Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding time and say to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) what a wonderful tribute he has organized on behalf of a wonderful man that I know all of our colleagues are distressed to learn is facing the fight of his life but someone whom we all know could face that fight like no other in this House, with charm and dignity and sense of importance in life and humor that none of us, I do not think, could have if we were in his shoes right now facing what he is facing. I just want to close by saying I cannot think of anybody, and I know my father feels the same way, that would better have his name on really now a landmark in Boston like the Federal courthouse than Joe Moakley. I think what a tribute it will be to have that beautiful courthouse which he was such a major part in bringing about bear his name right next to the bridge that bears the name of his late wife. All of Boston and all of Massachusetts and all of New England and all of this country and all over the world for the people that Joe Moakley has stood for, this is a great tribute to him. I ask my colleagues to join me in urging passage of the Joe Moakley Federal Courthouse Building.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincerest wish that I would not have the need to stand on the floor of this House and address my colleagues today. My colleagues and I are here today to offer our prayers and condolences to Congressman Julian Dixon's constituents, friends, and family upon his sudden passing. I want to especially extend my prayers to his wife, Bettie, and his son, Cary. If I could take a second to address them personally, I simply say that while we cannot possibly share the sense of loss you are feeling, we can offer our understanding and our support in this trying time. If we could possibly bear your grief, we would gladly do so. Please know that you are in our thoughts. Those of us who knew Congressman Dixon understood him to be a tremendous leader, legislator, colleague, and friend. Congressman Dixon, like so many others who have served in this legislative body, had a sacred trust, a sort of covenant, with the people who elected him. In him, they entrusted their voice in government, and the direction of their futures. Congressman Dixon lived up to the trust that was placed in him with an energy and dedication that should serve as a tremendous example of public service to each and every one of us. In his work in the House of Representatives, he fought against crime in our neighborhoods, against the hopelessness that plagues many of our nation's inner-city youth, against the racial misunderstanding that birthed the Los Angeles riots and against the idea that one should be treated different in America because of the color or their skin. But he also brought his skill as a leader and a legislator to fight for the things that have made our nation great. He fought for programs that increased the strength of America's Armed Forces, for initiatives that made life a little easier for our men and women in uniform, for policies that protect Americans from terror overseas and for the belief that anyone, with hard work and dedication, can attain the American dream. While we, as a legislative body, may feel that we are that much more diminished because of his loss, that is not the case. We are richer because of the idealism he brought to us, because of the professionalism he has shown us, and because of the friendship he shared with us. And, what I think is most troubling to us, is that because of his sudden passing, we were not able to talk to him, to hold his hand one last time and say goodbye to our good friend. And so, I do so today. Julian * * * goodbye. We'll miss you.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the following votes: Rollcall No. 593, No. 594, No. 595, No. 596. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yea'' on No. 593, No. 594; and ``Nay'' on No. 595, No. 596.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the following votes: Roll Call No. 531, No. 532, No. 533, No. 570-576, No. 584-590, No. 592, No. 593, No. 594. Had I been here I would have voted: Yea on No. 531, No. 532, No. 533, No. 570, No. 571, No. 572, No. 573, No. 574, No. 575, No. 576, No. 584, No. 585, No. 586, No. 587; Nay on No. 588; and Yea on No. 589, No. 590, No. 592, No. 593, No. 594.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents form Rhode Island recently participated in a U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos held on October 19. Laotian and Hmong leaders from around the United States and the globe gathered to present testimony to policymakers and Members of Congress. They joined in a special ceremony in Congress to honor former Congressman Bruce Vento, who recently passed away, for his leadership role on behalf of the freedom-loving for the people of Laos. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a significant Laotian and Hmong- American population in Rhode Island. I share their deep concern about their relatives and countrymen still in Laos--and the need for human rights and democracy. My uncle, President Kennedy, also believed strongly in freedom for the people of Laos, and committed the United States to that goal. I am honored to continue that fight in the United States Congress today, and firmly believe that forums like this are an excellent way to work toward that goal. I also appreciate their efforts to honor my colleague, former congressman Bruce Vento, for his work on behalf of freedom and human rights for Laotian people. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Thongsavanh Phongsavan, of the Lao Representatives Abroad Council, based in Providence, Rhode Island, for his important work in the Laotian community. I am grateful that Laotian students from Rhode Island played a leadership role in the event, including Mr. Thongkhoune Pathana, Ms. Viengsavanh Changhavong, Ms. Sothida Bounthapanya, and Ms. Ammala Douangsavan. Many Hmong-Americans also attended from Providence including Mr. Xay Ge Kue, Mr. Xia Xue Kue, Mr. Toua Kue, and Mr. Nhia Sue Yang. I also want to thank Mr. Philip Smith, Executive Director for the Center for Public Policy Analysis, for helping to convene this important forum. The National Democratic Institute (NDI) and many other important organizations were able to speak and participate with regard to the ongoing need to promote human rights and democracy. Mr. Speaker, I would commend my colleagues in Congress the following testimony of Mr. Thongsavanh Phongsavan from the Lao Representatives Abroad Council: Thank you Mr. Philip Smith, Honorable Congressman, Honorable Senator, Your Excellency, and Distinguished Guests: On behalf of the Laotian Representatives Abroad Council I am deeply encouraged by the promise that this historic U.S. Congressional Forum VI hold for the future. With the wisdom of our Laotian Leaders, this new era of co-operation will inspire peace and prosperity for many generations to follow. This new age will also give rise to opportunities for our peoples unimaginable only a short while ago. In the eyes of industrialized nations, no longer will we be viewed as a group of ethnicities closed and divided, but as a model of the tremendous progress that freedom, democracy and free enterprises can achieve in the Laos. Now more than ever, we need to work together to secure this vision of hope. At this point there can be no turning back; only the swift and purposeful push towards a more productive future. Indeed, the Twenty-First Century is our oasis in the desert. It is a place where Laotian people and ideas will come together for the betterment of all of Humanity, Respect and justice to all. Laotian Representatives Abroad Council and Lao Progressive and their emissaries have been hard at work to help bring these new developments into focus. Working not only with the Laotian people, but with peoples of all ethnicities, it has achieved tremendous economic opportunity through the expansion of business development, job opportunity, education, social orientation, and political consultations. For more than 30 generations, the people of Laos and their leaders have stood proud despite the winds of social burden. The history of our nation runs deep and wide. And from the beginning, its many political, social and economic struggles have been overcome in the name of freedom, democracy and prosperity. With French colonization late in the last century and the sociopolitical breakdowns that followed, Laos 65 ethnic groups were divided by pressure from within and without--as other, developing nations, aspired to progress. Men, women and children bound by a common vision of hope fought for independence. But isolated by differences of language and culture within their own borders, their collective strength was diminished. The ensuring years provided few signs of relief. Relations among the struggling classes and the French remained tenuous at best. And despite the growing numbers of young Laotian being educated in French universities by the 1920's higher education was yet restricted to all but Laos' social elite. Lack of education and poor agriculture imbued further hardships for both the people and the land. The colonist, indifferent to the idea of investing in the masses through improved social opportunity, employed unskilled labor in mining operations; the harsh conditions of which caused many workers to perish. Times grew much worse for the rural and uneducated people. And without a means of unifying their philosophies, de Gaulle and other leaders could place little hope on maintaining Laos' status quo as a French colony. Lao History in its later chapters is plagued by struggles of even greater intensity. Prolonged war ensued between the Pathet Lao and the Royal government. And this turmoil was further compounded by the fact that government control in Vientiane passed back and forth between General Phoumi Nonsavan's pro-Western alliance, and Laos' Neutralists, which were led by Prince Souvanna Phouma. The stunning success of the LPF and its allies in winning thirteen of the twenty-one seats contested in the May 4, 1958, elections to the National Assembly changed the political atmosphere in Vientiane. This success had less to do with the LPF's adroitness than with the ineptness of the old-line nationalists, more intent on advancing their personal interests than on meeting the challenge from the LPF. The two largest parties, the Laos Progressive Party and the Independent Party, could not agree on a list of common candidates in spite of repeated prodding by the United States embassy and so split their votes among dozens of candidates. The LPF and the Peace (Santiphab) Party carefully worked out a strategy of mutual support, which succeed in winning nearly two-thirds of the seats with barely one-third of the votes cast. Souphanouvong garnered the most votes and became chairman of the National Assembly. The Laos Progressive Party and the Independent Party tardily merged to become the Rally of the Laos People (Lao Rouam Lao). In the wake of the election fiasco, Washington concentrated on finding alternatives to Souovanna Phouma's strategy of winning over the Pathet Lao and on building up the Royal Lao Army as the only cohesive nationalist force capable of dealing with the communists' united front tactics. On June 10, 1958, a new political grouping called the Committee for the Defense of the National Interests (CDNI) made its appearance. Formed mainly of a younger generation not tied to the big families and as yet untainted by corruption, it announced a program for revitalizing the economy, forming an anticommunist front that excluded the Pathet Lao, suppressing corruption, and creating a national mystique. Washington which was paying the entire salary cost of the Royal Lao Army, was enthusiastic about the ``young turks'' of the CDNI. This enthusiasm was not altogether shared by United States ambassador Horace H. Smith, who asked what right a group untested by any election had to set its sights on cabinet appointments. Whereas Souvanna Phouma tried and failed to form a government, creating a drawn-out cabinet crisis, Phoui Sunanikone eventually succeeded and included four CDNI members and Phoumi Nosavan in a subcabinet post. In 1961, a 14-nation conference held in Geneva sought to defuse the conflict by establishing a neutralist coalition government under Souvanna Phouma. However, the warring factions soon clashed again. And in the increasing chaos that followed, Laos' upheaval would be viewed as merely an appendage to the Vietnam War. The final coalition government was established in April, 1974. This entity was led by Souvanna Phouma, and included his half-brother, the Pathet Lao Leader Souphanouvong. After south Vietnam's and Cambodia's fall to Communist rule in 1975, the Pathet Lao assumed full control in Laos. In December of that year, Souvanna Phouma's government was terminated and the Royal Monarchy abolished. As many as 30,000 former government and police officials were sent to political reeducation centers. And against this great body of humanity, many serious abuses of human rights were witnessed. After 1975 an estimated 400,000 refugees, including most of Laos' educated and wealthy elite, fled the country. Laos signed a peace accord with Vietnam in 1977, and a border delineation treaty with that country in 1986. Vietnam then agreed to provide Laos with aid to develop its agriculture, forestry, industries, and transportation facilities; and to allow duty-free access to port facilities in Da Nang. Laos' alliance with Vietnam and the former Soviet bloc was bolstered after Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea in 1979. As the Twenty-First Century is at our hand, important changes in the Lao infrastructure are again imminent. Just as the stone age wheel precede the ox cart and wagon, each advancement we make today is an investment toward the future. Among the important changes we must not prepare for is the enactment of socio-economic reforms. Surely with a strong foundation on which to build, Both high level and intermediate talks among our leaders and those of the industrialized nations will aid in this transition. Participation in such dialogue will also improve relations with our neighbors; promoting understanding, while forging a new alliance among those who embrace this long awaited opportunity. The teaching of English as a Second Language is also a vital necessity. This advantage will not only help us fulfill the promise of unifying the people of our region, but aid in the development and expansion of commercial interests throughout the world. To achieve this result without compromising our respective traditions or values, improved teaching in all areas of study shall play a decisive role, with present advancements in education, technology and industry--Televisions, Computers and internet access in the classroom are among the chosen tools for building a better future. Laos is also blessed with an abundance of undeveloped natural resources. Gold, Oak timber, Raw minerals, Gemstones and Hydroelectric Power are among the most substantial of its treasures. Along with the installment of valid reforms, development in farming, construction and hybrid technologies will easily bring this country's economy over the top within the next five to ten years. Educators, students and interested members of the business and private sectors may also take an active role in this development. Individually or as part of an established group, they themselves have the power to initiate political, economic and social reforms through positive involvement in their own land. Specific ways in which these steps can be followed include: 1. Reading and learning about the history of Southeast Asia and it's struggles. 2. Becoming involved through further sociopolitical study and debate. 3. Acquiring specific knowledge and technology in fields relation to agriculture, medicine, electronics and engineering. 4. To aid in this transition by lending your direct support to our nation and its people. Writing or speaking with U.S. Congressmen, Senators and even the President will also help to set the wheels of progress into motion. Promoting the involvement of other nations and leaders will add credibility and support to these efforts, while establishing a dialog of wise words and encouragement that will achieve enormous benefits for this worldly cause. Improved teaching is but one avenue to be fully explored and attended. Equally important considerations are met as we reach each new crossroad in the quest for a greater unity. Improved agriculture, communications private ownership and the recognition of minorities are just some of the prevailing elements of an economically stable system. In the context of greater struggles, political reforms and the redefinition of Civil freedoms will promote a wider approval of this cause. Today we stand united, as the dawning of a new and enlightened age has arrived. Only with our combined efforts could such a proud and prosperous moment come to bear. And with the health and well-being of our children in our hands, together we will strive to uphold the values that will lead our people into a brighter future. The establishment of universal reform leading to free, multi-political party elections will provide our cultures the competitive edge that is needed. This adoption of democratic systems will give our leaders not only a confident voice, but allow a greater sense of identity for our people to embrace. Last but most important is the question of our youth. As our children come of age in the prosperous civilization that is our future, what will be the quality of their existence? With overpopulation, pollution and the twin civilians of hunger and disease. The conservation of forests, wildlife, clean air and water must not take second place to our more immediate desires--for once these diminishing resources are gone, there will be no means of replenishing them. This threatens the very core of our existence on this fragile planet, as without adequate methods to assure the protection of our natural environment, we may one day be without the life sustaining elements that we so humbly share. The next few years 2002 will provide the test from which these hopes will be won or defeated, without the cooperation and commitment of great nations and leaders, this enormous challenge will most certainly be lost. To seize this opportunity and achieve and effective head start as the dawning of this millennium year. We must now join hands with a single vision--and with the The ultimate realization of these goals will require the continued support of everyone who shares this vision of social and economic prosperity. It will require the active participation of people of different ideas and ideologies to bring about such Freedom and Change. Achieving these solutions may not always be easy, but the alternatives are far less forgiving. The imprisonment, torture and eventual execution of H.R.H., King Sisavang Vathana, is but one lasting reminder of this tragic legacy. The drive toward social reconstruction is our greatest challenge. The coming age will be the turning point from which our success or failure will be determined. In building this bridge in the 21st Century, we must be willing to follow but one voice. We must be able to look to one person who will lead us on this course, and who will speak for all who have succeeded in conquering odds that had once seemed insurmountable. Working as a team, we will succeed together the needed resources to make this bold vision a reality. To achieve this cooperation, better means of communication among our leaders, allies and supporters must now be sought and clear. Developing these vital links will be the first step in building a greater unity. For once a true sense of solidarity is established with our neighbors throughout this land, more ambitious roles for the Loatian people and their neighbors will begin to take shape. However, without bold intervention by the end of this year, the future of Laos as an independent nation is far less certain. With conflicting ideologies on both sides of its borders, and with its young and old griped by the differences of age, language and culture, the Leadership's reluctance to join hands and resist oppression now threatens this best chance for Democracy and Freedom of our people. Indeed, the key to a free and Democractic Laos may be found in the partnership of citizens young and old. While traditions live long and new ideaologies are often favored over those of the past, people on both sides of the issue must come to the bargaining tables for the sake of their national sovereignty. Accomplishing this may not be an easy task, but prevailing over any struggle has never been simple. The best solution to this multi-sided issue lies with willingess of each division to set aside it differences, and to consider this new and determined plan. Laotian Representatives Abroad Council and The Lao Progessive Party will play an active role in these joint endeavors. Together, with the strong and powerful will of both our friends and former adversaries, Southeast Asia's mission to achieve free and lasting reforms will be down in history as the greatest success of the 21st Century. The establishment of new opportunity through peaceful diplomacy will be the rising sun of our future. Working in partnership toward this common vision, we are certain that a greater understanding can and will be achieved. The point that one must realize is that these changes will not be made for the benefit of the elite few, but for the common good of our future generations. Improved education, health and employment are all central to these efforts. So too is the introduction of multi-party elections, a unifying language and free trade. A truly free society is one based on a prosperous economy and enterprise. Our wish is to create opportunity from which our nation, her neighbors and all hard working people will universally benefit. Laotian Represetnatives Abroad Council and The Lao Progressive Party had demonstrated that this model of socioeconomic reform is an attainable goal. Through it's efforts here in America, it has worked to foster Humanity and Progress; sparing many of thousands from great hardship through the promotion of these principals. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, will be to use your wisdom and experience in finding ways to develop peaceful cooperation around Asia and the World, whether you are a representative of Laos or a sensible neighbor, we must now joint hands or accept the failures of our action. We must also educate our young to the old and new systems before their sense of national identity is lost. The adoption of these fundamental principals during this time of reconciliation will not only assure your country's acceptance into the United Nations, but awaken the free world to southeast Asia's immense capability and strength. Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to speak with you today. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your show of faith. It is with great confidence in you, my friends that I accept this great challenge and reaffirm my delegation's commitment of support.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the career of one of Rhode Island's dedicated public officials, Representative Bob Weygand. Bob is being honored tonight with this special order as he gets ready to leave the House of Representatives after two terms of public service. Bob is a life-time Rhode Island resident and proud graduate of the University of Rhode Island. Since his appointment to the East Providence Planning Board in 1978 he has served R.I. in varying capacities, including as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and as R.I.'s Lieutenant Governor. Bob's career accomplishments include the areas of small business, and senior citizens, in particular. He proudly served our State as a presidential delegate to the White House Conference on Small Business and at the White House Conference on Aging. He has served the people of the Second District of Rhode Island well over the past four years. Bob currently sits on the Banking and Financial Services Committee and the Budget Committee. He has fought in the Congress for proposals to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. He has sponsored a bill to protect our Nation's seniors from criminal scams. Bob has also been a staunch advocate for FDA regulation of tobacco products and for programs to prevent children from smoking. Again, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to Congressman Weygand this evening. I wish Bob, his wife Fran and their three children the very best in the future.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, the honorable dean of the Massachusetts delegation; and I wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this rule that makes in order this very important piece of legislation, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Improvement Act. For those of my colleagues who are familiar with my State of Rhode Island, we are practically one big estuary. The Narragansett Bay runs right through my State. It is a very important part of our whole economy; and so, therefore, this bill represents an important step forward for our State and also for our Nation in preserving these fragile estuaries. My State, as my colleagues know, has had a long history of trying to work to preserve its Narragansett Bay. It goes to the importance of fishing in our State, sailing, swimming, and our number one industry, the tourism economy. Of course this has a major impact on our tourism economy. So for all of these reasons, this Habitat and Estuary Restoration Act is very important for our State's economy. It is not only the case in Rhode Island but it is also the case nationally that our waters have not always been treated with the respect and care that they deserve. Estuaries are very valuable ecosystems in our overall environment. They nourish a wide variety of animal and plant life, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pointed out. They also serve to help filtrate pollution that comes in in the form of so much runoff from farms, to oil spills, to wastewater overflow. Estuaries help in that very important part of preserving this environment by acting as a buffer. Recently, I read an article in our own newspaper, the Providence Journal, where Curt Spalding, our executive director of Save the Bay in Rhode Island, said that we in Rhode Island have lost over half of our salt marshes in our State. Over 1,000 acres of eelgrass, for example, in our State, that we once possessed, only about 1/100th of that still remains, depriving countless marine life from its ability to find a source of primary food. And he writes that the damming of these rivers and streams has had a totally detrimental impact on countless fish habitat as well as other marine life. So without immediate action on legislation such as this, we might pass the point of no return, and that is why acting on this legislation right away is so very important. That is why I urge my colleagues to pass this Estuary Habitat Restoration Act, making the provision of $275 million funding for local projects that will incent the saving of our estuaries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very valuable and important piece of legislation to all of our coastal ways, and especially to our coastal ways in the Northeast, like my State of Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, both the House and Senate have approved an appropriation of $2.5 million to the Office of the President as requested by the President for a grant to the Elections Commission of Puerto Rico to be used for voter education on and a choice among the options available for the island's future political status. This marks an historic step forward in two key respects in the process of self-determination for the almost four million American citizens of Puerto Rico. First, it represents the first authorization from Congress for the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to choose the ultimate political status for their island. Presidents since Truman have been seeking such an authorization and each House has passed similar language in the past, but the same language has never passed both Houses and been enacted into law. Our approval of this appropriation should be read as Congress' determination to resolve the century-long question of the island's ultimate status and let Puerto Rican Americans choose a fully democratic governing arrangement if they wish to replace the current territorial status. Second, by adopting this provision as part of the unanticipated needs account of the Office of the President, it is Congress' intention that its support for a future vote in Puerto Rico be coordinated with the Administration's efforts to provide realistic options to be included on the ballot in the island's next referendum. In recent months the President has brought Puerto Rico's major political parties together in an unprecedented effort to define the available political status options. Our approval of the $2.5 Million request evidences our expectation that the White House will provide realistic options upon which to base a future status referendum. It can only responsibly allocate the funds for the consideration of options that are realistic. Puerto Rican Americans have contributed to this Nation for over 102 years, both in peace and in wartime, and deserve the opportunity to resolve the uncertainty regarding their political status based on clearly defined status options consistent with the Constitution and U.S. law and with the support of Congress. This legislation along with realistic status options to be provided by the Administration will help us honor their contributions by moving the process of self- determination forward towards the establishment of a permanent and final political status for Puerto Rico.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, in 1998, Congress passed legislation to raise the H-1B caps to 115,000 visas per year. That legislation included important provisions to ensure that American workers would not be displaced by those holding H-1B visas. This included requirements for employers to file applications with the Department of Labor showing that they will pay the H-1B worker the ``required wage rate'' and that a strike or lockout was not occuring at the job site. Unfortunately, that legislation was not enough and already the 115,000 H-1B visa limit for Fiscal Year 2000 has been reached. Tuesday, the Senate passed S. 2045 to increase the H-1B cap to 195,000 through 2003 and included several important worker training and education provisions. It is now time for the House to pass this bill as well. This bill includes provisions so that 55% of the H-1B education and training fees go toward Department of Labor demonstration programs and projects to provide training for workers. Twenty-two percent of the fees will go toward low-income scholarships and fifteen percent of the fees will go toward National Science Foundation grants for math, technology and science education in primary and secondary schools. It also provides after-school technology grants to encourage youth education in these subject areas. Earlier this year, I cosponsored ``The Helping to Improve Technology Education and Achievement Act of 2000'' introduced by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman David Dreier. This bill was critical to the debate on this issue and I am proud to have worked with those sponsors, as well as with members on both sides of the aisle who have been dedicated to bringing this bill to the floor. I recognize the enormous difficulties that the current worker shortage poses to high tech companies. At the same time, however, I want to insure that we do all that we can to reach the best and brightest in America and providing opportunity for and training to American workers as well. Today's bill is attentive to both of these needs. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for S. 2045.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Scott, and the other Members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this important crime issue. In September of last year, I introduced, along with Congressman Chabot and Congressman Visclosky, The Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999, H.R. 2810. This bipartisan measure is the predecessor bill to H.R. 4640, which I also was proud to cosponsor. These bills will put more criminals behind bars by correcting practical and legal obstacles that leave crucial DNA evidence unused and too many violent crimes unsolved. Every week we hear stories about DNA evidence. Whether it is a prisoner on death row for a crime he didn't commit who is released by DNA evidence or a criminal suspect finally brought to justice using DNA evidence, DNA is making headlines. Currently, all 50 states require DNA samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these samples can be shared through a national data base known as CODIS. The data base is installed in over ninety laboratories and nearly five hundred thousand samples are classified and stored in it. To date, the FBI has recorded hundreds of matches through DNA data bases, helping solve numerous crimes. As valuable as this system is, it is not being utilized effectively. The problems with the current system include backlog and jurisdiction. The FBI estimates that there are several hundred thousand DNA samples that have been collected, but still need to be analyzed. In my State of Rhode Island, the DNA collection began only a year and one half ago, but already there is a backlog of a hundred samples. Today's bipartisan bill, which was crafted with input from organizations including the FBI and the ACLU, would address this backlog problem and ensure that more crimes will be solved through the matching of DNA evidence. The bill does two critical things. First, it provides one hundred and seventy million dollars in grants to eliminate the backlog to states to increase their capability to perform DNA analysis. Second, the bill allows Federal, Military and District of Columbia law enforcement agencies to collect DNA evidence. Under current law, Federal Courts and the local courts of the District of Columbia do not have this ability. The Federal Courts and the District of Columbia have indicated their support for the ability to conduct testing as states do. From my home State of Rhode Island, I have heard from lab experts and local law enforcement leaders on the need for this legislation. It is clear that law enforcement supports legislation in this area. And it is our job in Congress to balance this law enforcement need with the privacy needs of our citizens. Recently, Congress has been very active on the DNA backlog issue. I strongly feel that H.R. 4640, however, is the most effective piece of legislation on this topic because it has several provisions to guarantee civil liberties, excludes juveniles from this database and provides for the automatic right to expungement of a sample if a conviction is overturned. The main sponsors of H.R. 4640, particularly the Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Scott, worked extensively with the ACLU to address many of their concerns, while taking our underlying model for the bill from the FBIs recommendations. I feel strongly, that there are several areas of H.R. 4640 that could have been improved upon--including the clear prohibition on the use of funds for arrestee testing, and more specific requirements on States to provide DNA testing to convicted persons who did not have access at the time of their trial. But, overall this bill has been crafted with the careful and attentive work of both sides of the aisle, in the hopes that it may be further improved during a conference with the other body. In a bipartisan fashion, we attended to many civil liberty concerns and, therefore, narrowed the types of crimes covered, mandated stricter protocols for the use of DNA, and excluded juvenile offenders. In this process, we came up with a bill that all members of the House can support. Violent criminals should not be able to evade arrest simply because a state didn't analyze its DNA samples or because an inexcusable loophole leaves Federal and D.C. offenders out of the DNA data base. We have the technology to revolutionize law enforcement and forensic science and the key to unlock the door of unsolved crimes--we must use this capacity and make these goals a reality. Lastly, I want to recognize the hard work of several staffers who were integral in bringing this bill to the floor, most notably. Mr. Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel for the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Glenn Schmitt with the Majority staff, and Ms. Elizabeth Treanor, Counsel for Mr. Chabot. I urge all of my colleagues to support the ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, most Americans know that the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is at a record high. Prescription drug costs rose 85 percent between 1993 and 1998, and prescription drugs represent the highest out-of-pocket expense for three out of four senior citizens. Generic drugs are FDA approved to be safe and to be secure, but they cost 70 percent less than brand name drugs. The fact of the matter is, there are loopholes in today's laws that block entry to these affordable generic drugs. This Congress needs to reform the Hatch-Waxman Act to improve competition and make our markets more accessible and fair. Let us end the brand drug monopoly that stifles competition, restricts our consumers' choice, and raises consumer drug prices.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring attention to the work of Virginia L. Doris of Warwick RI. As a Rhode Island historian for over 40 years, Ms. Doris has put great effort into her quest to bring proper honor and recognition to America's ``poet and patriot,'' Francis Scott Key, author of our National Anthem. As we near the 221 year anniversary of the birth of this American legend, I would like to submit this poem by Ms. Doris into the Record, so that we might renew the call for an official day honoring Francis Scott Key's contribution to our national heritage. Francis Scott Key--America's Ultimate Poet and Patriot Anthem, Mighty Anthem! our voices resound, Poem by God's blessing, unsceptered, uncrowned Anthem, Sacred Anthem! our pulses repeat, Warm with life-blood, as long as they beat! Listen! The reverence of his soul imbued doth thrill us still, In the old familiar places beneath their emerald hill. Here at this altar our vows we renew, Still in thy cause be loyal and true-- True to thy flag on the field, and the wave, Living to honor it, dying to save! Wake in our breast the living fires, The Holy faith warmed our sires, Thy spirit shed through every heart, To every arm thy strength impart! Our lips should fill the air with praises, and pay the debt we owe, So high above this hymn we raise, the floods of garlands flow. Harken! The reverence of his soul imbued doth thrill us still, In the old familiar places beneath their emerald hill. Anthem, Mighty Anthem! our voices resound. Poem by God's blessing unsceptered uncrowned! Anthem, Sacred Anthem! our pulses repeat, Warm with the life-blood, as long as they beat! Composed by: Virginia Louise Doris

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I am outraged at this attempt by Congressional Republicans to prohibit gun safety agreements . . . not gun control agreements but gun safety agreements. The Republican leadership has done everything in its power to prevent common sense handgun reforms from becoming law. They blocked attempts to pass child safety locks and close the gun show loophole. They ignore efforts to pass consumer product regulations for handguns, licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms. Now they come to the floor with this amendment that frustrates agreements reached voluntarily by the private sector. This amendment is pure and simple evidence that the Republican leadership is against gun safety because this amendment is about gun safety, not gun control. How can the party that so loudly praises smaller government and greater freedoms for the private sector . . . be afraid of an individual manufacturer deciding to apply smart gun technology and safety locks, and to stop straw purchases by shady gun dealers? Instead of this Congress answering the call, we have forced the private sector to take up the cry of our children, our families and one million mothers. We should be ashamed that it has come to this. We should be ashamed of our own inability to pass legislation. We should be ashamed that we have been incapacitated for two years on this issue. But now that this Smith and Wesson agreement has been reached, the least this Congress can do is get out of the way. I urge all my colleagues to vote for gun safety and defeat the Hostettler amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I was accompanying President Clinton to a funeral in the First District of Rhode Island and consequently I missed one vote. Had I been here I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 410, the Neal amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to the underlying bill. I want to commend the hard work and efforts of the authors of the bill we have before us today. I also want to thank the authors of the Democratic substitute, and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Rangel, a champion for retirement security and the preservation of our Social Security system. It is no secret that many families have great difficulties setting aside even nominal amounts in savings accounts or other means of asset development. Most families are living paycheck to paycheck and at the same time that many families are struggling, there is a high correlation between income levels and the ability to save. Reports show that fifty percent of American households have total financial assets of $1000 or less; and that half of American families have less than two percent of America's net financial assets. The Congressional Research Service notes that 60 percent of Americans have no other retirement plan than Social Security. Today, I would have liked to offer an amendment to the bill, providing the support of the Congress for increasing individual savings and investment, with specific notice given to the needs of lower income families, and the support of the Congress for moving forward legislation that will encourage education and opportunity in the area of personal savings and investment. Unfortunately, under the closed rule that we were given, I did not have an opportunity to offer this amendment, but the Democratic substitute that we are debating allows for a vote of these principals. The Democratic substitute provides assistance to low and middle income workers and gives small business employees eligibility for credits on their retirement plans. This would help level the playing field in the area of retirement security. This is important because, in the last decade years we have witnessed the emergence of a new wealth gap in America which threatens our sense of fairness and our fundamental tradition of equal economic opportunity. The division is largely between those who have savings and investment and those who don't. The Retirement Savings Account proposal that was included in the substitute, is designed to provide incentives for low and middle income workers to save or add additional money to their investment plans. In addition to this very necessary effort, we need to move forward with further legislation that will address the special need to close the income gap through facilitation and education on personal savings and investment. The American Dream for many families revolves around the future of their children. They want their children to be able to receive higher education, own a home or a business, and certainly have retirement security. Yet, this creates a dilemma, because while meaningful savings are required to attain the American Dream, as many as two out of three Americans are shut out from this opportunity. One way to make the American Dream more accessible is to increase wages and assure livable incomes. That is why I so strongly support our public schools and education reform. But this will get us only part of the way. I strongly believe that we need to pass an equity and assert rights act that is modeled after the Full Employment Act of 1946. After World War II, Congress understood that we needed to create the national opportunity for all Americans to have a decent job. As we head into the 21st Century, we need to understand the importance of savings--so that all Americans can have a stake in the earning power of America's future economic growth. In short, if we enable families to save and invest, we facilitate the economic freedom that will allow all Americans to afford higher education, buy a home, and have security in their senior years. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the substitute, which ensures that all Americans are given a chance at greater retirement security.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for this special order commemorating the 26th anniversary of the Turkish occupation of the island of Cyprus. In 1960, the Republic of Cyprus was formed after the island received its independence from Great Britain. From the start it struggled to balance the various ethnic and religious differences between its people in such a way that would provide for a harmonious and democratic nation. Both the Cypriot government and the Cypriot people sought to prosper in peace rather than fall victim to the plague of sectarian infighting. But, for the people of one third of that democratic nation, the dream of peace and prosperity has been denied. Since the Turkish invasion of the northern third of the island in 1974, the Cypriot people have endured countless violations of their human rights at the hands of foreign invaders. Following the occupation, a Turkish policy of ethnic cleansing has resulted in nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots being evicted from their homes. The Turkish military has prevented their repatriation ever since and many Cypriots continue to live as refugees in their own nation. Throughout the decades following that initial suspension of human rights, international organizations have sought to compel the Turkish military to return basic human rights and freedoms to the people of northern Cyprus. But despite the signing of agreements designed to reunite Cyprus under democratic government, the Turkish military has never honored their promises with positives results. To this day they still pursue the vain and unjust goal of establishing a separate, Turkish republic in the north. The Turkish military even goes so far as to violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 by its effort to bring 80,000 mainland Turks to colonize the homes and lands of Cypriots that had been ethnically cleansed in previous decades. Although the world is rife with instances of injustice, the frequency of that injustice is no excuse for complacency. This Congress must continue to speak out against the actions of the Turkish military to subvert the existence of the free and democratic nation of Cyprus. We must support the efforts of those who would seek peace and unity over those who would promote fear and division. We, as the Congress of the United States, must note that with great power comes great obligation, and that, therefore we are obliged to speak out against the tyranny of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. We must speak out for a peaceful and just solution to this oft overlooked international issue. To close, I would like to thank the strong Greek and Cypriot communities of Rhode Island for bringing this important issue to my attention and I hope that we will all honor their efforts through this commemoration today.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan just pointed out that there are carve-outs for horse racing and Jai- Alai and dog racing. How are we going to have a realistic bill if Jai- Alai and dog racing and all these others have exemptions carved out? The real rub in this bill is that, while those have exceptions, State lotteries do not. I think we would also agree that our State lotteries are perhaps the best form of gaming we have out there and that they are giving legitimate dollars to our States, for the education of our kids, for education, for housing. Now, no one disputes that we ought to regulate these offshore gambling casino interests in the Antilles and Antigua. No one disputes that we ought to have that on the books. Let me say at the beginning that I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for their efforts to put those provisions in this bill. But do my colleagues know what? In creating those provisions, they have created numerous other problems by carving out all these exemptions for these special interests gaming operations. Really, this language has come from the Christian Coalition. I thought that the Congress ought to be the one that writes legislation, not the Christian Coalition. It is ironic that the Christian coalition wants to have an exception for dog racing. The Christian Coalition does not seem to have a problem with that, but they have a problem with State lotteries providing necessary educational funds for their kids in the different States. In addition to that, this legislation also does not do enough to protect the important sovereignty that exists between Native American tribes and our Federal Government, something that the majority continues to trample on at every single turn. As vice chair of the Native American Caucus, I just am so upset that this bill would ignore the important sovereignty provisions that the States have worked out with these tribes, the Federal tribe relationship. It is a sovereign relationship. Finally, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) understands that these Internet service providers, the very people that are charged with policing this bill, are unequipped to deal with this. The fact is that we have an Internet that is in its infancy. We all know the Internet is in its infancy. My colleagues are going to put the regulatory burden, the enforcement burden for these regulations on these Internet service providers, many of whom are woefully inadequate to do so. So it is going to create a real hell of a time for these Internet service providers. So let me just say that, while my colleagues have the Attorneys General on their side, we have the governors. Every governor, the Governors' Association, has written strongly opposing this legislation because it would absolutely gut the funding for the necessary programs that many of these governors rely on in order to provide our very constituencies with the educational funding that we need. Finally, let me just say we need more money in education. The thought that my colleagues are going to take money away from education in our States at a time when we need more of it is just absolutely incredible to me. The fact that they carve out exceptions for these other gambling operations, while not carving out an exemption, for example, for State lotteries, to me, it just does not make any sense. State lotteries ought to be the ones that we at least carve out an exemption for, not these others. So I just cannot say that this is a good bill. I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), we ought to consider this bill on regular calendar and regular order so that we can have a deeper dialog and discussion about the very controversial nature of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on this debt relief issue. I think at this period of time in terms of our global economy when this House has voted so many times before to extend free trade around the world that it is about time that we also think about what the consequences of our global economy is on those who are most impoverished in this world. Mr. Chairman, the criticism of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is that she takes money from military training and assistance and the hope that the former speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) was trying to convey in his remarks about the Waters amendment was the fact that by drawing away from these funds that we were, in essence, compromising our national security, because we would be taking away funds that would otherwise be going to the training and equipping of the military in these various countries. The very fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any issue more fundamental to our national security as a Nation, moreover than whatever we do with our national defense budget, which we just closed hearings on for the benefit of our conference committee, more so than any of this equipping and training of our military, is the fact that we are about to see a mass epidemic. In fact, we already have an epidemic. We have a pandemic. We are going to see literally half the population of major countries in Africa die within the next year. We are going to see literally the life expectancy, the average life expectancy of people living in South Africa going down to below 30 years of age. My colleagues if we do not think this is a national security issue, if we think that the Waters amendment somehow compromises national security because we are taking away from the military to support debt relief, then I am sorry, the fact of the matter is, between the short funding of AIDS in this bill, in addition to the fact that we are not even providing these countries with the ability to dig themself out of debt, those are two national security issues. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how this House could be so narrow-minded in its perspective that they can honestly think that we can pass a national security bill and think that we have the national security of our country protected and yet, on the other hand, cut the kinds of funds necessary to provide debt relief to the poorest countries of the world and not think that we are not going to be in there in the next weeks or months or years in a military capacity trying to bring stability from a situation that has gone awry because we have not provided the stability there economically or healthwise. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pound foolish, pennywise for us to be talking about national security and what we are going to do to preserve our national security when we are underfunding our debt relief obligations. This is what goes around comes around. There is no one who can convince me that it is not going to save us money tonight to put money into debt relief, it is going to save us money in our military accounts tomorrow, no one who can convince me of that. Mr. Chairman, anybody who sees that we are in 182-plus different countries today with our military trying to provide stability in every other place in the world, because there is an eternal conflagration because of this economic instability, to think that we are somehow saving money by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, by borrowing out of the debt relief monies that the World Bank has said that we need to provide these countries, is just incredible. The fact of the matter is, this $82 million in debt relief is a fraction of what is truly needed. So that is a national security issue. The other national security issue is the fact that we have an AIDS epidemic that is literally destroying the continent of Africa, and it is threatening to destabilize lots of countries there. I might add, the two are intertwined, not only should we be providing debt relief but we should be providing the necessary AIDS money so that we also bolster these countries that are now suffering internally from two epidemics, one economic and another health.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) often advocates that we reduce the commitment of America in its overseas obligations. The fact of the matter is the gentleman cannot reduce America's commitments militarily unless we are prepared to help those countries make it, and they cannot make it if you are squeezing every last penny out of them. In addition to that, we do not support them addressing their health epidemics.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I speak about an important development that I strongly support to enable Puerto Rico to have the chance to choose their future status through a fully democratic process. As we all know, Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States in 1898 as a consequence of the Spanish-American War. Since then, the Federal Government has never formally consulted the disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico on the Island's political status. Over a hundred years have passed and Puerto Rico's permanent status has yet to be determined. In addition, the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico have no vote in the government that determines their national laws. While almost all other American citizens are given a democratic means of expressing themselves through two Senators and representation in the House of Representatives, the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico lack voting congressional representation, and their voices are essentially left unheard. Three local inconclusive referenda (1967, 1993 and 1998) have been held in Puerto Rico with regard to the Island's political status. However, the major flaw of these local processes was that local political parties were allowed to submit their own political status definitions, a situation not consistent with Federal law. Mr. Speaker, one thing we did learn from the 1998 local referenda held in Puerto Rico was that over fifty percent of voters cast their ballot for an option that read ``none of the above.'' This had the effect of providing, at best, an ambiguous result and no clear basis upon which to continue the process of ensuring that the governing arrangement enjoys consensus. But more tellingly, and more importantly, the vast majority of the voters, over 95 percent, did not support the status quo. Much of Puerto Rico's status debate concerns what the Federal Government would implement. To that end, President Clinton invited the leaders of Puerto Rico's three major political parties, the Governor, our Colleague Carlos Romero-Barcelo, and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Resources Committee and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to an unprecedented summit at the White House on Wednesday, June 28, 2000. The purpose of this summit is to further the work of the federal Executive and Legislative branches of govemment to begin a process. This process would clarify the options available regarding the goveming arrangement that should apply to Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution and International law. This process will also define how federal economic and social policies should apply to the Island. President Clinton has specified that he has no status preference, but that he is committed to agreeing on a process that will enable the American citizens of Puerto Rico to make an informed judgement. Fellow Colleagues, the Congress has been committed to the Self- Detertnination process in Puerto Rico, as well as to providing a constructive response to the 1998 referenda held on the territory. We can all agree that the bipartisan nature of the White House meeting will provide a foundation upon which to consider a process to resolve fundamental questions regarding Puerto Rico's relationship with the Federal Govemment. If it is appropriate for the President to help resolve disputes in the Middle East, Bosnia and Northern Ireland, is it not in the interest of our Nation to focus our efforts on the future of a territory of the United States and the four million Hispanic Americans that reside there? Mr. Speaker, I urge you to support our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico in order to enable them to choose a viable option. I urge you to support this effort and the decisions that may result from this summit.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, every time seniors have to choose between drugs and food, they are going to remember this vote. Every time, in the future, when seniors have to cut their pills in order to make them last longer, they are going to remember this vote. Every time seniors are going to have to share their medications because they cannot afford them, they are going to remember this vote. But I will tell my colleagues when they are really going to remember this vote. They are going to remember this vote in the November election, when they vote to return a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives. Because this Republican plan is nothing more than empty promises. And what do America's seniors get when they get empty promises? They get empty pill jars. That is what this prescription drug plan that the Republicans have is all about: empty promises equaling empty pill jars.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 2000 I was unavoidably detained and consequently missed one vote, rollcall 326. Had I been here I would have voted ``no'' on the passage of H.R. 4690.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I ask my colleagues to try to reverse this horrible trend in funding for Native American law enforcement.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)