Patrick Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Independence also.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his work on this bill. It is a historic bill. I feel very privileged to be a member of this committee, to have been able to work on this legislation, to have had the chance to travel to Puerto Rico many times over the course of the last 2 years to hear the voice of the people of Puerto Rico. Initially when I came to Puerto Rico I was sympathetic to the commonwealth cause because that is the cause that has been historically identified with the Democratic Party of which I am a Member. And yet I felt from the testimony of the people in Puerto Rico that there is a transformation going on in Puerto Rico, because the people of Puerto Rico have finally come to the realization that commonwealth status is no longer the best of both worlds. It does not mean, as many people thought it meant, that there was a bilateral agreement between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we had had that bilateral agreement. I wish the people were right when they said that they had an equal voice as the United States when it came to determining the laws of Puerto Rico. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case right now in Puerto Rico. If we need evidence of it, all we need to do is go back to the 103rd Congress, last Congress, and see that this Congress unanimously, without the support of the people of Puerto Rico, did away with 936, the tax status in Puerto Rico. The reason we did away with it is, guess what, it is up to this Congress to choose; not the people of Puerto Rico. I find that very upsetting. I find that very troubling that we in this Congress can decide arbitrarily what the law is going to be for Puerto Rico, and yet they have no voice in the matter. So that is why we have come to this bill and that is why we need to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me just say those who say commonwealth is not favored in this legislation are right, because when we define commonwealth status we understand that it can be nothing more than territorial status. Like it or not, that is the legal opinion of the Supreme Court, of the constitutional experts. Even the United Nations know that commonwealth status is not a recognized final status. So when people say we leave it up for another vote and another vote and another vote when there is not a majority who vote for statehood, the reason is that some day the people of Puerto Rico have to choose between the constitutionally accepted choices of final status, i.e. independence which is recognized, or full assimilation with the United States with respect to statehood for the people of Puerto Rico. Now, in conclusion, let me just say anybody who has been to the Puerto Rican community in my State should know that simply because they are in Rhode Island does not mean they have taken away any of their Puerto Rican identity. I know for sure that, having been to Puerto Rico, even if they become an ``estado,'' it is not going to change the people of Puerto Rico. They will still be the shining star of the Caribbean and will still have their own culture and identity. There is nothing that will take that away from them. But ultimately they will have the right of every other American citizen to vote for a Congressman who will represent them in the halls of this Congress when we choose to make decisions that affect the people of Puerto Rico. That is why we need to pass the Young bill as is and let a majority of the public decide, which has always been the case: a majority decides.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's frustration that we have only had a day. I have enjoyed the fact that we could pack a lot into this day, even more than the time that we have. Let me just say that consistent with the Principles 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Annex Resolution 1541 of the United Nations General Assembly, the U.N., statehood is the decolonizing status option for decolonization.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a really complicated debate for people who are just learning about it for the first time over the course of today. I have had the benefit of having the last couple of years in the Committee on Resources to listen to this testimony consistently, and to have had the chance to visit Puerto Rico, as I said earlier. What really came about from my many hours of listening to testimony is this issue that I think is something that makes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) so upset, and that is, this Congress decides what the fate of Puerto Rico is whether or not the people of Puerto Rico like it or not. The thing about it is, I am in total agreement with the sympathies and concerns of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). I am as outraged as anyone else, as the gentlewoman just said, that this Congress should think that it could make any decision affecting Puerto Rico without the opinions and the people of Puerto Rico being part of that decision- making process. That is why I am for statehood. That is why I am for this bill. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York said that this commonwealth definition was decided by the committee very unfairly. Let us understand, if we decided what the commonwealth definition was based upon the way the commonwealth party wanted it decided, we would have had a little bit of everything we wanted. I heard this commonwealth definition. I said, ``This commonwealth definition sounds pretty good.'' I said, ``It sounds so good I want Rhode Island to have commonwealth status.'' I bet every other Member in this place would like to have commonwealth status the way the commonwealth party in Puerto Rico wants it to be defined. But, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility not to define commonwealth status in any partisan terms but to define commonwealth status based upon the laws of what commonwealth means. As much as my good friends say that commonwealth status means that we are a nation, that commonwealth status means this or that, or guess what the United Nations said, the proof is in the pudding. Whenever a bill comes up that relates to Puerto Rico, it is referred to the Committee on Resources. Why? Because the Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over Indian and insular affairs, meaning territories. Meaning no matter what we may say about the Supreme Court decisions, no matter what we may say about U.N. resolutions, the proof is in the pudding. We are sitting here debating this. We would not be debating this if there was a bilateral pact. If Puerto Rico really had the say in this matter, they would have said, ``Hey, U.S. Congress, we don't need you to give us the right to vote. We have the right to vote.'' Puerto Rico could not do that because they are under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution, like it or not. Mr. Chairman, there is the old Snickers ad that says, ``No matter how you slice it, it still comes up peanuts.'' The fact of the matter is, no matter how you define commonwealth, it still comes up Territorial Clause. That is the bottom line here. That is why I think this is a good bill, because ultimately the people of Puerto Rico will have a say in their final determination and finally get some representation on this floor. I want to conclude by saying the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has taken on this issue singularly, being the Resident Commissioner who has not had the chance to vote but who has taken his position very seriously and has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the people he represents. On the eve of this historic vote, I want to salute the gentleman from Puerto Rico for the job that he has done on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). Let us support this bill, and let us end colonial status for 3.8 million people and finally make them full citizens of this country with voting representation in this United States Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No argument there. No argument there.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, let me just underscore this. Let us go over it and over it and over it again. If Members do not like the language of this bill, if they do not like the definition of commonwealth in this bill, they do not like commonwealth. If Members find that the language that we use to describe commonwealth is repugnant---- Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if everyone is so insulted by this process, I hear the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) say, ``I don't like this process because they shut out a political party in Puerto Rico.'' Let us understand what they are shutting out, although it is not the case, I will argue. But let us just assume that we are shutting out the PDP, the Populares in Puerto Rico. What do they want? They want the commonwealth status. What is the commonwealth status? It is colonial status. It is saying that this Congress can decide unilaterally, without Puerto Rico's opinion or approval, what we want Puerto Rico to do. End of story, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). So when you talk about how we are being unfair, think about it. We are being unfair because we do not like commonwealth. You bet I do not like commonwealth. I do not like the fact that 3.8 million people are disenfranchised, 3.8 million United States citizens who fought in our wars, who died in our wars are not even allowed to vote for their Commander in Chief. Can you imagine? This country was founded, at the Boston tea party we declared our Revolutionary War, because we did not have representation here. That is what they do not have. Puerto Ricans cannot decide this bill. The gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has no vote. He represents 3.8 million United States citizens. This is a bill that affects them, and they have no vote. What is that, other than colonialism? This bill will give them statehood if they vote for it. Let us say they do not want to vote for statehood now, they still like this quasi- colonial status. We give them an opportunity, because in the final analysis, it has to be the United States. I think it is so insulting that I have to be up here deciding on something that the people of Puerto Rico should be able to decide with or without my approval, with or without the approval of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), with or without the approval of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We represent other States. Why should we have any say in the matter with respect to Puerto Rico? We were not elected by the Puerto Ricans. They deserve their own representation. If we vote for this bill, they will get their own representation.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, ultimately this is a political football. The Solomon amendment is meant to kill this bill. To think that we are asking the Puerto Rican people to be forced to speak English. I would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), how often did we ask the 200,000 Puerto Ricans who served in our Nation's military and were putting their lives on the line in defense of this liberty how well they spoke English? And why is it right for us now to say they have to speak English? When they were good enough to die for this country, they were good enough to serve for this country, now we are going to impose the English language on them, when it was never the case when it happened to come to them serving in our Nation's military.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. I appreciate the chance to address the point of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) about this bill because it was addressed earlier by the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) about the fact that this process was not fair. It is ironic that this process was not fair because it did not include the commonwealth definition. Yet in the bill itself, the commonwealth has an opportunity to vote for the status quo in this legislation. But let me address the issue that she brought up. The reason why this is so awful to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and people of Puerto Rican descent is the same reason it is awful for people who feel that we ought to have statehood for Puerto Rico. That is, without statehood the people of Puerto Rico are put down. Just as she said, without statehood, the people of Puerto Rico can have their citizenship denied, because it will be up to this Congress in its constitutional authority, given the fact that Puerto Rico is a territory under the territorial clause of this United States Constitution, that at any time this Congress can take away the citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico. At any time the people of Puerto Rico can have the Solomon language imposed on them. The irony with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) saying ``I wish this was in Spanish'' is that the only way to guarantee the people of Puerto Rico that they have a right to speak their own language is if they get to become a State. Because if they are a State, they have the rights under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. They reserve the power to decide what their local language will be, just as every other State in this Union is able to do. The irony is, unless Puerto Rico becomes a State, they will not be able to decide what their language will be, they will not ever be able to vote for the things that we vote on regularly that affect them. The irony in this debate is that we keep hearing that this process is unfair. Let us understand. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) said that we already had a referendum. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the problem is it does not matter what Puerto Rico does. The whole purpose of this debate is that the Congress has to give its approval so that Puerto Rico can decide. They cannot decide now. They never had the decision. Those plebiscites were not sanctioned by the United States Congress. And because they were not sanctioned by the United States Congress, they have no meaning. Why? Because, once again, Puerto Rico is under the territorial clause of the United States Constitution, meaning until they become a State or until they become an independent nation, they cannot choose for themselves. That is why we are putting this bill forward, because we believe they ought to be able to decide for themselves. That is what this debate is all about. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). I want to thank them for having this debate and allowing this debate to come on the floor. I need to repeat this. We can argue until we are blue in the face about any other issue. Just understand this. Puerto Rico is under the territorial clause of the United States Constitution. I am a member of the Committee on Resources. The Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over territories and commonwealths and Native American reservations. Have my colleagues ever heard of that before? It is called the territorial clause. We have to vote on a bill to allow the people of Puerto Rico the right to make a choice. I am really looking forward to this debate because the fact of the matter is, if we understand the simple fact that this is simply about giving the congressional authority to the people of Puerto Rico so they can make up their own mind, then I think this debate will become clearer. Let me just conclude by saying with respect to English as the mandatory language by the Solomon amendment, there will be an amendment to the Solomon amendment that will allow us to treat Puerto Rico, in the event that it becomes a State, which I hope it does, like any other State in this country. But the Solomon amendment is very unfair and discriminatory because it affects the people of Puerto Rico singularly and it does not apply to the people of Puerto Rico the same way it applies to everyone else in this country. I might add, English is the official language in all the proceedings within government on the island of Puerto Rico.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. As I was growing up in my family and I read about my uncles, President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and I read about their leadership in the 1960s and read about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, I thought my uncles had done it all. Growing up in my family, I thought, how could I ever fight the same fights they fought for, because I wanted so much to be a part of their fight. I am telling my colleagues today, I never thought I would see the day when their fight was not over. But it is not over; it is carrying on with this bill, 1428, as we speak on the floor. Last year, the Republicans put before this House a bill that said for teachers and principals to choose the students out of their classes that they thought were illegal aliens. In New England, where I represent Rhode Island, the highest illegal immigration problem is Irish overstays, Mr. Speaker, Irish overstays. Do my colleagues want to know how many teachers and how many principals and how many voting people are going to question Irish people who look like me when they go into the voting booth versus how many are they going to question that look like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). That is what this bill is all about. It is wrong. It is un-American. We should turn it around.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I have time, but it is coming up in 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope that the American people watching this will be able to sort out all of this gobbledygook back and forth and to really understand that this is a resolution, every side is trying to make some points on it, and some partisan banter. But I think the point that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) mentioned is the point that we should be addressing and, unfortunately, it is not in this debate that we are having. It does merit some consideration. What is being proposed in this resolution is a condemnation of a fellow, who by the way in my State of Rhode Island is held in high esteem, Ira Magaziner, someone who has committed his life to public service. Maybe he did some things that were wrong; i.e., he held meetings in secret. But let us understand what he was trying to do. He was trying to come up with a plan to make sure that all Americans in this country would be able to gain access to quality and affordable health insurance. Now, is that so wrong? Okay, it may have been a secret plan. But that is because he wanted to keep it a secret from the insurance industry that, once this plan got out, was sure to attack it. The American people who are out there know what I am talking about. They remember the ``Harry and Louise'' ads on TV condemning the President's plan to make sure that every American got insurance. Mr. Chairman, the American people have seen the insurance industry repeatedly go against the kind of health care reforms that the Democratic Party and the President have been trying to usher through. Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of my colleagues to a memo by the Health Insurance Association of America. It was regarding the Republican leadership to kill health insurance reform. They killed it when the President proposed it. They are trying to kill health reform once again in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, listen to what they say in this memo. They said, ``Republicans need a lot of help from their friends on the outside.'' I wonder who that could be. Maybe the insurance industry. ``Get off your butts and get off your wallets.'' Come on insurance industry. Give us your money, because we have got to make sure we can still make money off of people. And how do we make money off of people? We deny them health insurance. If they get sick, we deny them care. It is very elementary common sense. The American people understand how health insurance makes money. They make money by ripping off the American people.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that recitation of all the facts regarding these meetings really did a lot for the American people, the 40 million Americans who are without health insurance today. I am sure the gentleman is really glad that he did point that out.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored today to be able to rise and speak about my good friend, Ron Dellums. I am pleased to be able to rise on behalf of my family who, if every member of my family who has ever worked with Ron could be here standing in my place today, they would be doing so and a lot more eloquently than I am about to do. But nonetheless, if my eloquence has anything to do with it, it has definitely been because I have been listening to you, Ron, for the last 3 years as my ranking member of the Committee on National Security. I think if anybody in this House thinks about you and how articulate you are, how educated and intellectual you are, and how principled you are; moreover, how principled you are, Ron, they know that they have heard the best debates about where this country should go and where it has not gone the way it should be going from you over your many years in public service. I have been fortunate to be able to come to know you in the 3 years I have been in the Congress and to be able to really consider one of the great opportunities I have had in this Congress to serve with the likes of yourself. A good friend of mine is a daughter of the late Al Lowenstein, and in the book about Al Lowenstein I saw that you were there campaigning for him as you were for the causes that he believed in stopping the Vietnam War and really fighting for peace and justice for all. I think today I could go on and on as so many have about the many accomplishments you have had in this Congress, but I wanted to talk about one accomplishment that you had that I know will go down in the history of this country and of this Congress and which I think epitomizes your service in this legislature, in this body, and that is the singular effort that you made in Congress to change the course of this country's relationship to the government of South Africa, such that you could bring about the independence and apartheid by using your position in the United States Congress to raise the level of awareness in this country towards the racism and the dictatorial regime in South Africa and helped marshal support in this Congress to eventually see victory in the sanctions legislation. I think it epitomizes you as a man of courage, first for standing up for what was right and for what needed to be done. Despite a lack of popular support at the time, when you first came to the Congress, and in 1971 first introduced this legislation, you only did so with one other original cosponsor of the bill. Your strength is embodied in this effort, because you stuck with it. You knew the moral conviction that you had was right. Despite all the political pundits all aside, you stayed on this fight because it was the right fight, as you have done on every fight of conscience that you have faced in this Congress. Finally, this fight showed you as a man of patience. We all know of your marathon quote of how it takes time to get legislation passed in this Congress, and once again, your fight very early on for the United States sanctions for apartheid was emblematic of your long struggle to see something through from beginning to end. Despite President Reagan's veto, you got the Congress to override his veto, and I know from my father, speaking to my father, he said you were the singular leader on that fight and has always spoken about your great leadership there. I think that there is nothing that can make you feel more proud than to have seen Nelson Mandela come to be President of that great country and to know that you have had a hand in changing the lives of so many people in the world, not only as a Member of this United States Congress, but as a leader for the right principles, no matter where they are. Whether they are in your district, whether they are in my district, whether they are in the confines of the continental United States, or whether they are around the world, you have stood for the kinds of principles that we should all measure ourselves by, no matter what legislative body, because you stand for humanity, and humanity is the most basic principle of all. No matter who we are, where we come from, we all share the same humanity, and you have helped bring that back into perspective on every issue that you have ever tackled. Ron, it has been a great honor for me to serve with you. I love you, and I wish you the best for your future.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have been speaking out on this issue, most notably the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cliff Stearns, who just spoke. Asthma kills roughly 5,000 people every year. There are over 30 million Americans who depend on those metered-dose inhalers, such as the one I have in my pocket, in order to relieve themselves of the terror of being gripped with asthma. What the FDA has proposed is they have proposed phasing out these metered-dose inhalers because of their CFC content. CFC content in metered-dose inhalers contributes less than 1 percent of the chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere, yet the FDA would like us to believe that by banning these inhalers, we will get about complying with the Montreal Protocol and achieving a reduction in chlorofluorocarbons. As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cliff Stearns, said, this is all while the EPA has yet to ban refrigeration and air conditioning, which contributes 58,000 tons of CFC's, things such as solvent applications, red pepper bear repellant, lubricant coatings, and foam blown with CFC's used in coaxial cables. The point I am going to make is we are going after less than 1 percent of the CFC's in the atmosphere by banning these metered-dose inhalers when we have not taken into full account the public health impact on asthmatics all across the country who depend on these metered-dose inhalers in order to relieve them from their asthma. I can tell the Members, I have four different inhalers. I think there is only one of them that has a non-CFC component. We should not be rushing to ban these inhalers without fully testing and evaluating the impact of those non-CFC inhalers, so we do not adversely impact the public health of our people. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, for agreeing to a bill that will address this issue in the upcoming year.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me the time. This proposal just violates the common sense test. It would be one thing for the majority party to offer scholarships, once the public education system was fully funded, once we fully funded Head Start, once we reduced the teacher/pupil ratio, once we went about getting the $100 billion that the GAO says is needed to fix our public school education system. But in the absence, in the absence of investing those needed dollars in our public education system, vouchers represent a Band-Aid approach. Just think of it. Let us sprinkle a few vouchers out there, capture this kind of choice thing, make it sound all attractive, but what we are really doing is leaving a very unattractive system still in place. We know it needs work, but we are not doing anything to invest the dollars that are needed to make it work. We are saying, we will make it work for those who can get a voucher. All I would ask is, what does that leave the people who cannot get a voucher? Where is the guarantee for every child? I mean, I have heard this voucher argument a million times by you people. You talked about it with public housing. Guess what? People are going to want to take vouchers when you people cut operation and maintenance of our housing system. There is no question our housing system is going to crumble and people are going to want a way out when you do not invest in it. That was your answer to the public housing problem, give people vouchers, do not fix the problem, just give them vouchers. Mr. Speaker, that represents a cut-and-run approach. It does not represent a meeting-the- problem-head-on approach. The Democratic agenda for first class public schools is about meeting the agenda head on, addressing the problem that is out there head on, not giving this kind of voucher to whoever can be lucky enough to get a voucher and leaving all the rest of the kids in the dust. Just think about it. What happens to the kids? We are not worried about the kids who can get into the private system or who can get a car to get to a better school, move to a better neighborhood. We are worried about the kids who are stuck. That is who we need to improve, their opportunities. Vouchers do nothing of the sort. They do not guarantee the child that is in the poor neighborhood, that cannot get out of the neighborhood, that is stuck with the crumbling school, an opportunity to leave that environment and get a better school system because you have failed to invest in the school system. You are just cutting and running.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in this House, where power is sort of compared to who serves on what committees, who has more power, I think there was not anybody in this House that was more powerful than Walter Capps. I guess at this time, when we have lost somebody, we think about how untimely death is when it comes so early in someone's life, like it did with Walter, and we think perhaps, how are we living our lives? Well, I can tell you, I know myself that as Walter lived his life, that is the one thing that we can feel that was joyful, because he never wasted a moment. He was true to himself; he was true to his heart. I think probably the worst thing in life is to feel like you live life and did not live it honestly. One thing about Walter is he lived his life honestly. He loved, as I heard some of my colleagues, he loved people. I was really fortunate to have been able to go with him and do a few political events in his district, and accompany Lois. I think that he loved Lois so much. I just cannot recall all the times, and I know my colleagues have said it, when we walked out the door at the end of votes, and Lois, you were always there waiting for him. What a beautiful love you two had, and what a love he had for his family. I think what a love he had for his country. I think he was a truly great American, and this country has lost a really fine American.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today, it is with special pride that I rise to pay tribute to a friend, a great American, and a U.S. Navy SEAL, Lt. Comdr. Leigh Madden. The Navy's elite Sea-Air Land [SEAL] Forces represent a component of the U.S. Special Operations Command [SOCOM]. The people who comprise our Special Operations Forces [SOF] are specially trained, highly skilled, and extremely intelligent men and women. On a daily basis, our SOF exceed established standards, go that extra mile or, in Lieutenant Commander Madden's case, swim those extra miles in cold and dangerous conditions in order to prepare for deployment on some of our Nation's most sensitive and critical missions. Just as the men and women of SOF can, on a moment's notice, integrate their special ops capabilities into a full spectrum of operations ranging from peacetime activities to war, throughout his career Lieutenant Commander Madden continues to use his skills and talents to succeed in a wide range of assignments. Lieutenant Commander Madden's service to his country in Special Operations began in 1985 with his attendance and successful completion of the most challenging and physically demanding course in the U.S. military, Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL [BUDS] training. After graduating BUDS class 138, Leigh Madden spent the next 8 years serving in SEAL Teams on both the west coast and the east coast. Deploying over the years to more than 20 different countries in Asia, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, Lieutenant Commander Madden spent more time in worldwide hotspots than he did in his own hometown. Lieutenant Commander Madden's experience and reputation as one of the finest in the Special Operations community ultimately led to his assignment as a leader of one of this country's most accomplished combat units. Because of the sensitive nature, the exploits of this unit must remain secret. Although at times Leigh has served in the covert world, it is evident that as he was placed in positions of rapidly increasing responsibility, he successfully met each challenge and his career quickly progressed. Thus, when the leadership of the U.S. Special Operations Command required someone to work in the highly visible and politically significant Legislative Affairs Office, they knew Lieutenant Commander Madden was the person for the job. SOCOM knew they could count on Lieutenant Commander Madden to use his experience, skills, and education in a way that would clearly illustrate the importance of SOF while also conveying to U.S. policymakers the needs of Special Operators in the field. In his position as deputy director of legislative affairs for SOCOM, Lieutenant Commander Madden provided Members of Congress with a better understanding of how the wide-ranging capabilities of our SOF relate to today's dynamic international environment. Lieutenant Commander Madden ensured that Senators, Representatives, and their staffs visited our Special Operations Forces around the globe. As a result of these trips, I and many others have been able to see firsthand the many contributions to our national security made by the first-rate men and women of the Special Operations Community. In working with the Congress these past 2\1/2\ years, Leigh's sense of duty, his political acumen, and his ability to understand an issue from all angles has not only averted conflict but has resulted in sound decisions, decisions that were best for the Special Operations Community and for our Nation. One of the many tangible results of Lieutenant Commander Madden's diligence is the fact that the SEALS can expect the Advanced Seal Delivery System to be delivered into the fleet by late 1999 or early 2000. Sadly for many of us in Congress who have had the pleasure and honor of working with Lieutenant Commander Madden, it is time for Leigh to return to the world that is his first love, the cold, wet, hard, and dangerous world of a Navy SEAL. On this assignment, his skills and experience as one of the Nation's best Special Operators will be put to immediate use in protecting our Nation. Much as I take great pride in continuing the Kennedy family tradition of supporting our Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant Commander Madden can take great pride in a job exceptionally well done. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, I want to thank Lieutenant Commander Madden for his continuing service to this Nation and extend to both Leigh and his wife, Jessie, ``Fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I submit this statement in support of House Concurrent Resolution 134 authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for a ceremony for His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the 270th Archbishop of Constantinople and new Rome on October 21, 1997, from 11 a.m. to 12 noon. The Ecumenical Patriarch occupies the foremost position among the National Autocephalos Orthodox Churches worldwide and has the responsibility to coordinate the affairs of the Russian, Eastern Europe, Middle, and Far Eastern churches. Worldwide, the Patriarch is the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians of which 5 million reside in the United States. Therefore, it is important that Members of Congress, as leaders of a nation that was built on religious freedom and tolerance, have an opportunity to receive and honor one of the world's preeminent religious leaders. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew not only promotes peace and religious understanding throughout the world, but he is also profoundly committed to preserving and protecting the environment. Today, as the 270th successor to Apostle Andrew, His All Holiness continues efforts on behalf of religious freedom and human rights. In closing support, is an expression of appreciation to the members of the Hellenic Caucus for their advocacy of this resolution as well as H.R. 2248, the recommendation to award the Patriarch with a Congressional Gold Medal, of which I am a proud cosponsor. H.R. 134 as introduced by Bilirakis from Florida, is a measure which provide the occasion to receive such an individual of high character and moral standing as His All Holiness in a manner befiting their rank and title.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in raising the point of order.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I insert this letter into the Record, concerning H.R. 2378, Treasury-Postal Service appropriations for fiscal year 1998. September 8, 1997. Dear Representative: In late-July, during mark-up of the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury-Postal Service-General Government Appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee accepted an amendment that would allow foreign governments to export to the United States for commercial sale, millions of military weapons the United States previously made available to foreign countries through military assistance programs. For a range of public health and safety, national security, and taxpayer reasons, we strongly urge you vote to delete this provision from the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury-Postal Service-General Government Appropriations bill. Supporters of this amendment describe it as an innocuous measure which simply allows the importation of some obsolete ``curios and relics.'' In reality, the amendment would allow the import of an estimated 2.5 million weapons of war, including 1.2 million M1 carbines. The M1 carbine is a semi- automatic weapon that can be easily converted into automatic fire and comes equipped with a 15-30 round detachable magazine. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE: Although the backers of the provision claim that these World War II era weapons are now harmless ``curios and relics'', in reality they remain deadly assault weapons. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the M1 Carbine can easily be converted into a fully-automatic assault rifle. For this reason, the Department of Defense has refused to sell its surplus stocks of these weapons to civilian gun dealers and collectors in the United States. According to Raymond W. Kelley, the Treasury Department's Under-Secretary for Enforcement, the inflow of these weapons will drive down the price of similar weapons, making them more accessible to criminals. Already, during 1995-1996, ATF has traced 1,172 M1911 pistols and 639 M1 rifles to crimes committed in the United States. THIS IS A GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT CONCERN: Nearly 2.5 million of these weapons were given or sold as ``security assistance'' to allied governments. Under United States law, recipients of American arms and military aid must obtain permission from the United States government before re- transferring those arms to third parties. Setting a dangerous precedent, this amendment fundamentally undercuts the ability of the United States government to exercise its right of refusal on retransfer of United States arms. The Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administrations have all barred imports of these military weapons by the American public. The Appropriations bill explicitly overrides this policy, prohibiting the government from denying applications for the importation of ``U.S. origin ammunition and curio or relic firearms and parts.'' In effect, the provision would force the Administration to allow thousands of M1 assault rifles and M1911 pistols into circulation with the civilian population, thereby not only threatening public safety but also undermining governmental oversight and taxpayer accountability. This is also a taxpayer concern. The amendment also presents a windfall of millions of dollars to foreign governments and United States gun dealers. The amendment effectively terminates a requirement that allies reimburse the United States treasury if they sell United States- supplied weapons. According to ATF, each M1 Carbine, M1 Garand rifle, and M1911 pistol currently sells for about $300-500 in the United States market. The South Korean, Turkish, and Pakistani governments and militaries stand to make millions from the resale of these weapons. South Korea has 1.3 million M1 Garands and Carbines, while the Turkish military and police have 136,000 M1 Garands and 50,000 M1911 pistols. These weapons were originally given free, or sold at highly subsidized rates, or retrieved as ``spoils of war.'' The United States Department of Defense does not sell these lethal weapons on the commercial market for profit. Why should we allow foreign governments to do so? Again, we strongly urge you vote to delete this provision from the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury-Postal Service-General Government Appropriations bill. Thank you. American College of Physicians; American Friends Service Committee, James Matlack, Director, Washington Office; American Jewish Congress, David A. Harris, Director, Washington Office; American Public Health Association, Mohammad Akhter, M.D., Executive Director; Americans for Democratic Action, Amy Isaacs, National Director; British American Security Information Council, Dan Plesch, Director; Ceasefire New Jersey, Bryan Miller, Executive Director; Children's Defense Fund. Church of the Brethren, Washington Office, Heather Nolen, Coordinator; Church Women United, Ann Delorey, Legislative Director; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Michael K. Beard, President; Community Healthcare Association of New York State, Ina Labiner, Executive Director; Concerned Citizens of Bensonhurst, Inc., Adeline Michaels, President; Connecticut Coalition Against Gun Violence, Sue McCalley, Executive Director; Demilitarization for Democracy; Episcopal Peace Fellowship, Mary H. Miller, Executive Secretary. Federation of American Scientists, Jeremy J. Stone, President; Friends Committee on National Legislation, Edward (Ned) W. Stowe, Legislative Secretary; General Federation of Women's Clubs, Laurie Cooper, GFWC Legislative Director; Handgun Control, Inc., Sarah Brady, Chair; Independent Action, Ralph Santora, Political Director; Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, John Johnson, State Coordinator; Legal Community Against Violence, Barrie Becker, Executive Director; Lutheran Office for Government Affairs, ELCA, The Rev. Russ Siler; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office, J. Daryl Byler, Director. National Association of Children's Hospitals & Related Institutions, Stacy Collins, Assoc. Director, Child Health Improve; National Association of Secondary School Principals, Stephen R. Yurek, General Counsel; National Black Police Association, Ronald E. Hampton, Executive Director; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Rita Smith, Executive Director; National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament, Miriam Pemberton, Director; National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S., Albert M. Pennybacker, Director, Washington Office; National League of Cities; New Hampshire Ceasefire, Alex Herlihy, Co-Chair. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Barbara Hohlt, Chair; Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Mary Leigh Blek, Chair; Peace Action, Gordon S. Clark, Executive Director; Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence, Daniel J. Siegel, President; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Robert K. Musil, PhD., Executive Director; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Washington Office, Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director; Project on Government Oversight, Danielle Brian, Executive Director; Saferworld, Peter J. Davies, U.S. Representative. Texans Against Gun Violence-Houston, Dave Smith, President; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, The Rev. Meg A. Riley, Director, Washington Office for Faith In Action; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Richard S. Scobie, Executive Director; Virginians Against Handgun Violence, Alice Mountjoy, President; WAND (Women's Action for New Directions), Susan Shaer, Executive Director; Westside Crime Prevention Program, Marjorie Cohen, Executive Director; YWCA of the U.S.A., Prema Mathai-Davis, Chief Executive Off; 20/20 Vision, Robin Caiola, Executive Director.