Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Excuse me. I mean to correct that. But the point of my remarks holds true, because what I am talking about here is the voice of democracy, whether that is TV or radio. The issue here is making sure the message gets across to the people of Cuba, and that is what is so fundamental here.

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 organizing this special order to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the Turkish occupation of the island of Cyprus. In my state of Rhode Island we have a strong Greek and Cypriot community, which has brought the plight of Cyprus to my attention. Many of them to this day do not know what happened to their brothers, their fathers, their sisters, their mothers on that dreadful day in July of 1974. On July 20, 1974, the Government of Turkey sent troops to Cyprus and assumed control of more than one-third of that island. On that day over 200,000 Greek Cypriots became refugees in their own country and are still denied the right to return to their homes. The assault dislocated many in the Greek Cypriot population. Over 1,600 Greek Cypriots are missing and are still unaccounted for as a result of this invasion. In the past decades, we have witnessed tremendous changes around the world. 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 time to add Cyprus to that list of places where freedom will prevail. Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to take direct steps to indicate support for Cyprus. Only when we, in Congress, show our strong support for a unified Cyprus will the necessary changes occur.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues, most particularly the comments just made by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), with respect to the marketplace and the fact that, in these instances, the marketplace dictates that these provisions do be provided. Do my colleagues know why? In order to get the best people. These provisions need to be provided because, in this tight labor market, employers want to make sure they get the best possible talent. And I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) means no slight to those who are receiving human services. Because, obviously, we want the best people out there who are capable of delivering human services to be the people that we have deliver human services. We would not want to shut out anybody from being able to deliver those human services. So I think we need to address that point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) brought up, because I think it is a very good point. It is not a matter of these private companies having extra money so they can dig into their pockets and do something that feels good. These companies adhere to stock markets. They need to provide the best maximum profit. And the reason they know they can do it and provide these benefits is because they know they are going to get the best possible people. The City of San Francisco should be no different from these private corporations. Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House, however, the issue that is being brought up here, the issue with respect to local autonomy. It has been echoed over and over again that the Council of Mayors has rejected the Riggs amendment. They have spoken very strongly on this issue. I want to add that the National Association of Counties and County Executives has also come out vigorously against the Riggs amendment because of its usurpation of local control. But I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact that this really is usurping local control. In fact, so much so that it will undoubtedly end up in the courts. I am not making anything up here, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) himself acknowledges that the only city that is going to be affected is San Francisco. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were passing a bill that would provide coverage to all the cities and towns in America. But, apparently, the gentleman wants to micromanage and effect a policy in one city in this country. To me, that violates the case of Romer v. Evans, which said that Congress cannot pass any bill of attainder which specifies that Congress cannot carve out one city and town or person for direct impact when passing any legislation. That any legislation that the Congress proposes must impact the whole body of general information that the amendment seeks to change, and it cannot specify in one instance. So, for that reason, this will be tied up in the courts. Let me tell my colleagues what will practically be the result of when this is tied up in the courts. When this is tied up in courts, it will tie up approximately $65 million in Federal funds which will be tied up. What are those funds? The very programs that the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) says he cares about are going to be compromised because of his amendment. Homeless people are not going to get the McKinney Grant funds because of the Riggs amendment. People who are homeless because of AIDS are not going to get the necessary Federal funds because the gentleman from California is on this political witch-hunt. So do not think that this is any old amendment for Members to go in there and cover themselves with political stripes saying, ``I was strong today because I stood up and beat up on some minority in this country and was able to scapegoat some group in this country.'' Do not be so quick to do that, because when we do that we are affecting real people's lives. Real people are going to be affected by this, because of some ideological march that the gentleman from California is on. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and others in rejecting this mean-spirited, bigoted, bigoted amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I stand on behalf of Kathryn Carberry in my State of Rhode Island. She was released too quickly from the hospital because her insurance company denied her treatment for a breast operation that she had and continued treatment for that. I also stand on behalf of Deborah Kushner's little boy who was nearly killed because her HMO denied treatment in an emergency room. The Republican leadership have refused any committee debate with full and free testimony because they are afraid of these stories. Now they come up with a bill that is a product of the HMO industry itself. We have waited for managed care reform, so why should we settle for the HMO's own plan. This bill leaves out so many crucial provisions, it is almost laughable. Where is the provision against drive-through mastectomies that could have saved Ms. Carberry's life. It is not in there. Where is the prudent layperson for Mrs. Kushner's son? It is not in there. Where is the provision to hold accountable these HMOs? It is not in there. Every other product in this country can be held liable but managed care organizations. It is time we put a stop to managed care organizations who are practicing medicine without a medical license.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, in last month's Financial Executive magazine a featured interview with Paul E. Goulding, a management consultant to businesses large and small, focused on procurement of Federal contracts. Mr. Goulding, who is a constituent of mine and an expert in procurement issues, has had broad experience in the field of government contracting in a long distinguished career that includes senior executive positions in Federal service as well as the private sector. As an Administrative Assistant to Senator Claiborne Pell, he worked closely with Rhode Island businesses, advising and assisting them in obtaining Federal contracts. While Deputy and Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration in 1979 and 1980, he developed an 8 point program to cut operating costs at GSA. And as a Professional Staff member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, he conducted the first comprehensive study of the Senate's major operations, including how to improve its procurement procedures. Mr. Goulding has, in fact, played active roles as advocate, administrator, and advisor in the government procurement process. First, as a congressional staff member in assisting the business community in our state of Rhode Island. Secondly, as head of the largest non-defense agency buying goods and services for the government. Lastly, as a consultant to major international corporations as well as to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit this interview to be included in the Record as part of my remarks. Mr. Goulding has offered some worthwhile and common sense advice for companies who are seeking to do business with the Federal government: [From FEI News, May/June 1998] Q&A: Making Uncle Sam Your Customer Financial Executive recently interviewed Paul E. Goulding, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant and expert in the arcane art of government procurement. Q: Your firm has helped clients obtain more than $30 billion in government contracts during the last 10 years, companies like AT&T and Hewlett Packard. Do large companies have a big advantage when it comes to selling to Uncle Sam? PEG: While you might assume they would, my experience indicates that isn't the case. For instance, some big companies get involved in bidding on major contracts and find they are lost because their marketing people, who want to make the sale, are saying one thing while their government relations people have an entirely different view of what should be submitted in the bid. A dilemma for top management? PEG: Exactly. Some small niche companies, on the other hand, know exactly what their market is and how best to sell to it. Each case is different and there is no cookie-cutter formula. I keep an open mind and try to evaluate each situation as I see it. Although small and medium-sized firms frequently need more help steering through the process, they are often more successful than larger companies because they tend to be more flexible and less bureaucratic when faced with complex challenges. Why should firms of any size bother to do business with the U.S. government given all the red tape involved? PEG: When I hear that question, I tell the story of the businessman who buys a hardware store after moving to a small town. He asks his new employees who the biggest hardware customer in town is. He is surprised to learn that the customer isn't doing business with his store. When the owner asks why not, his employees say the customer is difficult to do business with and requires that a lot of forms be filled out. I point out that same customer is probably very wealthy, doesn't bounce his checks and usually does repeat business when satisfied. That's the type of customer the federal government can be. Just how big a customer is the U.S. government? PEG: The U.S. government buys goods and services valued at over $200 billion. That makes Uncle Sam the biggest customer in the world. And it's not just the dollar figure that's large, but the number of individual acquisitions. According to the GSA Procurement Data Center, over 20 million individual contract actions are processed every year. Now that we're in a global economy and even small businesses are entering the overseas export market, and given all the problems in dealing with tariffs, quotas, foreign currency exchange, international letters of credit and shipping, it doesn't make sense for U.S. companies to fail to maximize their U.S. government business, which is right on their doorstep. What would you advise firms that want to do business with the government? PEG: It will require an investment of time, money and resources. Starting a relationship with the government is very similar to a company entering a new market overseas. The company has to make a commitment to the market. Sometimes companies will ask me why they can't just go after one contract and see how they do. Well, that system is just about as effective as the guy who goes to the race track and bets on one race to see if he's going to win that day. Like any start-up marketing effort, the company has to be willing to allocate manpower and resources to help develop their government business. What would you advise a company that already does some business with the government? PEG: I would first ask what percentage of the domestic U.S. market the firm services. If you answer 10 percent, then I would ask what percentage of the government market for your product you control. If the answer is 5 percent, then at the very least you need to double your government sales. What else do you tell a new client looking to grab government business? PEG: I explain how often doing business with the government is the reverse of doing business in the private sector. Before you can make a government sale, in many instances you must do considerable research to find out how the government buys your product or service, who buys it, where they buy it and, often overlooked, when they buy it. Also, the government sometimes changes the rules or methods by which it procures goods and services. If you take the time and trouble to learn the system, you can figure it out. Why do companies turn to consultants like yourself to help them? PEG: The principal reason is that it's more efficient. It is less time consuming and, in the final analysis, less expensive to involve qualified people on your team. Is doing business in Washington different from doing business in, say, Cleveland? PEG: It certainly is. It's important for corporate leaders to make a commitment of time and effort to learn the business practices here, which are often different from those in the private sector. At the same time, a similar commitment has to be made to develop long-term political and social relationships with the leading players on Capitol Hill and in the bureaucracy. Success in Washington absolutely requires both.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the recognition of a Warren post office employee who was recently recognized as the Federal Employee of the Year in Rhode Island. Kathleen S. Blackmar was honored at the 27th annual awards ceremony held at the BankBoston Operations Center in East Providence by the Federal Executive Council of Rhode Island. She was nominated for the award by Warren postmaster Erick B. Lawson. Kathy has become known as a very valuable asset to the Warren post office. In her job as custodian, she is responsible for making building repairs, performing janitorial duties, and assisting customers with lost or broken post office box keys. Her fellow workers share the belief that she has a work ethic that cannot be identified by level of job title. She has educated herself about boiler repair and diagnosis and she makes minor repairs to the office's fleet of vehicles. On top of this, Ms. Blackmar maintains and landscapes the grounds and clears snow. She readily has given her time to serve as coordinator for the Combined Federal Campaign, the annual drive for the contribution to community organizations. She has also coordinated the post office's Toys for Tots campaign and the annual ``Christmas Wish List.'' I am proud to recognize Kathleen Blackmar as an outstanding individual and to commend her for her contribution to public service.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to join those who have already stood in support of the National Endowment for the Arts. It has been spoken to in many instances already, but let me say, for our State of Rhode Island, this is an issue of particular importance, because we are very proud in Rhode Island that our former Senator, Claiborne Pell, was amongst the champions of NEA when he first got here to the Congress in 1960 and, with the help of my uncle, President Kennedy, was able to fashion the National Endowment of the Arts early on. And what a success it has been. In my State of Rhode Island, we have a program called Arts Talk that focuses on dropouts in our schools. We have found students in the Vo- Tech schools, who have no exposure to the arts, are able to get exposure through the programs like Arts Talk, which expand the arts to people that do not ordinarily have access to the arts. What this has done is, it has helped awaken their imaginations, helped them have a better self-image, because in many instances they learn about their own cultural heritage expressions within the arts. In addition to that, they may find some inherent talent in their own being that will allow them to express themselves through the arts, either by playing an instrument, acting in a play or painting a picture. These things may sound esoteric to us, but I can tell you in Rhode Island they have had a marked impact on helping reduce juvenile delinquency in the schools. We have actually seen students that we have paired up with this program have a greater attendance in the schools, because they feel good about what they are doing. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a program that really does not just meet the eye with respect to the arts. The implications of this program go well beyond just the immediacy of having our young people exposed to the arts. I would ask my colleagues to keep this in mind when we have the point of order on the Obey language which will strike it and, therefore, strike the $98 million for NEA; and I would hope we support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore that funding, because I think it is so critical for our future generations to build their self-esteem and sense of self, which is so powerfully done through the arts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for the work that he has done on this bill and on two other issues related in this bill, the Blackstone Valley Heritage Quarter and the support he gave Indian health services, which I must say was drastically underfunded, but thanks to the work that the chairman and the committee members provided, we are going to see an increase in Indian health services, which is something that I think we should all applaud.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I want to concur with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) on his comments on the NEA to say I hope to speak on that shortly when it comes up, but I want to take this opportunity to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the gentleman from Illinois. One of the things that has not really been emphasized in the long career that the gentleman from Illinois has had in this House is his steadfast stewardship over the trust responsibility that this government has to our Native Americans, our first Americans. Whenever issues came up with respect to this government fulfilling its obligations to provide for our Native Americans, the gentleman from Illinois was there, long before others ever stood on behalf of Native Americans. I think for those of us today who are carrying on the fight, we need to look no further for an example of what kind of person we need to emulate than the gentleman from Illinois when it comes to standing up for our Native Americans. Finally, Mr. Chairman, many people have remarked about how long the gentleman from Illinois has served in this esteemed body. I would like to say for me it gives me a great deal of pleasure to serve with such a titan of legislators like the gentleman from Illinois given the fact that he served in this House of Representatives with my uncle, John F. Kennedy, when he was a Member of the United States Congress in 1948. To think that I would have the opportunity to serve with someone who served with President Kennedy in the House of Representatives is truly something that I will always cherish and remember.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of this House and Americans everywhere who long to see Northern Ireland enter a period of peace, social justice and economic reconstruction have viewed with great dismay events these past few days in Northern Ireland. What is particularly troublesome and in some ways painfully symbolic of the conflicts that continue to plague the people on that troubled piece of earth, was the murder over the weekend of three innocent young Catholic boys, Richard-11, Mark-10 and Jason Quinn-9, who were burned to death early Sunday morning by a fire bomb reportedly thrown by practitioners of the worst kind of religious bigotry and hatred. Hopefully the tragic deaths of these three innocent boys will mark a watershed in the long and sad history of Northern Ireland's religious strife and men and women of good will who are committed to peace and reconciliation throughout Northern Ireland will work together to reinforce the fragile peace process underway in Northern Ireland. Those efforts should receive the strong endorsement and support from those of us in the United States who share that objective. Mr. Speaker, a growing number of my constituents are taking a closer look and a keener interest in events in Northern Ireland and this process is assisted by such statements as the enclosed editorial Trying to Get Beyond the Boyne published in the July 12 Providence Sunday Journal which I request to be inserted in the Record at this point. In my view, this editorial contains thoughtful observations on a very difficult and complex situation and makes the significant point that Northern Ireland must move past the anachronisms of the past and into a more enlightened and reasoned future if the peace process is to survive and prosper and I am confident that it can and will. I agree, too, with the editorial's observation that the President should move swiftly to name a successor to the recently departed Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith and that my good friend Paul Quinn, who is well experienced in Irish-American affairs makes an excellent candidate for this assignment. Mr. Quinn enjoys wide-spread bi-partisan support from my colleagues in the Congress and from governmental, political and community business leaders throughout Ireland and those in the United States who share our commitment to a more peaceful and prosperous day on the island of Ireland. He has made substantial contributions to relations between the United States and the Republic of Ireland and the North for more than 35 years and I know he will continue to do so for many years to come whatever the President's decision is regarding the next Ambassador. Trying To Get Beyond Boyne William Trevor's After Rain is the tale of a boy--son and grandson of proud Unionists in an Ulster village--who brings calumny upon himself by refusing to march. We are given to understand that the boy may be prey to a religious hallucination of some sort, that he must pay for his intransigence with his life, that his brother in the paramilitaries must properly have a hand in his killing. Thus does Mr. Trevor, the masterful Ango-Irish short-story writer, draw us into the insanity of ``the Troubles'' in Northern Ireland. The good burghers are pious and temperate Presbyterian townsmen who once a year don the bowler and the orange sash to commemorate their ancestors' defeat of the Catholic forces at the Battle or the Boyne. The crazy person is the one who refuses to join in the Protestant marching to fife and drum through the Catholic neighborhoods--a ritualized rubbing of salt into the worlds of the subjugated people's descendants. Thoughts of the fictional strife come to mind because today is the 308th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, in which the Protestant monarch of England, William III, of the Dutch House of Orange, vanquished the Catholic King James II. In the all-too-real life of Northern Ireland this past week, the peaceful promise of the Good Friday accords has been imperiled by violence in the buildup to this climax of ``marching season.'' Orange Order Protestants tasted defeat this spring when Irish voters north and south--including a narrow majority of Protestants--endorsed the peace process at referendum and followed up last month by electing a veto-proof majority of peace-accord supporters to a new self-rule assembly. A bitter pill for the hardliners is that the new first minister of Northern Ireland, chosen under a peace process he helped to create, is one of their own, David Trimble. Trimble, head of the Protestant Ulster Unionists Party, built his base in the Orange Order but came to believe that growing numbers of his constituents and co-religionists had wearied of the conflict that has wasted three decades and more than 3,400 lives in the North. This marching season, having helped to forge the shaky peace, Mr. Trimble has stayed on the sidelines as the order demanded the right to march its traditional route from the town or Portadown, west of Belfast, to the Anglican church in Drumcree and back. Since the British government's decree that they shall not march through a Catholic neighborhood in Portadown, Orangemen have camped in a nearby pasture. Incidents of violence and rioting have ensued in the British-ruled province in recent days, as Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Trimble and other moderates have sought a peaceful way out of the impasse. Orange leaders have threaten a general strike that could, they assert, paralyze Northern Ireland. Well, perhaps not. Not if enough Protestant citizens boycott the strike. The Clinton administration played an important role in getting all sides through the negotiations that produced the accord but has little policy role now except to cheer and pay as the peacemakers face their first tough test in the streets. (In an indirect way, however, President Clinton could contribute modestly to the long-term prospects for Irish peace by swiftly naming a successor to the recently departed ambassador to Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith. Paul Quinn, the Pawtucket-born Washington lobbyists, has the experience in Irish-American affairs to make him as good a candidate as any.) The hope for peace in Northern Ireland is with a new generation that, like Mr. Trevor's fictional youth, resists its inherited duty of hatred. Let us hope that its quiet force--which has won two historic votes for the pace-seekers since Good Friday--will carry the day against the bowler-topped anachronisms on this bloody anniversary.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 286, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is, here these women are serving our country, and, guess what? There is something called the Supreme Court, and it gives us our constitutional rights, and in those constitutional rights is the right to a legal and safe abortion. It is a constitutional right. These women are defending this country's Constitution, standing on the line defending the right of this country to express itself in freedom. Yet they themselves are being denied their constitutional rights. Just as that happened with the defense bill, now the majority is going after Federal employees. So it seems to me the only people in this country who are going to be truly denied their constitutional rights are the women who are serving in our Nation's military and our women who happen to be Federal employees. I would dare say, just to make this one last point, it is interesting here in this Congress, I enjoy seeing my colleagues snicker over here, because 95 percent of the women Members of this United States Congress support the DeLauro amendment, and we are going to say, the men in this House are going to decide whether women have a certain type of reproductive freedom or not. To me that sounds awfully like gender domination here. If it does not sound like that to you, it would be interesting if men were able to get pregnant and they would have the right, see whether they were going to stand up here and not vote for the DeLauro amendment. When you think about reproductive rights and you think if men had to pay this, and they were denied the same coverage in here, the same outrage we are hearing, but from the women.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Maryland for yielding to me. I think this is the crucial point. Are we going to treat Federal employees, public servants of this country, any differently than we treat other American citizens? As the gentleman will recall, we played this same game with American servicewomen, women who are serving our country in the military, and this majority stripped them of the power to be able to get a safe, legal abortion in overseas medical clinics.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my condolences to the family of Sr. Adelaide Canelas, whose recent passing has meant a loss to her family, her friends, and the entire State of Rhode Island. It is with the deepest respect for her life's work, and in her memory, that I offer this resolution for the Record. Senate Resolution Extending Condolences on the Passing of Sister Adelaide Canelas Whereas, Sister Adelaide Canelas, S.S.D. of Our Lady of Fatima Convent in Warren, R.I., died unexpectedly on Saturday, July 11, 1998; and Whereas, Born in Lisbon, Portugal, a daughter of the late Eusebio and Albertina (Vazco) Canelas, Sister Adelaide entered the congregation of the Sisters of St. Dorothy in Lisbon in 1937 and was missioned to the United States in 1948; and Whereas, After receiving a Bachelor's degree in Education, she taught in New Bedford, East Providence, Newport, and Bristol, at St. Francis Xavier School, St. Elizabeth School, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School. In 1973, she dedicated herself to helping immigrants, especially the poor and under privileged; and Whereas, Among the many programs Sister Adelaide worked with were Citizens Concerned for Human Progress, Coalition for Consumer Justice, R.I. Azorean Relief Fund and the George Wiley Center. She was also a member of the St. Vincent De Paul Society of St. Francis Xavier Church and was employed by them as Social Action Coordinator and Senior Aide of Self Help Inc.; and Whereas, A very unique and determined individual, Sister Adelaide didn't exactly fit into the Pre-Vatican mold religious women were supposed to fit. She had strong convictions and was very stubborn, way ahead of her times; and Whereas, Her determination was never more evident than when she met family after family, desperately poor and in need. She began by researching groups involved with helping poor people and went from there. Between transporting, fighting, picketing, finding jobs, and spending time in jail, Sister Adelaide put common sense and logic before the bureaucracy which was stifling her efforts to put food on their tables and clothing on their backs; and Whereas, This ``Robin Hood of Rhode Island'' brought color to our lives, along with laughter, love, and kindness and we know that she has found a place in God's heart. Godspeed, Sister, and may you hear God say to you, ``Come my beloved into the heavenly court for you have found the gift I value most--compassion and love for all in need, enter into my Heavenly Kingdom'' now, therefore be it Resolved, That this Senate of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby extends its sincerest condolences on the passing of Sister Adelaide Canelas and also extends condolences to her sister, Gloria; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to Gloria Canelas.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for printing in the Record: State of Rhode Island Senate Resolution 98-2995 Whereas, American servicemen and women have dedicated their careers to protect the rights we all enjoy; and Whereas, Career military personnel endured hardships, privation, the threat of death, disability and long separations from their families in service to our country; and Whereas, Integral to the success of our military forces are those soldiers and sailors who have made a career of defending our great nation in peace and war from the revolutionary war to present day; and Whereas, There exists a gross inequity in the federal statutes that denies disabled career military equal rights to receive Veterans Administration disability compensation concurrent with receipt of earned military retired pay; and Whereas, Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress to remedy this inequity applicable to career military dating back to the nineteenth century; and Whereas, The injustice concerns those veterans who are both retired with a minimum of 20 years, are denied concurrent receipt of hard earned military longevity retirement pay and Veterans Administration awards for service connected with disability; and Whereas, Career military earn retirement benefits based on longevity of twenty years for honorable and faithful service and rank at time of retirement; and Whereas, Veterans administered compensations serve a different purpose from longevity retired pay and are intended to compensate for pain, suffering, disfigurement, chemicals, wound injuries and a loss of earning ability and have a minimum requirement of 90 days of active duty; and Whereas, The prevailing idea that military retirement pay is ``free'' is false. There is a contribution to retirement pay, which is calculated to reduce military base pay and retirement pay by approximately seven percent when pay and allowances are computed and approved by Congress; and Whereas, Traditionally, a career military person receives a lower pay and retirement than his or her civilian counterpart and has invested a life of hardships and long hours without the benefit of overtime pay and lack of freedom of expression through the unions; and Whereas, The Veterans Administration awards dependents allowances to disabled veterans with a thirty percent (30%) disability or more for each dependent, which allowances are increased with the amount of disability; and Whereas, The Department of Defense deducts the entire amounts of dependents allowance, essentially leaving the disabled military retiree with no dependents allowance and that extends the discrimination to the families of military longevity retirees; and Whereas, It is unfair to require disabled military retirees to fund their own Veterans Administration compensation by deductions on a dollar for dollar basis in the Department of Defense; and Whereas, No such deduction applies to similarly situated federal civil service or Congressional retirement benefits to receive Veterans Administration compensation; and Whereas, A statutory change is necessary to correct this injustice and discrimination in order to insure that America's commitment to national and international goals be matched by the same allegiance to those who sacrificed on behalf of those goals; now therefore be it Resolved, That this Senate of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges the United States Congress to amend title ten, United States Code relating to the compensation of retired military, permitting concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Administration compensation, including dependents allowances; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House, Committee Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and Veterans Affairs Committee, House Committee Chairman, National Security and Veterans Affairs Committee, and each member of the Rhode Island Delegation to Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today marks a truly significant milestone in the long and difficult quest for peace, reconciliation and the economic reconstruction of Northern Ireland. On this day, men and women throughout the island of Ireland, both in the North and the Republic, will be given the opportunity for the first time in history to vote on a plan designed to end sectarian strife, armed aggression and political turmoil, and move the island of Ireland into a new peaceful and prosperous era for all people there. I know they will seize that opportunity. Recently, I visited the Republic of Ireland and the North with a group of my constituents, including business, labor and community leaders, state legislators and my good friend Paul S. Quinn, a native Rhode Islander and prominent Washington attorney. I came away greatly encouraged by that visit, but persuaded that while we, in the United States with President Clinton's dynamic leadership, have done much to move the peace process ahead, much remains to be done, particularly in economic terms if the peace process is to succeed. I am therefore pleased to introduce into the Record at this time an excellent article by Mr. Quinn from today's Journal of Commerce that lays out a blueprint showing how that economic progress can be achieved. I urge all of my colleagues and friends of Ireland everywhere to read this carefully and to continue to commit themselves to the cause of peace, reconciliation, and economic reconstruction of the island of Ireland, during the critical months and years ahead. Rebuilding Ireland's Economy (By Paul S. Quinn) The people of Northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland face a historic choice today when they vote on the peace agreement worked out among the various factions involved in the struggle in the North. A yes vote is the key to the next steps in the region, but it is only a beginning. Economic growth and stability, shared by Catholic and Protestant alike, is essential to the continued progress of peace in Northern Ireland and the border areas with the republic. In the 15 years I have traveled there, the North has changed from a place fraught with distrust and violence to one where peace is beginning to take root. In my recent travels there, I have been struck by two things. The first is the tremendous appreciation that people have for the commitment that President Clinton and his foreign policy team, the U.S. Congress and, of course, former Maine Sen. George Mitchell have made to the search for peace. But just as striking as their gratitude is their fervent desire to have us remain engaged in the region. They believe, rightly, that in order for the North to truly become a new place, the United States, both our government and our private sector, will have to be part of making that happen. Since 1986, the United States has put its money where its mouth is in the effort to turn Northern Ireland's economy around. We have done this primarily through our support for the International Fund for Ireland, which has been a tremendous success. Indeed, it is a story that has never really been told. The fund has helped to increase dramatically investment in the region, and more than 28,000 jobs have been created. There also has been substantial support from the private sector in this country, primarily through the American Ireland Fund, in the areas of direct economic help and sponsorship of educational and training projects. Unfortunately, more is required to cement the great achievement of the peace agreement. Additional economic commitment is necessary, and much if not most of that has to come from the private sector. The business community and the governments directly and indirectly involved with the peace process must pick up the challenge made by President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, reiterated on May 18 to the people of Northern Ireland: There will be increased investment if the peace process continues, and all on the island of Ireland will benefit. There are some specific steps that can be taken to help achieve this goal of creating jobs and economic opportunity. There must be continued support for the International Fund for Ireland by our government, as well as the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps other concerned governments. The peace agreement does not mean the fund can close up shop. Hard questions need to be asked sooner rather than later on how to best make use of the $500 million stimulus package the British government has put together for the North. Clearly, the British government will have its own ideas. But the private sector and others familiar with the region should offer their good offices to help ensure that this money is well spent and does not get lost in the bureaucracy. Commerce Secretary William Daley is going to the region in early June with an impressive group of U.S. business executives. This visit is very timely and important, and an assessment by Mr. Daley and his team can provide a blueprint for the kind of private investment that is both needed and achievable during the critical days ahead. There should be an economic conference in the region soon. The 1996 White House conference in Washington on Ireland laid a foundation for what could be done to help Northern Ireland.Using the results of that conference as a starting point, a regionally based conference could help move ideas to action. A comprehensive plan needs to be developed and implemented without delay. For its part, the U.S. government may want to see if there is more it can do to help strengthen the economy of the region by spurring private-sector involvement. It is clear that, regardless of the nature and extent of government assistance provided to Northern Ireland, at the end of the day it is the ability to attract and retain private investment that will matter most. Men and women of goodwill have worked very hard to get the various factions in Northern Ireland to the point where peace is possible. This effort should now be matched by the efforts of the private sector.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor today to rise as a proud sponsor of the Kennedy amendment in the en bloc amendments. This amendment would recognize the services of the military forces of South Vietnam, other nations, as well as indigenous groups in connection with the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam conflict. From 1965 to 1971, these indigenous groups, such as the Kahmer, Nung, Hmong, Lao, Montagnard, Hao Hao, and Cao Dai, were the spearhead in the struggle for freedom in Southeast Asia. They fought against both the North Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese insurgents. They rescued downed American pilots and protected American air bases, bases from which thousands of missions were flown against North Vietnam. They were armed, equipped, fed, paid, and often transported into and out of conflict by the United States military. They all provided an invaluable service to the American military and to their own people. By supporting this amendment, we will be giving these veterans the respect and recognition that they deserve. If we support this amendment, no one will ever again say that America and the world does not recognize the valor and courage demonstrated by these veterans in the struggle for freedom in Southeast Asia. They can take pride in the fact that they will live on in American history as part of a long line of soldiers who fought to make the world a safer place. In particular, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge and recognize the contributions of the Hmong and Lau veterans who comprise such a vital segment of the population in my own State of Rhode Island and with whom I have had a good personal working relationship. On behalf of every one of the 86 Hmong and Lau veterans in my State of Rhode Island and on behalf of the 14,000 Hmong and Lau veterans in this country, I would like to ask my colleagues to show their support for this cause that they fought alongside our American service people with and show that America does not forget them.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I want to say, it is really unbelievable to me that we are really on this floor discussing this issue. This is not an issue of Row v. Wade. That issue has been decided. Women in this country have a constitutional right to have a safe, legal abortion. This country made a decision to do that because it did not like the public health impacts of having abortion illegal. Like it or not, women were being killed in back-alley abortions; and the fact is we changed the law and the Constitution of the United States reflects that a woman has a right to a legal, safe abortion so her health is not in jeopardy. That is a public health issue. Now what we are talking about is, these Constitutional rights are not selective. We cannot just say, ``I want free speech just in Rhode Island and I do not want free speech in California. I want free speech here and not there.'' This is a constitutional right that applies to every single American. And for us to say it will not apply to the Americans, our soldiers, our women in uniform who are defending our rights overseas to me is unconscionable. The story here, Mr. Chairman, is that these are United States servicewomen and their lives are going to be put in jeopardy if we do not pass this amendment and make this bill protect a woman's right to have a legal and safe abortion.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to praise the hard work of those who organized the Portsmouth Middle School Annual Field Trip to Washington, DC. Every year a group of students from the school are taken to the Capitol to have a tour. A number of people put a great deal of time and effort into organizing this trip. In fact these same dedicated individuals have been making this trip for over twenty years. I would like to acknowledge these people for the work they have done. Richard Munch, Beverly Tavares, Paul Fuller, Andrew Schlachter, Harold Weymouth, Beverly Mankofsky, Jackie Shearman, Heather Baker. Without their constant help and support the trip would not take place. The trip enables young students to see the Capitol up close and they learn a great deal of how the government works. It is important that our young people get to see for themselves the legislative process. The get a tour of the Capitol which goes through all aspects of the legislature. They are able to learn the procedures of Congress and they get a taste of how the process functions. This is a very educational tour as these students are able to hear the history of the nation and the capital. They go to Congressional offices, are shown through the Capitol and see the House in action. I believe that it is an important aspect of our democracy that people can come and see the political process themselves. Many members of the populace never get a chance to do this. Often the legislative process seems far removed from the average persons everyday life. It is often seen as a process that they cannot have any part in. We need to educate people in what we do. to show them that we are here to serve them and that we are answerable to them. This is how our democracy works and young people should be aware of these principles. The Capitol tour gives a taste of the history of the United States. I believe that these young people need to learn about their history and the work that our great leaders have put into creating the nation we have today. It is the people that I mentioned above from Portsmouth Middle School who make this trip possible. They have over the years acted beyond the call of duty to make these trips work. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and note that I appreciate the work they do to show a new generation of young people our democratic process.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to praise the hard work of those who organized the Portsmouth Middle School Annual Field Trip to Washington, DC. Every year a group of students from the school are taken to the capital to have a tour. A number of people put a great deal of time and effort into organizing this trip. In fact these same dedicated individuals have been making this trip for over twenty years. I would like to acknowledge these people for the work they have done. Richard Munch, Beverly Tavares, Paul Fuller, Andrew Schlachter, Harold Weymouth, Beverly Mankofsky, Jackie Shearman, Heather Baker. Without their constant help and support the trip would not take place. The trip enables young students to see the Capital up close and they learn a great deal of how the government works. It is important that our young people get to see for themselves the legislative process. They get a tour of the Capital which goes through all aspects of the legislature. They are able to learn the procedures of Congress and they get a taste of how the process functions. This is a very educational tour as these students are able to hear the history of the nation and the capital. They go to Congressional offices, are shown through the Capitol and see the House in action. I believe that it is an important aspect of our democracy that people can come and see the political process themselves. Many members of the populace never get a chance to do this. Often the legislative process seems far removed from the average persons everyday life. It is often seen as a process that they cannot have any part in. We need to educate people in what we do. To show them that we are here to serve them and that we are answerable to them. This is how our democracy works and young people should be aware of these principles. The Capital tour gives a taste of history of the United States. I believe that these young people need to learn about their history and the work that our great leaders have put in to creating the nation we have today. It is the people that I mentioned above from Portsmouth Middle School who make this trip possible. They have over the years acted beyond the call of duty to make these trips work. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and note that I appreciate the work they do to show a new generation of young people our democratic process.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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