressed by the experience of having suffered through the trauma of war, even those that have been through this experience and have every right to seek mental health treatment, even they feel stigmatized by having to need mental health treatment, and that is the reason why so many of them don't actually go and seek mental health treatment. But in spite of the stigma, we still find that 35 percent of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have sought treatment for mental health services. This is an enormous number, and I think it points very much to the fact that this is a very enormous challenge for our country. Mr. Chairman, we need to deal with this problem before we even have these soldiers returning from Iraq, and that is why we are looking to have the psychological Kevlar act adopted in this legislation. I want to identify Kristen Henderson, who is a spouse of a member of our military who came to my office and said, why is it that we are waiting until our soldiers get back from Iraq until we deal with their post-traumatic stress disorder? Why don't we start helping them become resilient, and how come we don't start preparing them for the trauma of war before they even get into the trauma of war? We do so much to put them into boot camps to train them physically for war. Why don't we do more to put them together and train them mentally for war? This is what this amendment says. It puts the Department of Defense in the position where they have to put together a program where our military men and women are put into a curriculum where they are better prepared to deal with the conflicts and the stresses of war before they actually see the trauma of combat. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is something that we need to do, because we need to make sure that when our soldiers come back that they don't have that sense of stigma attached to seeking mental health services. And if they understand that in order for them to be good soldiers that they need to be of sound mind and sound body and that is part of their being part of a esprit de corps, then they will be more forthcoming in seeking help when they need it. That will mean they will be better soldiers in the long run. Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago, I had the opportunity to go down to Fort Bragg and see our Green Berets. Mr. Chairman, they have psychiatrists available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You might ask, why do the best and brightest in the military have that? The reason they do is because the military has figured out that if they have anything else on their mind bothering them, they can't do their job the way they are best trained to do their job. I think, Mr. Chairman, if it is good enough for the Green Berets, then why isn't it good enough for the rest of our Armed Forces? That is what this psychological Kevlar bill puts in place. It says we need to protect the mind as well as the body of our soldiers before battle, and we need to make sure that they are prepared for every eventuality when it comes to wartime. I ask my colleagues to vote for this and destigmatize mental health and help the Department of Defense lift the veil of the stigma of mental illness and vote for the psychological Kevlar bill. For that reason, I will ask for a recorded vote on this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to request a recorded vote on amendment No. 7 at this point, notwithstanding the passage of time since its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for this supplemental, not because I agree with everything in it, but because I agree with the most important thing in it: a binding deadline to redeploy our troops from Iraq. We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq, first and foremost, because it is in our national security interest. As someone who voted for the original resolution, I am particularly pained by the suffering of the thousands of our servicemembers killed and tens of thousands wounded. I'm glad this bill begins to put the appropriate resources into caring for those coming home with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, and beginning to fix the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other facilities. It is outrageous that this Administration has allowed our uniformed men and women to be treated so shabbily. I also have enormous sympathy for the families of servicemembers killed and injured in Iraq. I agonize about those on the home front who worry every day about getting that horrible visit, and who struggle to raise children, pay bills, and lead some semblance of normal life with family members in a combat zone. I want our troops to come home. Yet the hardships they and their families endure are not the reason to bring our troops home. I know that the men and women in uniform, and the families behind them, are willing to make the sacrifices they do if that is what it takes to make America more secure. But the truth is, this war is not making us more secure. By manipulating the intelligence and rushing to war, ignoring our allies, grossly mismanaging the occupation, and basing this entire war on ideology and hope rather than expertise and pragmatism, the Administration has torn our national security fabric. Staying in Iraq, policing their civil war, does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us. To the contrary, in order to improve national security and best address our other strategic interests around the world and here at home, we must dramatically change our current direction in Iraq. Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world, from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to the Western Pacific, the Horn of Africa, and the greater Middle East. In particular, it will allow us to put our attention back on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the fight against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually engineered 9/11. Bringing troops home also allows us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces, which have been strained to the breaking point because of this Administration's careless management of the war in Iraq. Perhaps most importantly, only by extricating ourselves from the mess of Iraq can we begin moving our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership. Every day our military is in Iraq our standing in the international community erodes further. Already we've seen respect for the United States plunge from record highs after 9/11 to record lows now. This loss of moral authority compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts to fight national security threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global wanning and drug trafficking. We cannot begin rebuilding our international credibility and leadership until we have redeployed from Iraq. We cannot restore the flexibility to meet the real, potentially existential threats of nuclear terrorism that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq until we exit Iraq. We hear dire warnings about the awful results if we leave Iraq. It is true that bad things may happen when our Armed Forces leave if the Iraqis cannot or will not choose reconciliation over conflict. But that will be true if we leave at the end of this year, the end of next year, or in 2015. Delaying redeployment only delays the Iraqis' moment of responsibility. The sooner we begin redeployment, the sooner we begin unraveling the tremendous damage that this war and its mismanagement have wrought on our national security. Given the Administration's history of manipulation and deceit, the interim deadlines of December 2007 and March 2008 may not prove binding, since the President can make certifications that waive those deadlines. I will support this supplemental, however, because it does set a binding deadline on withdrawal no later than August of next year. I would like the deadline to be sooner, but most important is that we bring finality to this war. Our men and women in uniform have served our country courageously and performed brilliantly--just as they always do. But asking them to stand between warring factions is not only unfair, it's counterproductive. I believe in a strong U.S. engagement around the world, including using military force when necessary. I also believe, as did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, that America's greatest strength comes from its values and its ability to lead. We need to restore America's leadership. We need to strengthen America's security. We need to pass this supplemental and begin the redeployment from Iraq.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for the supplemental, not because I agree with everything that is in it, but because I agree with one thing that is in it, and that is a binding deadline to end the war in Iraq and redeploy our troops to where they are truly needed, and that is to fight the real war on terror where the terrorists started to bomb our country and planned to bomb us on 9/11 and that is in the mountains of Afghanistan. Why are we fighting a civil war in Iraq? Why are we fighting a civil war in Iraq when it is in Afghanistan where the war should be fought? Why are our Republican friends talking about protecting our national security in Iraq when in fact it is al Qaeda in Afghanistan that is posing the greatest threat to our national security? It is this supplemental that talks about fighting the real national security threat to our Nation, and that is why I support this important supplemental, because it truly supports our troops and it supports our veterans as well. Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for this supplemental, not because I agree with everything in it, but because I agree with the most important thing in it: a binding deadline to end the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we need to redeploy our troops from Iraq first and foremost because it is in our national security interest. As someone who voted for the original resolution, I am particularly pained by the hardships and suffering our troops and their families endure. I want them to come home. But I also know that the men and women in uniform, and the families behind them, are willing to make the sacrifices they do if that is what it takes to make America more secure. The truth is policing a civil war in Iraq does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us. But redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other challenges around the world, most importantly the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually did engineer 9/11. The moral authority we've lost in the eyes of the world compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts against national security threats ranging from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global warming and drug trafficking. The sooner we begin redeployment, the sooner we begin unraveling the tremendous damage that this war and its mismanagement have wrought on our national security. We need to restore America's leadership. We need to strengthen America's security. We need to pass this supplemental and begin the redeployment from Iraq. I believe in a strong U.S. engagement around the world, including using military force when necessary. I also believe, as did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, that America's greatest strength comes from its values and its ability to lead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 131, I was in a hearing during votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize National Eating Disorders Awareness Week. While we know that millions of people are affected by eating disorders, which include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder, the exact number is unknown because there is no accurate data collection of these diseases. It is time to take action on eating disorders, a mental and physical health issue that has had little public support and is often misrepresented in popular media. Each year, hundreds of Americans die as a direct result of an eating disorder, which has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. Several thousand more have eating disorder symptoms listed as contributing conditions to their deaths. For those who live with the condition, eating disorders frequently impair the sufferer's home, work, personal, and social life. Health consequences such as osteoporosis (brittle bones), gastrointestinal complications and dental problems are significant health and financial burdens throughout life. At any given time, 10 percent or more of late adolescent and adult women report symptoms of eating disorders. Just last month, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population, funded in part by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that eating disorders often occur with other mental health disorders, yet eating disorders may go undiagnosed and untreated. The researchers, therapists, and families of the Eating Disorders Coalition are working to advance the Federal recognition of eating disorders as a public health priority. I applaud the efforts of the National Eating Disorders Association to call attention to these important issues during National Eating Disorders Awareness Week, February 25 to March 3, 2007.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, today, the House of Representatives took a long awaited step toward improving the lives of America's working- class and middle-class families. For far too long, the playing field has been tilted against workers and the unions that represent them. Today's House passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which I strongly supported, will help balance the inequity in the relationship between management and workers; an inequity that management has far too often used to stifle the will of workers. An objective review of the recent history of labor relations in this country shows that in the majority of cases employer coercion, intimidation, and harassment have been used as tools to manipulate and successfully thwart union organizing drives. Workers are often fired or otherwise discriminated against because of their efforts to organize. One out of every four employers illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing campaign; 78 percent of employers force their employees to attend one- on-one meetings with their supervisors to hear anti-union messages; and 92 percent force employees to attend mandatory, captive audience anti- union meetings. Clearly, even when a solid majority of employees have requested employer recognition of union representation, the more likely reaction of management has been to launch repressive anti-union campaigns rife with illegal tactics. During the minority party's 12 years of power in Congress, and now 6 years in the White House, case after case of illegal employer intimidation leveled against union organizing efforts would arise. That little was often done in response only encouraged impunity among the forces opposed to negotiating with workers in good faith. Now, is the Democratic Party's turn to hold the reins of power in this institution, and with this legislation, the Democratic majority demonstrates its unyielding commitment to workers' rights and a decent life for all working Americans and their families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, my uncle said a generation ago: If we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time, at every crisis, we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made once again for just one more step up the ladder. And once again the President tells us that we are going to win; victory is coming.'' My Uncle Robert Kennedy made this statement in March of 1968. It took another 5 years and 37,455 American lives before a United States President was withdrawing Americans out of Vietnam and stopping that war. I am here tonight to say that the American people and this Congress are going to say ``no'' to this President when it comes to repeating that mistake. There are those who will disparage this amendment and who say that this is a nonbinding resolution. But this resolution says that we are going to reject this President's doubling down on the gambling of American lives, and this foolish policy which has sent over 3,125 soldiers to their deaths, over 23,417 wounded soldiers back home, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis to their graves and countless more also injured. We are saying in this resolution that we either have to start digging ourselves out of this hole, or we are going to start rueing the day when we have failed to act tonight to start changing course. This administration's bullheaded insistence, bullheaded insistence on ideology over strategy is what has gotten us into this mess, and now that same stubbornness is counseling us to send still more soldiers and more Marines into an Iraqi civil war. Our service men and women have been heroic. They have been confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, ill equipped and under equipped, and yet in increasingly untenable positions they have been unflinching and have been uncomplaining in their shouldering of every burden we have asked of them, and they have done it with dignity and professionalism. But it is not right. It is not right to ask them, to ask the military to bear the burden of the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It is not right, and it won't work. Instead of closing our eyes and crossing our fingers and giving this President a rubber stamp for an endless civil war in Iraq, we should be beginning to move our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership. Our choice tonight is clear: Keep digging, or climb our way out of this hole. I think this Congress will decide to start climbing our way out. And there will be many who will say, what will we do then? I will say, well, maybe we will propose to fence off the funds as many have suggested. That will be a debate for another day. That will be a debate for another day whether we will fence off the funds. But tonight will be the debate, and tomorrow will be the decision as to whether we will vote to go in that direction. So you can say it is a meaningless, nonbinding resolution all you want, but it is the first conversation as to which direction we are going to go, and that is the direction we have to decide, and I vote that we go in the direction of starting to move our way and our troops out of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, ``if we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time--at every crisis--we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder. . . . And once again the President tells us that `we are going to win'; `victory' is coming.'' My uncle, Robert Kennedy, spoke these words in March 1968, It took another 5 years and another 37,455 American lives before a U.S. President finally withdrew American troops from Vietnam. I will not stand by, the American people will not stand by, and allow the President to repeat that mistake. Some disparage this resolution because it's nonbinding. But with due respect, I couldn't disagree more. This resolution represents a fundamental policy choice by this Congress. It's about whether you agree with doubling down the President's high stakes gamble with American lives. This resolution poses a simple choice. After 4 years, after 3,125 deaths, after more than 23,417 wounded, are we digging our hole in Iraq even deeper, or are we strong enough to start climbing out? We need a stronger America, a more secure America and that begins with a rejection of the failed strategy in Iraq. It has now been nearly 4 years since the President declared that in Iraq, our mission was accomplished. Four years of disintegration. Four years of unfounded insistence that the turning point is right around the corner. Are we digging deeper, or climbing out? We have watched a child hug their parents tight on the tarmac--only to have to let go as Morn or Dad is deployed for the second, third, or even fourth time. We have stood at the graveside with a grieving family as a Gold Star mother accepts a folded American flag. We have visited our Nation's newest veterans in the hospital, their bodies and minds scarred by the horrors of war. Are we digging deeper, or climbing out? Each day we all see, with our own eyes, the carnage and the chaos that has become the norm in Iraq. The administration's bull-headed insistence on ideology over strategy has led us to where we are today. And now, that same stubbornness is counseling some to send still more of our soldiers and marines into an Iraqi civil war. Our current course is failing in Iraq. It's failing the bigger struggle against our terrorist enemies. It's failing our troops and their families. And it's failing our core values as Americans. I won't settle for that failure. We must change course. We must begin to climb out of the hole in Iraq. Democrats, Republicans, generals, and most importantly, the American people now see that it is time for a new plan; it is time to embrace a new approach. Our service men and women have been heroic. Confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, underequipped, and in an increasingly untenable position, our troops have not flinched, they have not complained, they have shouldered every burden we ask of them with dignity and professionalism. But it is not right to place upon our military the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It's not right, and it won't work. Instead of closing our eyes, crossing our fingers, and giving the President a rubber stamp for endless war in Iraq, we should begin moving our country back to a commonsense policy of strength through leadership. Our strong leaders of the last century, like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, recognized that while American military might was important, American values were our greatest strength. We rallied the world in the Second World War and defeated the Soviets in the cold war on the strength of our Nation's democratic ideals. For the entire 20th century, we led by our example, and by the force of our principles. While military action will continue to be a necessary component of our current struggle, ultimate victory against this generation of enemies will similarly be won not on the battlefield, but in the minds of millions around the world. That victory is impossible while we are in the middle of Iraq's civil war. Our choice today is clear. Keep digging or climb out? If we decide to begin climbing out, as I think we will, there are debates yet to come about the best way to do that--whether we should fence off funds to prevent an escalation, for example. I look forward to those conversations. But today is a more fundamental question about the direction of our country. We can withdraw from Iraq without withdrawing from the fight. We can be strong enough to climb out of that hole. For our troops, for their families, and for our Nation's strength and security, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 74 and No. 75 I was unable to make the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both No. 74 and No. 75.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, imagine having a child with a potentially fatal disease. Imagine the pain of watching your child suffer, even while effective treatments are out there, only not available to your family. Now imagine that you had to choose between watching your child in agony, maybe even slowly dying, or getting her the care she needs but only by relinquishing your parental rights. This kind of choice is barbaric, senseless, and common. I rise in support of the Keeping Families Together Act, a collective effort initiated by myself, Representative Ramstad, Representative Stark, and Senator Collins dedicated to improving the lives of children and adolescents living with mental disorders. The time is now to close systemic shortfalls in our social service and health care systems that revictimize children who suffer from chronic mental health disorders. Every year in this country, thousands of families are forced to relinquish custody of their children to the state in order to secure vitally necessary--even life or death--health care for their seriously ill children. These needed services are extremely expensive and private insurance often runs out prior to children being adequately treated. The financial burden of caring for a child with a chronic mental illness often exceeds what a family can bear. Many of these children remain Medicaid-ineligible because their parents' income and assets prevent them for qualifying for this assistance. These are not families who want to turn their children over to state authorities. These are reluctant families. Families who have suffered, and have arrived at the all too painful reality that they have exhausted all resources available short of turning their child over to the State. The choice between custody and care is one that no parent should be forced to make. Clinical child experts tell us that the best place for a child to receive care is in the context of a supportive family relationship. Intuitively, we know this to be true. The family is the primary institution of care and nurturing for children, and families should be empowered to provide the needed care for their children through access and support. The cornerstone of the Keeping Families Together Act is the provision of competitive grants to states, conditioned on the existence of state laws and policies to ensure that children receive appropriate mental health services and that their parents do not have to relinquish custody of their children. These Family Support Grants will in part: (1) establish interagency systems of care as an alternative to custody relinquishment, (2) facilitate the design of a statewide system of care which would involve collaboration between state child-serving agencies, parents, providers, and other stakeholders, (3) only fund activities which demonstrate benefit to children who are already in or are at risk for entering state custody solely for the purpose of receiving mental health services. This bill would establish a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, make recommendations to Congress, and guide the implementation of the grant program. States will be required to report annually on the success of the programs and activities implemented by the State under the grant. The Keeping Families Together Act seeks to redress the inexcusable emotional disruption that is inflicted upon thousands of children and their parents by maintaining a system of care that forces good families to relinquish custody of their children to the bureaucrats and institutions of the state. Nobody can think that kind of system is good for anyone, and it's no wonder this bill has broad bipartisan support. It is counterproductive, and clinically counter-indicated, to separate emotionally vulnerable children from their core system of nurturing and support. The Keeping Families Together Act provides the safety net that families need and deserve, because parental rights should never be a trade off for children's health care. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this law this year and keep these families together.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our Nation's oil companies made $97 billion in profits, five times the profits they made in 2002. In the last 3 years, their profits per gallon of gasoline went from 15 cents per gallon of gas that you pumped in your car to 50 cents last year. So just think of it. Today, when you put your gallon of gas in the car, oil and gas is taking 50 cents a gallon for profits. That is scandalous. Now, if you want to challenge me, I ask the press to challenge me. And if oil and gas wants to disprove my facts, I ask the oil and gas industry to disprove my facts. Open up your books, oil and gas companies, and disprove what I have to say to you today. Otherwise, let's pass this bill and give back to the people of this country some of the excess profits these companies have been taking from the American people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4, legislation that will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan and my good friend, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his good work on this legislation in bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day, because this is a day where we take this Congress back from the special interests. We take it back from the drug companies and the HMOs, and we give it back to the people of this country and to the taxpayers. We take it from the drug companies who are charging excessive costs for profits for these prescription drugs to the detriment of our senior citizens who are paying exponentially high drug costs in the donut hole, and our taxpayers, who are paying 80 percent higher for these costs, and now we are going to be able to save those taxpayers and those consumers dollars by negotiating lower drug costs. The taxpayers and the consumers are winners under H.R. 4. I urge its passage. I am thrilled to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4, legislation that will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan, and my good friend and Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his work to bring this issue to the floor today. I hear my friends on the other side of aisle singing praises for Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug plan. But I wonder if the constituents I speak with receive the same benefit that these members are describing. When I meet with seniors back home in Rhode Island, I hear about confusing formularies and crippling costs in the so-called ``donut hole.'' I hear about nursing home patients who are no longer able to afford their new co-pays. And then I hear a statistic stating that drug prices under Part D are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the federal government. When the Medicare Part D law was written, the drug companies had the loudest voice at the table. Today, we are here to bring the voice of our seniors back to the bargaining table, and back to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 4 and to put the needs of the American people before those of special interests.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from Colorado and the gentleman from Delaware for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. I must also extend my thanks to our distinguished Speaker for her commitment to returning the House to the hands of the American people during the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Each year, dozens of health advocacy groups flood my Washington, D.C., office to discuss the importance of medical research. While all experiences are memorable, the difficulties faced by the children with Type I, or juvenile diabetes, really stay with me. Last year, a brother and sister, ages four and five, visited my office and shared with me their hatred of needles, and how much they would like to enjoy birthday cake and other foods with their friends. They didn't understand why they were chosen to be sick. They didn't understand why there are people in D.C. blocking bills that would help them get better. These children had one simple request, to pass a law to increase the most promising research tool available that may lead to a cure for their disease. Advancements in science and technology have put our Nation in the position to make breakthroughs for these children. How did the President respond to their request? He made this bill the first veto of his Presidency. Everyone in this Nation knows someone, or has a friend or family member, who could benefit from stem cell research. It is time for a new direction for America and it is time for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to become law.