Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2003, I was in my Congressional District in Rhode Island and consequently I missed two votes. Had I been here I would of voted: ``yes'' on H. Res. 25 and ``yes'' on H. Res. 26.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 107.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, concerned individuals and organizations from the Laotian-American community in my district in Rhode Island and throughout the United States participated in key sessions of the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos, held on both July 17 and October 1, 2002, in the U.S. House of Representatives. They presented testimony and provided critical information to the Congress about the deteriorating human rights situation in Laos and the plight of missing Lao student leaders, political and religious dissidents as well as the ongoing persecution and horrific massacre of minority peoples, including the Hmong people in the closed areas of Saysamboun Special Zone and Xieng Khouang Province. Mr. Speaker, right now many Laotian and Hmong-Americans in Rhode Island have family members who are still suffering and dying in Laos under the brutal Pathet Lao regime. I am concerned that Laos remains a one-party Communist system that has nearly bankrupt the nation--both economically and morally, in terms of the lack of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, including lack of religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, it is important to honor and thank Mr. Thongsavanh Phongsavan, and his colleagues from North Providence, Rhode Island, who have helped to so honorably represent the Laotian-American community in Rhode Island as well as the Lao-American Council and the Lao Progressive Institute of Rhode Island. I also want to recognize and commend Mr. Philip S. Smith, Executive Director, of the Center for Public Policy Analysis for his important work and leadership in helping to coordinate the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos with Members of Congress as well as assisting the freedom-loving people of Laos in Rhode Island and elsewhere in the Laotian Diaspora community. Special recognition and thanks also to: Mrs. Nouamkham Khamphylavong, Mr. Aly Chantala, Mr. Oudong Saysana and the members of the ``Lao Students Movement for Democracy''; Mr. T. Kumar, Amnesty International; Ms. Christine Hines and Mr. John Tai, of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Mr. Paul Martin, U.S. Department of State; Mrs. Kay Danes, former Australian political prisoner in Laos; Mr. Makram Ouaiss, National Democratic Institute; His Excellency Kat Dittavong, former Royal Lao Ambassador to Thailand 1973-75; Mr. Prakian Viravong, of the ``December 14'' organization, as well as a distinguished Lao poet and author; Mr. Khampoua Naovarangsy, of the Laos Institute for Democracy; Mr. Bounchaloune Phouthakhanty; Mr. Alan Sananikone, Col. Bounmee Sananikone, Mr. Bounthone Rathigna, Mr. Thongchanh Boulum, Col. Khamthene Chinyavong and Baramy Mitthivong, of the United League for Democracy in Laos, Inc.; The Honorable Dr. Sin Vilay, of the Royal Laos Foundation; Mr. Bounleung Ngonevolalath; Col. Khambang Sibounheuang--decorated officer and ``White Dragon Two'' author--and his colleague, Mr. Eugene Prater, of the Lao Nationalist Reform Party; Bon and Laura Xiong, Hubert Yang, Chuhu Xiong, Xieng Xiong and Ying Xiong, of the Hmong International Human Rights Watch and Hmong Reform Party; Mr. Moua Sao, of Lan Xang Democracy, Inc. and son of the legendary Hmong resistance leader Cher Pao Moua; Dr. Kayasith Rattanavongkoth, of the national Laotian-American Association; Jacqueline Sun; Dr. Edward Samada, International Buddhist Fellowship; Pastor Pat Kearney; Pastor Sidney Kahn; Mr. Kingsavanh Pathammavong, researcher, Lao history and culture; Mrs. Bounchan Senthavong, Lao Community Advisor; Col. Thai C. Vang, Col. Wangyee Vang, Cherzong Vang, Mr. Chang Ger Xiong, Nao Lue Kue, Mr. Toua Kue, Xia Xu Kue and many others from the Lao Veterans of America, Inc.; Touy Manikham, former RLAF pilot; Professor Onsy Inthavong, Mr. Vanhlang Khamsouk, Manisakhone Sinhbandith and Nick Hanthaley, of the Federation for Free Elections in Laos; Mrs. Yer Ly, daughter of missing Hmong-American, Mr. Houa Ly; Mr. Bee Moua, Representative, Chao Fa Party; Mr. Bounheuang Manivong, Editor, Phendin Lao Magazine; Miss Ratdavone Yotharath, President, Miss Lao-American, Inc. of Rhode Island; Mr. Vue Lee, Hmong Community Advisor and businessman; Mr. Southalavong Boutah, Lao Veterans Association; and, George Vue and Dr. Houa Yang, of the Hmong National Council, Inc. as well as so many others. Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned about the plight of the suffering people of Laos and the deplorable human rights and economic situation under the current Pathet Lao regime. I join my colleagues in Congress in commending the Lao and Hmong-American community and the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos for the important effort they have put forward to help raise further awareness about the difficult situation in Laos, including human rights violations, religious and ethnic persecution--and the terrible plight of missing Lao student leaders and Hmong-Americans.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us requires us to make an enormously difficult decision. There are many cases to be made against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the only one that justifies this debate is the danger Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and particularly its nuclear program, pose to the United States. Recognizing this danger, however, does not inform the appropriate response, and in this extremely complex situation, finding the right response is not easy. a grave decision There is no greater responsibility for a Member of Congress than voting whether to initiate war. This is a responsibility I take very seriously. For the last several weeks I have immersed myself in the details of the situation with Iraq. I have consulted with experts and people whole opinions I value. I have spoken with Rhode Island veterans and have considered the opinions of the more than 1,100 constituents who have contacted me on this matter. I have received a number of security and intelligence briefings from Administration officials, the National Security Advisor, the Director of Central Intelligence, Defense Department officials and military leaders. I have been carefully deliberating, weighing the potential risks of a war with Iraq against the inevitable danger of a nuclear-armed Iraq. In considering the options, I have paid careful attention to the position of President Bush, to his speech this week and his other statement on Iraq. Since September 11, I have consistently supported the President's efforts to safeguard our national security and eliminate the threat of terrorism. I believe he deserves great credit for rallying the American people to a new challenge and building strength from tragedy. While giving special consideration to the request of the Commander- in-Chief, I must also exercise my own judgment on this most critical life and death question of war. One of the great strengths of a democracy is that decisions that emerge from the marketplace of ideas tend to be stronger, for they have been challenged and questioned. If we do not question and do not challenge, if we do not carefully deliberate, we weaken rather than strengthen our nation's purpose. It is for this reason that the Framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom, gave the power to declare war to Congress. Congress represents the voice of the people, and it is only the people of a democracy who should have the power to send their sons and daughters to war. I therefore feel that it is incumbent upon every Member of Congress, indeed on every citizen, to carefully weigh the factors counseling for and against war with Iraq and make a decision accordingly. After much deliberation, I have concluded that the dangers of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons are so significant that we have no choice but to act. At the same time, I recognize that a U.S. war with Iraq could complicate our struggle against terrorism and create new, serious risks. It is therefore clear that we must make every effort to enlist the United Nations in our effort to disarm Iraq and address that threat. Whether we accomplish our goals through diplomacy or by arms, our course will be less dangerous if the world community is with us. I will support the bipartisan resolution negotiated by President Bush and House leaders because I believe it represents our best hope for delivering the multilateral coalition we seek to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear weapons program. the threat posed by iraq In his address to the nation this week, his speech to the United Nations, and his other statements, President Bush has clearly and forcefully articulated Iraq's threat to U.S. security. Saddam Hussein unquestionably is one of the world's most detestable tyrants. He harbors a deep hostility towards the United States and an unquenchable thirst for conquest and power. He has demonstrated that he does not view weapons of mass destruction merely as deterrents, but rather as offensive weapons to be used to further his quest for power and give him leverage over the United States. Given this record, it is a national security imperative that he not develop a nuclear weapon. Nuclear non-proliferation is a longstanding objective of this country, but nowhere is it more critical than Iraq. Saddam Hussein has made clear that he believes a nuclear weapon would give him the ability to act with impunity. The experts I have spoken with from former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to former Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke to members of the current Administration believe that the risk of terrorism would increase substantially after Iraq obtained nuclear capability. Iraq would then be more apt to provide shelter, technology, and weapons to terrorists targeting the U.S. The large chemical and biological weapons stockpiles would pose a much greater risk to our security at that point then they do now. A nuclear Iraq would be an enormous danger to the U.S. and be a major setback in our war on terrorism. Not only would the direct threat to the U.S. be intolerable, but acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq would roil an already volatile region. Saddam Hussein's hegemonic ambitions for the Gulf region virtually ensure that he would resume his military adventurism if he believed he had a deterrent to U.S. action. Hussein said after the Gulf War that his greatest regret was not waiting to invade Kuwait until after he had acquired a nuclear weapon. Experts like Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, have predicted an arms race in the Middle East in response to the threat of a resurgent Iraq. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey would feel a need to counter Iraq's new strategic advantage. In a region as unstable as the Middle East, the prospects of a nuclear arms race should make us all shudder. Of course, the most ominous threat is that Iraq would pass nuclear technology to terrorists. September 11th showed us that there are people willing to do the unspeakable. The spectre of nuclear terrorism, which previously seemed remote and only theoretically frightening, has suddenly become a real and horrible possibility. We can no longer count on those Cold War limits that we assumed even our enemies shared. With this new, visceral understanding, who is willing to take the risk that a nuclear-armed Iraq will not share its weapons? The degree of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and other terrorists targeting the U.S. is unclear, but if we wait for that unholy alliance to form, we will have waited too long. Unfortunately, the possibility that Iraq might develop a nuclear weapon is not remote. Its nuclear program has been disrupted but never fully dismantled. Current intelligence suggests that Iraq could have a functional bomb within a year of acquiring a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Given the potential of acquiring these materials from the crumbling infrastructure of the former Soviet Union's arsenal, we cannot assume that a willing buyer will find no seller. The people with whom I have spoken who know the region best, from the current Administration, from the Clinton Administration, and those who have spent lifetimes studying the Middle East, are nearly unanimous in concluding that we simply cannot allow Iraq to acquire nuclear capability. The risks of nuclear terrorism, of the potentially catastrophic destabilization of a Middle East arms race, and of future nuclear war in the region are all too real. Our national security will be severely compromised if we do not prevent Iraq's development of nuclear weapons. Many have asked, why now? For eleven years we have relied on containment and deterrence to respond to Iraq. But Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst of Iraq, has explained that Saddam Hussein's history suggests a streak of irrationality that makes these policies unreliable given the stakes. Whether because he is sheltered from the facts by underlings who tell him what he wants to hear or simply unbalanced, Hussein has repeatedly and dramatically misjudged the reactions his actions would generate. From his 1974 attack on Iranian-supported Kurds that provoked a military response by Iran leading to Iraqi territorial concessions, to his ill-fated war with Iran in 1980, to the invasion of Kuwait, he has consistently miscalculated. Deterrence is predicated on rational actors operating with similar sets of assumptions. These examples raise serious questions about whether we can expect Hussein to make rational choices, and that is a risk we cannot take when the use of nuclear weapons hang in the balance. President Bush has convincingly articulated the danger that Saddam Hussein poses and his long history of undermining security in the Middle East and throughout the world cannot be denied. We must act to disarm Iraq, and we must act soon, before he acquires nuclear weapons and before he writes the next chapter in a long history of irrational and highly destructive aggression. The question is how we act. freedom is not free The first choice is, of course, a diplomatic solution. The goal is a new U.N. resolution that will convince Saddam Hussein that he cannot avoid complying with international law. We must appreciate, however, that given Hussein's history, this process may well end in confrontation. And so we also need to understand the many implications of a war in Iraq. We know, as is inscribed at the Korean War Memorial, that freedom is not free. There are times that we are called upon to sacrifice to protect our values, our homeland, and our way of life. When our national security is at stake, we will not hesitate to make the necessary sacrifice. But we know from painful experience the consequences of launching a war without first establishing the political will to see it through, and the American people have to know what sacrifices they may be called upon to make. Obviously, the risks of war would be most directly borne by the courageous men and women who were our Nation's uniform. I know that they stand prepared to go and fight wherever their Commander-in-Chief sends them. I have made it a priority during my eight years in Congress to ensure that they are the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective fighting force in the history of the world, so that if we have to send them into harm's way, we know they will be victorious. Regarding a war with Iraq, we have not been told what to expect in the way of call-ups, casualties, length of combat, and the like. Some experts predict that the Iraqi military will overthrow Hussein rather than face destruction and possible war crimes prosecutions. It is my greatest hope that they prove correct. But we need to be prepared for the possibility of combat involving chemical or biological attacks. We may face block-by-block, building-by-building combat in Iraqi cities that, in the words of General Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander-in- chief of the U.S. Central Command whose area of responsibility includes Iraq, could resemble the last fifteen minutes of ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Planning conservatively, we have to assume that we may face a months-long guerrilla campaign and that casualties may be far higher than in the Gulf War. Our armed forces are unquestionably prepared to carry out this and any mission they might be given. Should they be called upon, they will have my unconditional support for the duration of any armed conflict. I will do my utmost to give the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our nation whatever they need to accomplish their mission. We should not send them into battle, however, until the American people have been fully prepared for the cost in American lives that we may pay for victory. The American people must also be better prepared for the long-term consequences of action in Iraq. Even if the war goes quickly and the worst-case scenarios do not play out, there is a consensus that an extended American presence in Iraq will be required to maintain stability in that ethnically and politically divided country. It is critical that a centralized, unified Iraq emerge, and we cannot leave that outcome to chance. If we win the war but do not win the peace, the great risks we take and blood we shed will be for naught. American troops will, at least initially, be responsible for protecting Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria, governing tinder-boxes on the brink of civil war, like the city of Kirkuk, and preventing revenge-induced massacres in the Shiite south. The economic costs will be high and the risks to our troops serious. Although specifics may vary depending on the breadth and impact of the war, under virtually any scenario we face the prospect of a major, long-term reconstitution of Iraq in dollars, energy, attention, and most importantly, lives. I know that we are capable of meeting the challenge of rebuilding Iraq, just as we are capable of meeting the military challenges. Like possible economic and budgetary implications, these are not considerations which will deter us from acting to protect our national security, but they are consequences of war that we must be prepared to realize. War in Iraq and the impact on anti-terrorism efforts As great a danger as Iraq represents, we should not pursue military action there without considering its impact on the wider war on terrorism that we are currently fighting. As many thoughtful commentators have noted, a war in Iraq carries its own dangers above and beyond the immediate risks to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. The fight against Al Qaeda is not only a military engagement at this point, but even more so, a law enforcement and intelligence operation. Unilateral war with Iraq runs the risk of drying up critical support in the war on terrorism. We need the cooperation of foreign governments in countries like Yemen and Pakistan to find and detain Al Qaeda's leadership. The arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in Pakistan last month is the perfect example. A suspected ringleader in the planning of the September 11th attacks, he is now providing us with valuable intelligence. If what is perceived to be an American imperialistic attack on Iraq costs us allies in our struggle against terrorism, it could become much more difficult for us to thwart future terrorist attacks. While an Iraqi war could cause some governments to stop working as closely with us, more troubling is the prospect that I could cause massive destabilization in the Middle East and surrounding areas. The first President Bush's National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, and others have cautioned that a war in Iraq could metastasize into a regional war. If Iraq attacks Israel and Israel responds as promised, the smoldering Israeli-Arab conflict could explode. Turkey, Syria, and Iran all have substantial Kurdish populations and could be drawn into war. A geopolitical nightmare scenario is President Musharraf's government in Pakistan toppling and a radical Islamic regime taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Experts have said his grip on power is somewhat shaky. Could an American attack on Iraq prompt large street demonstrations in Pakistan? Could that in turn lead to Musharraf's downfall? Middle East experts are even more concerned about the impact of a war on the moderate government of Jordan's King Abdullah. Not only could a change of governments there cost us a reliable ally in the fight against terrorism, but it could lead to a cataclysm whose ripple effects would harm us in other ways. Jordan is one of the few countries that has signed a peace treaty with Israel. But half of its population is made up of Palestinian refugees. If Jordan were to fall into the hands of a radical government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could explode into a multi-front war. An Arab-Israeli war is the surest way to inflame Islamic militants. Even without a deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that a unilateral war by the United Sates on Iraq would ``supercharge'' Al Qaeda's recruitment. There are a billion Muslims in the world, some of whom unfortunately harbor a great distrust of the United States. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and their sympathizers would portray a U.S. attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, and many would view it that way. We can assume that in the event of war, Hussein will place anti- aircraft guns and other military targets in mosques, schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. In order to win, the U.S. military may be forced to strike these sites, and al-Jezeera would likely broadcast daily images of U.S. bombs destroying important cultural, religious, and other apparently civilian buildings. Military victory could well come at the cost of an enormous public relations defeat, one which make us an army of new enemies willing to take their own lives to inflict pain on Americans. It is also far from clear that war with Iraq will reduce the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons being used against Americans or our allies. A newly released CIA report details the danger that an attack on Iraq could lead Hussein to aid terrorists in chemical or biological attack as a way to exact a last measure of revenge. We know that Iraq has mobile labs producing these potentially devastating weapons. Can we be sure that our troops would eliminate them before he had a chance to launch weapons at Israel or put them in the hands of terrorists? For that matter, can we be sure they are not already in the hands of Iraqi agents or other terrorists outside of Iraq, awaiting a signal to use them? When you corner a dangerous animal, you have to expect it to lash out. A war to disarm Hussein may paradoxically increase rather than decrease Americans' vulnerability to those very weapons. If there is one lesson of warfare that has been true throughout human history, it is that wars have unintended consequences. Writing 2400 years ago, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, called this uncertainty the ``fog of war.'' We ignore this timeless truth of warfare at our peril. It would be the hubris of the world's lone superpower to assume that our plans will be carried out exactly as we foresee them. minimizing threats in iraq and elsewhere While these dangers are real and caution us against war, inaction still leaves us with the prospect of a nuclear Iraq in the relatively near future. Through no choice of our own we have entered a minefield. On one side lies the danger of Iraq with nuclear weapons. On the other, an unfinished war against fanatics who hide in shadows and who may be inadvertently strengthened by our actions in Iraq. We need to pick our way carefully through this minefield, making every effort to minimize the risks on both sides. Obviously, our best option is to disarm Iraq without resort to war. This outcome can only happen if the world unites in pressuring Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. For this reason, I am pleased that the President has brought our case to the United Nations and has been aggressively pursuing a new, forceful resolution in the Security Council. The Security Council should pass a new resolution, giving weapons inspectors truly unfettered access to any site in Iraq at any time with no conditions. I believe any new resolution should be backed up with the realistic threat of force. But it must act quickly. If the UN is to remain a credible international agent of stability, it must, as the President has insisted, begin disarming Iraq in a matter of days and weeks not months and years. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, has told me that we can expect an inspections and disarmament regime to take several years. Given the timeline for Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon, the window for diplomatic action is therefore very small. If we want a peaceful option to prevail, we must set down that road immediately. We can hope that Saddam Hussein will recognize that he has lost the battle for world opinion and will capitulate to international law by giving up his weapons of mass destruction. Even if diplomacy fails, however, our national security would be much better protected if we forcibly disarm Iraq at the head of a multilateral coalition rather than on our own. As the first President Bush realized, perceptions are critically important in global diplomacy. A number of the dangers war poses to our efforts against terrorism are exacerbated by a perception, warranted or not, that the United States is using its military dominance to bully Arabs or Muslims. If, on the other hand, the U.S. is seen exhausting diplomatic efforts and any conflict is between Iraq and the community of nations rather than just the sole superpower, a war at that point is less likely to undermine American efforts to combat terrorism. A multilateral war with Iraq would do less to diminish the support we have received from Muslim nations in the war on terrorism. It would be less risky to our fragile allies in the region. It would be harder for the terrorists and anti-American propagandists to use to inflame young Muslims to attack the United States. We seek the auspices of the United Nations not because we must, but because doing so is in the nation's best interest. As President Kennedy said forty years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis, ``This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum-- in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful--without limiting our freedom of action.'' We will not defer decisions of our national security to the United Nations, but where it is useful we should take advantage of the international structures that our nation was instrumental in creating. In this case, it is in the overwhelming best interest of the United States to push the UN to disarm Iraq, and I therefore stand foursquare behind President Bush's efforts to push the Security Council to address Iraq's lawlessness. the debate in the house of representatives These are the considerations I have been weighing over the past several weeks and upon which I will cast my vote in Congress. My decision is based on grave concerns about the prospect of a nuclear- armed Iraq and equally serious fears that a war with Iraq will create new, highly dangerous risks of terrorism. I will vote for the resolution I feel is most likely to lead to a multilateral disarmament of Iraq, which is the best route to safeguard our national security. I was troubled by the first draft of the resolution sent to Congress because it was an extremely broad mandate that authorized any action not only to disarm Iraq and enforce UN resolutions, but to ``restore peace and stability in the region.'' The process of deliberation has worked, however, Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations have subsequently improved the resolution and led to a more thorough discussion of the complex factors that must inform this decision. The new resolution now requires the President to exhaust diplomatic efforts before resorting to force. Equally important, it authorizes the use of force in Iraq only upon certification by the President that such action will not undermine the international war on terrorism. We walk a fine line between the risks of a rogue Iraq on one side and hindering our war on terrorism on the other. These two features of the new resolution ensure that our Iraq policy walks that line if at all possible. President Bush has made it clear that his preferred option is to lead the United Nations in enforcing its own resolutions. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others in the Administration are working to convince a reluctant Security Council that a new resolution with teeth, authorizing unconditional access by inspectors to any site in Iraq is the surest way to avoid armed conflict. Secretary Powell, his predecessor, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the UN in the Clinton Administration, Richard Holbrooke, and others have told me that to persuade the international community to follow us, the President needs as strong a hand as possible. Those of us who strongly believe that America's safest path among the dangers that confront us is a multilateral approach and who want to avoid war must show the world that our nation is resolute in its determination to respond to the threat in Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein will capitulate only if he senses that the only alternative is destruction. A clear declaration of our unity and our determination to eliminate the Iraqi threat to our own security and that of the community of nations is the best way to the multilateral, diplomatic solution that we seek. I remain convinced that a unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq creates grave threats to the security of our people, even while it eliminates others. But I also agree with the President that a failure to confront Saddam Hussein now, before he has nuclear capabilities, would be a colossal mistake. To maximize our national security, we must balance these two dangerous and uncertain possibilities. The resolution before the United States Congress ensures that, to as great an extent possible, that precarious balance is struck. Through its focus on diplomacy, its concern for the broader war on terrorism, and the resolve it communicates to the rest of the world, it is the most likely vehicle to the multilateral, diplomatic disarmament of Iraq that I and most Americans seek. I will, therefore, vote for the resolution in the most fervent hope that the force it authorizes should never have to be used.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 2002, I was in my Congressional District in Rhode Island and consequently I missed three votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 375, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 376, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 377. On September 10, 2002, I was in my Congressional District in Rhode Island and consequently I missed six votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall No. 378, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 379, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 380, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 381, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 382, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 383. On September 11, 2002, I was in my Congressional District in Rhode Island and consequently I missed one vote. Had I been here I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall No. 384.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I today offer my praise for the incredible strength, dedication and bravery of three individuals, Thomas O'Sullivan, Dr. Fred Epstein and Dr. George Jallo. In the beginning of 1999, then five-year-old Thomas started to have difficulty walking and maintaining balance. His parents, Patrick and Andrienne O'Sullivan, obviously concerned, took Thomas to a doctor in Ireland. Thomas was diagnosed as having an inoperable brain tumor, and his parents immediately began searching for someone who could help him. They had heard of one Dr. Fred Epstein, who founded the Institute for Neurology and Neurosurgery at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Epstein's team received and reviewed Thomas' medical records. Through this connection, a doctor trained by Dr. Epstein, Dr. George Jallo, agreed to perform surgery on Thomas without cost. In April of 2002, Dr. Jallo successfully removed 70% of the tumor plaguing Thomas' health. I cannot overstate how much we owe Dr. Epstein and Dr. Jallo for their work, because without this surgery, Thomas would have lost the ability to walk or swallow, his condition would have worsened, and he would most likely not have been able to live a normal life. While Thomas still faces a difficult road to recovery, thanks to Dr. Epstein, Dr. Jallo and to Thomas' own inner-strength, it is by no means an impossible one. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the determination and commitment that they have all demonstrated. It is truly a testament to the richness of the human spirit. I also wish Thomas good health and long life, and encourage those who are still working on Thomas' behalf to see that he reaches that goal. Your actions have made us all proud and should serve as a reminder to the American people of the good that is in all of us. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. John E. Sirmalis. Dr. Sirmalis recently retired from the position of Technical Director of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) after 45 years of outstanding service. He earned his Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1956, and a Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1958, both from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1975, he received a Doctorate Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Rhode Island. He has a widely heralded reputation as a true leader and an exceptional visionary for submarine and undersea warfare systems. He has also been considered the nation's foremost authority on undersea weapons. As the ``hands-on'' leader of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Dr. Sirmalis stressed the importance of leading the Navy into the future through innovation, transformation and visionary concepts. Under his leadership and guidance, an incredible and significant series of accomplishments were produced in many fields, including Sonar Technology, Combat Control Systems, Periscopes, and Launchers. As a recognized expert in management and technology, Dr. Sirmalis has served as a member of a number of high-level Navy panels and served as the Navy's undersea weapons expert for cooperative international data exchange programs. He played a vital role in the fielding and improving of the Mark 48 and the Mark 48 Advanced Capability (ADCAF torpedoes and other undersea vehicles. Dr. Sirmalis also implemented productivity enhancements, instituted an aggressive energy conservation program, and prioritized overhead functions to selectively reduce the cost of service. As a direct result of his initiatives, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center reduced overhead and costs while improving efficiency. Throughout his distinguished career Dr. Sirmalis has received numerous awards. In 1997, Dr. Sirmalis received the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the highest award that can be received by a member of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service. He has also been the recipient of the Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award, both in 1984 and 1994. He received the 1995 VADM Charles B. Martell Award presented for his outstanding record achievement and reputation as the world's foremost authority on undersea weaponry. Most recently he was selected to receive the 2000 Distinguished Civilian Award from the Naval Submarine League. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sirmalis has been a long serving and dedicated public servant and a true patriot. I am proud to recognize his long and distinguished career and accomplishments as Technical Director of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. true naval tradition, I wish Dr. John E. Sirmalis ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he enters into retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Juergen G. Keil. Mr. Keil has recently retired as the Executive Director of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division, Newport, Rhode Island after 36 years of dedicated leadership and outstanding service. He was responsible for the overall planning and direction of the scientific and technical activities related to the U.S. Navy's undersea warfare systems. He led the Division in the development of innovative concepts and approaches to address the challenges posed by the post-Cold War undersea warfare and budget environment. Through Mr. Keil's leadership, Division Newport has been transformed into an organization widely regarded as the model of government reinvention, process improvement, and strategic planning. Mr. Keil, a graduate of Brown University with a degree in Physics, has also served on the staff of Commander, Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet and as Head of the Undersea Warfare Analysis Department responsible for the formulation and conduct of a broad-based analysis program that assessed the effectiveness of submarines and surface ships in countering undersea threats as well as submarine warfare effectiveness across the full spectrum of their missions. These were instrumental in support of the Los Angeles Class SSN 688 Improvement, the SEAWOLF (SSN 21) and the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) Programs, as well as the Navy's ASW Weapon and Surface Ship ASW System Programs. Because of his efforts, NUWC Division, Newport's warfare analysis capabilities have been widely praised at all levels within the Department of the Navy and Department of Defense. Over the years, Mr. Keil has received numerous achievement awards including the Excellence in Management Award an the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award in 1979. In 1987, he received the Bronze Medal from the American Defense Preparedness Association for his expertise in naval warfare analysis and his outstanding contributions to ASW. In June 1991, he received a Special Act Award for his technical leadership of Congressional mandated study of the Navy's ASNA Weapons Investment Alternatives, and the Decibel Award from NUWC in recognition of his development of a premier warfare analysis organization and for his nurturing an environment of excellence in all the technical disciplines related to underwater warfare analysis. In 1999, he was the recipient of the Department of Navy Superior Civilian Service Award. He was also selected as the recipient of the Society of Women Engineers' 1999 Rodney D. Chipp Award for fostering a positive working environment for women engineers and scientists, and as the recipient of the 1999 Rhode Island Federal Executive Council's Bud Gifford Leadership Award. Additionally, the National Defense Industrial Association named Mr. Keil the winner of the 1999 VADM Charles B. Martell/David Bushnell Award in recognition of his extraordinary leadership in undersea warfare research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) and acquisition reform. Most recently, in 2000, Mr. Keil received the prestigious Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award in recognition of his sustained accomplishments, results-oriented leadership, and relentless commitment to public service. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keil has been a well respected and hard working public servant, as well as a patriot. I am honored to recognize his long and highly accomplished career and his important work as the Executive Director of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, Rhode Island. In time-honored naval tradition, I wish Mr. Juergen G. Keil ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he enters into retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer best wishes and birthday greetings for a good friend of mine, Mrs. Sue Shaffer, Chairwoman of the Cow Creek Nation. We've worked together for years on issues of importance to tribal governments across the nation. Whenever I speak with tribal leaders around the nation and with lawmakers here in our nation's Capitol about Indian Country, I talk about success stories like those of the Cow Creek Band. Sue represents the spirit of achievement that so embodies the history of the Cow Creek people. Fighting against a federal government that was at times hostile and at other times indifferent towards them, the people of Cow Creek worked hard from the first treaty with the United States in 1853 until their restoration in 1982 to make a great community for themselves. They've purchased land for themselves and have developed a great business enterprise through the Seven Feathers Casino and other diverse business interests. Mr. Speaker, what they've done for their community and for all of the non-tribal members they employ is great, and it's in no small part due to the leadership of Chairwoman Shaffer. I'm proud to recognize her as a leader in Indian Country and as a respected Chairwoman in her tribe, but I'm most proud to call her my friend. Thank you for all you've done, Sue. Have a happy 80th birthday and I wish you many more.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as vice- chairman of the Native American Caucus to express my support for the Kildee-Hayworth amendment, and encourage my colleagues to strike this measure from the bill. Mr. Chairman, let me say that since I was first elected to Congress, I have strongly supported efforts that would seek to expose the long history and failure of this country to recognize the deep poverty within Native American country. I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for continuing to expose that. But the answer is not to take away the one vehicle that so many tribes have used to even take themselves out of poverty. The answer is, we need to put more money into Indian health services, more money into education, more money into Indian law enforcement. These are the answers. Until we have those answers, we do not pull the leg out of the stool that is the one thing that many Native American tribes are standing on. That happens to be gaming.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for their excellent work on this bill. I look forward to working with them on the training of our National Guard. I know that the Guard is about to deploy in Pennsylvania. General Centraccio in my home State of Rhode Island has been very active in making sure our Guard is prepared and trained. We are relying on the Guard more than ever, and they are part of our total force, especially in this war on terrorism. I think they need to get the needed training and equipment that they need to do their job successfully. I know this bill goes a long way to doing that. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to ensure that they continue to get the best training available. I rise today to commend Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha for their work on this legislation. Their task hasn't been an enviable one, given the limited budget allocations that they were forced to work with. In the end, they made it work. Looking at the bill that they produced, everyone can see that Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha are dedicated to our military and the security of our Nation at home and abroad. The safety and security of our Nation and the training and readiness of our military came first--just as it should. I'd also like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Murtha made when the Appropriations Committee was discussing this legislation. He expressed his belief in the importance of ensuring that our soldiers receive the best training in the world to fight in our war on terrorism. He reminded us that the National Guard and the Reserves are a vital component in winning this war. He mentioned that the Pennsylvania Guard is about to deploy to Bosnia to initiate operations. In Rhode Island, General Centraccio is leading the Rhode Island Guard on a similar course. These Guard personnel are dedicated men and women, average American citizens, who are putting their lives on the line for their country. As Mr. Murtha mentioned, we owe it to them to ensure that they have the absolute best training and equipment available to do their job right in areas like marksmanship which I know is important to both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Lewis. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on these and other issues. I look forward to continuing the good work we have begun to ensure that our men and women in uniform have access to the best training available. Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding time to me; and I should say Dr. Hastings, given the honorary doctorate the gentleman will be receiving shortly. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College Program Act. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation which will contribute greatly to the valuable work that the sea grant programs across the Nation continue to do every day. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for his leadership on this in introducing this legislation, and other bipartisan cosponsors, including the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). I thank him, as well. Mr. Speaker, I represent the first district of Rhode Island. Rhode Island is known as the Ocean State. For hundreds of years, my State has made its living on the sea, from fishing in the waters to utilizing them for transportation. We have now added ocean exploration and science to our tasks. I am proud to say that Rhode Island has always been at the forefront of ocean science. I have worked extensively with the folks at the University of Rhode Island Sea Grant Program. They realize that this legislation, which will reauthorize the sea grant program for another 5 years, will allow them to leverage Federal funds in order to continue their study of our oceans. This allows us to make valuable strides forward in not just ocean exploration, but in biomedical sciences. How many people realize how much we derive from the ocean in terms of biomedical sciences and advances in pharmaceutical drugs, all found because of the sciences we do on our oceans? The Coastal Environmental Restoration and Preservation programs are also part of this ocean science sea grant program. Food production and responsible economic development through the utilization of our waters is key, and the sea grant program works with the Aid to International Development to help those countries around the world develop their coastal ways to feed their people. We have great hunger in the world, and the ocean can be a great resource for foodstuffs and fish protein. Additionally, this legislation promotes strong relationships between the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the sea grant. I look forward to seeing passage of this rule and also seeing passage of this legislation. Ultimately, I will work on the Committee on Appropriations to see that its laudable goals are adequately funded. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this bill forward; I look forward to passage of this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2002, I was unavoidably detained at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Board of Directors Meeting. Consequently I missed two votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 226; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 227.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and noteworthy Rhode Islander, Mark S. Hayward. Mark S. Hayward was appointed District Director of the Rhode Island Small Business Administration District Office in March 2000. He joined the Rhode Island District Office as Deputy Director in 1991 and served as the Acting District Director beginning in early 1999. As those of us in Congress know, the Small Business Administration is an independent agency with the goal of providing aid, counsel, assistance to small businesses. SBA protects the interests of small business preserving free competitive enterprise and strengthening our economy through help to small business persons. Mr. Hayward is responsible for the management and delivery of the SBA's financial and technical assistance programs for the state of Rhode Island. He has initiated and developed outreach programs to enhance the New Markets initiatives, including an expanded Minority Enterprise Development Week, Rhode Island Salute to Small Business, the largest event of its kind in the nation. He began his career in federal service in 1982 and was appointed the U.S. Small Business Administration's Acting Chief Council for Advocacy in 1990. He has also served our Nation through positions with the Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Interior. I ask the House of Representatives to join me today in commending Mark Hayward for his outstanding contribution to the Rhode Island small business community.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think the point we are trying to make is we do not want those soldiers used for your agenda. We do not want your agenda to be piggybacked and attached to your special interest.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it sounds as though the gentleman over here is trying to tell the right honorable gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) that two wrongs make a right. I guess the gentleman just answered his own question.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I believe the war is not free and there must be shared sacrifice, and for us to have shared sacrifice we do not cut the top marginal rate on the wealthiest of Americans and put the bill on the future generations to pay for this bill.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert into the Congressional Record my congratulations and praise for the Tunica- Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana and its leaders, including Chairman Earl J. Barbry, Sr. From the time of their first contact with European explorers along the banks of the Mississippi River in the 1500s, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe has played an important role in the larger community--both as a partner and a friend. Under Chairman Barbry, Sr.'s leadership, the Tribe has continued to be an integral part of the community of Central Louisiana. The Tunica are doing great things with their recent financial success in both the tribal community and the larger community. The Tribe has come to this great moment in their history because they have worked well together and will continue in that great tradition of cooperation. The Tribe and its leaders should be commended for their vision and spirit of cooperation among tribal members, civic and governmental leaders and the community at large. I applaud their successful efforts at being good neighbors and economic partners and I wish them continued success.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert into the Record the testimony of Lydia Lewis of the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association before the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee. Testimony of Lydia Lewis, on Behalf of the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association--May 9, 2002 Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on federal funding for mental health research for the next fiscal year. My name is Lydia Lewis and I serve as Executive Director of the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association (National DMDA). National DMDA is the nation's largest illness-specific, patient-directed organization. We represent the 20 million American adults living with depression and the additional 2.5 million adults living with bipolar disorder. Part of the mission of National DMDA is to educate the public concerning the nature of depression and bipolar disorder as treatable medical diseases and to advocate for research to eliminate these diseases. Mr. Chairman, National DMDA is pleased with the Subcommittee's strong commitment to biomedical research. We are grateful for the progress toward doubling the overall NIH budget and we encourage the Subcommittee to complete the doubling plan in this fiscal year. We support the Administration's request for $27.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As you know, this increase of $3.7 billion would complete the final phase of the NIH doubling plan. Our nation's investment in extramural biomedical research, led by the NIH, yields countless discoveries that facilitate our understanding of the biological basis of disease. This knowledge will help develop improved techniques to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure and eliminate diseases. Research Although bipolar disorder is a biochemical imbalance in the brain, like many mental illnesses, it cannot be identified physiologically. There is no blood test or brain scan, yet. Funding for the NIH, and funding for mental illness in particular, promises great rewards for both individuals who suffer from mental illness and for our nation as a whole. Evidence underscores the effectiveness of treatment for mental illnesses. Treatment for bipolar disorders has a 65% success rate and major depression has an 80% success rate. Comparatively, a surgical procedure for angioplasty has a 41% success rate. As research yields greater advancements in treating mood disorders and other mental illnesses, we hope to see the treatment success rate soar. We applaud efforts to advance research on postpartum mental illness through legislative means. The ``Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act'' (H.R. 2380/S. 1535) would direct funds for the specific purpose of NIH research on postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. It is estimated that 10 to 20 percent of new mothers experience postpartum depression (PPD). Postpartum psychosis (PPP) affects less than 1 percent of new mothers. While there may be indicators or predispositions for these disorders, researchers do not have sufficient information about the cause and effective treatment, Employers, employees, the mental health system and the federal government will all benefit from the long term economic savings of early detection and treatment of mental illness. Our nation's investment in increased biomedical research for mental illness will advance this cause. Co-occurring Mental Illness and Substance Abuse A high percentage of patients with mental illness also have alcohol and substance abuse problems. Conversely, many individuals with alcohol and substance abuse problems suffer from mental illness. The State mental health systems separate block grant funding for these treatments, one treatment for traditional mental illness and another for alcohol and substance abuse. More than half of individuals with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia may be alcohol/ substance abusers. The rate of alcohol and drug abuse in the general population is approximately 20%; it is 50-60% in people with bipolar disorder. For individuals with mood disorders, drugs of abuse interact differently, potentially causing exponential damage greater than the abusive substance alone. Medical experts understand it is critical that new patients in treatment for mental illness address any alcohol or substance abuse issues in collaboration with their mental health needs. Integrated treatment by dually trained professionals is critical to the success of either program. We are encouraged by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) efforts to study this issue. It is our understanding that SAMSHA will issue a report to Congress by October 17, 2002. We believe it is imperative that SAMSHA integrate treatment programs for these individuals. In addition to an improved quality of life, streamlining the system will eliminate unnecessary and redundant paperwork, saving critical funds for more successful treatment programs. The Stigma of Mental Illness and Health Insurance Parity We are delighted with the President's recent commitment to help end the stigma associated with mental illnesses. For far too long, individuals with mental illness have avoided seeking appropriate and critical treatment for fear of the stigmatizing label of mentally ill or have needed to make a choice between food, rent and treatment. For many individuals this is a choice between life and death. In 1999, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States. For males, it was the eighth leading cause of death and for young people age 15 to 24, suicide was the third leading cause of death. Suicide outnumbered homicides by 5 to 3 and there were twice as many deaths due to suicide than deaths due to HIV/AIDS. While these statistics are sobering, we are hopeful that with increased availability of treatment, those numbers can change. While we support essential research on the causes of mental illness, we also support increased access to already existing treatment by passing the ``Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act'' (H.R. 4066/ S.543). Individuals who suffer from mental illness should not be required to bear an additional financial burden to treat their illnesses. The discriminatory practice of setting different limits, hospital stays, and deductibles for mental illness is arbitrary, cruel and without medical basis. We believe that providing mental health coverage is cost effective for all employers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that providing mental health parity as outlined in the Domenici-Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act would increase health care costs by less than 1%. Increasing ease and access to treatment will yield healthier, more productive employees. Passing the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act is a step toward ending discriminatory practices that seek to separate the body from the mind. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 405. This week, on the other side of our Globe, the world celebrates the creation of a new democracy, the Democratic Republic of East Timor. I congratulate and honor the people of this island nation for their perseverance and for their triumph of freedom over oppression. The effort to bring self-determination to East Timor was a dream back in 1994 when I arrived in Congress, but now it is a reality. Since coming to Congress, I have seen how the East Timorese people, against tremendous odds, resisted military rule despite the killing of one-third of the population in the 1970s and the oppression and massacres of subsequent years. There have been many of us in Congress dedicated to the plight of the East Timorese largely because of the information we learned over years of meetings and visits with the residents of Timor. They were willing to risk their lives and futures to share their stories with those of us in the Congress who had the ability to help. It has been a team effort, and the Members who have been leaders on this issue have been assisted in our efforts by the international support movement led by groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Indonesian Human Rights Network, and of course the East Timor Action Network. As we move forward, however, we cannot forget the need to continue to show our support for East Timor's sustainable development and a positive future. The United States should work with the United Nations and its members to make sure that the job of preparing East Timor for self-rule is completed. Enough proper expertise and funds must be provided to ensure a smooth transition in government services and to train East Timorese to fully manage their own affairs. After decades of tremendous suffering under military occupation, we need to give generously to East Timor to ensure that children are guaranteed a quality education, adequate healthcare and shelter, and that other needs for a decent standard of living are met. This is especially crucial in light of the recently released United Nations Development Program Report that classified East Timor as one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and the poorest in Asia. Life expectancy in the island nation is just 57 years, and nearly half the population lives on less than fifty five American cents per day. This burgeoning democracy will need our hand as we move into the Twenty First Century. I look forward to working with my Colleagues in Congress on these issues and these challenges. But today, we celebrate the perseverance and the spirit of the East Timorese and we celebrate the creation of democracy, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 405.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, this week, on the other side of the globe, the world celebrates the creation of a new democracy, the Democratic Republic of East Timor. I congratulate and honor the people of this island nation for their perseverance and for the triumph of freedom over oppression. The effort to bring self-determination to East Timor was a dream back in 1994, when I first came to the House. But now, today, it is a reality. Since coming to Congress, I have seen how the East Timorese people have stood against tremendous odds, resisted military rule, despite the killing of one-third of the population in the 1970s and the oppression and massacres of subsequent years. There have been many of us in Congress dedicated to the plight of the East Timorese largely because of the information we learned over years of meetings and visits with the residents of East Timor. I personally had the opportunity to go to East Timor to visit with Bishop Belo, one of the two Nobel Peace prize winners. They and others were willing to give me their stories, tell me what was going on. In that context, Mr. Speaker, and with the work of groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, and I might add the Catholic Conference of Bishops was a tremendous help in this effort, as well as the Indonesian Human Rights Network, and, of course, East Timor Action Network, all who were instrumental, everyone should feel very proud of this effort and outcome. Let me just conclude by saying we are at a critical time now with this new democracy. We need to give it all the support it can get so that it can establish itself and make a difference for the people of East Timor. As we move forward, however, we cannot forget the need to continue to show our support for East Timor's sustainable development and a positive future. The United States should work with the United Nations and its members to make sure that the job of preparing East Timor for self-rule is completed. Enough proper expertise and funds must be provided to ensure a smooth transition in government services and to train East Timorese to fully manage their own affairs. After decades of tremendous suffering under military occupation, we need to give generously to East Timor to ensure that children are guaranteed a quality education, adequate healthcare and shelter, and that other needs for a decent standard of living are met. This is especially crucial in light of the recently released United Nations Development Program Report that classified East Timor as one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and the poorest in Asia. Life expectancy in the island nation is just 57 years, and nearly half the population lives on less than fifty-five American cents ($.55) per day. This burgeoning democracy will need our hand as we move into the Twenty First Century. I look forward to working with my Colleagues in Congress on these issues and these challenges. But today, we celebrate the perseverance and the spirit of the East Timorese and we celebrate the creation of democracy.