Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) and myself, I submit for the Record condolences and remarks by the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton; the Vice President of the United States, Albert Gore; the Secretary of Defense, as well as many others, including many of the organizations whose causes Senator Chafee dedicated his public service career to. Statement by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen on the Passing of Sen. John H. Chafee ``Senator John Chafee was a valued friend, a talented Navy Secretary, Governor and Senator, a valiant Marine, a New England gentleman, and one of the finest people I've ever known. His death is a great loss to the Senate and to this nation. He leaves an enduring legacy of moderation, decency, concern for the environment, and love for Rhode Island and America. Many years into the future, his life and career will be a standard against which those who aspire to public service will be measured. Janet and I extend our most heartfelt sympathy to Virginia and the entire Chafee family at this time of loss.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 341) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 512, a motion to table the Cardin of Maryland motion to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means of the veto referral of H.R. 2488--the tax- payer relief Act--had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, due to a delay in getting to the House floor, I missed House rollcall vote No. 494, on agreeing to the conference on the FY 2000 defense appropriations. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to join my friend and cofounder of the Native American Caucus, Congressman Dale Kildee, for the introduction of this legislation. Over the past several years it seems to me that Indian Country has continually been on the defensive. Often tribes have had to struggle to simply keep the status quo against legislative proposals that would serve to undermine Tribal sovereignty and weaken the trust relationship. Today can be different. Today we have a chance to do something positive for Indian Country. Right now we can begin a process where the hallmarks of treaty and trust are celebrated. We can offer Indian Country a distinct opportunity to improve the quality of life for future generations of Native children. As I am sure the committee is well aware, the state of education in Indian Country is far below that of non-Native communities. The per pupil expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools during the 1994-95 school year was over $7,000. The Indian Student Equalization Program funding for BIA students was about $2,900. Unlike public schools which have State and local resources for education programs, Indian schools in the BIA are totally reliant upon the Federal Government to meet their educational needs. According to the 1990 Census, the American Indian poverty rate is more than twice the national average as 31 percent of American Indians live below the poverty level. The 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress showed that over 50 percent of American Indian 4th graders scored below the basic level in reading proficiency. Another NAEP assessment showed that 55 percent of 4th grade American Indian students scored below the basic level in mathematics. American Indian students have the highest dropout rate of any racial or ethnic group (36 percent), and the lowest high school completion and college attendance rates of any minority group. As of 1900, only 66 percent of American Natives aged 25 years or older were high school graduates, compared to 78 percent of the general population. Approximately one-half of BIA/tribal schools (54 percent) and public schools with high Indian student enrollment (55 percent) offer college preparatory programs, compared to 76 percent of public schools with few (less than 25 percent) Indian students. Sixty-one percent of students in public schools with Indian enrollment of 25 percent or more are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, compared to the national average of 35 percent. And finally, many of the 185 BIA-funded schools are in desperate need of replacement or repair. Members of the Committee, it is clear from these statistics that there is a pressing need in elementary and secondary Indian education. My colleagues, this is a situation which must be met with fierce determination. We need to support an aggressive agenda for Indian education because the current landscape is not meeting the challenge. Right now, the BIA and Office of Indian Education is not authorized to distribute privately donated monetary gifts or resources to supplement the missions of these agencies. Yet every year numerous inquiries from the public are made as to where they can donate funds that will be spent wisely on behalf of Indian education. Simply put, we are missing out on a unique opportunity to help funnel non-governmental resources into Indian education. Ultimately, I believe this legislation is the appropriate answer to this situation. We can give the public a high profile mechanism to reach out to Indian Nations in a way that is apolitical and noncontroversial. Simply put, the establishment of an American Indian Education Foundation is good government. It speaks to a modern way of doing things in which successful private-public partnerships are created. It is also an efficient way to get at the heart of a very pressing problem without placing an undue additional burden on taxpayers. Within 2 to 3 years after enactment of this bill the Foundation should be completely self-sufficient and will not use more than 10 percent of its generated funds to pay for operating expenses. My colleagues, lets be clear at the outset--the purpose of this legislation is not to create a new level of bureaucracy or make some staffer rich. In my opinion such a situation would be one more example of where this government has failed in its trust duty to Indian Country. In brief, it is my intention to hold the bureaucracy to the letter of the law that we are now beginning to draft. As for the role of Congress I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. It should not be the intent of this legislation to use the funds raised to take the place of existing Indian education programs. Rather, these funds should be considered entirely separate and supplemental to the efforts of the Federal and tribal governments. My colleagues, we all understand the budget shell game and I do not want to see the success of this program leveraged against governmental funding for teacher training, school modernization, and education technology initiatives. In short, I do not want to hear one voice out there saying that we do not need to fund the Office of Indian Education because the Foundation has X amount of dollars in its account. To do so would again be another slight against our trust and treaty obligations to the First people of this Nation. In the end, I want to reiterate the obvious. Indian Country is lacking in the resources needed to train its children for the demands of the global economy. The 106th Congress has a chance to help rectify this problem. While we should continue to allocate more Federal resources towards the growing population of children within Indian Country we can also make it easier for private interests to become involved. Helping Indian children achieve is not only a public trust but a private one as well. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will move this legislation in a expeditious manner.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, the conference report on H.R. 2561, the Defense Appropriation Act of FY 2000, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues realize that the only people in our society that are exempted from our laws and exempted from being sued are foreign diplomats and HMO bureaucrats? They are the only ones in our society that are held above the law. My colleagues read about where that foreign diplomat ran over that young girl in Washington, D.C., never had to be held liable until the Georgian government said that he had to be held liable. Guess what? The same blanket immunity that those foreign diplomats have these HMO bureaucrats have. Now, the thing that is going on here is these HMO bureaucrats forget medical malpractice. That is when a doctor makes a bad decision. We are having people who have no medical education whatsoever, never went to medical school, they are the ones making medical decisions. That is criminal. If my colleagues think medical malpractice is criminal, try having someone who has no medical experience whatsoever making a medical decision. That is criminal. Those two instances, this Boehner bill will not cover; and that is why we ought to reject the Boehner substitute.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on October 4, 1999, I was unavoidably detained and consequently missed two votes. Had I been here I would have voted: ``Yes'' on the passage of H. Res. 181. ``Yes'' on the passage of H.R. 1451.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcalls No. 470 and 471, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. My colleagues, the hypocrisy is incredible to me, just to hear the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) talk about the sanctity of the human life and how any pro- choice person in this body ought to be able to vote for this bill. How in the world can they honestly say that they are for the sanctity of life and then gladly and proudly come out and say that this bill would not affect a woman's right to choose and have an abortion? I am just astounded by those who are so pure on this side of the aisle; that they get up, like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who got up and was so pure about relieving our consciences of the fact that this would not, please, no one mistake the fact that this is going to undermine Roe v. Wade. It is not going to undermine Roe v. Wade. Women are still going to be able to have an abortion. That is what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) was saying; that is what the gentleman from Oklahoma was saying. They are saying to pro-choice people like myself that we can vote for this because our constituents will still have the right to a safe, legal abortion. I mean, it is just so incongruous that the very people who are saying that they believe so much in the sanctity of life are now proposing a bill that they willingly admit does not protect the very people they think need to be protected. Now, in addition to being intellectually dishonest, this bill is a farce. It talks about the unborn victims of violence. What about the born victims of violence? What about the 13 and 14 kids that are killed every day in this country by guns that this leadership fails to bring up on the floor because they are in bed with the gun lobby? What about the fact that we have members who want to get up on the floor and talk all about the sanctity of human life and spreading those civil rights that they say that we stand so much for and then saying we ought to be for the unborn child? What about for the born child? What about for the child that is already here? Have my colleagues ever looked at the indices for spending that this Republican budget spends on inner-city kids from minority families who are on the WIC program, who are trying to get Headstart? And those people pretend that they are for the human life? Do they not value the human life of one in four kids in this country who are in poverty? And they want to cut the earned income tax credit? This is a farce. I do not need to say any more. This is a farce.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time and I want to commend her for the great work she has always done using her position in the committee to follow this issue closely. In 1996, I traveled to East Timor. I went to Dili, and I saw the spot where hundreds lost their lives in the famous Santa Cruz cemetery massacre. Unfortunately, the tragedy of that massacre is occurring again today as we speak. In 1996, I met with Nobel peace laureate Bishop Belo in his home. Now that home has been burned down, destroyed, by paramilitaries that are rampant in the region. Even nuns and priests and other religious leaders have been killed over the past week. It is time that we end this violence and take a real stand. The people of East Timor took a courageous stand themselves just a few weeks ago when they voted for independence. We owe them, these people desperate for freedom and democracy, a chance for peace. Last week, I introduced legislation to show further support for the Timorese that calls for the suspension of financial and military assistance to Indonesia and a call for peacekeeping troops. Today's motion will ensure that we adhere to similar language that was already included in the Foreign Operations bill that my colleagues in that subcommittee so critically included. Again, we tried to persuade Indonesia with words, but words were not enough. The situation is critical. There is no time to wait. The lives of thousands are in the balance. We need to act. We need to act now. We need to pass this motion and pass it overwhelmingly and send a message to the Indonesian government that we will not abide by the way they are treating the East Timorese people.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for rollcall vote 364. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 364, final passage of H.R. 2031, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to join my friend and cofounder of the Native American Caucus, Congressman Dale Kildee, for the introduction of this legislation. Over the past several years it seems to me that Indian Country has continually been on the defensive. Often tribes have had to struggle to simply keep the status quo against legislative proposals that would serve to undermine Tribal sovereignty and weaken the Trust relationship. Today can be different. Today we have a chance to do something positive for Indian Country. Right now we can begin a process where the hallmarks of treaty and trust are celebrated. We can offer Indian Country a distinct opportunity to improve the quality of life for future generations of Native children. As I am sure the Committee is well aware, the state of education in Indian Country is far below that of non-Native communities. The Per Pupil Expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools during the 1994-95 school year was over $7,000. The Indian Student Equalization Program funding for BIA students was about $2,900. Unlike public schools which have state and local resources for educations, Indian schools in the BIA are totally reliant upon the Federal Government to meet their educational needs. According to the 1990 Census, the American Indian poverty rate is more than twice the national average as 31 percent of American Indians live below the poverty level. The 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress showed that over 50 percent of American Indian 4th graders scored below the basic level in reading proficiency. Another NAEP Assessment showed that 55 percent of 4th grade American Indian students scored below the basic level in mathematics. American Indian students have the highest dropout rate of any racial or ethnic group (36 percent) and the lowest high school completion and college attendance rates of any minority group. As of 1990, only 66 percent of American Natives aged 25 years or older were high school graduates, compared to 78 percent of the general population. Approximately one-half of BIA/tribal schools (54 percent) and public schools with high Indian student enrollment (55 percent) offer college preparatory programs, compared to 76 percent of public schools with few (less than 25 percent) Indian students. Sixty-one percent of students in public schools with Indian enrollment of 25 percent of more are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, compared to the national average of 35 percent. And finally, many of the 185 BIA-funded schools are in desperate need of replacement or repair. Members of the Committee, it is clear from these statistics that there is a pressing need in elementary and secondary Indian education. My colleagues, this is a situation which must be met with fierce determination. We need to support an aggressive agenda for Indian education because the current landscape is not meeting the challenge. Right now, the BIA and Office of Indian Education is not authorized to distribute privately donated monetary gifts or resources to supplement the missions of these agencies. Yet every year numerous inquiries from the public are made as to where they can donate funds that will be spent wisely on behalf of Indian education. Simply put, we are missing out on a unique opportunity to help funnel non-governmental resources into Indian education. Ultimately, I believe this legislation is the appropriate answer to this situation. We can give the public a high profile mechanism to reach out to Indian Nations in a way that is apolitical and noncontroversial. Simply put, the establishment of an American Indian Education Foundation is good government. It speaks to a modern way of going things in which successful private-public partnerships are created. It is also an efficient way to get at the heart of a very pressing problem without placing an undue additional burden on taxpayers. Within 2 to 3 years after enactment of this bill the Foundation should be completely self-sufficient and will not use more than 10 percent of its generated funds to pay for operating expenses. My colleagues, lets be clear at the outset--the purpose of this legislation is not to create a new level of bureaucracy or make some staffer rich. In my opinion such a situation would be one more example of where this government has failed in its trust duty to Indian Country. In brief, it is my intention to hold the bureaucracy to the letter of the law that we are now beginning to draft. As for the role of Congress, I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. It should not be the intent of this legislation to use the funds raised to take the place of existing Indian education programs. Rather, these funds should be considered entirely separate and supplemental to the efforts of the Federal and tribal governments. My colleagues, we all understand the budget shell game and I do not want to see the success of this program leveraged against governmental funding for teacher training, school modernization, and education technology initiatives. In short, I do not want to hear one voice out there saying that we do not need to fund the Office of Indian Education because the Foundation has X amount of dollars in its account. To do so would again be another slight against our trust and treaty obligations to the First people of this nation. In the end, I will not reiterate the obvious. Indian Country is lacking in the resources needed to train its children for the demands of the global economy. The 106th Congress has a chance to help rectify this problem. While we should continue to allocate more federal resources towards the growing population of children within Indian Country we can also make it easier for private interests to become involved. Helping Indian children achieve is not only a public trust but a private one as well. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will move this legislation in an expeditious manner.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, last week I was not able to be present for rollcall votes 308-334. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: 308--``yea''; 309--``yea''; 310--``yea''; 311--``yea''; 312--``yea''; 313--``no''; 314--``no''; 315--``no''; 316--``yea''; 317--``yea''; 318--``yea''; 319--``yea''; 320--``no''; 321--``yea''; 322--``yea''; 323--``yea''; 324--``no''; 325--``yea''; 326--``yea''; 327--``yea''; 328--``yea''; 329--``yea''; 330--``no''; 331--``yea''; 332--``yea''; 333--``no''; 334--``yea.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for this special order to commemorate and acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the Turkish occupation of the island of Cyprus. In the past decades we have witnessed many human rights violations such as in Kosovo and in East Timor. This has to change and this commemoration is a step towards change in Cyprus. The United States needs to show our strong support for a unified Cyprus. Until we bring about change, Cyprus and its people will continue to live divided into an island that has a North that is occupied by Turkish troops and an independent South. There is no reason why the Cypriots should become refugees in their own country or denied access back to their homes. July 20, 1974, was a dreadful day for the Cypriots. Many, until this day, do not know what happened to their families on that day. We have seen many changes around the world in the past years: The fall of the Berlin Wall, the beginning of peace in the Middle East, and the signing of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. It is now time that Cyprus becomes part of the list so that freedom can prevail. I urge my fellow colleagues join in support for a unified Cyprus so that the necessary changes will occur.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Congressmen Weldon and Barr. This amendment would accomplish two goals. First, it would undermine the Constitutional responsibility that our government has towards Native American Tribes. Second, it would serve to stop so much of the positive work that is being accomplished in Indian Country. What my colleagues need to understand is that Tribal Gaming is not a private interest initiative. The proceeds from Tribal Gaming can only be used for governmental programs like education, health care and housing. Some Tribes that are looking to take lands into trust for the purposes of gaming currently have unemployment rates in excess of 50 percent. Native Americans are simply looking for a way out of what is clearly third world poverty. This amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating Class III gaming procedures. The reason that the Department of Interior has published regulations on Class III gaming is because Congress, by enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, directed the Secretary to develop procedures for Class III gaming compacts. And lets be clear, Interior's regulations will apply in cases where tribes and states could not reach a Class III agreement but the state already allows Class III gaming activities, and when a state raises immunity as a defense from suit. Moreover, states could still protect themselves from Class III gaming if they choose by outlawing any kind of Class III gaming in the state. In this regard Tribes could not game under Class III. Examples of States that have no gaming include Utah and Hawaii. This rule is the result of an extensive public process that began more than three years ago and speaks to the fact that the vast majority of states and tribes have bargained in good faith with each other. In fact, in the ten years since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, over 200 compacts have been signed in 24 states. Tribes deserve a fair opportunity. In many cases they have been denied that chance. I understand that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission has called for a ``pause'' in gaming but this amendment does nothing but unfairly discriminate against the only people that use gaming revenues for altruistic purposes. Moreover, it goes to the very heart of our nation's failure to defend what Tribal Governments are entitled to by virtue of their status as domestic dependent nations. Why is there no amendment to limit the growth of gaming in Atlantic City? How about state governments that use lotteries everyday? The reason is because you all feel that Indians are an easy target. Gaming opponents feel as though they need a quick fix to satisfy their agendas. Consequently the Tribes must bear the burden of the political expediency that is being demonstrated by this amendment. My colleagues, this amendment is not so much about gaming as it is about not respecting the trust responsibility that our government has towards the first Americans. Mr. Chairman, I find this particularly disturbing that we are considering this amendment offered by Republican members on a day that Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership are meeting with several tribal leaders in support of Tribal sovereignty. This amendment has no place in this debate and I urge all who care for the sovereign rights of native Americans to oppose its passage.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just have a few questions. I am very worried about this bill. Just 2 weeks ago when we had the gun debate on violence, this Congress passed, if Members can believe it, posting Ten Commandments, and this was our response to Columbine, post the Ten Commandments. It did not say which version of the Ten Commandments, the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish version, it just said Ten Commandments. This is really getting me nervous, this notion that we are going to give religions preference in their religious tenets over our own civil rights. Let us make no mistake about it, the right wing of the Republican party is against gays and lesbians. They want to discriminate against people who are homosexuals. Let us just be right in front on what this debate is about. So they feel that if one has in their religion a belief that gays and lesbians would be damned by God, then you should be able to discriminate against them. But what this also does is it discriminates against all kinds of other people. Just imagine that fellow who killed all those people out in Chicago last week. He was part of this Church of the Creator. Is that kind of religion protected under this religious freedom? Is that going to take precedence over our civil rights in this country? I think we are all children in the eyes of God, and no religion should practice hate or intolerance of any kind. That is why I am going to vote against this bill when it comes up for a vote.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by answering my two colleagues who just spoke. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who mentioned about circumventing the process, we are circumventing the process right now by not taking this up in the appropriate committee. That is the House authorizing committee of the Committee on Natural Resources. That is where this ought to be taken up. This is an amendment to an appropriations bill. It has no place on the floor right now being taken up on this issue. For the Members to say that somehow we are going to have the court decide what the law of the land is and be offended by that is really quite startling to me. The court is the arbiter. The court should be the arbiter. The fact of the matter is that when IGRA was written, it was written to mitigate the court. Let me just read what the court decided in the California versus Cabazon Band of Michigan case. It said, ``The attributes of sovereignty,'' which the former speaker said is a murky issue, but the Supreme Court court of the United States said that ``attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory,'' that ``tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal government, not the States.'' Do I need to repeat that? To the Federal government. Because these are sovereign nations, in case no one has read the Constitution of the United States, which they were sworn to uphold, and which, I might add, one of the cosponsors of this amendment has so vehemently protected in every speech that he has given about how he is going to defend the Constitution. Let me read the gentleman some of the Constitution. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: ``The Congress shall have the power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes.'' Do Members know why the Constitution said that? Because they wanted to make sure Indian tribes were treated on the same basis as States were, and as foreign nations. This is about the basic tenets of our Constitution. How the hell do Members think we got the country that we are living in? We struck agreements with Native American tribes to get the land. It was predicated based upon an agreement, and this country has never lived up to that agreement. It is why we have so much of Native American country living in destitute poverty. What do the proponents of this amendment want to do? They want to say, well, our constituents do not like gaming. Okay, they do not like gaming. Guess what, they have an alternative, tell the State to ban gaming. That is what I did in my State. I voted against gaming. But while the State of Rhode Island has lottery and has Keno and everything else, I say to them, hey, listen, if it is good enough for the people of Rhode Island to have, then why are Members going to prohibit the Narragansett Band in my State? I would venture to say each and every one of the Members in their own States, unless their State prohibits gaming altogether, they have no alternative but to play by the same rules that they allow their own people in their own State to play. Keep in mind that these Native American tribes rely on this funding. This is not just for some casino operation where the money goes into someone's pocket. This is about money that goes to help subsidize housing for Native Americans, which I might add is in deplorable condition in this country. This money goes to subsidize education, which is in deplorable condition in the Native American reservations. This money goes to supporting health care. If Members look at every indice in this country with respect to Native American populations and non-Native American populations, the difference is unbelievable. The difference is unbelievable. Do Members know what it points out? It points out the historic discrimination against native peoples in this country. If this Congress can come here today and say that they want to pass the Barr-Weldon amendment, then they want to join the legacy of shame of this great country of ours, the legacy of shame of what we have done to Native Americans by playing roughshod over them. God forbid we play roughshod over the States, because we have been playing roughshod over Native Americans our whole lives. God forbid our Members come up here and try to protect States. They are the ones. We have had Native Americans. God forbid States ever get run roughshod over. Now Native Americans have some leverage. They have this thing called sovereignty, which we never bothered to examine in the Constitution. Guess what they have done with that sovereignty? They have done the very same thing that every other State in this country has done, with the exception of maybe two or three other States that have outright prohibited gaming. They have said, listen, we want to take advantage of the same thing that every other State in this country is doing. Do Members know what? The Constitution and the Supreme Court decision says they can do it. Do Members know what their amendment is saying? It is saying no, they cannot do it. Do Members know why? Because Congress passed IGRA, and IGRA was unclear on this. IGRA watered down the Supreme Court decision. Now Members want to water down IGRA. It is not fair. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, for the record I strenuously object to H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it illegal for a trusted adult who is not a parent to bring a minor to another state for an abortion. Although I think young women should be encouraged to seek their parents' guidance when facing difficult choices regarding abortion and other reproductive health issues, it is not appropriate or possible for the government to legislate family involvement in this important and highly personal decision. Many minors do not seek advice from their parents because they have experienced violence in their family or fear violence if they tell a parent of their abortion. H.R. 1218 presumes incorrectly that most young women are part of a loving, supportive and healthy home, but in reality it will force many young women to face this situation in isolation rather than trusting a close adult, such as a grandparent, clergy member or sibling. It is my fear that this measure will force young women to seek illegal dangerous medical treatment rather than tell their parents of their pregnancy. As a result, this would completely undermine a woman's right to choose guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. In fact, I can argue that this legislation is irresponsible because it does nothing to address the need for education. It is critical that we emphasize the importance of educating our youth about family planning in order to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Finally we must remember that most young women go to their parents for guidance, but we have an obligation to protect young women who cannot turn to a supportive parent by voting against H.R. 1218.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the clock. It is 10 o'clock at night. We have been debating for 2 days and we have finally gotten to guns. I think about this afternoon, and the fact that we debated the Ten Commandments. It is not going to be until 3 in the morning when we finally debate 10 bullets in every magazine that can be stuck into a clip and mowed across any Long Island railway to take out some member of a family who is trying to get home in the evening. We are going to debate that at 3 o'clock in the morning? Shame on this House and this process. I cannot get my head around this loophole thing that the Republicans keep talking about. They want loopholes? Let me understand this correctly. The Brady bill is designed to screen out criminals from getting guns, but no, the Dingell amendment and the Republicans want to create a loophole so that criminals can get guns. I do not get it. They want criminals to get guns. I cannot figure it out any other way. If they did not want criminals to get guns, they would be for closing the loophole. That is what loopholes are. They are mechanisms to get around the law. Let us close the loophole and pass the McCarthy amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, that these drugs are so costly; and we need to do everything in our power in this Congress to make sure seniors and other consumers are not overburdened by the cost of prescription drugs.

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